So I guess Bryan Lourd is now the unofficial Mayor of Hollywood? First the CAA co-chairman and his partners went public when WarnerMedia failed to give them a heads up before going day-and-date with the entire 2021 movie slate. And on Friday, Lourd dropped a doozy of a statement on Disney after his client, Scarlett Johansson, was called “callous” and insensitive to Covid concerns after suing over Black Widow’s streaming roll-out. After a career of mostly operating just to the left of the spotlight as his chief rival, Endeavor’s Ari Emanuel, basked in attention, Lourd has now positioned himself as the most powerful advocate for talent’s role in the streaming revolution.
This isn’t too surprising. Beyond the social activism for which Hollywood is famous, there’s a long history of influential figures using their megaphones to push business positions that align with their self-interests, but also seem to capture the sentiment of the entire industry at a particular moment. Lourd’s broadside—in his words, Disney has “deliberately moved the revenue stream and profits to the Disney+ side of the company, leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation”—reminded me of Jack Valenti’s aggressive stance on piracy in the early 2000s, George Clooney defending Sony after the 2011 hack, Ava Duvernay and Shonda Rhimes making inclusion efforts part of their public profiles, and Ashley Judd speaking out on harassment post-Harvey Weinstein. Sure, CAA’s interests are served by Lourd anointing himself the defender of artists, and it’s not like all agents aren’t having heated conversations about streaming revenue all day, every day. But judging by the reactions I’ve been hearing this weekend, his public bomb-drop/mic-drop seems to be giving voice to a wide segment of Hollywood that is confused and angered by how the studios are handling the transition from linear to streaming.
So let’s dig into the motivations here. Lourd took off for vacation as the statement went out, so I didn’t speak to him directly. But people around Lourd and those who’ve known him for years suspect a few things are in play. (Disclosure: TPG, majority owner of CAA, is an investor in the company behind this company.)
First, Lourd is particularly close to and protective of Johansson. He’s represented her since 2008, guided her through the Marvel movies, the box office bona fides with 2014’s Lucy, and last year’s double Oscar nominations for Marriage Story and Jojo Rabbit. Johansson never thought this lawsuit would end up having to be filed, and no one on the team was particularly anxious to pull the trigger, knowing it would generate international headlines, might hurt her ability to work, and would turn her into the public face of the debate, possibly for years to come. There’s a reason that stars in their prime almost never sue, and some are already comparing her to Olivia de Haviland, whose lawsuit brought down the studio system.That’s a bit hyperbolic, but it’s a big deal. And Lourd, having made what I’m told were more than a dozen private attempts to resolve this matter over several months, was a strong advocate for standing up for her rights.
On that point, Lourd clearly recognizes the stakes here, not just for Johansson and the 2021 Warner Bros. stars, but for all CAA clients. Streaming isn’t just changing the talent game, it’s fundamentally altering the field on which the game is played. Back in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, when VHS and Betamax became a thing, a formula was developed that allowed the studios to suck up 80 percent of home video revenues before talent was allowed to participate. That formula became gospel, and for decades, even as the DVD boom floated the entire industry, stars and filmmakers were typically left to scramble for a piece of the remaining 20 percent. That simple formula probably ended up costing creatives billions of dollars. Now those rules are being written again for the digital age, and Lourd would like to protect his clients from getting screwed. “Precedent is being set over the value of talent and what kind of transparency is essential to creating equitable partnerships,” Lourd told the Times back in December, when the Warners/HBO Max deal was announced.
Then again, let’s not forget it’s called agenting, baby. Lourd can read a room, and he recognizes everyone in town is pretty nervous these days, especially about their own financial futures as the industry consolidates. Publicly positioning himself and CAA on this issue does have a downside, however. The great agents, rivals note, effectively play both sides, and studio executives might be more likely to cut artist-friendly deals when they aren’t being called “shameless” in the press. But being vocal reasserts Lourd’s credentials as a talent protector and telegraphs an implicit and potent message to every big star in the business: Does your agent care as passionately about this issue? And by the way, what has he or she done for you lately? Amid the agencies’ war with the Writers Guild, more creatives began questioning the value of agents and the justification for that 10 percent. Lourd is essentially flexing here, showing he’s important and not afraid to call out a “direct attack” on his client’s character.
And he’s doing it at a time when he is unquestionably on a professional roll. I swear, this isn’t CAA spin: even fierce rivals say they’re impressed by Lourd’s recent activity. Just this year, he closed two $400 million-plus film deals, moving the Knives Out sequels to Netflix for filmmaker Rian Johnson and setting up three Exorcist sequels at Universal for producer Jason Blum and director David Gordon Green. At 60, Lourd is still signing. Most associate him with Clooney and Pitt, but in the past few years he’s played a heavy hand (with others) in bringing to CAA Lady Gaga, Kristen Wiig, Chris Pine, Ryan Gosling, Henry Golding, and filmmakers Lee Daniels, the Russos, Lena Dunham and Pam Adlon. CAA is still run by the trio of Lourd, Kevin Huvane and Richard Lovett, but, as one rival agent notes, “at this point it’s like Diana Ross and the Supremes.” (His words, not mine, and yes, Lourd is Ross in this analogy.) Regardless, Lourd may feel that as arguably the industry’s most powerful talent agent, it’s his role to speak up.
Also, don’t forget this stuff is personal. Many believe Lourd, like a lot of powerful agents, has been frustrated and offended that he and his clients are not being afforded the respect from Disney to which he has become accustomed. He was legitimately shocked that Disney responded to the suit by attacking Johansson so sharply and personally. It’s bad enough that the statement—yes, it was approved by outgoing P.R. chief Zenia Mucha—equated an actress’ move to enforce her contract with having “callous disregard” for Covid-19 effects. But citing her $20 million up front payment, a bizarre attempt to salary-shame Johansson by a company with market capitalization of $320 billion, all but asks for blowback. Would anyone question the hundreds of millions of dollars that Robert Downey Jr. has made off Marvel movies? No surprise, Women in Film, ReFrame and Time’s Up quickly blasted the “gendered character attack.” Lourd presumably knew these cards were in his hand.
A better question: Will Lourd make any difference? “You think these guys care what Bryan Lourd thinks?” another agent said when I asked about the implications of Lourd going public. He paused, then added, “You don’t get it. These. Guys. Don’t. Give. A. Fuuuuuuuuuuck.” Again, those are an agent’s words, not mine, but you get the point: The new generation of media leaders, who don’t actually come from the media business, aren’t exactly scared of CAA. Before he ascended from Parks to the C.E.O. job, Chapek’s “talent relations” mostly consisted of Fantasyland’s costumed Snow Whites and Tinkerbells. Customer, customer, customer; EBITDA, EBITDA, EBITDA; stock price, stock price, stock price. Disney surely needs major stars, and this situation has certainly sullied its reputation around town. But when all this consolidation is done and there are four or five companies left that control the entertainment economy, will CAA just refuse to work with one of them? No way.
In fact, as WarnerMedia C.E.O. Jason Kilar seeks his next job, his headhunter might as well list “Proven willingness to stand up to entrenched talent agencies” as a bullet point in the “professional accomplishments” section of his resume. In this new streaming economy, that’s probably an attribute, not a liability, so long as you can avoid messy and embarrassing lawsuits. To that end, the Disney situation does make Warners’ strategy seem downright talent-friendly. I got into a little Twitter back-and-forth this week with Kilar over the specifics of when he decided to pay talent what they thought they were worth on the 2021 movies, but my key point was that Kilar didn’t exactly back up the Brinks truck initially: Warners’ first offer was rejected, and it took Lourd and others going public—using that megaphone—to get to a deal that was acceptable to stars like Denzel Washington and Margot Robbie. Warners is still finalizing terms with Dune studio Legendary, I’m told.
And that’s the ultimate endgame for Lourd. Negotiations, deals, agenting, gaining leverage—any leverage—when the power shifts from movie stars to the consolidated, global streaming empires dominated by pre-branded I.P. It’s an ecosystem that is no longer totally dependent on stars to sell tickets in theaters on opening weekend, if opening weekends even exist.
https://puck.news/scarjo-vs-disney-why-bryan-lourd-seized-the-spotlight/