A few thoughts on an essay
Jennifer Lawrence is currently one of my favorite actresses. I think she's extraordinarily talented. She's written an essay entitled "Why Do I Make Less Than My Male Co-Stars" that you can read here Why Do I Make Less Than My Male Co-Stars.
That there are gender gaps in Hollywood is clear, and they exist in areas beyond compensation. Opportunities are reduced for women both in front of and behind the camera. As actresses age above a certain point, the good roles for them virtually disappear. There are exceptions of course, for the "cream of the crop" but actors don't lose out the way actresses do as the two groups age.
But there is a fallacy in Ms Lawrence's thesis. Not in the portion regarding how men and women are perceived differently by the almost exclusively male decision-makers in Hollywood. She's right on target there. Where she is slightly off-base is that claiming what she, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper and Christian Bale did in the making of American Hustle was "equal."
All four are actors. But the roles aren't all truly lead roles. Why else would Lawrence and Cooper have been considered as "Supporting" roles while Adams and Bale's work was considered to be a "Leading" role? Yes, there is some politicking going on when it comes to Academy Award and other competitions, but that doesn't fully explain the difference.
Like it or not, casting a motion picture isn't the equivalent of hiring bank branch managers. You can measure the pay equity in almost any other industry through qualitative and quantitative means. If there are two bank branches and one is managed by a man, with the other managed by a woman, should they be paid the same automatically? What if one branch has twice as many employees to manage? If they are both the same size, base salaries should be the same. But performance bonuses should not be, if one branch outperforms the other.
Movies are investments. Acting is a job but it isn't like any other job in that the box office receipts of the film are indeed a function of who the actor/actress is and their ability to bring people into the auditoriums where the film is being shown. Performers are paid not just for their ability to perform, but their ability to generate revenues. If a producer believes that one name on the marquee is more valuable than another, why wouldn't they pay that performer a higher salary to be able to put that name up there.
Let's look at the box office smash, Avengers: Age of Ultron. Here are the performers and their reported salaries (estimates of base salary, not including profit participation):
Robert Downey, Jr - between $25 and $50 million
Scarlett Johanssen - $20 million
Chris Evans - $7 million
Chris Hemsworth - $5 million
Jeremy Renner - $5 million
Mark Ruffalo - $3 million
They are all "stars" of the film. So why such great disparity in their salaries (and in their back-end money as well)? Because their ability to fill seats is not equal.
A couple of years ago, Cote de Pablo chose to leave the TV series NCIS. One of the reasons may have had to do with pay equity. She wanted to be on the same pay level as Michael Weatherly, who was her on-screen partner on the show. At the time he was pulling in $250,000 per episode and she wanted $225,000 per episode. She reportedly turned down $200,000 an episode. So she left a role she'd played for eight seasons over a difference of just under $600,000 a season. The show does fine without her in terms of ratings and she has barely worked since. Good decision? In terms of quality of life, only she can answer. Judged strictly as a business decision, a bad move. Then we look at Mark Harmon, who is the lead actor on the show. He earns more than twice as much as even Michael Weatherly at $550,000 per episode.
Is this logical? In 2014 Weatherly had the highest Q factor of any actor on television. Even Sean Murray of NCIS polled against Harmon in this measure of popularity. So did NCIS' Pauley Perrette, who has the highest Q factor of any woman on scripted television. Clearly Q factor doesn't account for this particular pay disparity. Perhaps the fact that Harmon is the key character of the series does.
Did Ms Lawrence deserve 9% of the back-end of American Hustle like her male co-stars received, rather than the 7% she received? Absolutely. Did the producers hold firmer on her because she has a vagina and not a dick as she mentions in her essay? I don't believe so. If she'd done as she says she will do from now on, and negotiate just like the men do, she'd have gotten the same. Or maybe more.
Let's face facts. Producers are money people. They want to make the film for as few dollars as possible. Ms Lawrence wrote " But if I’m honest with myself, I would be lying if I didn’t say there was an element of wanting to be liked that influenced my decision to close the deal without a real fight. I didn’t want to seem “difficult” or “spoiled.” She's right. She and the other women in Hollywood can make major progress in ending this gender disparity if they will quit worrying about being liked, difficult or spoiled and focus on being treated equally. I hope they do.
That there are gender gaps in Hollywood is clear, and they exist in areas beyond compensation. Opportunities are reduced for women both in front of and behind the camera. As actresses age above a certain point, the good roles for them virtually disappear. There are exceptions of course, for the "cream of the crop" but actors don't lose out the way actresses do as the two groups age.
But there is a fallacy in Ms Lawrence's thesis. Not in the portion regarding how men and women are perceived differently by the almost exclusively male decision-makers in Hollywood. She's right on target there. Where she is slightly off-base is that claiming what she, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper and Christian Bale did in the making of American Hustle was "equal."
All four are actors. But the roles aren't all truly lead roles. Why else would Lawrence and Cooper have been considered as "Supporting" roles while Adams and Bale's work was considered to be a "Leading" role? Yes, there is some politicking going on when it comes to Academy Award and other competitions, but that doesn't fully explain the difference.
Like it or not, casting a motion picture isn't the equivalent of hiring bank branch managers. You can measure the pay equity in almost any other industry through qualitative and quantitative means. If there are two bank branches and one is managed by a man, with the other managed by a woman, should they be paid the same automatically? What if one branch has twice as many employees to manage? If they are both the same size, base salaries should be the same. But performance bonuses should not be, if one branch outperforms the other.
Movies are investments. Acting is a job but it isn't like any other job in that the box office receipts of the film are indeed a function of who the actor/actress is and their ability to bring people into the auditoriums where the film is being shown. Performers are paid not just for their ability to perform, but their ability to generate revenues. If a producer believes that one name on the marquee is more valuable than another, why wouldn't they pay that performer a higher salary to be able to put that name up there.
Let's look at the box office smash, Avengers: Age of Ultron. Here are the performers and their reported salaries (estimates of base salary, not including profit participation):
Robert Downey, Jr - between $25 and $50 million
Scarlett Johanssen - $20 million
Chris Evans - $7 million
Chris Hemsworth - $5 million
Jeremy Renner - $5 million
Mark Ruffalo - $3 million
They are all "stars" of the film. So why such great disparity in their salaries (and in their back-end money as well)? Because their ability to fill seats is not equal.
A couple of years ago, Cote de Pablo chose to leave the TV series NCIS. One of the reasons may have had to do with pay equity. She wanted to be on the same pay level as Michael Weatherly, who was her on-screen partner on the show. At the time he was pulling in $250,000 per episode and she wanted $225,000 per episode. She reportedly turned down $200,000 an episode. So she left a role she'd played for eight seasons over a difference of just under $600,000 a season. The show does fine without her in terms of ratings and she has barely worked since. Good decision? In terms of quality of life, only she can answer. Judged strictly as a business decision, a bad move. Then we look at Mark Harmon, who is the lead actor on the show. He earns more than twice as much as even Michael Weatherly at $550,000 per episode.
Is this logical? In 2014 Weatherly had the highest Q factor of any actor on television. Even Sean Murray of NCIS polled against Harmon in this measure of popularity. So did NCIS' Pauley Perrette, who has the highest Q factor of any woman on scripted television. Clearly Q factor doesn't account for this particular pay disparity. Perhaps the fact that Harmon is the key character of the series does.
Did Ms Lawrence deserve 9% of the back-end of American Hustle like her male co-stars received, rather than the 7% she received? Absolutely. Did the producers hold firmer on her because she has a vagina and not a dick as she mentions in her essay? I don't believe so. If she'd done as she says she will do from now on, and negotiate just like the men do, she'd have gotten the same. Or maybe more.
Let's face facts. Producers are money people. They want to make the film for as few dollars as possible. Ms Lawrence wrote " But if I’m honest with myself, I would be lying if I didn’t say there was an element of wanting to be liked that influenced my decision to close the deal without a real fight. I didn’t want to seem “difficult” or “spoiled.” She's right. She and the other women in Hollywood can make major progress in ending this gender disparity if they will quit worrying about being liked, difficult or spoiled and focus on being treated equally. I hope they do.
posted by me at 8:16 AM
<< Home