Though these elite actresses are still well remunerated, the Hollywood pay gap has been well publicized. Lawrence made headlines this year when Wikileaks revealed she and her female American Hustle costar received a lower cut of profits than their male counterparts. The leaked Sony correspondence relayed Lawrence’s representatives complaining that male actors (Bradley Cooper, Christian Bale and Jeremy Renner) received a 9% cut of profits, while Lawrence and Amy Adams pocketed just 7%. Link to sourceI read this in two different ways, neither of which I like:
(1) Cooper, Bale and Renner each got 9% of the profits, while Lawrence and Adams each got 7%.
(2) Cooper, Bale, and Renner split 9% three ways or 3% each, while Lawrence and Adams split 7% two ways or 3.5% each.
The first reading is blatantly unfair to the women; the second reading is blatantly unfair to the men. There isn't enough information given in the cited Forbes article to decide between the two.
But my biggest problem with the first scenario is why the hell does nearly 41%* of the profit go to just five people? That right there is the Hollywood problem in a nutshell: overly-paid actors. There are plenty of other people involved in filmmaking who deserve a piece of that pie. Do actors take it in the shorts when a film loses money? I suppose they do over time if they continually act in flops.
I would like to see numbers on how much profit went to actors in the decades past.
Actors and actresses need the shit taxed out of them because they mostly give those ill-gotten gains to bad causes.**
__________________
* 9 + 9 + 9 + 7 + 7 = 41
** Here's to you, Ike
[added] I just read that Jennifer Lawrence's newest film "Mocking Jay: Part 2" has severely underperformed expectations. I was a big fan of that series and even went to a theater to see the last one. Her loudmouthed antics are enough to keep me away this time.
11 comments:
Supply and demand. Actresses are pretty interchangeable so have a greater supply, as far as the film investors are concerned.
Lawrence is awful. That may have to do more with it than anything else.
I doubt that those 5 actors got 41% of the profits, and they don't likely negotiate and split it as teams or blocks of actors. Something is wrong with this.
I label my DVDs by the female lead, in a list on the HD (so that I don't double-buy any if possible), and have noticed that I can't really tell the females apart, with a couple exceptions. Those being Meg Ryan (in an ingenue role) and Sandra Bullock (in any role).
It's not that the others are not good, it's just that they can be substituted for.
The males on the other hand being their own thing to the role. Hugh Grant is unique; Pierce Brosnan has that humor and Bond raffishness in other roles. What's his name Tom Hanks uses the same special expression that's his alone in every role.
I like Julia Roberts but can you really tell her from Anne Hathaway?
bagoh20 said...
I doubt that those 5 actors got 41% of the profits, and they don't likely negotiate and split it as teams or blocks of actors. Something is wrong with this.
I agree. And yet -- the outrage it causes.
If you can not measure it, you can not improve it. ~ Lord Kelvin
Actors male and female really have gotten mostly interchangeable to me too. Both sexes, but for me especially the females. I often get them mixed up, and rarely care which female is staring. Lawrence is a perfect example of that. They could have gotten someone beautiful and talented enough to play that role for free, and it would make no difference to me.
I recommend the Castro payroll method. All Actors and Actresses get ten dollars a month and free healthcare. Oh and a Desoto.
First, please define a movie profit for me. It's my understanding that Hollywood accountants are very skilled at turning a blockbuster film into a money loser for IRS purposes. It's quite possible these five actors actually received relatively little. I seem to remember there were a few lawsuits over the years regarding that.
Second, the career life for an actress is short compared to men. There's the old joke: "What do you call a 35 year old actress who was the lead in a ten year old movie? A real estate agent in the valley."
Were the actors investors? If not I don't see why they should get anything beyond what they were paid for their acting.
ALL MONEY TO THE PLUTOCRATS! That's my weltanschauung.
yeah, they all look alike to me. In ye olden times there was a big difference between Monroe, Doris day, Loren, Dickinson, Julie Andrews, Julie Christie, Audrey Hepburn, etc.
The actresses are interchangeable because the roles are.
Isn't this an issue that is more properly taken up with her agent than with American society. She was very good in the first Hunger Games. Of all the teen aged girls who have saved the world (at least in the movies), she's the most credible. That's her signature role, and I believe she gets a ton of money for it. The series has lost momentum and fun, but she's still very good in the role......I think she makes more money than Meryl Streep. Meryl Streep is the better actress. In Jennifer's struggles to make the world a better place shouldn't she fight ageism and demand that she be paid the same as Meryl Streep. Why does this leveling thing only apply to people with more.
Post a Comment