What Progressives Get Wrong in the Scarlett Johansson Suit

The Democratic Party is oftentimes referred to as a "Big Tent" party, and in the era of Donald Trump, it's really the only big tent party.  While the Republican Party increasingly has no room for anyone who doesn't worship at the alter of the former president (just ask Liz Cheney & Adam Kinzinger), the Democrats have diversity of thought.  We discussed this in an article last week, but today we're going to have the rare intersection of both politics & movies on the blog, and in a way that I was surprised by on social media when the story first came out a couple of weeks ago.  I want to talk about the strange reaction from the left that came about when Scarlett Johansson decided to sue Disney.

First, let's get a little bit of context.  Scarlett Johansson, as you all know, is one of the biggest movie stars on the planet, and is part of the biggest franchise on the planet, The Avengers.  Her character Black Widow's long-gestating solo film was recently released, and by a variety of measures it's done pretty well, particularly in a pandemic where global box office is difficult to achieve.  It is the highest-grossing film in the United States for 2021, having just overtaken F9 this past weekend, and while it's still at #5 globally, $360 million is not a small amount of money when there are entire countries on lockdown.  It isn't a hit by the standards we generally associate with The Avengers (it has yet to even overtake the original Thor in terms of its box office), but if you were adjusting for a sliding scale, it's possible that this is what a hit looks like in 2021.

Disney, though, clearly didn't just have box office receipts on its mind when it came to this film.  They also have their lucrative Disney+ platform to consider, as Black Widow is one of several recent releases that Disney put in both theaters & streaming simultaneously, the latter charging a premium fee to be able to view.  Other films such as Raya and the Last Dragon, Cruella, and Jungle Cruise have gotten a similar treatment, and it seems to be the case for most of the upcoming releases from the Mouse House.  It is unknown (because obviously we can't do these things in a vacuum) whether or not Black Widow would've made a significant amount more at the box office had the only way to see it been in movie theaters, but logic dictates at least some of the streaming audiences would've gone to it.  It's also not clear how much of the box office was also hit by the "I'll get around to it" attitude that streaming platforms invite-if it's already at your house, there's urgency to get to it before it leaves theaters.

But what is clear is that some money was left on the table, which has led Scarlett Johansson to take the rare step to sue Disney, stating that releasing on a streaming platform violated her contract.  Johansson, like many stars of her level, negotiated her contract based on expected box office receipts, not necessarily a large up-front payday.  As a result, a hit to the box office is also a hit to Johansson's final payday.  While some stars (most notably Gal Gadot & director Patty Jenkins) have renegotiated after-the-fact to get their cash when a studio moved their film to streaming, Johansson didn't appear to get that opportunity with Disney, and if her lawyers are to be believed, Johansson had a clause in her contract that dictated that Black Widow would get a certain window of time of theatrical exclusivity to maximize profits.  Johansson is the first star to come forward & do this against Disney, but she's probably not the last.  According to industry trade papers, both Emma Stone & Emily Blunt (stars of other properties that moved to streaming) are looking into this, and indeed Blunt & her husband John Krasinski already went after Paramount for doing this to their movie A Quiet Place Part II.

There are a lot of topics to discuss here, though to me this feels like a pretty open-and-shut case to me-if it said in Johansson's contract that you can't release on a streaming platform prior to a certain weeks of theatrical run, and they violated that contract, she should be compensated, and she should be compensated as if it was going to reach Avengers-style money since Disney didn't even negotiate in good faith.  But the internet's reaction to Johansson, particularly amongst progressives, was what made me write this article.  I saw post-after-post from self-proclaimed liberals disparaging Johansson for being a "rich woman who doesn't need the money."  It takes a lot these days to be shocked by the internet, but in this case I was.

Johansson is not, it's worth noting, an actor who progressives would naturally rally behind (Brie Larson or Elizabeth Olsen might've been an easier sell from The Avengers canon).  She repeatedly says problematic things, ranging from defending her work in Ghost in the Shell to standing behind her longtime creative collaborator Woody Allen.  But it was still jarring to see because Johansson's stance is one person demanding what they were promised from a multi-billion dollar corporation.  This felt like an easy call to me, and the fact that so many people tacitly endorsed Disney's treatment of her because she's problematic or "has enough" really showed the Democrats' problem-they don't usually recognize the forest for the trees.

You see that in the way that they don't understand the confines of power, particularly when it comes to someone like Joe Manchin.  Manchin is the best the Democrats will ever do in West Virginia-it's either him or a Marjorie Greene clone; if you want to change Manchin, make him less important by having elected Russ Feingold, Katie McGinty, or Sara Gideon.  Primarying him is the path-of-fools.  Democrats seem to always turn the hatred onto themselves, rather than simply expanding their territory so that the moderates in their party have less power.  In a similar way, the Democrats are siding with Disney in this scenario against someone they deem "unworthy" of their support, even if that person winning would do exponentially more good for the long-term cause of marginalizing the power of major corporations than anything the average person can do.

As Scarlett Johansson is rich and she is famous, she's going to attract headlines a normal person could not.  It's impossible to say she has nothing to lose-actresses ranging from Bette Davis to Olivia de Havilland to Raquel Welch have sued studios and seen their careers sidelined or (in the case of Welch) destroyed to the point where there's little remaining.  Johansson is risking her career in doing this, and while her wealth insulates her from the kinds of worries that normal people have (she doesn't need this money in a pragmatic way), her winning would set a precedent for people who aren't movie stars and are in a similar boat.  I don't care that Johansson doesn't "need" this  money-it was something a major corporation promised to her, and she should get it.  Because I promise you-if a major corporation is willing to screw over one of the most famous & most powerful women on the planet, they sure as hell will have no problem screwing over you.  If we cheer & root for them to "get her Jade" in this scenario, it just makes it that much easier for them to exploit your labor without compensation.