Worth every penny of half
The X-Files is back for a short run. Guess which star was offered half of what the other star was getting.
Hahaha just kidding, nobody can “guess” that because it’s stone-cold obvious. Carolyn Cox at The Mary Sue reports:
When I first saw this story last night, I assumed it had to be fake. Gillian Anderson was already notoriously offered far less than David Duchovny when the X-Files first premiered in 1993, and Anderson has rightfully not been shy about calling Fox out for that wage gap, and for some of the early requirements they had for her character, Dana Scully (that she constantly stand a few feet behind Mulder, for instance).
Oh really? She was supposed to stand back? Because what, the audience would think he’d been castrated if she took up as much space as he did? Because the audience would freak out and die if the woman were not visibly subordinated and made smaller and less important in every shot? Because women have to be seen as smaller and less important at all times no matter what?
But it happened again. Over two decades later. The Daily Beast writes,
The work Anderson put into securing equal pay back in the ’90s seemingly came undone when it came time to negotiate pay for this year’s event series. Once again, Anderson was being offered “half” of what they would pay Duchovny.
Anderson herself explained in an interview with The Daily Beast:
I’m surprised that more [interviewers] haven’t brought that up because it’s the truth. Especially in this climate of women talking about the reality of [unequal pay] in this business, I think it’s important that it gets heard and voiced. It was shocking to me, given all the work that I had done in the past to get us to be paid fairly. I worked really hard toward that and finally got somewhere with it.
Well that’s how it is. Women get somewhere and then the next year it’s all grabbed back again.
“In this day and age.” Some things never seem to change, and disregarding the value of the work that women do is right there at the top of the list. What a pitiful society that we live in.
This can’t be justified on reputational grounds either. Anderson is a widely respected performer on stage and screen, while Duchovny’s only other major role has been in his semi-autobiographical series Californication.
(If anyone here was thinking of watching that show, don’t bother — it’s awful. A perfect vehicle for Duchovny’s mediocre acting talents however.)
Well shit. I don’t even know what to write other than fuck the showrunners.
This could be settled very quickly were Duchovny to step forward and refuse to do the reunion unless Anderson is paid an equal wage.
All he has to say is that unless he and Anderson get paid the same salary, there won’t be any show.
I don’t understand how he could look himself in the mirror if he didn’t.
The producers of Friends tried this trick back in the 90s, though not for misogynistic reasons, when they attempted to pay the six characters different wages. But all six stuck together and insisted that if everyone wasn’t paid the same wage, the show would end.
The network folded.
John – that’s the strength of solidarity! If more men would respond in a similar way, rather than with petulant whining about “inherent differences” and “man haters”, the business world would find themselves in a spot if they didn’t treat women the same.
I should have included the fact that Anderson did demand and get equal pay. It’s just that it was staggeringly insulting that anyone tried to pay her half.
It would be nice if some reporter would actually track down the person(s) who made that offer and try to get them to justify it on the record. At a minimum, a little name and shame would be nice.
Imagine the pride swallowing to still work with the assholes who made the offer in the first place, even after getting a fair payout.
Screechy, exactly, preferably on video.
As others have opined, yeah, the thing about this one, especially, is: I think Anderson really is the stronger performer. Not that this is saying much. There’s a throwaway gag in a Futurama somewhere calling Duchovny an ‘acting robot’, and I figure that’s about right…
None of which, by the way, should be taken as complete dislike of the man. For all his issues, I always felt a bit of weird sympathy for him. By all accounts, he is quite bright, and could well have been rather accomplished… _outside_ the field of acting. I figure it’s the weird hazard of being tall and pretty and male: you get made the leading man frequently whether or _not_ you’re actually competent in the role everyone suddenly says you should have. Always kinda wonder if it’s one of the things screwing people like that up. That is to say: a lot of us get some imposter syndrome; it’s probably a mite worse when it’s not exactly baseless.
I’m cringing a bit at the whole thing either way, though. Good on Anderson absolutely for getting paid decently, but geez, another X-Files? The cringeworthiest part of it is, yes, Anderson the decent actor is going to play this role yet again which is really a pretty broad travesty of what scientific thinking actually is. I _did_ watch and occasionally like the show because it absolutely did a good spooooky on a good day, but let’s see: the ‘rationalist’ in the script is inevitably this person who discounts all the evidence even when it’s practically thrown in her face there are these aliens among us, finally comes to it almost like a religious conversion. Pretty much the worst mangling of the actual situation and a healthy scientific mindset you could imagine, pretty much straight from the fevered imaginings of the most dishonest and tormented of the anti-science crowd. In the real world, the evidence just isn’t quite so strong as the special effects department manages to pull off on the limited TV budget, and it’s quite reasonable to say: evidence insufficient, evidence excellent in places for actual fraud/wishful thinking/etc. So even watching it for the spooky, I felt almost guilty giving them _that_ much support, when the portrayal of scientific thinking is so mangled beyond recognition, and such a _friendly_ parody to those who’d love to say that’s the only reason their pet conspiracy isn’t believed. Sure, there are people who can ride along for the fun, but how many people who think of science as ‘dogma’ and never had a clue about process and epistemology and balance of evidence watch this and just get their worst misconceptions reinforced? And never even mind the dreadful manglings of the actual science, standard enough for prime time, I guess, but that much worse, it seems to me, in this context. ‘Time is a universal constant’? Erm… Not really. Not at all, even. But what the hell, I guess we’re just here for the moody shots of BC forests, anyway.
Oh. And I hadn’t heart that about the ‘a few paces behind, please’, stuff, even. Somehow, I’m not even surprised. How very mediaeval.
I watched the first episode last night, and have very mixed feelings. I wasn’t a huge fan of the original, but I liked it just enough to have a little bit of nostalgia for it. But while I’m ok with suspending my disbelief to accept that (in the context of the series) the paranormal is real, I found it very creepy that the reboot gives us a thinly disguised Glenn Beck character who is shown in a very positive light: he’s a true believer, not a money-hungry shill, and he’s uncovered a real conspiracy.
Maybe it’s just that, after a decade-plus of 9/11 Truthers, anti-vax conspiracy theorists, and global warming denialism, this kind of story just doesn’t seem like fun escapism any more.
Ya. I never saw it at the time, and after awhile of not watching it I read or heard Carl Sagan saying something about how frustrating it is that woo is so popular, so I felt wise for not having watched it.
There’s this ten year old British series called “afterlife” about a psychic, played by Lesley Sharp who plays Janet Scott on Scott & Bailey. It’s kind of like Sixth Sense (and probably much influenced by it) but way worse because it has her doing TERRIBLE things, which in the context of the show aren’t terrible because she really does see the dead people, so she’s Helping. Ugh. Just what people don’t need. Like, in the 2d episode, which I saw the other day, she tells parents their missing daughter is dead. Well that’s what a “psychic” did to the mother of one of the girls held by that monster in Cleveland – it’s a horrendous thing to do. The show is well done but that just makes it worse.
I should have included the fact that Anderson did demand and get equal pay. It’s just that it was staggeringly insulting that anyone tried to pay her half.
But it isn’t, it’s just business. Why pay her twice as much as you can get away with? They made an offer, she refused: business as usual. They would have been foolish not to negotiate.
Good point. And so all businesses should routinely try to get away with paying women half of what they pay men in comparable jobs. It’s just business.
They should and do try to pay as little as they can. We don’t know what Duchovny was offered first, but I am willing to bet that his agent negotiated it up just as Anderson’s agent did. That’s how it goes: multi- millionaire gets offered a few more millions to do a couple of week’s work on a silly TV show, her agent demands a more millions, she gets them, social media cries ‘Oh! the humanity!’.
Funny that their efforts to save money was entirely laid on one person’s contract, rather than an even split across both…
No they “should” not. It’s not a moral imperative to exploit people.
No they “should” not. It’s not a moral imperative to exploit people.
I am afraid it is a legal imperative if they are a public company which I assume they are. And it is odd to describe a multi-millionaire being paid millions more dollars for less than a year’s work as ‘exploited’.
Funny that their efforts to save money was entirely laid on one person’s contract, rather than an even split across both
I don’t know but I would bet the mortgage that Duchovny was also offered less to begin with but then his agent negotiated up, just like Anderson’s agent did. If you think the producers paid him a penny more than they thought they could get away with, I don’t think you can have much experience of business, and especially not show business.
Not nearly as odd as it is to say “They should and do try to pay as little as they can.” That amounts to saying slavery is a moral duty.
And you don’t know but you’re happy to make dogmatic pronouncements anyway. Yeesh.
Exactly. He has no idea how it came about, but is satisfied that a woman being offered half that of a man for the same job has no element of sexism. And hey, she’s rich anyway so who even cares!!
I often see statements like this that paraphrase US law. Perhaps someone can clarify. Does the law explicity state that the managers and directors of a public company MUST seek to pay staff and contractors the absolute minimum that they can; or does the law require managers and directors to act in the best interests of shareholders?
Its an important distinction. Sure, the lazy way to maximize profit in the short term is to lower costs and increase prices. However, that has also been shown to damage the goodwill shown to brands in the longer term, damages staff and customer relationships with the company and can long term actually result in a worse outcome for the shareholders.
Unless someone can demonstrate the former requirement I’m inclined to believe the law probably requires the latter. Believing and opting for the former says something about an individual. Just saying.
Good question. I’m under the impression that the obligation is to maximize shareholder profits, but now you mention it I’ve never investigated and verified that. I don’t think it is a matter of law, exactly – more a matter of contract? Which the law can enforce, but it isn’t itself the law? I’m not sure.
But we do frequently get told that corporations’ first obligation is to shareholders and they can’t do the right thing if it would cut profits.
Rob@22:
It’s the latter. (As with most legal discussions, I’m oversimplifying a bit. Corporate law varies from state to state, though there’s a fair degree of consistency on general principles.)
Yep. Officers and directors have very broad discretion to determine what is in the best interests of a corporation, under something called the “business judgment rule” that makes it very hard to successfully challenge a business decision unless it involves self-dealing or other forms of self-interest. That’s one of the reasons why corporations can donate funds to charity or, more controversially, to politicians or political causes.
Ophelia@23:
It is a matter of law, specifically corporations law. Every state has its own corporations code or other body of statutory law that governs entities incorporated in that state. There’s also a considerable body of case law interpreting that law, especially in states like Delaware that are popular choices for incorporation.
Some aspects of state corporations law can be varied by the corporation’s bylaws or articles of incorporation (so your reference to contracts isn’t far off), but some cannot.
When you start talking about the abstract question of whether officers and directors can consider interests other than the shareholders’, then it gets murky. You can find statements from courts rejecting that notion, and some supporting it, as abstract principles. For example, in shareholder litigation over whether a company should have accepted a takeover offer from a buyer who wants to shut down the factories and lay off a bunch of employees, some decisions seem to say that you can take those factors into account, some seem to say no, and others seem to say you can as long as it isn’t harmful to the shareholder interest (which seems like it’s tantamount to saying no).
But the abstract philosophical principle is pretty irrelevant because, as a practical matter, management gets the benefit of the doubt. For example, there’s a famous case from the early 20th century where the Dodge brothers (who were then shareholders) sued the Ford Motor Company because Henry Ford was refusing to pay out most of its profits as dividends, and wanted to reinvest them in expanding the company, which he seemed to justify on the grounds of public interest rather than benefit to shareholders. The Michigan Supreme Court sort of slapped Ford’s wrist and said he can’t run the corporation as a sort of humanitarian venture, and upheld the trial court’s order compelling the issuance of a partial dividend…. but went on to say that the court couldn’t say for sure that the expansion plans wouldn’t be in the best interests of the shareholders after all, and so declined to interfere with them.
Basically, for the reason Rob suggests, any lawsuit by a shareholder alleging that a production company failed some obligation to try to pay the female co-star less would go nowhere in a hurry, just like it would if someone tried to sue claiming that they failed to buy the cheapest food possible for craft services during production. And yes, like any legal principle, there are limits. Serving champagne and caviar for lunch every day might be egregious enough to support a claim. But paying a co-lead equally? I think the plaintiff would be more likely to be sanctioned for a frivolous lawsuit than to survive a motion to dismiss, let alone prevail.
Thank you. So informative!
Thanks Screechy. That clears that up.
Interesting. Can anyone imagine any situation where it would be in the interests of shareholders to pay an actor millions more for a job than the millions she would otherwise have accepted? How would paying this particular multi-millionaire even more millions improve the interests of the shareholders? Is the idea that performance improves with every extra million? Hard to complain about executive pay levels then.
And just an aside, I notice there has been no outrage at all the other actors who are being paid a minuscule fraction of what Duchovny and Anderson are getting, male and female. Should she not use her power to demand equal pay for all?
Pinkeen, your intentional obliviousness and straw arguments are getting really boring, but I’ll bite one last time.
Well, duh. Better to overpay one, both or either of the lead actors and make a shit ton of money for the corporation than have no product at all.
See above.
Of course not! Actors are not paid just for their acting ability (sometimes not even for…), they are paid for how much they are liked by the public in a role, how well they fit a role and, if they are doing a reprise of a famous role, their rarity. There is only one Mulder, only one Scully. That’s market forces in action right there!
Irrelevant comparison is irrelevant.
Please prove there has been no outrage ever, anywhere, that actors as a whole are poorly paid. I’ve certainly met struggling actors who have expressed outrage. Market forces sadly. Lots of actors, few roles, even less production money which is all concentrated in a few productions. Hence an actor lucky enough to ‘make it’ has market power and is paid a ridiculous amount, vs those who don’t. There have certainly been media articles and comments on those articles critical of the ludicrous amounts of money paid to actors, business leaders and others who are paid stupid sums of money, not for what they do or know, but because they can demand it.
How do you know she doesn’t? Even if she did her main weapon, other than speaking out (which incidentally she clearly has since we’re having this conversation), is to withhold her labour. Not much leverage to apply especially between competing companies.
Pinkeen @27:
You must have a pretty weak imagination. Off the top of my head:
1. In any negotiation, attempting to lowball someone risks them walking away. Attempting to lowball someone because of her gender is taking a substantial risk of screwing up this entire project.
2. Negative publicity. This X-Files series is getting more attention for this fuck-up than for how excited the fans are, how good the story is, etc. There is such a thing as bad publicity.
3. Motivation. You need your actors to be motivated, not only on set and in their preparation, but in promotional activities. Even when the contract obligates an actor to engage in promotional activity, there’s usually plenty of room for interpretation: will your actors just do minimal efforts, e.g. one talk show and one print interview? Or will they get out there and go on every talk show, multiple magazines interviews with photo shoots? Will they give the usual dull celebrity interview, or be genuinely enthusiastic about how much they loved the project? Ditto for post-production activities. When you want to re-cut a bit of dialogue, will the actors say “sure, happy to help, when do you want me in the studio,” or “screw you, that isn’t in my contract”?
That’s off the top of my head. And note that these are all downsides to even attempting to underpay this actress, whereas the upside of potentially saving “millions” only comes through if she falls for it, so you’ve got to factor in the likelihood of success.
And I’m not even getting into the issue that you haven’t addressed, which is: if it’s just about doing one’s duty to the shareholders, then why is it always the female lead who they try to shortchange?
Well, duh. Better to overpay one, both or either of the lead actors and make a shit ton of money for the corporation than have no product at all.
Yes, but you and Screechy both overlooked the key part of the sentence: ‘more… than she would otherwise have accepted’. When would it be in the interest of shareholders to pay that? It is a surprise that people don’t realise that wage negotiations happen routinely in every business. If the producers had offered the final agree fee as their starting point, guess what Anderson’s agent would have don.
And I’m not even getting into the issue that you haven’t addressed, which is: if it’s just about doing one’s duty to the shareholders, then why is it always the female lead who they try to shortchange?
I find it very hard to think of someone being paid millions of dollars for a few weeks’ work as being ‘shortchanged’, but perhaps we have different life experiences. Surely it is all the other actors getting equity minimum that are being shortchanged and for whom Anderson should have exercised her righteous fury? Bear in mind that she got paid the same as Duchovny. She just had to have her agent negotiate.
Pinkeen:
Considering you were the one lecturing us all on corporate duties when you didn’t know what you were talking about, take your condescension and stuff it.
And fuck your smugness too. I’m done with you.
#27
David Duchovny, according to your own logic.
Recall that you said it was entirely reasonable to offer millionaire Gillan Anderson the initial amount, which happened to be half that of the offer of David Duchovny, who is also a millionaire. If that offer was justified for her, why not for him?
#28
I cannot muster the charity required to interpret this comparison as anything other than intentionally facetious. Each TV or movie production has its own budget, and thus each must apportion pay to the staff out of a potentially wildly different fund. So long as the pay is consistent within each project, there is no unfairness you smug prat.