broadway salaries- Page 4

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/13/12 at 12:02am

I don't remember hearing that Zero Mostel or Julie Harris ever got rich off of starring on Broadway.

Actually...they did.

Star actors like that have always commanded a set salary against a percentage of the gross. Tallulah Bankhead was famous for demanding 10 percent of the gross.

Ethel Merman probably got the richest. She was a shrewd businesswoman and throughout the 1940s, she commanded 8 percent of the weekly gross--less than Bankhead, but she made more money because her shows were more successful.

Beginning with Annie Get Your Gun, she got 10 percent.

On Call Me Madam, she negotiated DOWN to 8 percent, but in exchange for that, she owned an even more astonishing 10 percent of the entire property, earning royalties whenever the show was performed, no matter who was appearing as the Hostess with the Mostess.

On Gypsy, she negotiated a deal whereby she received 5 percent of the weekly gross until the investors were paid off, after which it went up to 7 percent. In addition, David Merrick agreed to have the production pay for her room (a furnished apartment at the Park Lane Hotel) and board (and Ethel could eat a lot of board).

Updated On: 6/21/12 at 12:02 AM

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 6/13/12 at 7:33am

Interesting statistics, Pal Joey. I seem to remember at the time that Merman was in GYPSY, Variety reported that she was getting a salary of $5,000 per week. Is there any truth to that as far as you know? Might that have been as a guarantee against 5% of the gross? $5,000 was a lot of money back in 1959.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/13/12 at 7:48am

I think the $5,000 was her guarantee against the 5 or 7 percent.

[MTVMANN]

Posted: 6/13/12 at 9:33am

I can't wait until I make this much!!!

[jayinchelsea]

Posted: 6/13/12 at 11:07am

Very interesting, I've always wondered about Broadway salaries.

But this thread is basically 7 years old! Any new info? For example, what kind of money did Hugh jackman earn for his one-man show? Or the starry cast of THE BEST MAN? Or someone like Christian Borle in PETER? Does he get a raise because he won a Tony this week?

[random person 112]

Posted: 6/13/12 at 11:13am

^He does the raise would be in the 500-1,000 range.

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 6/13/12 at 12:40pm

absolutely fabulous - My wife knew Robert Cuccioli in HS and we saw him in "Jekyll & Hyde" and went out to dinner with him and another one of their HS friends after the show. Anyway, my wife's other friend was pretty close with Mr. Cuccioli and later on that evening told us he was making $10,000 a week for that role and that was in 1997.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 6/13/12 at 3:07pm

Just a minor correction, PalJoey: in your paragraph on Ethel Merman and CALL ME MADAM above, I believe you meant Merman got her royalty "no matter who was appearing as Sally (Adams)."

I only remember the character's name because the chorus sings it about 20 times during scene changes.

[Blactor]

Posted: 6/14/12 at 1:32am

Raul Esparza told me he made $10, 000 a week for "Speed the Plow."

I said "are you SERIOUS?"

His response:

"Yep. Even more for musicals."

[defyinggravity2]

Posted: 6/14/12 at 8:04am

I remember watching one of Jackie Hoffman's video blogs for the THE ADDAMS FAMILY, and in one them she showed her paycheck on camera. I believe it was $247.00 or something like that.

[singtopher]

Posted: 6/14/12 at 8:14am

^Maybe $2470.00? I could see Hoffman being paid that much. Even after taxes and agent/manager's fees an off-broadway gig pays more than $247.

In reference to Hugh Jackman, I understand that for A STEADY RAIN he and Daniel Craig were getting 10% box office cut on top of their regular salaries (whatever they were). To my recollection that show always pulled in at least $1M each week, so each of them were taking home $100K+ each week. I would assume Hugh had something similar for his show back in the fall.

[RainbowJude]

Posted: 6/16/12 at 11:56pm

toodramatic wrote: But... would (WICKED have been a success) without Kristen and Idina?

Isn't WICKED pretty much actor proof? Despite their respective contributions to the show, the salary numbers that have been reported for them in this thread seem insanely high. The show seems to work no matter who is in it and in spite of its mediocre book and complacent score.

best12bars wrote: It just seems like it's gotten crazy-out-of-hand to me.

Looking through what's been said about star salaries on this thread and their obvious relationship with running costs and ticket prices, you can say that again.

toodramatic wrote: I agree, Broadway needs to return to the days of art and buisness going hand in hand... not one or the other.

Amen. That said, I'd still prefer a show that shoots for artistic integrity over on that shoots for the almighty dollar.

[SondheimFan5]

Posted: 6/17/12 at 12:35am

Remember - this thread is from '05 when Wicked was only a year old! Now it has proved itself to be star-proof. (Notice how there haven't been any star Madame Morribles or Wizards for a few years because the show does not need it, no matter how good the star might be).

[RainbowJude]

Posted: 6/20/12 at 10:58pm

I know that this thread started earlier in WICKED's lifespan, but I think it was actor-proof pretty much from the start. It's the lowest common denominator appeal that WICKED spends most of its craft, such as it is, attaining that sells the show.

[binau]

Posted: 6/20/12 at 11:10pm

I feel that it might be a bit of hindsight bias to suggest that it was 'actor-proof from the start'...any show mounted without stars seems to be a bit risky. I think that early on the producers of WICKED valued strongly their stars considering they had three above the title, their apparent high salaries and that they even sent one of them to open the production in London. I personally don't think they were overpaid.

[DEClarke]

Posted: 6/21/12 at 2:58pm

$1322-$1422 a week is not bad at all, assuming you work all 52 weeks (or close to it) of the year.

At $1322 a week for 52 weeks, that's $68,744, which is more than I make as a special education teacher in one of the highest paid school districts in the state of Texas. So, that's not too shabby at all!

[ksbergslien]

Posted: 6/21/12 at 3:18pm

no, it's not bad at all. but you do have to consider the cost of living in the city.
i'd think it's probably cheaper, even with the commute, from where I live in central Jersey.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/21/12 at 3:48pm

assuming you work all 52 weeks (or close to it) of the year.

And, as has been said before, in story and song, THEY DON'T.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 6/21/12 at 5:13pm

.. and, at bare minimum, 13% of that salary before taxes disappears as agent fees and working dues to the union. Then you deduct the federal, state and city income taxes..

[dtzumbrunnen]

Posted: 6/21/12 at 5:48pm

And don't forget that 68k in Texas is very different in NYC. If you made that in Austin, TX and moved to Queens, you'd need to make $114K to live a comparable life. $135K in Brooklyn and $168K in Manhattan.

Having just made the move from Florida to Manhattan this is a topic I feel all too familiar with!

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 6/21/12 at 5:48pm

And, as has been said before, in story and song, THEY DON'T.

Exactly, joey. This is precisely the problem with the American public education system: people getting their teaching licenses without studying APPLAUSE and A CHORUS LINE!

(Sorry, Mr. Clarke, I couldn't resist. I'm not seriously questioning your ability.)

[bobs3]

Posted: 6/21/12 at 7:28pm

Gertrude Lawrence's contracts for LADY IN THE DARK and THE KING AND I are cataloged in the Lincoln Center Library. In addition to a weekly salary she got 10% of the profits from each show for a certain number of years (no matter who played the lead roles).

Mary Martin's husband, Richard Halliday, was one of the Broadway producers of THE SOUND OF THE MUSIC. When 20th Century Fox bought the film rights the Halliday's got a percentage of the the film profits. In the 1970s Mary Martin told either Mike Douglas or Merv Griffin (I always get the two men confused) that she had made upwards of $8 million from the film profits -- compared to Julie Andrews who got $250,000 and no points.

[DEClarke]

Posted: 6/21/12 at 11:11pm

No... no offense taken.

I know that they often don't get 52 weeks of work, but I must say, actors get more money than I thought they did. I wish they were better paid as I value artists more than the pay they are getting.

Also, I know how much different cost of living is. I'm just honestly surprised. I always figured the stars got good pay, but that the average would have been lower.

[PReeves2]

Posted: 6/22/12 at 12:11am

has anyone looked at the broadway minimum lately, it's 1704/week or something close to that. compare that to the cost of living in NYC as apposed to living in Texas.