Actress Eva Green wins multi-million pound lawsuit against Hollywood company

Eva Green has won a multimillion-pound Supreme Court battle after she was charged with ssabotaging a sci-fi movie where she allegedly called crew members “s****y peasants” and called the producer “pure puke.”

The former Bond girl, who starred in Casino Royale in 2006, was set to star in the dystopian thriller A Patriot, but production collapsed in 2019.

The 42-year-old actress sued the filmmakers of the £4.6 million film, claiming she was entitled to her one million dollar (£810,000) fee under the terms of her contract agreement.

But White Lantern Film and lender SMC Specialty Finance filed a counterclaim against Ms Green, claiming she undermined the production and reneged on her contract.

The judge ruled this morning that the actress was entitled to the lump sum, but labeled the French actress a “frustrating and “unsatisfactory witness.”

Throughout the process Ms Green had tried to blame her use of expletives and rash treatment of staff on her ‘Frenchness coming out’, claiming that it caused her to say things in a ‘very direct way’.

Judge Michael Green, however, denounced the actress, using her nationality as a defense for her flawed language, which included calling executive producer Jake Seal a “cunning sociopath,” saying it was “not believable or adequate.”

The actress had made the comments, which included calling the film’s director “weak and stupid,” through a series of private text messages.

The judge said he took into account the actress’s “obviously emotional and frank personality when explaining her more extreme comments,” in private messages about the producer – whom she “clearly detested, even though she had only met him once.”

He added: “She expressed her opinion in the private messages and used hyperbolic language that was not in her native language, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t an exaggeration of the truth.”

In a statement released after the ruling, Ms Green said her ‘professional reputation had been upheld’.

She thanked her legal team and the judge and said she was “forced to stand up to a small group of men, funded by large financial resources, who tried to use me as a scapegoat to cover up their own mistakes.”

“I’m proud to have stood up to their bully-boy tactics,” she added.

Judge Michael Green announced the actress’s victory this morning at the High Court in London, ruled she was entitled to compensation and dismissed the counterclaim.

The judge said: ‘In particular, I find that Ms. Green has not waived her obligations under the Artist Agreement; nor has she despicably infringed upon it.’

The bitter legal battle saw both sides make a number of claims in a high-profile court case in London earlier this year.

The 007 stars’ representation, Edward Cullen KC, told the court that the actress was the victim of a “character assassination,” adding that it was “based on some of the cheapest and nastiest kinds of stereotypes out there.”

The court heard that the actress had described crew members as “s****y peasants” and labeled the production as a “Bs****y movie.”

It was also said at trial that the actress labeled the executive producer Mr Seal as ‘pure puke’, ‘evil’ and a ‘cunning sociopath’.

She called production manager Terry Bird “son of a bitch” and described Mr. Seal and Mr. Bird as “total assholes.”

Mr Seal, owner of Black Hangar Studios in Hampshire, told the court in testimony that he had no idea the actress had ‘all this venom against him’.

His lawyer, who read the statement on behalf of the producer, said: ‘I only met Ms Green in person once at a meeting attended by her, the former directors and Mr Harry Boyd.

“Apart from that meeting, I’ve only communicated with her via email.”

During two days of cross-examination, Ms Green told the judge she had a ‘very direct way of speaking’ and blamed her for ‘coming out Frenchness’.

She said at the time, “Sometimes I say emotional things that I don’t really mean. Of course they are not weak and stupid.’

“It was my emotions that spoke,” she added.

The French actress also said she wasn’t called to the studio for rehearsals or stunt training, describing it as “so strange” and later “absurd with a capital A.”

She said, “If I had been called on set, I would have made this movie, even if it would have been a disaster.”

“In my 20 years of making movies, I’ve never broken a contract or even missed a day of shooting,” the actress added.

Ms. denied any responsibility for the failed film, telling the court, “I didn’t have to do anything to make the film fail…they made it fail themselves with their incompetence.”

White Lantern representative Max Mallin KC said Ms Green had shown a “categorical and unequivocal refusal to act.”

But Mr Justice Michael Green said today: “I do not believe that any of the defendants’ witnesses really believed that Ms Green had withdrawn her services from the film and waived the artist agreement.”

The judge said the allegation that Ms Green “forsworn” her obligations under the agreement “has the sense of being constructed after the fact to provide some kind of defense against Ms Green’s claim”, adding that it was “based ‘on false evidence’ of witnesses.

He added, “There is no question that Ms. Green has made no final decision or statement that she would not fulfill her obligations under the Artist Agreement.

“No one could have reasonably understood that she’d made such a decision.”

At trial, the production company also claimed it had “excessive creative and financial demands” and expectations that were “incompatible” with the film’s low budget.

Mr Mallin said it was not up to Ms Green whether or not she was called to sit, adding: “What is within her control is whether she responds to that call or not, and in my opinion makes she made it very clear she wasn’t.’

He added that she was “so worried about what would happen if she were expressly called to perform” that she had suggested to her agent that she “make up a story about Mrs Green being hospitalized”.

Throughout the 71-page verdict in favor of Eva Green, Mr Justice Michael Green said there was ‘overinterpretation’ of private messages throughout the case.

He said: ‘Indeed, Ms Green’s private messages were widely referenced and both sides accused each other of pretending they were capable of making the film at the end of September 2019.

The reality, however, is that neither side was willing to make the movie the other wanted to make: Ms. Green made it clear she didn’t want to make the movie under Mr. Seal’s complete control; and the defendants were only interested in getting the loan back from SMC.”

Mr Justice Green added: ‘The matter is relatively simple, it seems to me, both factually and legally – there was little disagreement about the law – but it is complicated by convoluted and overly technical theories about what happened and the supposedly malicious strategies used. then taken over by the other side.

“I also think there has been an overinterpretation of the transcripts and private messages of the recordings.”