This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/film/shortcuts/2015/mar/22/hunger-games-jennifer-lawrence-miles-teller-whiplash
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Hunger games: when movie stars work for peanuts | Hunger games: when movie stars work for peanuts |
| (about 17 hours later) | |
| While it might feel as though we’re still bombarded with a few too many enviable headlines touting the absurdly high fees taken home by actors, it’s not always quite as glamorous as it seems. In a recent interview with the Times, Miles Teller revealed that he was paid just $8,000 (£5,400), after taxes, for his role in Oscar-winning music drama Whiplash. But the plaudits attached to the film and his performance show that it was a sacrifice worth making for the actor and he’s not the only star to make a well-plotted gamble over his salary. | While it might feel as though we’re still bombarded with a few too many enviable headlines touting the absurdly high fees taken home by actors, it’s not always quite as glamorous as it seems. In a recent interview with the Times, Miles Teller revealed that he was paid just $8,000 (£5,400), after taxes, for his role in Oscar-winning music drama Whiplash. But the plaudits attached to the film and his performance show that it was a sacrifice worth making for the actor and he’s not the only star to make a well-plotted gamble over his salary. |
| Last year Jonah Hill revealed that he took home just $60,000 for his supporting role in The Wolf of Wall Street and while accepting the minimum wage for an actor in Hollywood might seem like a step back at this stage of his career, the film brought him his second Oscar nomination. While actors often take a cut to work on a film they know is more about five-star reviews than financial reward, it’s often a business decision. Cameron Diaz, who can demand up to $20m a film, took just $1m for 2011 comedy Bad Teacher – but a backend deal bumped that up to $42m, after she took home a percentage of the take. | Last year Jonah Hill revealed that he took home just $60,000 for his supporting role in The Wolf of Wall Street and while accepting the minimum wage for an actor in Hollywood might seem like a step back at this stage of his career, the film brought him his second Oscar nomination. While actors often take a cut to work on a film they know is more about five-star reviews than financial reward, it’s often a business decision. Cameron Diaz, who can demand up to $20m a film, took just $1m for 2011 comedy Bad Teacher – but a backend deal bumped that up to $42m, after she took home a percentage of the take. |
| A low pay deal can also be a long-term strategy. Jennifer Lawrence made just $500,000 from her role in The Hunger Games but after the film took $690m worldwide, she was able to negotiate $10m for the sequel. A similar deal is currently being worked out by Jamie Dornan and Dakota Johnson for the Fifty Shades of Grey follow-up. The pair were paid just $250,000 each for the film, yet with a gross that’s rising over $540m, they’re reportedly negotiating seven-figure salaries for more erotic antics. | |
| But there’s also a bigger reason why Hollywood execs are tightening the purse strings. Simply put, the value of movie stars is not what is used to be. While Tom Cruise, Adam Sandler, Johnny Depp and Will Smith might have ruled with eight-figure salaries in the past, they’re all on losing streaks, meaning there’s less justification for their inflated wages. | But there’s also a bigger reason why Hollywood execs are tightening the purse strings. Simply put, the value of movie stars is not what is used to be. While Tom Cruise, Adam Sandler, Johnny Depp and Will Smith might have ruled with eight-figure salaries in the past, they’re all on losing streaks, meaning there’s less justification for their inflated wages. |
| The recent success of Fifty Shades of Grey is another sign that a film can be a blockbuster without “names” attached, as shown by the success of the Twilight franchise. The uncertainty over the box office appeal of A-listers means that some of the financial power in Hollywood might well be shifting. | The recent success of Fifty Shades of Grey is another sign that a film can be a blockbuster without “names” attached, as shown by the success of the Twilight franchise. The uncertainty over the box office appeal of A-listers means that some of the financial power in Hollywood might well be shifting. |