Michelle Williams Didnt Deserve Equal Pay to Mark Wahlberg. She Deserved More.

There are actually people who think Michelle Williams didnt deserve to be paid as much as Mark Wahlberg.

Let that sit in your brain for a while.

Any rah-rah spirit that might have been buzzing following Sunday nights rousing, crusading Golden Globes telecast was, if not completely crushed by an anvil, then certainly bruised days later when one of the more egregious cases of gender pay inequityat least ones that have been made publiccame to light.

Actually, strike that. Maybe it wasnt a quell to the momentum, but a rage-fueled turbo boost, with yet another egregious injustice to bolster its caseespecially when you survey the ridiculous, offensive, and retrograde misogynistic reaction. In other words, exactly the attitude and accepted norms that Times Up is rallying against.

On Tuesday night, it was reported that the four-time Oscar-nominated actress was paid $80 per day, totaling less than $1,000, for her work on now-infamous reshoots that took place over the Thanksgiving holiday for Ridley Scotts All the Money in the World. The impetus, as is by now old news, was to reshoot all of Kevin Spaceys scenes as tycoon J. Paul Getty with substitute actor Christopher Plummer, following Spaceys essential banishing from the industry due to allegations of gross sexual misconduct.

Williamss salary is commensurate with comments she made after agreeing to the reshoots, that shed forego any pay in order to get the thing done: I said Id be wherever they needed me, whenever they needed me. And they could have my salary, they could have my holiday, whatever they wanted. Because I appreciated so much that they were making this massive effort.

Its also commensurate with Scotts assertion that all the actors participated in the reshoots for free.

The salary gap is shocking in that it is such a perfect representation of Hollywoods systemic sexism and devaluing of women.

The grenade of fury that detonated Tuesday night came, however, after a USA Today report revealed that Wahlberg, who had a supporting role in the film, did not work for freeor even the scale pay that Williams received. No, he earned $1.5 million for a brief reshoot. In other words, Williams was paid less than 1 percent the salary of her male co-star.

(For what its worth, the report confirms numbers that actress Jessica Chastain hinted at in a tweet the day before.)

The salary gap is shocking in that it is such a perfect representation of Hollywoods systemic sexism and devaluing of women.

Gender pay disparity is hardly an industry secretespecially after leaked emails during the Sony hack uncovered by The Daily Beast made Jennifer Lawrence a famous face of the issuewhich is why Jezebels Hazel Cills suggested that if Hollywoods actors really wanted to be allies, rather than wearing black in solidarity to the Globes this past weekend they don jumpsuits painted with their inflated salaries for blockbusters their female co-stars were paid significantly less for.

But what makes the Williams situation so powerful is that she is Michelle Williams, a two-decade veteran of the industry with four Oscar nominations under her belt. This is a very famous person. This is a very good actress. So good, in fact, that she was nominated for Best Actress at the Globes for her All the Money in the World performance. She is the lead, by leaps and bounds, of the film. It wouldnt work if she wasnt such a dynamo in it.

Mark Wahlberg is fine in his role, but unremarkable enough that he could be replaced by any of Hollywoods competent white dudes and you wouldnt notice. Ive seen the film in its entirety and still, every time the trailer is on TV, think, Oh yeah, Marky Marks in this.

So lets restart that sentence: What makes the Williams situation so powerful is that she is Michelle Williams, and that guy earned 1,500 times more than her for less competent work, in a film he has less responsibility in. And peopleindustry people, agent people, assholes on the internetthink thats fine.

Folks, Michelle Williams didnt just deserve equal pay to Mark Wahlberg for her work in All the Money in the World. She deserved more.

We did the internet equivalent of bashing our head into a wall and then dunking it in a salt bath by perusing the comments on USA Todays tweet announcing the salary disparity, as well as a few others.

Without validating the trolls by directly quoting, they argue that perhaps Williams is a bad negotiator so this is her fault. (More on that later.) They argue that Wahlberg is worth more to a film, because he has box office appeal and she does not. (More on that later.) They argue that maybe Wahlbergs character shared more scenes with Plummer, and therefore had more heavy lifting to do during the reshoots. (Well address that one right now: Two or three more scenes to shoot hardly justifies $1.4 million in extra pay. But, you know, Ive never been a math person.)

On the topic that Williams may have failed to negotiate a higher quote, or that she got the money she literally asked for when she volunteered to do the reshoots for free: Thats not how pay equity works, folks. Its fair and equal compensation for fair and equal work.

But thats not even the thing that will rip your head right off your neck and spin it like a Harlem Globetrotter.

Williams and Wahlberg are both repped by the same agency, WME. This isnt a case of deals done in secret with non-communicative agencies. Agencies are supposed to protect their clients, and they failed Williams.

Actors and their agents should leverage whatever they can and choose, and that is the one reason to not completely drag Wahlberg through burning coals warmed inside of Satans asshole. Williams may have thought it honorable to forego the complication of salary demands in order to devise a quick turnaround to rescue a movie from the sins of a sexual predator. Wahlberg clearly thought it an opportunity to leverage those sins for a buck. WME should have seen that the fruits of that, disgusting as it may be, return to Williams as well.

(For what its worth, Williams hasnt commented on what she did or did not know about the salary gap, but her best friend and confidante Busy Philipps, who was with Williams at the Golden Globes, has been tweeting steadily in outrage over the news of the disparity.)

But as to the point of Wahlbergs box office appeal warranting a higher salary in a project with obvious interest in making money, recouping investment, and maximizing profit: Yes, he is a box office draw. He has a proven track record opening films, has multiple blockbuster franchises under his belt, and has an impressive $70 million average gross across his films.

There is worth in that. But all worth, especially in the movie business, is not equal. Things like an actors likability, buzz, pedigree, talent (DUH!), and awards track record matter. Its to that latter end that Williamss worth in this case exceeds Wahlbergs, objectively.

It was never a secret that All the Money in the World was gunning for the Oscars. Its unfathomably quick turnarounda summer shoot into a December release, just in time for awards votingtelegraphed that, as did the heroic effort to reshoot Spaceys scenes to still meet those awards deadlines.

Because it bears repeating: Michelle Williams is a four-time Oscar nominee. She has five Golden Globe nominations and one win. She has six Indie Spirit nominations on top of that, also with one win. When Michelle Williams is cast in a film, it rocket launches to the top of the list of serious awards contenders, merely because of her presence. That is crucial at a time when voters are flooded with films to consider, and choose to screen the ones that they think are truly viable and worthy contenders. She toplines All the Money in the Worlds awards cachet.

And for those awards All the Money in the World so transparently wants, Sony explicitly campaigned Williams in the lead category and Wahlberg in supporting for their respective performances. Shouldnt it be outlandish for an employee doing more work to be paid less than the part-timer? In Hollywood, it never has been.

Its not just Williams. As culture critic Mark Harris said in a tweet Tuesday night, There are examples of pay disparity between actors and actresses in some of the biggest movies of recent years that would absolutely floor people.

E! News host Catt Sadler is still having to defend herself for leaving the network after it was revealed that her male co-host Jason Kennedy was earning double her salary for the same work. After several actresses publicly supported Sadler at the Globes, the network released a statement saying there is misinformation about Sadlers salary. Our employees salaries are based on their roles and their expertise, regardless of gender, the statement said, arguing that Kennedys work in primetime and on the red carpet differed from Sadlers role.

But Sadler fought back Wednesday, saying that she and Kennedy are apples to apples comparisons: We came to the network at the same time and did similar jobs.

This whole pay gap debate is like a Russian nesting doll carved out of rotten fruit, with each new layer more putrid than the one before. That the disparities in compensation between men and women doing equal work (or in the case of Williams, a woman doing more work) are as monstrous as they are is the first whiff: Double!? 1,500 percent!? But the upchuck comes when the reflex is to justify it: typically mansplained rationalizing of the nonsensical into an excused norm.

More From this publisher : HERE ; This post was curated using : TrendingTraffic

    Recommended Products

Tags: Thanksgiving rip Trolls industry actress

Related Post "Michelle Williams Didnt Deserve Equal Pay to Mark Wahlberg. She Deserved More."

Trump Asks Hows Your 401(k)? But Most Voters Dont Have One
President Source: GAO analysis of 2012 data
Black writer nearly shot by police while shopping for conditioner
Despite reports regularly detailing how police target,
Comedy actress Bella Emberg dies
"She really was a one-off."In an interview