Sienna Miller offered HALF a male co-star...- Page 2

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 9/14/15 at 2:06am

I'm biased because I've never found her to be a terribly remarkable actress. However, less than half is a pretty dramatic difference for a two person play. Because the ad is in my sidebar... I would understand if Nina Arianda was upset to be getting paid less than half of what Sam Rockwell was. But if the show was going to sell almost entirely on the name of the other actor... like a Bradley Cooper or Hugh Jackman, then he deserved the big salary.

[imeldasturn]

Posted: 9/14/15 at 4:03am

I think that sexism is a big problem in theater and in basically every other working place, but here it all depends on who is the male co-star. I mean, if he's Hugh Jackman or someone like that is more than comprehensible that they won't pay the relatively unknown Sienna the same salary. I mean, I don't think she got the same money of Bradley Cooper for that awful "American Sniper"

[The Other One]

Posted: 9/14/15 at 6:36am

Which half?

 

Seriously, you'd need to know more before you blamed this on sexism.  Rex Harrison was famously embittered when he was paid a fraction of Audrey Hepburn's salary when they shot "My Fair Lady", too.  The bigger star gets more money.  Always has.  Always will.

 

And Sienna really isn't the reason anyone goes to see a play or film.  

Updated On: 9/14/15 at 06:36 AM

[PatrickDennis92]

Posted: 9/14/15 at 8:24am

I don't know, of course, but I suspect it wasn't someone as famous as Bradley Cooper; I base that on the fact that she didn't take the job. I think if it had been a major star, she would have done it. My guess is that it was either a much lesser "star" or someone perhaps with a development or other proprietary interest in the project. Sometimes when a project is built around a particular performer, their salary is higher than what comes from just "an offer"-- from the sound of it, Sienna was offered a part, and didn't work on developing the piece herself. That said, it definitely could have been just good old fashioned sexism, but I can't imagine that being the full story. Like others have mentioned, her name isn't really valuable in selling tickets. It's far more likely that a) she didn't really want to do it that much, and b) there was some reason other than being male that her co star had a higher salary.

[JayG 2]

Posted: 9/14/15 at 8:54am

If this was a two character play, like she says, and it is clearly not a musical -- then the other half of the cast MUST have been a much bigger name. No producer is going to bank in a Sienna Miller with an equally no-name co-star to rake in $176.00 for a ticket to a drama on Broadway.

PS Do we even definitely know if this unsubstantiated story is true? 

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 9/14/15 at 9:37am

Hopefully some man will make a statement with the real story!

[indytallguy]

Posted: 9/14/15 at 11:07am

SweetLips said: "What's the point of blocking someone then unblocking to see what they wrote---or did I get that wrong.I never know what that Roxy is on about or actually ON !"

If you're in a thread and are tying to figure out what post people are referencing, you might have to unblock someone in order to see it? You'd need the blocked post to provide context for the subsequent replies.

[macnyc]

Posted: 9/14/15 at 11:25am

This has to be one of the best subject lines in the history of BWW!

[PatrickDennis92]

Posted: 9/14/15 at 12:08pm

There definitely is gender-based salary inequality in entertainment. But the problem isn't really the theatre producers (I think)-- it's a much bigger problem. Theatre producers just want to make a buck, so they'll basically only offer people what their box office value will bear, based on many factors and some guesswork. Hugh Jackman gets paid more than Julia Roberts for theatre. Is this fair? Maybe? I don't know really, because it's where the guesswork comes in. I'd say they both deserve to paid as if their name alone will sell all the tickets. The bigger the star, the more they'd get. I think Oprah could command much more than Tom Cruise for a Broadway turn, because she's a bigger star. I think Bill Clinton could command more than Oprah. But that isn't really what we're talking about-- Sienna Miller augments a persons interest in a show, she's nice to have, and if she does a good job, maybe it changes the economics in her favor, and in time, she could be a star in her own right. But she doesn't sell tickets. It would be a breach of fiduciary responsibly for producers to pay her more than fairly-- if another capable actress (who also doesn't sell tickets) will do it and be great for the salary offered, it wouldn't make sense for them to increase the offer. 

[hork]

Posted: 9/14/15 at 12:15pm

Whatever amount of money they offered her, it was too much.

[haterobics]

Posted: 9/14/15 at 1:57pm

PatrickDennis92 said: "Hugh Jackman gets paid more than Julia Roberts for theatre. Is this fair?"

 

Absolutely, if they are basing it on ability to sell full and premium-priced tickets.

[eperkins]

Posted: 9/14/15 at 3:34pm

How would she know what the other actor's salary was? That's not usually made public.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 9/14/15 at 3:35pm

^ I was thinking the same thing. How did she find that out/why would they tell her?

[HogansHero]

Posted: 9/14/15 at 4:02pm

neonlightsxo said: "^ I was thinking the same thing. How did she find that out/why would they tell her? "

There are very few secrets. At the simplest level, she (or her agent) could have spoken to him (or his agent). And since this stuff will always become clear once there is an offering, few people feel any great need to keep things under wraps. Another approach would be to demand a most favored nation clause, in which case not getting it tells you there is a disparity and then you start digging. As others have discussed. the real problem with all this is that Miller is not Julia Roberts and so the lack of equal pay demands that we ask whether the other person is a bigger star. 

[FBay]

Posted: 9/14/15 at 7:50pm

American Sniper was actually a good film . Not excellent but good .

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/14/15 at 8:20pm

That's hilarious. 

[trpguyy]

Posted: 9/14/15 at 9:00pm

In my experience, people tend to keep pretty tight-lipped about their salaries, unless it's to bitch to their friends about how little they're being paid. It seems extremely odd to me that an actor being offered a role would be made aware of a potential co-worker's salary. 

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 9/14/15 at 9:34pm

I'm shocked, I say.  Shocked! 

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/14/15 at 9:37pm

Didn't she already have at least half a co-star once and didn't that cause all sortsa trouble?

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 9/14/15 at 10:43pm

"The bigger star gets more money.  Always has.  Always will."

 

Untrue. One of the biggest reveals of the Sony email hack was that Jennifer Lawrence and Amy Adams were paid less than their male co-stars in American Hustle, and both are bigger stars than Bradley Cooper and Jeremy Renner.

 

The bigger star gets more money within their gender. If someone can find a more recent example than My Fair Lady, where the woman is paid more than man in the case of stars of comparable fame and box office success, I'd be surprised.

Updated On: 9/15/15 at 10:43 PM

[PatrickDennis92]

Posted: 9/15/15 at 12:11am

It's not fair, and we know that there's wage inequality between gender. It's well-documented. However, that problem is bigger than one show, or one person, or a group of producers, etc. I don't think there's a person alive who wakes up in the morning thinking that today's the day they'll really get those actresses good by offering them half, muahahaha. Theatre is a tough, tough, stupidly risky business. You can't blame producers for only paying what they consider reasonable, not in terms of what the performers' personal worth is, but what their perceived value is to the show. If someone decided they wanted to level the playing field, pay everyone what they are worth, and not conform to the unfair societal and industry norms, they'd start by firing all the stagehands who are grossly overpaid, incredibly sexist, and open those jobs up to others at reasonable salaries. Then they'd allow anyone who wanted to audition be seen, whether they're in AEA or not, and then they, yes, they could insist on paying men and women equally for equal work. And the list goes on. There are a lot of things about the entertainment (and specially theatre) industry that are unfair. But considering how hard it is to get anything up, who wants to try and make a stand about equal pay in an industry full of unfair wage inequality?

[The Other One]

Posted: 9/15/15 at 7:07am

Orange Skittles, I am fairly sure that Julia Roberts received a lot more money for Three Days of Rain than Bradley Cooper and Paul Rudd.  I would also say that by the time they made American Hustle, Bradley was a much bigger box-office star than Jennifer Lawrence, having been a part of the Hangover franchise.  Jennifer had not won her Oscar when American Hustle went into production, and her own Hunger Games franchise had not yet become the established success it became.  Plus, she is a supporting player in American Hustle, and he is the lead.

 

Amy Adams having been paid so much less is indicative of disparity on first look, but she is more of a supporting player than a leading star.  She has supporting roles in nearly every one of her hits.  She is wonderful, and a multi-Oscar nominee, but it's been a while since she's been the main star and the movies in which she has been (Big Eyes and Trouble With the Curve, i.e.) have not been hits.

A more accurate barometer of sexism in the payroll could be determined by how people who did not have the track record of big box-office success or failure behind them are paid.  Well-respected players who aren't stars -- Michael Shannon and Sarah Paulson, say.  

 

Sienna, in any case, has been in two recent film hits (American Sniper and Foxcatcher) whose success she did not have that much to do with.  They did more for her than she for them.  And the minute she began performing in Cabaret it was back on TDF.  I am not a producer, but if I were I would not see her as a top box-office draw.

Updated On: 9/15/15 at 07:07 AM

[WayTooBroadway]

Posted: 9/15/15 at 3:51pm

It was LOVE LETTERS.

[NYC4Life]

Posted: 9/15/15 at 4:14pm

Unfortunately the problem isn't helped by people who automatically want to turn on her for speaking out about something she thinks wasn't fair. People do this about race, gender and sexuality all the time. 

She feels wronged, she spoke out about it, and didn't even call out people's names. Why is everyone so quick to jump on her and say she is wrong? 

The majority of time people don't just make up that they feet discriminated against. It's really become popular to says someone is "pulling a card" . When in actuality they are talking about their feelings. Instead of having a discussion and getting to the bottom of it people get defensive. 

In her defense she has the right to say she didn't do a two person play because of the money difference even if they brought Sir Larry Olivier back from the dead. It is her choice and she has the right to state that that's why she didn't do it . 

[haterobics]

Posted: 9/15/15 at 4:23pm

NYC4Life said: "In her defense she has the right to say she didn't do a two person play because of the money difference..."

 

And why doesn't everyone else have the right to form an opinion based on that information?