Was Jennifer Lawrence underpaid? - American Hustle (2013) Discussion

[–] RecordBreaker84 9 years ago

No, I'm underpaid. Screw these actors.

reply

[–] everythingangels 9 years ago

It's not that women in Hollywood are underpaid for their work... it's that women in Hollywood are worth less than men in general... because films tend to be very male-focused and actresses just don't have the same opportunities for good roles.

As such, there are tons of movies out there and all of them demand strong male leads... very few movies really demand much from the females minus a "hot bod" or whatever. Supply and demand.

I mean, seriously... let's pretend we wanted to give women equal pay to men in films. What does that even mean? Are we going to have laws governing how much the studios pay? That sounds simple, right? I assure you that it would NOT be! Do Indie movies that pay one big actor/actress most all of their budget count and the smaller movie that got an A-list actor have to pay their no-name co-star the same wage? Do we have a federal committee that decides how much people get paid for every single film? That's a large committee... and I'm sure we could trust these fictitious people to make fair and impartial decisions, right? At that point, does most of the Hollywood gossip consist of what committee member is accused of accepting bribes this week and which movies aren't getting made afterall because the studio decides the wages the committee wants to dole out are too high to make these films? Do the actors and actresses that sign on for a movie have a chance to change their minds when the committee decides on their wages or are they still going to be contractually obligated?

The point is: women don't get a fair shake in Hollywood. That's correct. But if we actually want to fix that then the "solution" isn't pointing out the wage differences... with the way things are in Hollywood, that's not going to change!

If we want things to change then the cries need to be for better roles for women... and there needs to be a demand for "real women" as well.

The day that we have women getting old and still getting premium roles in Hollywood (like men) because there is a genuine demand to see these actresses is the day that they'll start getting equal pay... because Hollywood will pay whatever the public demands! And as it currently stands some of the greatest actresses alive like Judi Dench and Emma Thompson just aren't people that very many want to buy a movie ticket to go see - which is a shame... because they are amazing! The day that Melissa McCarthy is allowed to make comedies and not ridiculed for her appearance is the day that women will see equal pay in Hollywood! The day that a movie like Jon Favreau's "Chef" is made and actually feels the need to explain how that guy got together with both Sofía Vergara and Scarlett Johansson is the day that women get equal pay! The day females like Megan Fox stop getting work because of their lack of talent instead of getting work because of their "talents" is the day that women get equal pay!

reply

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

Lawrence is the fifth-billed star in this film, and regardless of billing, her part was clearly less important, almost inconsequential, albeit very enjoyable, in relation to her co-stars, including Amy Adams.

A. Her part had more screen time than Renner's and he was paid more.

B. She was also the focus of all the early marketing because the studio knew she had star power that rivaled that of the leads and certainly was far greater than Renner's. Note that the first two clips released to tease the movie all centered around her.

C. In the leaked emails the Sony exec openly admits her pay was not fair.

Now if Amy Adams was getting paid substantially less than Christian Bale and Bradley Cooper for her part in this film I would consider that to be an injustice.

She was. And in my opinion, Adams was treated the most unfairly, but unfortunately with all of her fame, Lawrence got the lion's share of attention.

reply

[–] deck007-1 9 years ago

Just something I read the other day. It was a statement about which actress and which actor made the most in 2014?

There is so much info put out there these days, I take most things with a grain of salt, but this is what I read.

It was Robert Downey Jr. for actor.....I think it was $80 million.

For actress it was Jennifer Lawrence....I think it was $50 million, give or take $5 million.

reply

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

True enough, but completely irrelevant to what happened with American Hustle.

reply

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 9 years ago

A. Her part had more screen time than Renner's and he was paid more.

Okay, that's wrong, but wasn't Lawrence also comparing herself to Bale and Cooper?

B. She was also the focus of all the early marketing because the studio knew she had star power that rivaled that of the leads and certainly was far greater than Renner's. Note that the first two clips released to tease the movie all centered around her.

I agree that a lot of the marketing focused around her, and if it could be established that audience members went to the film and boosted its box-office because of her I'd agree that her lower salary was an injustice. But how many people went to see this film because of Lawrence per se? Surely the reviews and the concept were the most appealing elements.

C. In the leaked emails the Sony exec openly admits her pay was not fair.

I think it has already been established the Sony execs are idiots. I don't really give much consideration to anything they say.

But to deny someone equal pay and admit in writing that it is unfair is utterly hypocritical and idiotic. People should stand by their decisions on principle. If a person believes an employee should be paid more, they should be paid more; if they have a good reason not to, they should stick to their guns.

She was. And in my opinion, Adams was treated the most unfairly, but unfortunately with all of her fame, Lawrence got the lion's share of attention.

That's wrong then. And I agree that Adams deserved to get paid the same amount as Bale and Cooper in view of how important her part was.

Fair is fair.

reply

[–] Robert_222 9 years ago

No one forced Lawrence to do this movie. It was actually her choice....and she made more money then most Americans make in an entire lifetime.

reply

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

All of which is completely irrelevant, of course.

reply

[–] Robert_222 9 years ago

Just sayin, she took the job and she knew how much money she was going to get. If the amount of money was "unfair" then she should've just picked another movie that's gonna pay her the big bucks.

reply

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

Just sayin, she took the job and she knew how much money she was going to get.

Again: this is completely irrelevant and utterly misses the point.

If the amount of money was "unfair" then she should've just picked another movie that's gonna pay her the big bucks.

None of the actors knew something unfair was going on until the Sony email hacks. Plus, if you paid attention to her recent essay, she says she should have stood up for herself more--which she has done since then.

reply

[–] Robert_222 9 years ago

Oops. I actually had no idea about the Sony email situation, I was just replying to the op so I didn't catch that part in your earlier reply. And no I don't read essays that celebrities write.
I'll admit, that is a sticky situation.

But to be honest it still doesn't surprise me that she was payed less than the dudes. I mean, Christian bale is one of the bests out there. Most of the intellectual movie buffs that I know will pay money to see a Christian bale film. I would almost say the same thing for Amy Adams. 2 outstanding actors in my opinion.

As far as cooper and Lawrence, I can't say that I love any of there movies except silver linings playbook. (Sorry I'm not a hunger games fan)

But then again, Lawrence and renner have such huge followings with the hunger games and the avengers, they definitely attracted many movie goers. So I guess they all should have gotten the same amount of money. I take back my earlier posts.

reply

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

But to be honest it still doesn't surprise me that she was payed less than the dudes. I mean, Christian bale is one of the bests out there. Most of the intellectual movie buffs that I know will pay money to see a Christian bale film. I would almost say the same thing for Amy Adams. 2 outstanding actors in my opinion.

I don't think anyone objected to her being paid less than Bale or Adams--it was a supporting role, after all. But for her and Adams to be paid less than Renner was unfair.

Lawrence gets all the attention in this controversy because she's so famous, but I think the person treated the worst by Sony was Adams.

reply

[–] MuleDeer 9 years ago

It doesn't really matter, does it? It happens in all kinds of fields. Someone relatively underpaid gets overpaid later. Happens in entertainment industry all the time -- movies, sports, music. Attract a big following and big $ follows. I don't think she's going to have to resort to hooking.

reply

[–] Arvin-G-Borkar 9 years ago

In terms of your arguments, going by her essay and what you are defending.

Look at the number of movies Renner did and then look at Lawrence's. Right there, the wage would be more, almost 50% more credits than she has done so far. So his agent is able to negotiate more because there needs to be an incentive, on top of, the amount he recently has worked for, in his past films.

Amy Adams has 4 more credits than him and it could be assumed that she was paid less; but again, look at the agent she has and look at Renner's agent. Different agents right? They have influence in negotiating because they make commission off whatever the actor makes. So it could be said that she started at being paid lower on her previous films. Maybe her first film only offered her $2 million, when it should have offered her $4 million, to where she should have been offered the same as Bale or Cooper. It is a possibility.

The CEO of Sony is not going to know much. He probably would say that because right now women want to hear how and why they are being paid lower and would probably make a big deal out of it. To cut his losses and the media being on his butt, he just agreed she was paid less. No reason to really use that as proof.

Then you outline that Jennifer has to stand up for herself. Ha! She does not have any negotiation on her wages. It is between the production company and her agent. That is it. She can turn the role down unless her agent can offer a better deal, but that is all the power she has.

Few things to understand:

1. The salary they are paid for a movie is not based on how much advertising they give the movie and how much screen time they have. There is a minimum salary that the producers give and that is negotiated higher by her agent.

2. Saying that she has more star power than Cooper, Bale, or even DeNiro is ridiculous. She should wait until their age or complete the amount of films they did and see if she is still being paid less.

Say I am an actor (I kind of am), kind of an extra right now. Usually extras do not get to negotiate, just flat day rate; however, I decide whether or not I want to do the project after I submit for it (live in a small market so extra wages fluctuate). If I was paid $75 the first time, as a day rate, the next time I am going to want something greater than that. So I go for the next movie which offers a day rate of $120. Now I could always ask my casting director why he could not have negotiated with the producer to pay extras more than that; however, that is the budget.

Complain about pay in the middle class workplace. But in a freelance industry; you are at the mercy of the production companies and the agents.

Reminder: The O.C. comes back on POP network March 8th at 1 p.m. EST

reply

[–] Blubonnet_Spearman 9 years ago

It's called free market capitalism. If she was putting asses in seats on her own shiver her costars, she was underpaid, but that's not the case. She's probably at the moment though the highest paid female actress. She should be whining too much

reply

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

Get back to me when you can articulate why both she and Adams (a co-lead) got paid less that Remmer. Good luck with that!

reply

[–] Sal42 9 years ago

There is no justification for why Amy Adams got paid less than anyone. She was signed on from the start, her role was clearly joint lead with Bale and with 4 oscar nominations at the time of signing, she was the most critically acclaimed of the 5 actors. I also saw a break down of the $100M+ box office for each actor prior to signing for AH and they went in order highest to lowest: Bale, Renner, Adams, Cooper, Lawrence. If anything this shows she should have been paid more than everyone except Bale.

Should Lawrence have been paid less than Cooper and Bale? Absolutely! The role was smaller and, at the time, she was not their equal in terms of box office and had yet to win an oscar.

Why did Renner get paid the same as Bale and Cooper? because it isn't about why he got paid more than the women, but why he got paid the same as the two male leads. Well, if you kept an eye on the casting of this film Bale was in, then he was out, then he was in again. It was reported months before filming started that Cooper and Renner would play the main roles. It is quite possible they asked Renner to commit to the film and he said fine, but you pay me for a leading role regardless of whether Bale changes his mind or not. That is tough negotiating, but not unfair if he had to turn down another role. Also he was absolutely flying at the time, with huge box office behind him, two recent oscar nominations and the real possibility that he would become a major leading man. Things have changed a lot, but that was then not now.

So there you go ..... there is no excuse for the way Amy Adams was treated, but everything else can be explained without resorting to inequality.

"We're the victims of a foul disease called social prejudice...be a proud, glorified dreg like me"

reply

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

So there you go ..... there is no excuse for the way Amy Adams was treated, but everything else can be explained without resorting to inequality.

Finally, someone else who recognizes that Adams was the one who really got screwed over, not so much Lawrence!

But inequality is still part of the problem, here. One way inequality works is how it pressures women to behave differently than their male counterparts. In your post you describe Renner making shrewd and aggressive negotiating moves--and good for him. But this is exactly what Lawrence said she was afraid to do for fear of being seen as bratty or spoiled, something men never have to worry about. That's how inequality works.

Coming off of The Hunger Games and two Oscar nominations, including a win in a year where she pretty much swept every single award, Lawrence could have been every bit as aggressive as Renner, but consciously chose not to. And the filmmakers knew she was going to be a major draw for the film, seeing as her character, though only a supporting role, was featured front and center in the first few clips of the film they released to advertise it.

So she definitely could have brokered a better deal for herself. But Adams is the one whose story in this should be what people are talking about. Alas, she isn't as famous and she didn't choose to write an essay that went viral, so there you go.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Sal42 9 years ago

A really quick reply because I am about to go out.

Consider that the negotiating attitude of a 22 year old is going to be very different from a 41 year old, regardless of gender. Add to that the fact that Renner was toughened up by a good 10 years of living in poverty and often going without food or basic amenities. I doubt the 22 year old Renner was a ruthless negotiator or had the confidence to say pay me or do without.

It strikes me that Amy Adams is just an absolutely lovely woman and maybe easily taken advantage of. There must be some steel in there to do so well in this business, but maybe she doesn't prioritize money. Hopefully the people working for her will step up.

"We're the victims of a foul disease called social prejudice...be a proud, glorified dreg like me"

reply

[–] SandyMac1912 9 years ago

I think a key point has been missed. Renner was originally attached for the Cooper role. Cooper, Bale and Renner played a round robin with the three roles as schedules changed. Even when Renner was set for the mayor, the original script portrayed the part as much larger - equal to Bale and Cooper. This remained the case throughout shooting. It was only in the editing room that Russell's love for Cooper came up with an entirely different feel for the movie (to its detriment). Renner, as he has said, did not negotiate his contract. His team of agents and managers got him the deal he had based on what he was worth to the decision makers, i.e., producers.

Just as importantly, Laurence' role (after being recast as a 20 something from a middle-aged housewife (quel surprise) was to be little more than a walk on. When her schedule opened up, she was able to shoot for a couple more days and Russell enlarged her role. Her character originally (and in my opinion ultimately) had little to do with the plot. Forcing her role to the front disintegrated what should have been a very tight balance between these colliding characters and the actual logistics of the scandal.

NO ONE saw this as a role that could get an AA nod. And NO ONE thought the nomination was more than a fluke and that she would win. Laurence was compensated more than adequately based on the expectations during contract negotiations.

However, I stand solidly behind her overall point and respect her courage in speaking up. I wish the media and those with a axe to grind against "libbers" would concentrate on the part of her statement that said she took/takes full responsibility for what she got and will take full responsibility in the future.

BTW, Cooper's smarmy statement of support was BS.

P.S. Sal please check out the Paper Dragons' message board.

EDIT: taking a better look, I see Sal made the same points about Rennner's history with the project. Sorry.

reply

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

NO ONE saw this as a role that could get an AA nod. And NO ONE thought the nomination was more than a fluke and that she would win.

Point mostly taken on the rest of your post, but this statement is just completley false on all levels. Oscar buzz for her in this part began almost immediately and she was always one of the frontrunners.

reply

[–] SandyMac1912 9 years ago

Really? I truly thought differently.

reply

[–] jmrex 9 years ago

Nobody male or female in any industry is paid based on what they deserve. You get paid based on what the market will bear. Period. End of story.

Hey, JLaw...will you do this movie for this pile of cash? Yes? Great. See you there.

Hey, Bradley...will you do this movie for thus pile of cash? No? How about this bigger pile? Yes? Great. See you there.

Now, honestly, must they go back to JLAW and give her more money or else there's been a great injustice?

Get a clue. Or shoot yourself. Up to you.

reply

[–] Arvin-G-Borkar 9 years ago

It's not even about the actress, it is about what the producers want to give and that is mostly depended upon by experience. Jennifer is a novice and always will be until she gets to Cooper's and Bale's ages'. She clearly does not understand how the industry works. If she wants to be paid more, she should get a better agent.

She did not complain when she starred in the first Hunger Games and was paid $500,000. When she was called back for the 2nd movie, she was paid $10 mill. That is a HUGE jump within a span of two movies. We do not hear about complaining about that! It is just for publicity.

Reminder: The O.C. comes back on POP network March 8th at 1 p.m. EST

reply