Gillian A. offered half David D. salary

As I'm calibrating my expectations for the new miniseries, I ran across an interview Gillian Anderson gave recently. (HuffPo, though I saw it on i09), She states that when FOX initially approached her RE: the new series, they offered her half of what David D. was. I consider them co-stars, and 50-50 members of the series. David D has done Californication and Aquarius post-X files, but Gillian has done The Fall, a slew of BBC stuff, as well as Hannibal, which I haven't seen.

Thoughts…


Comments

  • Frakkin TFrakkin T Currently Offline
    No surprises there..that's patriarchy for you
    Dee
  • Apparently this is a huge problem throughout all of Hollywood. I've seen several stories on this recently. Not surprising, but still depressing.
    Frakkin TElisa
  • Between this and the Oscars debacle Hollywood is looking pretty bad right now. When Wall Street and Corporate America are more progressive than you then you know you got problems...
    ElisaryanfosterDaveyMac
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    Yeah, that's the hilarious thing, Hollywood is so collectively liberal but where the rubber meets the road they're as regressive, if not more so, than any of the worst companies out there.

    If you consider the history of the X-Files, where Duchovny forced an expensive and pointless move to LA then abandoned the show, where as Anderson carried the show on her shoulders for a season,its a real slap in the face.
    ElisaHatorianDaveyMacunreadTravis
  • LukeLuke Central Illinois
    But didn't David D. go on to at least have somewhat of a career in Hollywood?

    I know he has been in movies, and had another somewhat successful TV show. I don't remember ever seeing Gillian A. in anything post x files.

    That probably has more to do with it than "patriarchy". Egalitarianism doesn't mean everyone makes the same wage, it means everyone makes a fair wage without regards to race or sex.

    What I'm saying is that contracts are all about negotiation and clearly David D had way more bargaining power. Or do people really belive that some old white man really just have him more money because he is a man?

    My experience as an accountant tells me management of any corporation, and I doubt Hollywood is any different, would see you working as a slave if they could get away with it. They are not in the business of handing out more money to men just to serve some political point.
  • Luke, that makes no sense.
    First, Anderson made less money even as they were shooting the first run. You know, when Anderson was being voted sexiest woman alive and inspiring haircuts, etc.
    Second, Duchovny's later hollywood career wasn't that great (and certainly couldn't explain why the difference before that), and Anderson specifically decided to take time off after the x files to live in London and do theater, so I wouldn't take that as a sign of demand.

    Finally, even if you think the first two points are without merit, there is no question that, right now, Anderson is the more in demand actor. Duchovny's only other recent job is a summer mini-series. Anderson was in Hannibal, is in the Fall,  is in the production of War and Peace, and has a BBC movie coming up, all while being in the broadway production of a streetcar named desire.
    ElisaDaveyMac
  • LukeLuke Central Illinois
    GA always could have held out for more money, and maybe she would have got it. Or maybe she actually loves the character and just took whatever the budget of the show could handle.

    I know David D didn't care much for x files and always saw himself as above it, which is why he left to pursue a movie career. He would be the harder actor to get back, and money is probably the only thing that would work.

    All I'm saying is that logically it makes sense he would hold out for more money, he did leave the show in its original run.
  • She did hold out for more money. They ended up making the same amount for this new run. Doesn't change the fact that they tried to lowball her this time around. That is, people are taking issue that even in one of the few productions where the male and female leads have equal standing in the story,  hollywood still tries to lowball the female and not the male.

    And not many female actors can hold out like Anderson did. Not only are there fewer parts for women, there are fewer lead parts for women of Anderson's age. Maggie Gyllenhaal has notoriously mentioned how she lost a part because at 37 she was too old to play the girlfriend of a 55 year old male protagonist.  So it's like @A_Ron_Hubbard said. Collectively, hollywood is very liberal, but when it comes time to put pen to paper and come up with a contract, they try to profit off of the inequality they love to denounce. So what happened is not that the director heads were "offer Anderson less money for the sake of the patriarchy," but that they were "she is almost 50, I bet we can get her cheap." In this case, it didn't work because she has been active as hell (and courageous also, because it takes guts to denounce the producers shortly before the premiere).
    Frakkin TElisaDaveyMacunreadpavlovsbell
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    Luke said:

    Egalitarianism doesn't mean everyone makes the same wage, it means everyone makes a fair wage without regards to race or sex.

    What I'm saying is that contracts are all about negotiation and clearly David D had way more bargaining power. Or do people really belive that some old white man really just have him more money because he is a man? 

    That's what we're saying.  Unless you're arguing that Dana Scully was a less integral part of the X-Files, or her character was less interesting or vital to the continuing saga, this is kind of the patriarchy defined.  A male lead has a more successful career because he has more opportunities because 90+% of all lead roles go to men.  And this fact is used to justify underpaying the female lead.  It's like a snake eating it's own tail.  Millennium!  
    DaveyMacunreadpavlovsbell
  • Garthgou81Garthgou81 Placerville, CA
    edited January 2016
    Anderson was far and above the better actor of the two. I think they realized this as time went on because they gave her more story to work with. Duchovny pretty much slept through much of the series. He had moments, for sure, but Anderson really hit home runs when needed. So the idea that she was any less than half-of-the chemistry is completely asinine.
    Dee
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    A lot of people say that, but I just think it's because Duchovny has heavy lids.  He just looks sleepy.
  • Yeah, I'm kinda torn on this. If producers think GA will take, say, $1M, but DD won't do it for less than $2M, I'm not sure it's unreasonable for them to initially offer $1M and $2M, respectively. Star power and talent don't necessarily matter. Or sex. This is a business, where they want to maximize profit.

    Good on GA for demanding and receiving more.


  • Garthgou81Garthgou81 Placerville, CA

    A lot of people say that, but I just think it's because Duchovny has heavy lids.  He just looks sleepy.

    :-D Oh I get that. Its never particularly bothered me, but when stuff like this comes out, it upsets me since Anderson was so consistently great.
    A_Ron_Hubbard
Sign In or Register to comment.