| re: Completely removing gender from the conversation is irresponsible | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 12:05 am EST 02/28/21 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 11:46 pm EST 02/27/21 | |
| In reply to: Completely removing gender from the conversation is irresponsible - Singapore/Fling 06:58 pm EST 02/27/21 | |
|
|
|
| I of course acknowledge again that there is a problem with paying women less, in all industries including this one. I don't think you can just therefor say that any time a woman is being paid less than a man that it is *because* she is a woman. You can never take gender entirely out of it, but I think this Miller/Daniels example is not a strong one for this cause... i think given the nature and challenges of the roles in the play, that this is a better argument for actor pay being based on heft and importance of the role, not the name power of the actor. But acknowledging that in almost all cases of commercial theater and film, it is not based that way, I don't think it's especially fair to point to this as an example of women being paid less for equal work... in entertainment MANY people, of all genders, routinely get paid less for the same work or job because fairly or unfairly how we get paid is not dictated by the work we are currently doing. I wasn't saying that today if it were being produced that actors at Daniels' level at the time and Miller's level at the time would be approached and offered equal pay -- I'd love if that were the way the industry worked, but it hasn't been and I doubt it will be any time soon. I'm saying an offer to someone at Miller's level (at the time) wouldn't have happened, because of the risk of how it would look. I don't think producers now would say "they are both the leads, we have to pay them equally" because it is both not feasible or responsible as producers attempting to turn a profit for their investors, and it doesn't make sense since Daniels' pay was based in large part on his presumed box office power and Millers presumably was as well. So I don't see them saying that. I do see them today saying "we have to find two stars worth paying star salary who will make this a high priced hot ticket, or a star (the male role or the female role, but in this case they seemed committed to Daniels since the off-bway run) who will work for less so we can pay them both an equal salary, or two stars both willing to work for higher than normal but lower than star rate so we can maybe afford to produce this successfully." I do think it's *possible* that producers would approach the bigger star (Daniels) to take less so his co-star and equal *in the play* could make the same amount, since there's no basis for offering both the same star-salary when both are not stars... and it's *possible* the bigger name would agree, though I find it also less believable they'd be ok taking less pay but still being the majority of heft in the box office drawing, they'd presumably want an actor of their level (draw-wise) to do it with them at equal pay. But I can only guess, I have no actual idea what Daniels or the producers would do, or who would be offered the play were it produced now (frankly I hated the play so I hope it isn't done on broadway again). Hell, what do I know... maybe producers WOULD offer a Miller-level actor the Daniels-level pay, with no consideration to their value at the box office. Seems unlikely but maybe! But if Blackbird were about an older man and a younger man, and the younger man were cast as someone with less of a name, less fame, less years as a famous and respected actor, less reason to think their involvement would move the needle on ticket sales... I do believe that actor would be offered what Miller was. I can't comment on all situations, I'm talking about this one. Personally I think the scam of how "non-profit" theaters pay actors and writers is a much bigger issue than that Sienna Miller, a notably lesser box office draw than Jeff Daniels was offered half of what Jeff Daniels was to do a play on Broadway. I don't mean this to stand as an example of women being paid less than men, and I don't think it's a good or fair example of that. Maybe I'm ignorant, I'm open to that too. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | Completely removing gender from the conversation is irresponsible - Singapore/Fling 06:58 pm EST 02/27/21 |
| Next: | re: Completely removing gender from the conversation is irresponsible - Michael_Portantiere 09:38 pm EST 02/27/21 |
| Thread: | |
Time to render: 0.010079 seconds.