Richard Linklater addresses Julie Delpy's comments on Before Sunrise pay disparity
Aux Features Richard Linklater
It wasn’t much of a surprise recently when actress and filmmaker Julie Delpy revealed she was paid “maybe a tenth” of what Ethan Hawke was for 1995's beloved Before Sunrise, a two-hander that spawned one of film’s most unlikely franchises (Before Sunset and Before Midnight are just as good). Not only is gender pay disparity an ongoing problem in the industry—heavyweights like Michelle Williams and Claire Foy are still dealing with it—but, in 1995, Hawke was an A-lister while Delpy was just breaking into the U.S. industry, and, well, business is business. “Maybe a tenth,” though? That’s bullshit no matter how you spin it, especially considering the weight of her role.
But it’s that kind of context that director Richard Linklater discusses in his response to Delpy’s comments, but not before addressing that “gender pay inequality is a huge issue in our society and every employer and lawmaker should be doing everything they possibly can to correct flagrant examples of discrimination that should have been resolved a generation or two ago.”
In the case of Before Sunrise, though, Linklater notes that, with a total budget of $2.7 million, no one was getting paid much of anything. “Salaries are negotiated by agents behind the scenes on behalf of their clients, and Ethan Hawke did get paid a little more than Julie Delpy on the first two of these films,” he says. “No one involved in the productions considered this an injustice in 1994 because Julie was just getting established in the U.S. while Ethan was one of the biggest stars in his age range, getting offered seemingly every project in the industry.”
In her interview, Delpy says she wouldn’t have done Before Midnight if she wasn’t paid the same rate as her co-star. Linklater, however, says that “it was obvious that everyone should be paid the same” by that point. “I don’t remember it even being an issue—it was just something we three agreed upon, with no conflict or theatrics. I don’t doubt that Julie was determined to receive equal pay for Before Midnight, I just want to be clear that she did not have to negotiate or demand it and that she was never offered anything less.”
Linklater adds that while there’s no doubt industry compensation is an issue in the world of low-budget indies like Before Sunrise, “the most glaring examples” exist in the realm of big-budget projects. “[I]t’s up to everyone to do everything they can to demand transparency and this long-overdue equality at whatever level they find themselves.”
Read his full statement below.
Make no mistake, gender pay inequality is a huge issue in our society and every employer and lawmaker should be doing everything they possibly can to correct flagrant examples of discrimination that should have been resolved a generation or two ago. I’d be surprised if the Before Trilogy will end up qualifying as an example of this in our particular industry though. First off, these films we’ve been so lucky to even get made fall squarely in the indie/low-budget/labor-of-love category. The first two were budgeted at 2.7 million—nobody was getting paid much at all! Salaries are negotiated by agents behind the scenes on behalf of their clients, and Ethan Hawke did get paid a little more than Julie Delpy on the first two of these films. No one involved in the productions considered this an injustice in 1994 because Julie was just getting established in the U.S. while Ethan was one of the biggest stars in his age range, getting offered seemingly every project in the industry. It’s likely the trilogy would not exist if Ethan didn’t choose to come to Vienna that summer and work for a fraction of what he could have been making on another project. That’s Ethan—an artist, not a businessman, a guy who’s turned down millions many times over because he was following his artistic impulses rather than careerist or material ones. He’s made a career of this, time and time again coming aboard indie films for little to no money—it’s really admirable and a great example for performing artists who are serious about their art. There were similar dynamics on the first two films as far as pay goes, but, because our artistic partnership had developed to such a degree, by the time we were making a third, a full 18 years after the first, it was obvious that everyone should be paid the same (again, we’re not talking much money), regardless of industry status. I don’t remember it even being an issue—it was just something we three agreed upon, with no conflict or theatrics. I don’t doubt that Julie was determined to receive equal pay for Before Midnight, I just want to be clear that she did not have to negotiate or demand it and that she was never offered anything less.
How the industry compensates artists is always vulgar and not based on actual WORTH—we all know that. Life isn’t fair, and neither is Hollywood, but it seems that while the most glaring examples of gender pay inequality exist in the more commercial undertakings, it’s up to everyone to do everything they can to demand transparency and this long-overdue equality at whatever level they find themselves.
[via Indiewire]
153 Comments
On the subject of big budget films, I read somewhere that Frances McDormand said she got paid relatively better on the Transformers sequel she did than a lot of other things she has done. Michael Bay also does something to get a lot of people you wouldn’t expect on hid films it seems, apparently his films are a lot of fun on set.
Well, yeah, I’m sure that’s not a project she signed on to because it was a story that desperately needed to be told.
All those slow motion shots of her ass though.
I remember her joking that she did it because she wanted her son (who was 15ish at the time) to finally say something nice about one of her movies.
If the kid has nothing nice to say about her work with his dad and uncle, he deserves to be smacked!
You should probably go find him and sort him out.
Bay’s films are VERY YMMV, but outside of Megan Fox, most people seem to think he’s awesome in person.
I’d strongly recommend listening to the Andy Daly/Dark of the Moon episode of I Was There Too.
I haven’t met the guy but I did read his famously whiny response to a bad review of Transformers that made me think he was a big manbaby.
Hey I’m trying to find what you’re referring to, but all I can find is a Josh Horowitz interview where Bay says this regarding bad reviews:“They love to hate, and I don’t care; let them hate. They’re still going to see the movie! I think it’s good to get a little tension. Very good. … I used to get bothered by it, but I think it’s good to get the dialogue going. It makes me think, and it keeps me on my toes, so it’s good.”Seems reasonable to me.
Not that. It was printed in the newspaper I worked at at the time. Here’s a blogger recap https://craigbe.typepad.com/movieblog/2007/07/michael-bay-has.html
He always brings the brewskis.
Who are “most people”? I’ve worked on a few movies with him in post-production (and one movie in pre-production). And “awesome” is not the word I think any of us would use.
What? Bay has a reputation for being a screaming nightmare to work with. There are loads of stories of him being a dick to actors and crew. I unequivocally love the first 5 or so movies he made, but his reputation on set is up there with James Cameron as… shall we say forceful?
Reminds me of how apparently Samuel L Jackson really loves working with M Night. because he’s apparently a pretty good dude who’s always happy to consult with the actors and actively incorporate their feedback.
I still remember the end of an episode of Dennis Miller’s HBO show when the guest was William H. Macy, and Miller asked him what his next project was, and Macy said Jurassic Park 3. Miller smirked and said “Really?” – I can’t remember what film Macy was on the show to promote but it definitely was not a mainstream Hollywood box office type. Macy was unapologetic – he said “Hey, I make movies like that so that I can then make 2 or 3 movies like X.”, X being the low budget movie he was on the show to promote. I appreciated the honesty.
And also, why not? If you’re an actor, your job is to act. If you’re a barber, you’re unlikely to say, “I won’t do short back and sides, it just isn’t fulfilling enough for me.”
Also Jurassic Park III is great.Well, it’s good fun. And Macy’s great in it. He’s also one of the best parts of Mystery Men. I’m pleased he wasn’t snobby.
It’s pretty damn far from great, but it’s much better than that shitpile Lost World.
I can’t remember if it was Macy’s character of his wife’s (Tea Leoni?) but I *loved* the scene where they reveal to Grant that they brought him along because he had been on the island before, and Grant says “No, I was on the *other* island! You should have gotten Dr. Malcolm!” And Macy and his wife look at each other like “Oh, right. Whoops.”
That’s what I like about it. It’s a big B-movie that knows it’s place and has a sense of humour about itself. See also: the ringing Spinosaurus (It also managed to do it’s fair share of good set-pieces, such as the aviary scene)
Seriously. How did Miller expect Macy and his wife to be able to bribe their kids into a college they could brag about without those bigger paydays? That in-a-film-directed-by-David-Mamet level money isn’t gonna “improve” anyone’s SAT scores, ffs.
And there’s even more honesty like that of Michael Caine who doesn’t even justify it in terms of supporting Indy movies – the famous “the movie is terrible but the house it built is terrific!” quip.
Well sure because you don’t have to act
Well, it’s not like he was asking her to sprawl over the hood of a car in a cut-off shirt covered in spray tan and fake sweat.
I hate these movies!3 films into the franchise and the vampires still haven’t arrived!!! Once they got to the cemetary in Before Sunrise, I thought “Ok, here come the vampires!”WRONG!
You missed out on “Daybreakers,” I understand how it’s wildly different title and the sudden departure of Delpy might have been confusing, but it’s part of that canon
There were going to be female vampires and Linklater was like “Hell NO I’m not paying for female vampires! Bring me male vampires, let them be paid 10X as the female vampires and let’s make a movie!” But the studio shot it down. True story.
I occasionally think to myself how is there no vampire movie called Sunset Park (neighborhood in Brooklyn). Come on Robert Rodriguez it’s a primarily Latin American community and with old warehouses and stuff. Not that many good urban environment vampire movies out there these days.
Um, excuse me, there absolutely is a vampire move called Sunset Park. It’s about a vampire Rhea Perlman who, despite knowing nothing of basketball, coaches a lousy team of disadvantaged youths (Drano, Spaceman, Butter, Busy-Bee, and, of course, Shorty Doo-Wop) all the way to the city championship through the power of inspirational speeches and also converting them one by one after practices into the hungry dead.
I can see how that must have been frustrating. But there’s always the chance they’ll redeem themselves with a fourth, more vampire-focused movie.
Now I’m going to have to double-feature “Before Sunrise” and “After Dark.”
I just kept thinking, “When are they going to get to the fireworks factory?!?!”
Now I really want them to make one of these with vampires
Those first three are prequels! You’ve gotta be patient. But I have it on good authority that the vampires will appear in the latest installment: Be4: Dawning of the Vampires
They were going to put werewolves in the second one, then Julie realized, “been there, done that.”
I myself am agitating for the release of the Robert Rodriguez cut of Waking Life.
So what I get out of that is, he goes with the flow. When the trend is to not pay people with their worth, he goes with that. When the trend is to pay people what they are worth, he obliges.
Maybe try reading it again if thats what you got out of it. Because what he said was nothing like that.
You do realize he’s not in charge of the salary, right?
Sure, if you 100% ignored the content of the post itself.
Then what you got out of that was flat-out wrong. Maybe read it again and concentrate real hard.
So I watched Dunkirk, and what I got out of it was the British needed more F-15s.
I’m inclined to defend the creatives (directors, actors, writers) on all fronts when it comes to pay disparity. I doubt indie directors are out there greedily looking for ways to fuck over female talent. Talent agents are fucking slimeball assholes. They’re the ones negotiating pay. While they’re inclined to get the biggest contract they’re so far stuck up their asses with their button down blue dress shirts, they don’t realize women are something other than objectified barely sentient mush-holes. I mean, these guys are real fucking slime. It’s time the creatives in THE Industry took a hard look at the people they have cashing paychecks and cutting deals. I guess, in a way, I am blaming the creatives, but the system is so broken I don’t know where you’d start other than to start over.
Michelle Rodriguez and Claire Foy are not “heavyweights”. They are d list. Close to unknowns. And Delpy is even less known. None of those 3 deserved to be paid the same as their A-list co-stars.
Maybe try reading it again if that’s what you got out of it. It doesn’t mention Rodriguez.
Yeah between getting the wrong Michelle and thinking Claire Foy is D list, me thinks this is an opinion that can be ignored.
Correct. Michelle Williams, not Michelle Rodriguez. Both are d-list, my initial post got the last name wrong but everything else correct.
A Oscar winner/multiple nominee is d-list?
don’t bother
I see that now, thanks.
Yes. You can win an oscar and still be an unknown d-lister. They are actors that most people have not even heard of. They are nowhere near being famous. Not even tv show levels of fame.
Assuming that other people have the same limited knowledge as you is really stupid. All of the actresses you mentioned are B-List at worst. They’re not universally recognized names like Tom Cruise or Angelina Jolie, but they’re still well known and successful. Also, it’s hilarious that you say that Claire Foy doesn’t have TV level fame when she’s most known for a TV show, you dunce. Go troll elsewhere.
Oof.
“Not even tv show levels of fame”Is that why I see Claire Foy on so many billboards and ads for a TV show? Go away.
I think this is a guy who gets excited about Mark Wahlberg movies.
I feel like d-list in this instance means any woman who won’t sleep with him.
So all women everywhere are on the d-list. Or in this case the not D-list.
Just cos they’re not Beyonce, it doesn’t mean the other Destiny’s Child members are d-list.
Funny stuff.
But thats actually a good comparison. Beyonce is a superstar and the others are barely remembered. Similar to Hawke and Delpy.
…do you know their names off the top of your head?
The only one from their classic lineup that I haven’t alluded to was Kelly Rowland, so yeah?If it’s any consolation, I get the other Michelle Williams mixed up with Carey Mulligan all the time.
Fair play to ya! Say My Name is still my favorite thing Beyonce’s ever done, but I couldn’t tell you the other two’s names for the life of me!
I thought her performance in Fosse/Verdon was transcendent. She completely upstaged her co-star, fellow Oscar winner Sam Rockwell, and he was fantastic! She did her own dancing, completely nailed Verdon’s famous wavering voice, and … I’m going to stop because I know you have no idea what I’m talking about. Don’t worry, I’m sure there will be a Grown Ups 3 featuring A-listers Adam Sandler and Chris Rock. Hang in there.
You got everything else correct? Hardly. You seem to think Hawke is on the A-list.
Give him a break. Reading is, like, hard, y’know what I’m saying? There’s, like, so many words and stuff.
I’d argue Claire Foy had the same profile as the majority of the main cast of the Crown. Sure, Matt Smith had been on Doctor Who, but that’s hardly “A-List” even if it’s grown in popularity. Claire Foy had substantial recognition especially in England for Wolf Hall and Little Dorritt. They even had the same number of BAFTA nominations. It was an odd call to pay the defacto lead of the show with comparable credits less than a male co-star that appeared in fewer scenes.
So Matt Smith was just some guy for being Doctor Who on that little known obscure tv show, but Foy was a star for being in those legendary shows titled Wolf Hall and Little Dorritt in the UK? Got it!
That’s very much not what I said — Neither Matt Smith nor Claire Foy had a particularly high, mainstream profile. In terms of recognition, they had the literal same number of BAFTA nominations, roughly the same number of credits and Claire Foy had substantially more screen time on The Crown than Matt Smith did. John Lithgow making more money? Sure, that one I get. He has a substantially higher profile, a substantially larger body of work, and something closer to celebrity status. Doctor Who is popular in certain circles, but it hardly makes Matt Smith an A-Lister when compared with his co-stars and Claire Foy while more unknown in the US wasn’t not entirely unknown in the UK because of her appearance on SEVERAL shows. Matt Smith had also done far less work outside of Doctor Who making him potentially riskier from a production standpoint.
Matt Smith was the titular character of a very popular tv show in the UK. As a matter of fact, apart from David Tennant, no other actor appeared in more episodes of Doctor Who than Smith. Claire Foy wasn’t even close in name recognition to Smith in the UK at the beginning of The Crown and you make it sound, as if some obscure shows like Wolf Hall and Little Dorritt are anywhere near in popularity in the UK or elsewhere compared to Doctor Who. You can work your butt off on many shows, that alsone doesn’t make you a star and give you name recognition, being Doctor Who does, at least in the UK.
He had no greater international acclaim and Doctor Who is not the equivalent of being an “A-List” actor. The original poster said that Claire Foy is not an “A-List” actor. Doctor Who or not, Matt Smith was not an A-Lister. The closest to an A-Lister in the Crown was John Lithgow. From an industry standpoint, Claire Foy had about as much credibility as Matt Smith and was also the de facto star. From an acting standpoint, Matt Smith had far more to prove post-DW than Claire Foy did. Matt Smith was also coming off of two rather major bombs – Terminator Genysis, and Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, and had been off Doctor Who for over 2 years.
Jesus F. Christ – I never said that Smith was an A-lister, but he had much more name recognition than Foy, especially in the UK for a British tv show. In the industry, Smith used to be a somebody, while Foy was a nobody to a wider audience before The Crown. Spare me any more comments about the quantity of shows Foy had been in before The Crown. You don’t become a star in the movie business for being super busy.
Yeah, but you chose to ignore the ORIGINAL REASON I POSTED. I was replying to someone who said Claire Foy wasn’t an A-Lister. My WHOLE point was that neither was Matt Smith. From an industry perspective, if you compare them on paper when casting an international period piece, they had comparable profiles because internationally, Matt Smith’s success is only marginally larger. Matt Smith did not “used to be someone.” He was an actor with one hit TV show and one BAFTA nomination. Claire Foy had been on three hit miniseries and had one BAFTA nomination. Foy was not a nobody that no one had heard of. And again, original point was the suggestion that Matt Smith was an A-Lister and Claire Foy wasn’t. Neither of them were.
Depends on how you’re judging A-list. In the UK at least, Smith was a household name and Foy was not. In terms of prominence, one Doctor Who is worth a half-a-dozen Little Dorrits and several Wolf Halls. Also, Smith’s period as The Doctor was one where the show’s international profile shot up. It may never have gained particularly wide awareness in America, but America is not the whole picture.The metrics they use to judge an actor’s value are incredibly flawed, but they absolutely would’ve favoured Smith over Foy at the time, by some distance.
To pay him in excess of $200,000 more than her for a show where he had far less screen time (at least in season 1) is more than simply favoring him. The fact that they changed this moving forward also speaks to recognition that it was a mistake. But again to the original point — Matt Smith was not an A-List. Claire Foy was not an A-Lister. This was not a situation where you had like Claire Foy and Tom Cruise in terms of differing careers.
Screen time has nothing to do with it though. Their worth was being judged on how many eyeballs they were thought to bring to the show compared to how much money they were asking for. And despite your insistence that they had comparable careers, Smith was significantly more prominent. It’s not A-list or bust, there are many more gradations of fame for an actor.The fact that they changed it moving forward indicates only that the show was a success and Foy was being rewarded for her part in it and her increased prominence as a result of it. And John Lithgow by the way, great though he may be, is certainly not, nor has he ever been, A-list. Has he ever had a lead role outside of 3rd Rock From the Sun?
Matt Smith definitely wasn’t an A-Lister.He was, however, an established TV star who had a much, much, much broader footprint both in the UK and internationally than Foy…regardless of how good she was in Wolf Hall (and she was great!).Beyond that…Smith’s status as an established TV star almost certainly meant that he was comfortable asking for more money than Foy did, as this was absolutely her first “big break.”
Doctor Who averaged over 7.5m viewers per episode, in the UK, during Smith’s tenure.And, of course, Smith’s massively bigger footprint outside of the UK isn’t something that can be blithely passed over in a discussion of the relative salaries on a show produced by an American streaming company, for international audiences – Netflix couldn’t give less of a shit about their relative stature domestically, if one is far more well-known internationally.Do you think Saoirse Ronan got Margot Robbie money for Mary Queen of Scots? She’s got a hell of a lot more award nominations, after all.
Oscar nominations are known to push up salaries so I’m sure that she probably made parity with Margot Robbie. Ronan has multiple. I’m sure she leveraged that. But again the original post was that Claire Foy is not an A-lister. Neither was anyone else on The Crown saving perhaps John Lithgow in terms of salary demands. Matt Smith made about £15k per episode/£200,000 per series of Doctor Who. According to reports, Claire Foy made £200,000 less than him for the Crown and was making about $40k an episode. That’s a substantial pay-bump for someone who had 1 international show and significantly less screen time. I’m sure it’s down to Matt Smith having a more savvy agent and I don’t fault him for it. But it was an odd choice on the part of the producers for two actors who are not terribly well-known on an international scale.
In no way, shape, or form did Foy’s stints in Little Dorritt, Wolf Hall, or even Upstairs Downstairs amount to “comparable credits” to starring in 3+ seasons of the most consistently popular show on the BBC (and quite possibly the one with the most international reach, to boot).
I hope Michelle Rodriguez never meets you in person, because that will be the end of you. Deservedly so, for calling her a d-lister.
D list? The fuck? No. Do you watch movies even?
This is the dude cutting checks.
It happens. Lest we forget, Terrence Howard was the highest-paid actor in the original IRON MAN, not Robert Downey Jr.
Specifically, TH got $4.5 million upfront, whereas RDJ got $500,000 upfront (plus backend) – so TH made 9 times as much as the film’s star RDJ. There was no guarantee that any backend was to be had, but RDJ rolled the dice and won. (He eventually got $2.5 million, still less than TH overall.)
I assume it made financial sense at the time when you looked at their careers in that moment. RDJ or Delpy (or a thousand other actors over time who earned less than their co-stars) could have always said no.
You seem to be ignoring a fair bit of context regarding RDJ and where his career was when Iron Man came around…
Uh, i don’t think he’s ignoring it, I think that’s the whole point: The bigger star at the time, Howard, got paid more and it made sense then, and to look at it through 2019 goggles of course it seems weird.
Yep, and who knew who Julie Delpy was in the mid 90s?
But… that’s precisely the point. You get paid according to your career, not how good an actor you are or how big is your role.
He literally said “I assume it made financial sense at the time when you looked at their careers in that moment.”
Yeah, exactly, “assume” – someone who knows the ins and outs of the wages definitely knows why RDJ was paid less, but instead its omitted to justify Delpy’s low wages.
Just like how anyone “who knows the ins and outs of the wages definitely knows why” promising newcomer Delpy was paid far less than established movie star Ethan Hawke.
Which one is it – two actors should get paid the same for the same amount of work in a movie, or actor x is a much bigger star than actor y, so x should get compensated accordingly? Funny, how people (like you?) apply the former every time a woman’s salary is compared to a male actor’s salary but seamlessly switch to the latter, once a woman outearns a man, or, as in this case, both actors are men.
RDJ’s career was in the toilet at the time. I’d bet $500,000 that he wasn’t about to say no to $500,000 no matter what he had to do to get it.
And Julie Delpy’s international career was pretty much nonexistent when she made Before Sunrise.
Not sure of your point here. I get why Delpy was paid less than Hawke – he was a recognizable, bankable star in the US, and she wasn’t. Same reason RDJ got far less than Terrence Howard for Iron Man. Terrence’s career was blowing up in the few years previous to its release. Crash, Hustle & Flow, Ray, Oscar nominations, all of that. He was the more bankable star, so he got paid more.RDJ had a pretty damn good 2008, but he was doing Tim Allen movies called ‘The Shaggy Dog’ and taking supporting roles in movies starring Marc Ruffalo and Jake Gyllenhaal not too long before it. How times change.
I agree. I don’t consider it to be an injustice when someone who is a less bankable star and/or is a huge liability gets paid less than a co-star. Even if, in the case of IRON MAN (a character and role familiar to many readers), the central character is paid 1/9 of a co-star that appeared in maybe a fifth of the movie.
Anyway, I am old enough to remember when Downey was probably at the top of a lot of Hollywood dead pools due to drug issues, and when that finally got him sent to prison, just like I remember when he re-emerged seemingly changed and got the IRON MAN role in what a lot of us thought was an inspired casting choice. It made total sense why he was still on a very short leash in Hollywood when he made IRON MAN, and the paper trail is there for anyone to Google.
Got any links to that paper trail? I’m curious.
I mean just Google any articles about from from the decade leading up to IRON MAN in 2008. Here’s a long piece including interviews from 2000, soon after he started serving a jail sentence, so I guess you could consider this a contemporary account of RDJ at rock bottom:
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2000/08/robert-downey-jr-prisonAny number of post-IRON MAN articles in 2008, after it was a surprise hit, also laid out the hurdles he overcame to come back from the depths. Rolling Stone has pretty good ones from 2008 and 2010.
Man, I’m like 1/8th into that one, and it’s fascinating. The blurb from Michael Douglas is especially potent – “We were heartbroken when we heard that he was going to prison,” says Michael Douglas, Downey’s co-star in Wonder Boys. “Initially, I was so mad at him—it’s such a terrible disease. I think he was sober on the set—he was so great to work with. I’m deeply fond of him. In his sobriety, you can sense how painful simple alertness is for him. He feels it all—watching him, you can understand the notion of self-medication. There’s a vulnerability about him that makes you want to protect him. I sure hope he gets himself squared away. I guess we’ll have to wait for the next chapter.”Indeed we will.
Also, they had to agree to Terrence Howard’s demands that there be no gravity on set.
Wow. Had no idea.
In Terrance Howard’s defense, he wasn’t uninsurable at the time.
Oh good, I was hoping for a rehash of the threads from last night
Read his full statement below:Man, I just had the weirdest dream – back on the bus there? Did you ever have one of those dreams that are completely real. I mean they’re so vivid. It’s just like completely real. It’s like, there’s always something bizarre going on, though. I have one about every 2 years or something. I always remember ‘em real good. Like there’s always someone getting run over, or something really weird. Um, one time I had lunch with Tolstoy. Another time I was a roadie for Frank Zappa. Anyway, so this dream I just had was just like that, except instead of anything bizarre going on, I mean, there was just nothing going on at all. Man. It was like the Omega Man. It was just nobody around. I was just traveling around, you know, staring out the windows of buses, and trains, and cars. When I was at home, I was like flipping through the TV stations endlessly. Reading. How many dreams do you have where you read in a dream, you know?
“and that she was never offered anything less.”You know, apart from the first two times when they totally paid her lots less.
I mean, not knowing any of the behind-the-scenes stuff, it
seems hard to argue with what he’s saying. At the time, Delpy had made Europa
Europa and White – both brilliant films, but very few people in America would’ve
had any idea who she was. Whereas Hawke had just starred in Reality Bites,
Alive, White Fang, Dead Poets Society, etc. No one in Hollywood is paid by the
size of their role in a film, they’re paid based on their perceived value to
the film. So of course he got more money than her; he was a considerably bigger
name. If she hadn’t gotten equal pay on Before Midnight, that would have been a
scandal. But the first one was a pairing between a genuine American movie star
and a rising European actress who made arthouse films.(For comparison, just a year after Before Sunrise, Sandra Bullock got paid FIFTY TIMES more than Matthew McConaughey in A Time to Kill, even though McConaughey was the lead role in that film. Because she was a giant star and he wasn’t.)Weird that no one mentions what the pay was like on Before
Sunset. That would seem to be a more applicable case study if you’re wondering
whether Linklater really cared about pay equality before it was cool to.
I also think she carried Before Sunset, especially with the her soundtrack contributions, which should have led to her being paid more on that alone.
And just to be clear, female stars’ perceived value to films
is underestimated ALL THE TIME to avoid paying them fairly. (My go-to insane
example is Gillian Anderson being offered half of David Duchovny’s salary for
the “X-Files” reboot, as if anyone would’ve fucking watched it without her, or
Dochovny is still some sort of A-list star.) But “Before Sunrise” seems like an
example where the usual Hollywood salary calculations – actors’ salaries are
determined by their presumed ability to attract audiences – were
pretty understandable.
Yeah, pay disparity on Before Sunrise…non story, who cares, no one knew who Delpy was and Hawke was a star. But pay disparity on X-Files? That’s clearly ridiculous. Those roles are 100% equal and neither one of them was anything until that show.
ok, me myself I went to see it because of my fascination with Delpy – she ended up in so many neo noirs that I could not avoid her.
Yep, the only reason I originally watched Before Sunrise was Delpy. I loved her in Killing Zoe, which, by the way, is an amazing movie.
In my 40s I am beginning to see a lot of cases of history rewriting in video games, cinema and rest of pop culture that never stop being amazing. Those two you mention are super minor compared to the Kieslowski films, the Leos Carax neo noir earthquake “Mauvais Sang” (it was talked about everywhere when I was a kid – in Spain, that is) or Jesus Christ, look at her imdb career. And in any case, even when she was no one, even if she was totally unknown, that never, ever deserves a 10th of the salary.
So Delpy’s Kieslowski films are more notable than the Kieslowski film he mentioned? Unless Delpy was in another film called White that I’m unaware of, you should probably read more carefully before getting all indignant.
“At the time, Delpy had made Europa Europa and White – both brilliant films, but very few people in America would’ve had any idea who she was. “Unless they had seen the other huge #1 Hollywood films she’d been in or the long list of European films she’d been in and got award nominations for, starting her career younger than Hawke did and having a much bigger, better resume:“In 1984, at the age of fourteen, Delpy was discovered by film director Jean-Luc Godard, who cast her in Détective (1985). Two years later, Delpy starred in the title role in Bertrand Tavernier’s La Passion Béatrice (1987). For her performance, Delpy was nominated for a César Award for Most Promising Actress. She used the money she earned to pay for her first trip to New York City. Delpy became an international celebrity after starring in the 1990 film Europa Europa directed by Agnieszka Holland… Following the success of Europa Europa, Delpy appeared in several Hollywood and European films, including Voyager (1991) and The Three Musketeers (1993). In 1993, she was cast by director Krzysztof Kieślowski to play the female lead in Three Colors: White, the second film of Kieślowski’s The Three Colors Trilogy. Delpy also appeared briefly in the other two films in the same role.[4][5] That same year, she appeared opposite Brendan Fraser in the Percy Adlon feature Younger and Younger starring Donald Sutherland. In 1994, she starred opposite Eric Stoltz in Roger Avary’s directorial debut Killing Zoe, a cult heist film capturing the Generation X zeitgeist.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Delpy#Film_career
As for all that “buzz” Hawke supposedly had:“Ethan Hawke was at this point unhappy with the direction his career was taking; the actor recalled that his career was in a lull after the buzz from Dead Poets Society (1989) had faded. Winona Ryder was a fan of his work and stipulated in her contract that her involvement in the film was dependent on Hawke starring opposite her. She chose Hawke after seeing him in A Midnight Clear (1992).” https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110950/trivia?item=tr2838456
…huh?The last quote is about Reality Bites, which made Hawke a star…and came out a year ahead of Before Sunrise.The word vomit form Delpy’s Wikipedia page, meanwhile, pretty clearly shows that she was scrambling for supporting roles in minor movies at the time…with the peak being a role as Chris O’Donnell’s afterthought love interest in that awful Three Musketeers adaptation.There’s no good faith argument to be made that they were similarly prominent actors at the time of Before Sunrise.
I believe Hawke got twice Delpy’s salary on Before Sunset, which seems a bit bizarre and inexcusable.
Yeah, that’s just fucked up.
Yeah, their relative salaries on Before Sunset (incidentally, the best of the three!) would definitely be the most telling – especially since she had a screenwriting credit on that one.
I love Richard Linklater’s work to death, but this is not a great take. Even if no one is being paid much, a tenth of your co-star’s salary could be potentially life changing. If it’s on the low end, that’s probably a disparity of thousands of dollars. Linklater’s so involved with his films that he must’ve known. And if his argument is “we were doing what was considered normal and acceptable,” then the very least he can do, the very least, is apologize and make a more concerted effort going forward.
you’re ignoring all the context he spells ou for you here. Hawke was a huge star at that point in time. it was an independent film so not a big budget. nobody got paid much for the first film. but because hawke’s name was attached to it more people saw it, so she could get bigger paychecks later. movies having a bigger star attached to it helps it do better. yes, when a film has a big budget, they should be more careful about paying the stars something that approximates even handedness. but when a film doesn’t have the money, paying a star more to get the power of their name on the film is often the best path for everyone, including the “under paid” co-star.
I got the context. I’m not saying Ethan Hawke being paid more, generally speaking, is indefensible; I get the logic of it. I’m saying that making merely 10% of what he made is significantly less justified. It’s not a complicated notion.
Yeah, and I’m sure you’re positing this with a comprehensive understanding of the independent film market…
i think at that time his name was worth about 100 times more than her name, so being paid 10 times more doesn’t seem bad. the benefit of becoming an a lister is you get paid like an a lister. the problem with gender pay inequality is more obvious, and therefore better to target, when the two stars are in the same stratosphere. and at that time, hawke and delpy were not.
“i think at that time his name was worth about 100 times more than her name”lol no.The hoops you shitbags jump through to try to discredit a woman who ever talks about inequality – it’s fucking amazing.Hawke, at that time, was giving up on Hollywood because his career was going nowhere. The only reason he got Reality Bites was because the star of the film, Winona Ryder, used her clout to get him hired. That film was not a flop but it wasn’t a hit either. The soundtrack, particularly Lisa Loeb, is the only reason it didn’t flop and is still the only reason it is remembered at all. Delpy, on the other hand, was a current darling of GenX cinema coming off a number one Hollywood film, having worked with Quentin Tarantino and Roger Avary and having just costarred in a run of films with the actual biggest young stars of the day, like: Brendan Frasier, Chris O’Donnell, Kiefer Sutherland, Charlie Sheen and Eric Stolz.
Here’s another way of looking at it, Ethan Hawke took about 10% of what he could command on the open market at that time to appear in that film. Delphy likely got 100%.Or here’s another, Hawke by agreeing to appear in that film at a steep discount is likely the very reason that film got greenlit in the first place.
So every single person you work with is paid the same as you? And if not, what have you done to ensure that it’s so?
It has practically nothing to do with total equity. It’s the 90% gap. No one I work with who has the same job as me makes a tenth of what I make, nor do I make a tenth of what they make.
It is 100% about equality – so you’re happy that someone in your job is paid less than you?
It actually isn’t, because it’s not the point I’m making, nor was it in the original comment. You can’t tell me what my own minute point was. Moreover, what kind of a loaded question is that? Am I happy about people with my same job making less than me? Sure. I’m over the moon about it.
You don’t seem to be making any point at all.If you’re saying it’s unfair for her to have earned less than Hawke it is 100% equality, that you don’t understand that a factor of ten is very, very tiny when discussing what an actor is paid, that’s on you not me.But like you say, it’s not about equality, you’re “over the moon” that women earn less.
As I said elsewhere, it’s not supposed to be some nuanced take on this particular issue. It’s pretty straightforward.And if a factor of ten is so insignificant, then why is it an issue worth addressing? By either this article, by Linklater, or by Delpy? Otherwise, it should matter that there’s a 90% disparity. That shouldn’t happen, and it shouldn’t have happened.Yeah. I’m so ecstatic over it. That’s why I’m arguing that Delpy should’ve at least be paid more than a tenth of her co-star. I wasn’t at all being pretty obviously facetious, but that’s fine.
Dude, you’re sucking in this thread right now
It’s the 90% gap. No one I work with who has the same job as me makes a tenth of what I make, nor do I make a tenth of what they make.By that logic, LeBron James should make the same amount as all the other Lakers. They both have the same job, after all!
It’s not complictaed, but Delpy was a nobody so she got a nobody salary, and Hawke was a star an still probably took a pay cut to do that flick.
“Hawke was a huge star at that point in time.” Oh, please. Hawke wasn’t even a rising star at that point – that shot had come and gone. His career was going pretty much nowhere and he was getting ready to give up on Hollywood and do something else. He only got cast in Reality Bites due to Winona Ryder’s benevolence in using her starpower to give a guy on his way down a shot at redemption. That film wasn’t a hit but it also wasn’t a flop. The soundtrack was a bigger deal than the film.
lol
“Ethan Hawke was at this point unhappy with the direction his career was taking; the actor recalled that his career was in a lull after the buzz from Dead Poets Society (1989) had faded. Winona Ryder was a fan of his work and stipulated in her contract that her involvement in the film was dependent on Hawke starring opposite her. She chose Hawke after seeing him in A Midnight Clear (1992).” https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110950/trivia?item=tr2838456
So before his star-making appearance in Reality Bites, he’d hit a rough patch?And that has…something…to do with the status of his career after his star-making appearance in Reality Bites?lol.
Reality Bites was only “star-making” for Lisa Loeb. For everyone else it was a middling flick that didn’t help/hurt anyone’s career. The soundtrack is memorable. Lisa Loeb is the only reason anyone remembers that film at all. And she went on to be… a one-hit wonder.There were lots of “GenX” flicks at the time. None of them were “star-making” films for the actors.
Stars get paid star salaries. Unknowns do not. I don’t get what’s so hard about this. Your film has a limited budget. Same with sports teams. You’re not getting an all-star at every position. You spend money on an established star or two, then fill out the roster with cheaper prospects. If the prospects pan out, you pay them. If not, you don’t.You can’t just relitigate these things 25 years later based on how things happened to turn out. It’s like saying “Can you BELIEVE Tom Cruise got paid a fraction of what Timothy Hutton got paid for Taps?!” Uh, yeah, because Hutton was an Oscar-winning star then and Cruise was basically unknown. Would that be the same pay structure if the two were in a movie now? Of course not.Yet somehow, this has turned into 2 articles and 5000 words on what is essentially “The more famous you are, the more you get paid to be in a movie.”
https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/31/concerted-effort/
So you missed the part about how they got equal pay on the third movie?
But did Ethan Hawke ever ask, “By the way, how much is Julie getting? She should be getting the same as me, right? Right?”
I can’t even tell if you’re joking. But did Delpy say “Hey, how much is Ethan getting? 10 times more than me? OK, i’ll still do the movie.”
Did you do that when you were hired for whatever you do for a living?
I did it on my last raise. I have never been good at competition though.
So you didn’t worry about gender equity until the Before Midnight of your salary negotiations? Tsk Tsk
Because that’s a totally normal thing people do in every workplace.
Imagine how great it would have been if he had just supported her rather than try to defend his part in a shitty practice that he recognizes is shitty.He could have continued on from his first sentence with something like: It’s bad that our society overvalues some and undervalues others on a systemic level. Pay in films should have more parity in regard to men and women and it is inherently unfair that we -still- try to justify that unfairness through outdated tropes of box office draw or star power. We pretend men get paid more because they have stronger marquee names while ignoring that the argument is a self-fulfilling loop of discrimination where women don’t have an equal chance at leading big films centered on women-led stories to get those strong marquee names because we give those opportunities to men instead. Hawke and Delpy were co-leads in those films and the pay scale should have reflected that more fairly from the get-go, and certainly by the 2nd film it should have been a non issue since we all knew audiences were coming to see them together and not one alone. Things have improved quite a lot from the early 90s but we still have a long way to go. I’m glad Delpy is speaking out on these issues. More needs to be said and more change for the better needs to happen.And then ended with a closer more like this (without his stroll into defensiveness):How the industry compensates artists is always vulgar and not based on actual WORTH—we all know that. Life isn’t fair, and neither is Hollywood, but … it’s up to everyone to do everything they can to demand transparency and this long-overdue equality at whatever level they find themselves.
That’s what I like about actresses. I get paid a higher salary after each film and their pay rate stays the same. Yes they do, yes they do.
God, that picture. It’s like two people who really want to have a threesome and one who really, really doesn’t.
Pay parity for hollywood acting roles shouldn’t be a thing. Rates depend on far more than just the work itself and we shouldn’t try to bend that reality for political reasons.
AKA Julie is full of shit in this instance. You know who I think legitimately did make about a tenth of what their co-star did from around the same timeframe? Dermot Mulroney versus what Julia Roberts got paid for My Best Friend’s Wedding.