'Ashton Kutcher was paid three times as much as me on No Strings Attached,' said Natalie Portman in this month's Marie Claire. 'I knew and I went along with it, because there's this thing with 'quotes' in Hollywood. His was three times higher than mine, so they said he should get three times more.'
For those not in the know about the 'thing with 'quotes' in Hollywood', an actor's 'quote' is their perceived value. The big guns of No Strings Attached (the 2011 rom-com Ashton and Natalie starred in) evidently perceived what Ashton could bring to the film – one assumes a greater fan base, ergo more bums on cinema seats – was greater than what Natalie could bring to it. (Slightly ironic that the year No Strings came out was the same year Natalie won a Best Actress Oscar for Black Swan, but we'll let that go for argument's sake.)
Natalie's claims subsequently made headlines: yet another example of Hollywood grossly underpaying its female workforce. 'Compared to men, in most professions, women make 80 cents to the dollar,' Natalie told the magazine. 'In Hollywood, we are making 30 cents to the dollar.'
'I wasn't as p---ed as I should have been,' she admitted. 'I mean, we get paid a lot, so it's hard to complain. But the disparity is crazy.'
She's right, the disparity IS crazy.
However, her comments call in to play an interesting question. 'I wasn't as p---ed as I should have been,' she said. She also said she knew about it at the time and had gone along with it. So my question is this: if she knew about the pay gap and didn't say anything, is she right to voice her anger now – when the producers (or studio, or whoever it was she negotiated her fee with) can do precisely diddly-squat about it?
Viewed in this light, it's possible to see the incident as a case of blatant bandwagoning. The gender pay gap is a hot topic in Hollywood and a legion of stars – from Jennifer Lawrence to Robin Wright, Diane Kruger and Meryl Streep – have spoken at length about it. Indeed, Meryl identified one of its main problems as being its lack of transparency.
But in Natalie's case, there was transparency. She knew Ashton was getting triple what she was getting, so you could say she had her chance to change it. Since she made no reference to putting forth such a case, we can therefore only assume she chose not to. Note, the important word here is 'chose' – it was her 'choice' to accept it.
With this in mind, is it right that five years on she speaks out about how unfair it all was, when – by her own admission – not only did she not raise her concerns at the time, but she wasn't even as annoyed as she 'should have been' about it (by which we can interpret, she wasn't all that annoyed)?
I think a strong case could be argued to the tune of: no, she wasn't right to speak out now. Because, can't we all relate to the scenario where someone tells us they're ok with something we've said/done/put forward... then found out they've been bitching about us behind our backs all over town? There is something slightly underhand about how Natalie approached all this...
But, then I consider, why shouldn't she be underhand? It was crushingly unfair.
There have been many times in my career when bosses have told me things – such things as, 'No, you can't have that pay rise I promised you last year in view of...' or 'Do that humiliating task without question because...' – which I've just accepted and not fought back on. (Because you try not to fight with your boss, don't you?)
It's only now in my thirties that I've realised too, quite how many times I was subjected to sexism in the workplace without even realising it. And whilst I might have accepted it then without question, I certainly don't accept it now. I am furious on behalf of my younger self. And given the chance to make headline news about it, I – like Natalie – most certainly would.
So in answer to the question I posed above, no, I don't think it's wrong of Natalie to say what she said now, when she didn't then. Sometimes, in the moment, things are hard to articulate. And if I couldn't stand up to a boss in a small scale company, I can't imagine what it would be like to stand up to a bevy of fat cats in the beast of an industry that is Hollywood.
That's one aspect of the issue addressed. The other, is this: gender aside, is it fair that two people get paid a different amount for, effectively, the same job, simply because one is perceived to bring more to the table than the other?
No, it's not. And I've really thought about this.
It could easily be argued that because Ashton Kutcher has spent (what one can assume is) a lot of time nurturing his following – through his TV appearances and social media channels – it's only right that he be remunerated for the extra revenue such a following brings (or is perceived to bring). But shouldn't that come through a totally different pay package? Shouldn't it be more like: Ashton and Natalie are playing equally important roles in the film and have equal screen time, therefore we pay them for their work as actors, equally? If then Ashton offers to Tweet/Facebook/Instagram promo posts about the film to his however-many million followers, wouldn't that then fall under the category of marketing? Wouldn't it make far more sense for that to involve an entirely different set of negotiations – using quantifiable stats – coming from a seperate 'marketing' budget?
The more I explore this issue, the more incensed I become on Natalie's behalf. It is beyond unfair that one person should get paid more than another for the same job, not just in Hollywood, but any industry. Can you imagine Donald Trump accepting a lesser wage than Barack Obama, because he received circa 3million less votes last year compared to Obama's vote tally in the Presidential Elections of 2012?
Don't make us LAUGH...
Natalie Portman was totally right to speak out about the pay gap this month. I just wish she'd had the courage of her conviction to do it at the time, when she might have been able to negotiate the pay package she deserved.
READ MORE: Trump Trivia: Everything You Need To Know About America's New First Family
READ MORE: Exclusive: ‘Married Trump Kissed Me At His Offices’