Check out this brilliant breakdown of pay discrimination for Hollywood actresses by Stephanie at Bitch Flicks.
She looks at the top 15 actors and actresses, Oscar nominations and wins, box office grosses and Rotten Tomato rankings and finds that across the board, films with the top 15 actresses have higher critic ratings while grossing $735 million to the men's $746 million. Additionally, the actresses garnered more Oscar nominations and wins than the men, yet were paid collectively less than half of what the men made.
The top earning woman was Angelina Jolie (27 million) and the bottom earning woman was Kate Winslet (2 million). In comparison, the top earning man was Harrison Ford (65 million) and the bottom earning man was Vince Vaughan (14 million).
Stephanie writes, "Will someone please explain to me how this isn't blatant gender-based discrimination?"
While these are some of the highest paid women in the world, they are still victims of the pay discrimination that influences women everywhere. From the waitress working the third shift to Kate Winslet to Lilly Ledbetter, women experience pay discrimination, even the women American media idolizes. Every woman is at risk.
Let this list remind us of how sexism and the notion that women are somehow less than pervades our culture, seeps through its pores and infects everything we touch, even - especially - our paychecks.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
The top earning woman was Angelina Jolie (27 million) and the bottom earning woman was Kate Winslet (2 million). In comparison, the top earning man was Harrison Ford (65 million) and the bottom earning man was Vince Vaughan (14 million).
This is sort of, well, entirely BS.
You can't really compare a talent like Harrison Ford, with a career spanning 40 years and 60 movie appearances with someone like Jolie, who's career spans half as many films, and half as many years.
Especially because Ford's been in far more box office successes (Star Wars series, Indiana Jones series, Jack Ryan series, and so forth), compared to Jolie's much more meager successes, and much more prominent bombs (Tomb Raider series).
So, yes, I'd say it's perfectly fair and NOT "pay discrimination" to say that Ford makes much more money than Jolie.
Acting isn't an "equal pay for equal work" situation at all, and to expect it is to show ignorance of how Hollywood works.
Your pay is one part work, and one part WORTH. An actor that is a bigger box office draw, and has more successful films under their belt will be able to negotiate for more money.
That's how it works.
Hell, Jim Carrey only made 420 thousand dollars for The Mask, and made upwards of 20 million or more for his later films.
In Hollywood, your pay is largely determined by your popularity and successful films.
As such, a male actor like Ford, who has been in the business for longer than Jolie has even been alive naturally will make much more money than she will.
So I find this article a bit overly simplistic, and dodgy on the details.
I don't find it a very "brilliant" pay breakdown.
Hell, pretty much all of the males listed have had careers that were longer than most of the females listed.
So, even in a regular workplace situation, seniority demands more pay. If you have a job for 10 years, and a new person starts, just because you are both doing the same job doesn't mean the new person will make as much as you. You have experience, seniority, etc.
The Oscar info is a bit misleading, and not as helpful. Studios care about box office earnings first. If an actor = money, they're going to be paid more.
If you're in a movie that makes 500 million dollars, your next film will see you earning a larger check than another actor who's last film bombed.
That's how the business works, and there's not one discriminatory thing about it.
What about older actresses who haven't had the career longevity due to sexism in casting? And for that matter, why aren't older actresses being paid more since they have that long history?
You may think you have a good point, but it really just reveals even more about sexism in Hollywood.
What about older actresses who haven't had the career longevity due to sexism in casting?
I find that a bit hard to believe.
If a film calls for a female role, you have to cast a female. You can't really be "sexist" in casting films.
Hollywood doesn't tend to go through extensive script re-writes to purposely remove females from the story.
You can't really claim sexism in casting. Especially in the light of icons such as Lauren Bacall, who has been in movies for over 60 years. (And still is to this day! She's filming at least 2 that I know of, currently.)
If there was such sexism in casting, we wouldn't have such a long, fantastic line of women in film.
Hell, the script for the role of Ripley in Alien called for a man. Who got cast? Sigourney Weaver. A woman.
There are plenty of older actresses who have had long careers. Some actresses didn't start their careers as early as others. That's something else to consider.
And for that matter, why aren't older actresses being paid more since they have that long history?
Like I said, marketability.
While someone like me, who has a huge selection of black and white films, can recall with perfect clarity the scene in To Have and Have Not where Bacall told Bogey how to whistle, most modern cinema-goers cannot.
Ergo, the second factor comes into play: That being the marketability. Career longevity is one, marketability is the other.
To command a vast salary, marketability, appeal, performance of past films come in handy much more readily.
Marketability is gained through being in films that make a lot of money.
Right now, Megan Fox is worth infinitely more than she was when she was a minor walk-on in Bad Boys.
She's starred in two films that have made hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars.
If a director wants to cast her in his picture now, her agent will net her a fortune compared to what she might have gotten otherwise.
If an actor has a long career, but poor box-office performance, they'll make much less than someone else with better performance.
(splitting the comment, as it's gotten too long)
(comment continues here)
Take Armand Assante.
A career of over 30 years, but an unremarkable one, with few large successes. As such, while he's been around a long time, he does not get choice roles, nor large sums of money for them.
Like I said about Harrison Ford, can any woman on that list even come close to Star Wars, or Indiana Jones? Honestly? No, they cannot.
Hollywood isn't doing any pay discrimination. This isn't like applying to a job. The person in charge of casting gets in touch with the agent of the actor. The agent talks to the actor. The actor proposes what they want, the agent negotiates. The salary is then determined based on what the movie stands to make, what the actor is worth, what the budget of the film is, and more. It's up to the actor to accept or decline that.
Another important fact that that list fails to take into account is if you star in a movie with a smaller budget, you make less.
When someone is in a movie with a 300 million dollar budget, they stand to make a bit more. Especially if their agent is wily enough to negotiate for a percentage of the box office take, as in Ford's case for Crystal Skull.
In fact, Ford didn't even take a standard salary for that. Nor did Spielberg or Lucas. They only made money once the film broke even.
There's also the matter of sequels. If you're starring in a sequel, where the first performed very well, you can command higher salaries for each subsequent sequel. Each time you re-appear, you can renegotiate for more. Why? Because the more times you play that character, the more it's cemented that you ARE that character. You've become too hard to replace.
That's why Tobey Maguire got every demand he made for Spider-Man 4. Because at this point, the audience won't accept another Peter Parker. He knows that. His agent knows that. Hell, the director wouldn't even do the film without him signed on.
If you actually do the research, and really get into the facts of how it all works, instead of skimming the surface and screaming "SEXISM!", you'll see that all the accusations of sexism fall flat on their collective face.
Blather on all you want, but the fact is that Hollywood rarely makes movies with roles for older women. Even in the role of a mother, younger actresses are being cast. How many IMDB trivia pages say, "x actress was only 6 years older than y actor, who was playing her son"?
I'm not convinced by your long rhetoric that there's not pay discrimination or sexism in casting movies, writing scripts, or paying actresses.
As for marketability, Fox is getting paid more right now because Michael Bay filmed her ass on the motorcycle for men (he's said as much, you can't deny that). Because of the beauty standard in society, he'd never do the same for an older actress. How many times have we heard that old women are ugly and fat and blah blah blah? Here are a ton of examples: http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/07/07/disdain-for-old-women/
And don't go on about how no one wants to see old women naked - people do because women 45+ (not even "old" in my opinion) are getting laid all over the world.
Blather on all you want, but the fact is that Hollywood rarely makes movies with roles for older women. Even in the role of a mother, younger actresses are being cast. How many IMDB trivia pages say, "x actress was only 6 years older than y actor, who was playing her son"?
So? Sean Connery played Indiana Jones' father, and Connery is only 12 years older than Ford.
There have been cases where the father was actually younger than the actor playing the son.
You're getting off the point, though. I can't help but wonder why you're trying to alter the subject.
I'm not convinced by your long rhetoric that there's not pay discrimination or sexism in casting movies, writing scripts, or paying actresses.
This isn't Shakespearian times, here. We aren't dressing men up as women to avoid casting real ones.
As for marketability, Fox is getting paid more right now because Michael Bay filmed her ass on the motorcycle for men (he's said as much, you can't deny that). Because of the beauty standard in society, he'd never do the same for an older actress. How many times have we heard that old women are ugly and fat and blah blah blah?
Doesn't matter. At the end of the day, she was in two HUGE movies. That makes her worth more. Same with Shia, as obnoxious as he is, and as much as I detest him, he's still worth a ton more as an actor now.
And don't go on about how no one wants to see old women naked - people do because women 45+ (not even "old" in my opinion) are getting laid all over the world.
You're really digressing from the actual point.
I provide you tons of useful information, and you're either ignoring it, or choosing not to acknowledge it.
Also, have you not seen "Something's Gotta Give"? There, an older woman, older than the woman playing her daughter, is the main love interest.
It's not as though it doesn't happen.
Part of it is the fact that the prime moviegoing audience tends to be younger. A hetero couple in their early to mid 20's can't really relate to a romance about a woman in her late 40s to 50s.
Most of the time, unless it's a beloved character such as Indiana Jones, people want actors they can relate to, at least in terms of age.
Your "useful information" isn't going to change my opinion that there's pay discrimination in Hollywood, or that a lot of factors go into explaining away this pay discrimination such as age of the actress, her body of work, etc.
Part of it is the fact that the prime moviegoing audience tends to be younger. A hetero couple in their early to mid 20's can't really relate to a romance about a woman in her late 40s to 50s.
So then movies about astronauts or giant transforming robots won't be successful because very few people are astronauts or giant transforming robots? Bull. Suspension of disbelief, kiddo. Don't tell me that people don't want to watch older actresses because they're not older. Maybe older people aren't going to the movies (a point I don't believe is true, btw) because there are few movies with an older cast? And don't cite Something's Gotta Give as your example. I think it's more the exception than the rule.
You're getting off the point, though. I can't help but wonder why you're trying to alter the subject.
If there wasn't a policy on using swear words, I'd have some choice ones for you.
Post a Comment