Wrote the actress Jennifer Lawrence, trying to analyze why she hasn't received what seems to be comparable pay with male stars. She seems to admit that she doesn't drive a hard bargain...
“I failed as a negotiator because I gave up early,” she wrote. “I didn’t want to keep fighting over millions of dollars that, frankly, due to two franchises, I don’t need.”... but she attributes her bad deal-making to the effect of the overall culture on women, the desire to be likable and not too demanding. You have to read through to the subtext here. Obviously, Jennifer Lawrence doesn't personally negotiate her deals. She's speaking as if she does to create pressure that her agents will use as they drive deals. Presumably, studios don't want the little people in the dark thinking of them as discriminating against women, and they may be willing to throw some money into that PR, even when they have the option of choosing another actress — a younger, prettier actress who'll do what you do and more and for even less, which is how you got your roles in the first place, remember?
AND: What about the invisible problem of male actors who never even get started because old, familiar actors keep getting the parts?
पोस्ट्स
४४ टिप्पण्या:
Ok, you don't need the millions because you already have millions. That says something, doesn't it, about the effect of our society on women?
Younger, prettier actresses sound great to me. Wealthier women are a billion a dozen.
She failed as a negotiator, and put a period after that. I think you've worked out her strategy, Althouse. Whine a lot about how unfair the whole thing is to women, and expect (not merely hope!) that it gets you a few extra millions in the next deal. But as you point out there's always someone younger, prettier, and willing to bare her breasts (I like the way you phrased it "do what you do and more") to get a smaller amount than Jennifer wants per picture, and that limits what her agents can do for her.
Fostering a society that fears offense is a necessary precursor to the bloodless imposition of totalitarian rule.
BTW, recently added to Netflix is a funny exploration of political correctness on a college campus, "Dear White People." It's written and directed by a Black graduate of Dartmouth. You will enjoy it!
Studios pay actors, male and female, what they have to in relation to how big an audience they draw. If Lawrence puts more butts in the seats than another actress she will get paid more; if she's not as big a draw as some male actor she'll get paid less than he will. I'm guessing her agents know this.
Presumably, the compensation reflects market demand for the product and earned revenue. Assuming equal extrinsic value, perhaps it's not her skill or work, but rather her celebrity or popular status that determines her compensation a la affirmative action, class diversity, planned parenthood, etc.
The NPR Sunday show had an interview with an Iranian doctor who was a half Jew ( from his Mother )but playing as a Muslim (from his Father) that finally dared to assist pregnant single women.
You have no idea what fear is until you walk a mile in his shoes. In their cultural identity Muslim men ARE completed terrorists.
Awwww.....
Poor baby.
It worked well for Kim Bassinger to do her own negotiating.
Big Mike said...
She failed as a negotiator, and put a period after that.
So now you're blaming it on PMS?
"What about the invisible problem"
You're so sweet to bring up men's problems, but you do realize they are beside the point, right? Can't interrupt the interminable whine that feminism has become.
"I’m over trying to find the ‘adorable’ way to state my opinion and still be likable. Fuck that."
Don't worry. I bet there's a ton of roles for "unlikeable bitchy cunt" in Hollywood.
Your ENTIRE image was that you were "normal" and not like the regular Hollywood starlet. Throw that away at your own risk.
...besides, the best thing you were involved in was the leaking of your nudes.
“I failed as a negotiator because I gave up early,” she wrote. “I didn’t want to keep fighting over millions of dollars that, frankly, due to two franchises, I don’t need.” ... but she attributes her bad deal-making to the effect of the overall culture on women, the desire to be likable and not too demanding.
Nothing says "equality" like whining that, somehow, it's men's fault she has bad agents.
Keep in mind, there is no more Progressive group than Hollywood. And feminists find them not feminist enough.
Maybe the problem is the feminists...
Presumably, studios don't want the little people in the dark thinking of them as discriminating against women
Given a choice of a few million and an actress who can be replaced easily's hurt feelings, they'll take the money. And then blacklist the actress.
She's 25 now, and she's got it all going for her. But beauty fades, and it fades sooner for women; that's a fact of life. So drive those hard bargains while you still can. Time, your time, is slip-sliding away. You know that, right?
Consider the career of Sean Young. A cautionary tale. Sad.
"I’m over trying to find the ‘adorable’ way to state my opinion and still be likable. Fuck that."
Don't worry. I bet there's a ton of roles for "unlikeable bitchy cunt" in Hollywood.
She's suddenly acting like she doesn't know her own brand. I guess "sweet, goofy, Kentucky-girl-next-door" couldn't last forever in Hollywood, but does the half-life need to get shorter every year?
I always respected another girl-next-door superstar for getting out of the Hollywood cesspool—Sandra Bullock. Maybe J. Law needs to move back home for a while and regain some perspective.
Maybe she doesn't "get" as much because she isn't worth as much.
An actor or actress is a commodity that is used to draw the public to purchase tickets and watch the movie. Some commodities/actors/actresses have more appeal and therefore are worth more. The movie makers are in business to make money, not to sooth the feelings of second rate commodities.
Just wait until she is, like Germaine Greer, is an "old woman"
Life is hard.
So very hard to find even a tiny bit of sympathy here! Let's see:
1) No one will pay you one penny more than they think they have to. So you're either not worth more, or you didn't ask for enough.
2) JLaw has had to work through managers and agents her entire career. Perhaps she has had to take less to get some parts and build her brand in the long run, or perhaps she with her agents' help made some bad calls and failed to get a few extra million that she could have if she'd held out for more money. But if she actually accepted too low an offer simply because she hates confrontation and didn't want to come across unpleasant (to a studio exec! Ha ha ha!) then that's on her and her alone.
3) Nice try blaming sexism. Your self-imposed sexism. But in a world where jobs are hard to come by for millions of struggling actors, it's hard to care much about whether you get $15 million or $25 million on your next movie deal.
I'm not entirely unsympathetic to Jenny Larry. She's talented, and is a money-maker (The Hunger Games.) and should be paid on par with her male counterparts in ensemble pieces (American Hustle was an ensemble piece, as no one particular actor 'carried' the film)
She's getting some bad advice, though. Her draw has always been her goofy, regular-gal-ness, and she's sabotaging a bit of that.
The talks about having 2 franchises, but I highly doubt many people show up at X-Men movies solely for Mystique.
From the article:
[Sharon] Stone currently executive produces drama series Agent X, in which she also stars as the US Vice President, who discovers a secret paragraph in the constitution concerning the hire of a special agent to handle cases too sensitive for the CIA or FBI.
I must have seen the trailer for “Agent X” nearly a dozen times in the past week when I’ve watched shows On Demand and I did not recognize Sharon Stone at all. I don’t think it’s going to be a successful show going up against a ratings juggernaut like The Walking Dead or a much better-publicized show like Into the Badlands and it seems like a pretty generic TNT show but without the hype of The Last Ship or the heart of The Librarians.
"I'm not as good at negotiating as others and it's the fault of society." Sorry about that. To do my part to help should I send a check to you directly, or is there some other system you prefer?
Hey, ah, maybe this is a conversation you should be having with your agent/representatives, no? Like "look people, either you negotiate to get me as much money as my male costar or I'll pass on the movie and find a new agent!" How does societal sexism make that impossible?
I mean, if you're talking about nonstars I think you might have a point, but star vs. star, it really shouldn't--if you can demonstrate that you're worth $X as a box-office draw and you can't negotiate for the same portion of that draw that your male costars can...it really seems like that's on you, no?
I really like her, but if you want to see her do some bad acting, watch Serena. She's with Bradley Cooper and she's awful. The movie went straight to video.
Two things,
1) She should take issue with her agent - after all, isn't that part of the agent's job, to negotiate on her behalf? If they didn't get you a good deal, fire them and find another.
2) How come heavyweight boxers fighting for a title are paid differently - no matter who wins?
I imagine Jennifer Lawrence is in fact a fairly effective negotiator. She had a fairly small part in American Hustle, relative to the other leads who got paid more.
She wasn't in the summer bomb Bradley Cooper movie Aloha, with the supporting part she might have gotten going to Emma Stone, nor did she get Burnt. But she will be acting with Bradley again in the Miracle Mop movie Joy which is slated to open Christmas Day, where she plays the title character, entrepreneur Joy Mangano of Home Shopping Network fame.
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2 will be out in time for Thanksgiving. Can she leverage that into another movie franchise? Unlike a lot of actresses of her generation, she has been a true lead actress straight out of the gate with Winter's Bone.
After the first Hunger Games movie, she (the actress) was absolutely crucial to the entire series, which everyone could see was going to rake in the money. If she was not able to parlay that into a ginormous paycheck, how is that Bradley Cooper's fault? Maybe she just needs a better agent.
Why demand an explanation from your agents, when it's more profitable to shame people into increasing your compensation.
More money for what? She can be replaced with three Fleshlights and a Bluetooth speaker.
She is one of the very few reliably bankable stars in Hollywood right now - and that should be worth big $$ now - but she is relatively new to that status. Although she and Cooper have been in a few of the same films, he's 40 and has been acting in legit movies and TV for 15 years. She's 25 with 8 years of real experience.
"Could there still be a lingering habit of trying to express our opinions in a certain way that doesn’t ‘offend’ or ‘scare’ men?"
"I’m over trying to find the ‘adorable’ way to state my opinion and still be likable. Fuck that."
Cry me a river.
Get back to me when women begin to be hounded from office and position for making an innocent statement that is attacked by their political foes.
Could there still be a lingering habit of trying to express our opinions in a certain way that doesn’t ‘offend’ or ‘scare’ men?"
Yes. As the only woman, besides the admin, in my group at work, I have been told that I "ruffle feathers" in getting things done. I am pretty sure if I were a man, I would not be getting that feedback.
This is just battle prep. Feel sorry for the vagina - vote for the vagina.
@The Gold Digger
Or maybe it's your style? Maybe you need to make adjustments to communicate effectively with male colleagues?
I have noticed, in SOME cases, that there are women in the workplace who will initially stay silent and keep their opinions to themselves for quite a while, until suddenly they can't take the [perceived] stupidity any more, and then all of their thoughts come pouring out in a less than helpful manner.
There have been studies done re: negotiating that are taught in reputable biz schools (UCB and Columbia U) that show that there are two factors involved in negotiating - the hard skills and the soft perception. Women scored just as highly on the hard skills, however in the soft skills (likability) that do influence outcome over time, the sweet spot for women was MUCH MORE NARROW than for men between total asshole/too aggressive and pushoever/too soft. If they veered outside the sweet spot, they were judged unlikable and people might deal with them once, but from then on would not. Men meanwhile had a much larger range to work with. Ironically, men were given a softball to hit v the women's hardball.
This could also be seen as a work/life balance thing. IMO, she's actually right about not scrounging for every penny when you already have so much, but then women are hurt overall.
Unknown said...
...however in the soft skills (likability) that do influence outcome over time, the sweet spot for women was MUCH MORE NARROW than for men between total asshole/too aggressive and pushoever/too soft.
Maybe the sweet spot only appears narrow because they are trying to cram SECTIONS OF ALL CAPS through it.
Just a thought.
@IgnoranceisBliss
Screenname checks out.
I am rather blissful.
In the market for labor the only things that matter are skills and scarcity.
""Could there still be a lingering habit of trying to express our opinions in a certain way that doesn’t ‘offend’ or ‘scare’ men?"
"I’m over trying to find the ‘adorable’ way to state my opinion and still be likable. Fuck that."
If there is still such a lingering habit, its not the fault of men. Its the fault of people who engage in the behavior.
And note how she is eddging this close to triggered language. What about mens feelings? If we are "offended" we have to run to our safe spaces, does she not care about that? She's saying she will say things despite the fact that it offends men? Well then, allow us the same courtesy and don't run off into your safe rooms and scream chauvinism when we call you a cunt. or at the very least say we disagree with some bullshit feminists statistic you pulled from your ass.
We never asked you to treat us with kids gloves, and many women do not in fact do so. The whole premise of feminism is that men are the oppressors and the enemy. That is offensive language and whole curriculums are built on that. We, as men, can take it because we are stronger than you.
However, we do ask that if you are going to drop the goody two shoes act, you allow us the same latitude.
By the way, there's this at the bottom of the article:
"Forbes recently ranked Lawrence the highest-paid female actor of 2015. She made headlines in June for negotiating a higher salary than Chris Pratt, her co-star in the upcoming blockbuster Passengers. Pratt will earn $12m for the film, while Lawrence will make $20m upfront or 30% of the film’s profits."
So wait, she's earning 8 million more than her male counterpart? Should't they really be asking chris pratt why he's making so much less money than his female counterpart?
And the article was actually about Sharon Stone, not earning enough money in her movies. Checking her net worth its about 55 million dollars. She was paid quite well to be in movies, thanks.
Complete bullshit. Jennifer Lawrence is out earning almost everyone in Hollywood. Sandra Bullock earned more in 2014 due to Gravity. Robert Downey Jr. had them all beat, but look at how much money he made Disney. He was, as they say, worth every penny.
Outside of the Hunger Games movies, how much has Lawrence made the financial backers?
As for Sharon Stone; she wasn't bad in her early stuff, but picked really shitty movies and wasn't beyond average in them. In other words, she's a gamble and Hollywood doesn't like gambles.
(In short, Sandra Bullock usually rises above the material, Jennifer Lawrence and especially Sharon Stone don't. That Lawrence makes as much as she does is because when the material is good, she shines.
Keanu Reeves is a fascinating case study. Terrible actor outside a very narrow range of roles, but by all accounts is a joy to work with. He shows up on time, knows his lines, doesn't complain and is genuinely nice to everyone. That goes a long way.)
She's possibly the worst vehicle imaginable to communicate this message given that she's way out on the edge of the bell curve, as far as compensation is concerned. But I do think that more attention should be paid, in public discourse, to the impact of cultural attitudes towards negotiation. In a whole host of areas, it's possible that observed racial discrepancies (and gender discrepancies) have to do less with racist or sexist institutions, than with differing negotiation cultures. Some of the biggest ticket items in one's financial history are determined not through fixed price arrangements but through negotiations, whether it's salary negotiations, mortgage negotiations, or car negotiations. Promotions at work too, and career advancement.
If, culturally, one is disposed to be less aggressive in these negotiations, or come to these negotiations less prepared (e.g. by having done price research or comparison shopping beforehand), then one is going to get a less advantageous result than one otherwise might have done. And since race is a partial proxy for culture, that's going to show up looking like racial disparities, but attacking the institutions as "racist" isn't going to do much to overcome those disparities. The institution/organisation/company could pursue an identical negotiation strategy in every single case, but if the individual on the other end of the negotiation has a different attitude or approach to negotiation (or just a different bottom line), the outcome is necessarily going to be different.
If Ms. Lawrence negotiated her own deals, rather than involving professional agents and lawyers, she has an idiot for a client.
If she got worse deals than possible through her representatives it is because they failed her, and it is not the world's fault they did not push for maximum payment to their client.
I don't get it. She has an agent, right? The agent is the bad cop, she's the good cop who smiles at everyone and signs the contract.
A more likely explanation: her first big role was Winter's Bone in 2010. In 2011 she appeared in X-Men; Hunger Games was 2012. So she was negotiating for big money roles on the strength of one really great performance as a broke Ozarks girl whose father is a meth cook -- not a big money maker. She had no leverage, and she wisely settled for half a loaf.
"But as you point out there's always someone younger, prettier, and willing to bare her breasts (I like the way you phrased it "do what you do and more") to get a smaller amount than Jennifer wants per picture, and that limits what her agents can do for her."
Wrong.
There are always many many someone's younger etc which is why J. Lawrence is trying different bargaining techniques, including creating buzz among people who have no idea what she is up against from her perspective because buzz is buzz and usable, and the people she is bargaining with could include Woody Allen doppelgangers born female she ^*%%b ^*&%^^ without lube at Leatherfest 2013 while Nakoula Basseley Nakoula filmed, as a scarce-therefore-worthy Brand people have been and are willing to pay to see in the eye's of creditors.
Humble-bragging you failed as a negotiator while creating for yourself more value and deepening goodwill because you don't "need" the extra millions because of two healthy income streams, in public, isn't celebrated by people you are negotiating against, herself personally of course through human beings that she hires and has hired, which is a personal negotiation of her personnel that exceeds words as actions tend to do, and as these choices infer. Frequently she will be in communication with these people, and had likely negotiated mutually-beneficial partnership deals with them in what one assumes was assumed will be eventually logged as a another example of success of near unimaginable proportions to most people far away from wealth, and created on a cult of personality self-made in aspects, but of course using great decision making in the company kept not excluding luck.
Over a decade ago I listened to Jim Rome have all these people call in and devote their days trying to make King Rome approve somehow. The most common comment was ridicule of sports professionals, especially the dumb ones.
Casting pebbles, mostly on the, as Rome spoke of his industry's creations, built-up-mythical-heros-now-downtrodden-by-self-inflicted-wounds resulting from just being so stupid.
Everybody with half a brain wouldn't ever be so stupid if they could pitch or serve or cast or drive or cook or say "you're fired" or read news even, but these idiots with their damned talents and look at 'em, just look at 'em and shake your highheld head in disgust.
"Presumably, the compensation reflects market demand for the product and earned revenue. Assuming equal extrinsic value, perhaps it's not her skill or work, but rather her celebrity or popular status that determines her compensation a la affirmative action, class diversity, planned parenthood, etc."
Ouch, seems to me this is wrong on every count germane.
The compensation I am referring to received reflected expectations at the time the deal and or deals was/were reached, and at that time market demand related perspectives of each participant and their data's strong-influencers as well as weak, were very important considerations as they are now.
It seems apparent now Lawrence is demonstrating her perception of her market value is very high, compared to leading men as well as fellow women.
When your skill is getting paid by getting attention for getting attention in a market with unlimited supply and shapeshifting-if-ever-visible demand, whether confined within a self-gratifying definition of work or not, it is as valid as creating the airbag in an automobile or coding breakthrough* printable bacon or pissing on Christ using taxpayer money, in terms of compensation sought and created, regardless of the specific McGuffin/gold/fool's gold and more being the only thing "gained," excepting God as proves the rule.
So, this is completely different from affirmative action. The market creating value, even if a bubble or something foolish or when corrupted by some, and government codified racism by natural Jim Crow Democrats and their useful idiot's dim view of unfamiliar humankind, differ greatly.
*You see, it breaks the fast, and breaks through the printer, and breaks into the belly, and it ain't even done!
"Keanu Reeves is a fascinating case study. Terrible actor outside a very narrow range of roles, but by all accounts is a joy to work with. He shows up on time, knows his lines, doesn't complain and is genuinely nice to everyone. That goes a long way.)"
And most importantly, his movies make big profits. Whether those profits are attributable to him being in the movie, or if he's just lucky in the roles he picks, studios reward that. Same goes for Tom Cruise.
You could be the greatest actor in the world and widely respected by your peers and the general public, but if your movies don't earn, the studios simply won't pay you the big bucks. They are businesses, after all, and they have to answer to investors.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा