Advertisement

Eva Green suggested hospital admission excuse to avoid filming, High Court told

Eva Green suggested pretending to be in hospital if she was called to make a later-abandoned multimillion-pound sci-fi movie, the High Court has been told.

Further messages from the Casino Royale actress have recently been disclosed as part of her legal battle with production company White Lantern Film over her planned starring role in the shuttered dystopian thriller A Patriot.

The 42-year-old is suing the production company after the film was abandoned in October 2019, claiming she is entitled to her million-dollar (£810,000) fee for the project despite its cancellation under the terms of their agreement.

White Lantern Film and lender SMC Speciality Finance are bringing a counterclaim against Ms Green, alleging she undermined the independent film’s production and renounced the contract.

Max Mallin KC, for White Lantern, said Ms Green had shown a “categorical and unequivocal refusal to perform”.

On Tuesday, he said that she “was so concerned about what would happen if she were expressly called upon to perform” that she had suggested her agent Charles Collier “invent a story about Ms Green being hospitalised” in one of the recently-shared messages.

The court was told the message from Ms Green in September 2019 read: “If they come back to you and say they are going to go ahead with the movie, what can we say…?

“Could we say this situation has made me ill over the weekend? We could say I had to go to hospital as I had a serious rash all over my body?”

Ms Green then asked her agent if a doctor would potentially help, the court was told.

In written submissions, Mr Mallin added that Ms Green also “appeared to contemplate faking a broken arm” to avoid performing.

The barrister said it was not up to Ms Green whether or not she was called to set, adding: “What is within her control is whether she responds to that call or not and, in my submission, she is making quite clear that she was not.”

He added that if Ms Green had been called to perform “she would not have done the film”.

Mr Mallin added in written submissions that most of Ms Green’s evidence was “unconvincing and at times appeared to be rehearsed”.

Edmund Cullen KC, for Ms Green, said the actress had been subjected to a “character assassination”, adding it was “based on some of the cheapest and nastiest sorts of stereotypes around”.

He said the actress had been described as making excessive demands and going out of contact.

“These sorts of lies are very damaging and they need to be scotched,” Mr Cullen said.

The barrister later said that White Lantern was “vomiting out” allegations Ms Green had breached her contract, none of which were true.

He added: “Ms Green was overwhelmingly keen to provide her acting services to White Lantern for this film.”

Mr Cullen said that Ms Green did not renounce the contract and that witnesses for White Lantern and the lender “came here to deceive the court”.

He said in written arguments: “The highest that it goes is that Ms Green said, as she readily admitted, that working with [executive producer] Mr Seal ‘in control’ would be ‘impossible’.

“However, that is, of course, very far from a statement of a refusal to perform [the contract].”

The barrister added that Ms Green was never given the opportunity to perform or not as she was never called upon.

The court previously heard that the actress had described potential crew members as “shitty peasants”, the production as a “B-shitty-movie” and executive producer Jake Seal as “pure vomit”.

In the further messages, Ms Green is also said to have described Mr Seal as a “sociopath” and “a real mad dictator who wants to prove he is right so he could be ready for anything”.

Ms Green, who gave evidence at the High Court in London over two days in January, said it was “humiliating” to have her messages used in court.

Mr Cullen said she had found the experience of giving evidence “difficult” and “very trying”, but that she had done her best to assist the court, and that the new messages “make no difference” to the facts of the case.

Mr Justice Michael Green is due to give his decision in writing at a later date.