BLIND GOSSIP

The #1 Blind Item Site in the World!

Underpaid Hilary

[Jezebel] Chelsea Handler used an episode of her show Chelsea to explore some of the issues women think about.

Her guests definitely narrow the exploration of what constitutes women’s issues. While there’s plenty of valid criticism for how the gender pay gap isn’t going to be closed by rich white actresses, an anecdote Hilary Swank tells about how she was paid earlier in her career is still fairly shocking.

[Swank] explains that she only made $3,000 for her Academy Award-winning performance in Boys Don’t Cry, which didn’t even qualify her for health insurance. After her second Oscar win, she was offered a part across from a male lead who had recently become “hot,” but had no critical acclaim. He was paid $10 million and she was offered $500,000. After she turned down the role, the part was given to an upcoming actress who was paid only $50,000.

Similar: Amanda Seyfried on Salaries And Roles

Film She Turned Down:

$10M Hot Male Lead :

$50K Up and coming Actress :

[Optional] Is there any gender pay inequality in your company/industry?


Reader Interactions

Comments

  2. confederacy_of_dunces says

    Is it possible that it could be Daniel Craig in Casino Royale? I didn’t know who he even was til he became the new face of Bond in 2006 and he definitely was hot 🙂 and I had never heard of Eva Green either

  3. northernlight says

    Shooter
    Mark Wahlberg
    Kate Mara

    Statistics brain lists some movie star salaries & it’s got MW down for $10 million for Shooter. Of course, he had a 10-year career in movies before that, but HS might think, Come on, he’s not an actor like ME, he’s just hot. I haven’t seen the movie, but Mara’s role is described as a “thankless girlfriend” role, so it’s certainly not one you’d expect $10 mill for.

  4. northernlight says

    Looked up Swank’s quote: “I win my second Academy Award, and the next couple of movies later, I get offered a movie, but the male [actor] hadn’t had any kind of critical success, but had been in a movie where he was hot…”

    Million Dollar Baby won an Oscar in 2005, so it seems like the movie in question would have come out maybe 2007-2009.

    Recently hot made me think Channing Tatum in Step-Up (2006), but none of the later movies seem to fit.

  6. suzie2 says

    I work in IT and I get paid the same as the men I work with. I am a contract worker and each contract pays differently. How much I get paid probably depends more on my knowledge of the going market rate for my skills and my ability to negotiate, than on my gender or even the quality of my work.

    Actor’s pay is negotiated. And like so many say on here, maybe male actors sell more tickets? Still Julia Roberts, Angelina Jolie, etc., get paid hefty sums.

    Maybe the role could…

  7. alystina says

    Since her second Oscar was won in 2005 I’m guessing the film she turned down was released in 2006.

    To pay an actor 10 million it’s going to be a big budget with a big name. And there were only a few released that year with a Hilary-esque role. So I’m guessing:

    Film: the Davinci Code
    10 mil actor: Tom hanks
    50,000 actress: Audrey Tatou

    • alystina says

      Nevermind. Did all the looking and missed the key factor. Tom hanks was not recently hot, or lacking critical acclaim. Brain dead moment.

  8. northernlight says

    Can’t figure this one out. Matt Damon’s salary on The Departed would be right (with Vera Farmiga taking the role opposite him), but he was not recently hot or critically unappreciated.

    There’s World Trade Center, with Nicholas Cage and Maria Bello, but she was already well known and his salary was known to be less than 10 mill (because he donated it to charity), plus he was not underappreciated either.

    So I’m in the weeds on this one. Tell us!

  10. KatarinaJ says

    This is awful but Hollywood also has different standards. Studios pay on what stars will make the movie and them money. Sadly, they are finding MEN bring in movie goers. It is a sad reflection on society in general but isn’t just about ‘not wanting to pay a woman for equal work’ – who can you compare two roles that open a movie? How can one decide what fair pay is in what they bring to the equation?

    • anarchistlibrarian says

      absolutely! of course men and women should be paid equally, but the fact is that male stars tend to be the ones who bring in the cash, especially globally, and mainstream films are profit-driven. it’s neither fair nor unfair; it’s just business, unfortunately.
      i’m in the low end of education, which is equal *except* that any parents who take time off to have/raise children are at a disadvantage. i was a single, breastfeeding, attatchment-parenting mum, so yeah… :/

  11. THOneyT says

    Film She Turned Down: The Departed

    $10M Hot Male Lead : Leonardo DiCaprio

    $50K Up and coming Actress : Vera Farmiga

    [Optional] Is there any gender pay inequality in your company/industry? Not for me, but I was in a position to negotiate. In general, very much so.

  12. wendybar says

    Why do they think they are worth that much??? Maybe actors and actresses should get $15.00 an hour or maybe should redistribute some of their wealth to the underlings that make WAY less than they do!!! Such hypocrites!!

    • doratheexplorer says

      Because they are using their face, body, image, emotions — all of them to make a studio a lot of money. Have you ever tried acting? Have you looked into the massive amount of money it takes for the average working actor just to get off the ground and start working? It’s a business and she should be compensated fairly for selling a product.

    • rhiannon14 says

      This was around 2005. Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence were not exactly household names then.

  16. Crisesaverted says

    I can’t get to guessing the way I normally do because I’m honestly befuddled as to why this issue wouldn’t resonate with most women. Am I supposed to think that $50,000 is too much for a film or too little? I think it sounds way too low. I’m not a big fan of Swank’s, but this is low pay. Everyone I know makes more than this. And it wasn’t even an annual salary. If this is true, then how does she afford to live in Hollywood?

    • KatarinaJ says

      okay so 500 grand means she couldn’t live in Hollywood? Plenty of regular people live here too and the 50 grand was for a few months. Of course this is horrific and ridiculous though… that she’d get offered 500 to his 10 mil. Still sadly women BUY more movie tickets yet they seem to find the MALE leads bring in the bucks. Hope it changes.

    • dreameroc says

      I have more compassion for the 90 million unemployed Americans including the Disney engineers who went to school for 20 years went to work at Disney only forced to train their replacements in India
      Or the Carrier guys whose jobs were shipped to Mexico until Donald trump got them back
      Celebrities want people to feel compassion for an actress making 50000 for a month work plus free gowns, handbags perks etc when 3/4 of America would love 50000 for an entire year
      No wonder nobody listens to…

    • jaz813 says

      Yes I agree with having more compassion for low wage workers but focusing on the face value amount of 50k is completely missing the point of this story. It’s not getting paid “only” 50k that was insulting, it’s the fact that the male costar was making TEN MILLION. If it’s true that she was the bigger star at the time and therefore the bigger box office draw, then this has to be a clear case of gender-based pay inequality… 50k vs 10 mil is pretty easy math.

    • Crisesaverted says

      Thanks for clearing that up. I get my idea of people who live in Hollywood from Real Housewives of Beverly Hills so I was just a total miss all the way around on this one.

    • amagod121 says

      dreameroc, I too feel very badly for those whose jobs were shipped out and those who had to train their replacements. However, I also feel badly that Hilary Swank was paid peanuts compared to her newly hot costar. To me, it’s an issue of fairness. If she has an equal ability as her hot male costar to open a movie that makes X amount of millions of dollars, then yes, she darned well DOES deserve equal pay. If the situation was reversed, no one would ever find it acceptable.

    • Gemzan says

      Does anyone see the irony here? Hollywood is one of the most sexist (if not the most) facets of our society, and yet they are constantly preaching to the rest of us how backwards we are. They still haven’t grasped that the rest of the US couldn’t care less about their political positions. The latest ad by Martin Sheen et al is so out of touch that it’s funny.

    • butwhatever says

      FWIW, the Carrier jobs came back because the company was given even MORE tax dollars (after infuriating everyone in the first place by taking big tax breaks and immediately announcing the move). And only half of the jobs are coming back.

      I guess the business big shots couldn’t possibly give a fair shake to their workers, whether they’re Hollywood stars or factory hands, in blue coastal states or red midwestern states. Feh.

  17. CousinDupree says

    Hmm…Big 2005 releases with decent female roles? King Kong, but I don’t think Jackson low-balled the actors (and I doubt Naomi Watts took 50K); Brokeback Mountain, but I can’t believe Gyllenhaal or Ledger got $10 million; No individual male lead in Revenge of The Sith…I’ll guess Katie Holmes in Batman Begins. Not exactly “new,” Cruise hurt her earning potential a lot, and she had nothing big on the schedule, so:

    Film : Batman Begins
    Male co star: Christian Bale
    50K actress: Katie…

    • dreameroc says

      In Hollywood you are paid based not on oscars but if you can open a movie
      If you can support a movie based on your name alone
      It has nothing to do with sex or race
      Grow up kiddies snowflakes
      it show BUSINESS not politically correct business

    • flymetothemoo says

      Sorry, but tradition just isn’t a good enough reason for sexism anymore. If Swank couldn’t open and carry a movie on her own, Eastwood wouldn’t have picked her for Million Dollar Baby. Swank was worth a lot more money. I am someone who ended up disliking this film because Kate Beckinsale has the personality of a wet blanket and I couldn’t believe anyone would be in love with her. She ruined the film. They could have had an instant classic but instead they had a dumpster fire.

    • thisisannoying says

      I agree with you particularly in this case, but even Jennifer Lawrence who is so popular and frankly one of the biggest reasons The Hunger Games became so popular, also faced this wage gap issue in subsequent films.

      Come on, what was Liam Hemsworth even in before that? The Last Song? Was being Miley Cyrus’ boyfriend really a valuable thing in terms of box office numbers? Nah. Your points are valid but please don’t diminish the impact of the glass ceiling for females.