Gillian Anderson reported that when the producers approached the actress about reprising her co-starring role in the re-boot of “The X-Files,” she was offered only one-half of the salary that her male partner, David Duchovny, had agreed to. From the Daily Beast’s shocking account:
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.“I’m surprised that more [interviewers] haven’t brought that up because it’s the truth,” Anderson says of the pay disparity, first disclosed in the Hollywood Reporter. “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.
“Even in interviews in the last few years, people have said to me, ‘I can’t believe that happened, how did you feel about it, that is insane.’ And my response always was, ‘That was then, this is now.’ And then it happened again! I don’t even know what to say about it.”
That’s all right, Gillian. I know what to say about it. This was not unfair, disrespectful. or an example of discrimination against women in the workplace. This is called negotiation, and there is nothing unethical about it at all.
Note that Anderson ended up being paid exactly what her co-star was. That’s because she had leverage, the project could not go forward without her, and she responded to the low-ball offer by saying something like, “Are you kidding me? Either agree to pay me exactly what you’ll be paying Duchovny before I count to five, or you can find yourself another Scully. I hear Lindsay Lohan is available. 1-2-3...” And if, instead of doing that, she just agreed to the first amount offered, like a chump, who would be at fault? Gillian Anderson. Nobody else.
Of course, if she had reacted to the offer by saying, “I’m sick of this. If you don’t respect my talent more than that, to hell with you.” and walked out the door, killing the project, both she and the production team would be guilty of incompetent negotiation. The producers misjudged her, and she refused to negotiate. The objective of negotiation is to reach an optimal result for both parties.
In a market, capitalist system, this is how one determines salaries. It is fair if an employer decides to pay co-stars in a TV show the same amount. It is also fair to see if each actor can be employed at as low a fee as possible. Let’s assume the X-Files producers offered Duchovny the same low figure they initially offered Anderson. If he refused and held out for more, and she accepted the low-ball amount, how is that discrimination? Yet this is the argument we hear over and over again. To Daily Beast writer Melissa Leon, the bargaining session was part of Anderson’s “epic battle to be treated equally on the show.”
Nonsense. It was another of many requirements of being a competent participant in the workplace, from which, according to the rhetoric being tossed around by feminists, socialists and dim journalists, women, the poor dears, must be exempt. On the contrary, businesses have many expenses they cannot control, but salary agreements are not, or should not, be among them. In the high strata of compensation that contractors like Duchovny and Anderson can demand—this isn’t a minimum wage problem: actors have a union—employers have every right, ethically, to try to pay employees as little as those employees will accept.
If they don’t have the skill, intelligence, guts and confidence to negotiate, the disappointing results are due to their deficiencies, not sexism.
Ethics Alarms 
If she’s really serious about wage equality, shouldn’t she be happy with $15/hour?
Isn’t an agent supposed to take care of making sure negotiations result in the best possible deal for the person they represent? She must have had one right?
Yes, we assume. But the agent only can agree to what the client agrees to.
Negotiation assumes some degree of equality of power.
Blackballing is still extant in Hollywood.
How about “I’ll do it for 250% of the offered salary, or 10% if the original offerer is deceased.”
I suspect there is seldom an ‘Equality of power’ in any negotiation.
It does appear to me that Anderson was actually in a damn good position, as Jack has commented.
I agree with Jack that the producers are well within their rights to try and get the best price for their services, but that does’nt stop me asking why they offered what they did, and why it was less than Duchovny. Perhaps it is because they are a bunch of sexist male pigs, or:
1. The market research over the years indicated that she is a less popular character in the series and therefore less critical to the future run? Scully was after all the voice of the establishment and Mulder is the conspiracy theorist.
2. When first approached Duchovny’s agent said: “Sure, but you will have to pay $XXXXXXX”, a figure much higher than they were expecting and they hoped like hell they could get her cheaper?
There could be a whole lot of other reasons that those of us who are not involved know nothing about. It seems that these days any time there is a chance to claim victimisation it will be the go-to position.
I seem to recall that Costello was a monster who demanded as much as; was it eighty percent?; of the take because he considered himself more important than the straight man, Abbott. I wonder what form of discrimination Abbott would claim today?
I say good on Anderson for negotiating a fair deal, I just wonder why she didn’t demand ten bucks extra on principle!
Having said that, I think the producers were probably thinking they could get away with it because she is ‘only’ a woman!
Anyone who thinks an opening offer is anything but strategy is an idiot. If the producers offered the same amunt they had settled on with Duchovny, the ganet would think—“Gee, if that’s their first offer, maybe we can hold out for more!”
If the parties are too unequal, then there’s no need for negotiation. But in cases on unique commodities like actors and athletes, or established business executives, this isn’t an issue.
This is called trying to squeeze a little extra publicity out of things. Now not only are the conspiracy nuts going to watch, but at least some of the feminists will also. Heck, maybe the producers should be grateful for this additional market share.
How about this long-forgotten example: in about 2003, Charlotte Church, then still riding her reputation as a child soprano prodigy, apparently sought out the role of Christine Daae in the upcoming film version of The Phantom of the Opera. Since Christine is supposed to be a ballet dancer by training, the producers told Miss Church she would have to lose weight before they would even consider her (she was not ballet-dancer slender at the time). She declined, and subsequently complained to the press about how the producers were sexist and biased against healthy-figured women. The feminists and the Charlaholics ate it right up, but most other folks wondered why the fuss. The part ultimately went to Emmy Rossum.
The proposal itself sounds like incompetent negotiation on her part, or maybe just two visions not able to come together. The subsequent press chatter on her part did appear to be an unethical attempt to squeeze free publicity out of the affair by maligning the producers. Thoughts?
I don’t know what was going on. Christine, is a singer—she doesn’t dance at all. Church, at the time, wasn’t just not dancer svelte, she was fat…and she had no acting experience. She had the pipes to do her own singing, for sure—Rossum was dubbed—and the movie was a complete and utter bomb, a real stinker. Though Christine on Broadway and the Wast End was ingenue slim, opera singers seldom are. I would have taken the chance and cast Church…that would have given the movie buzz, and it sure couldn’t have been worse. Her complaint, though, is per se silly. All actresses in romantic roles face a strong bias in favor of beauty in figure and face, and why not? There are thousands of gorgeous young actresses to choose from. Charlotte is currently in shape, last I saw. She yo-yos: here she is around Phantom negotiation time:
She looks like this when she’s at her thinnest and looking for a contact lens…
Mostly right, Jack. In the original novel Christine is purely an aspiring singer, she has nothing to do with dancing. However, Andrew Lloyd Weber’s show, which was the basis of the 2004 film, posits that she is a member of the Paris Opera’s corps de ballet who has been taking singing lessons from the mysterious Phantom. It’s another dancer, Christine’s bestie Meg Giry, who first suggests that Christine step in when Carlotta storms out. As such, the actress playing Christine would be expected to be dancer svelte.
You are right the movie flopped, so this discussion is academic. Just for the record, Charlotte is at best an OK actress. She did 2 epis of TV shows when she was a kid and one movie in 2003 called I’ll Be There in which she essentially played herself. It played for 10 days in UK theaters and went direct to video here. She is also notoriously difficult to work with (diva disposition, foul mouth) and I think the POTO folks probably were just as glad not to have to try.
She does yo-yo, I think that thin pic is from 2010, she’s looking more like Charlotte Cathedral these days. I hope Jackie Evancho doesn’t go down the same “hot mess” path.
But Christine never dances in the musical! I’ve seen it twice…the character is in the chorus—she’s no soloist. Sarah Brightman, who was nominated for a Tony, is a dancer but no ballet dancer, and several of the successful stage Christines don’t dance a lick. If that’s what they were telling Church, that the role required a dancer, they were being kind, not honest
I’m just going by the libretto, which does make mention of her as a dancer, in fact at one point Madame Giry, the ballet mistress, has to summon her back to rehearsal by banging her pace-stick. I don’t doubt that many stage Christines don’t dance a step. There are two very brief scenes in the movie that show Christine dancing, they could easily have been cut. The bottom line is that Joel Schumacher didn’t want to cast Charlotte or even allow her to try out, and her size was the reason he gave, or at least that’s what she told the press. Ethically no one is required to interview so for a job who he knows he isn’t going to hire.
Never saw the libretto, that’s interesting. Clearly a victim of the director’s vision.
Sorry but that photo of her at the Glamour awards is from 2007 not 2003 and she is six month pregnant at the time, not fat.
http://celebritybabies.people.com/2007/06/05/charlotte_churc/
Here she is in 2003 and there is no reason whatsoever that looking like this she couldn’t have played that part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCkOIKYCv4Y
Except perhaps her very modest acting ability and frankly rotten temperament.
Bill, there are enough non-pregnant fat pictures of Charlotte going back to her teen years that this qualifies as a gotcha. She’s often been fat and NOT preggers.
Here she is in 2015
I can’t tell when women are pregnant or when they aren’t when they can’t manage to get married first, but that’s irrelevant , since I wrote that Schlesinger, who is the worst director alive, could and should have cast her anyway.
That qualifies as “fat”? If so, it must be an interpretation of “fat” completely divorced from negative connotations often associated with the word by insecure people, such as “unhealthy”, “unattractive”, and “slovenly”. It also seems to have a strained relationship with “large.”
Show business fat has nothing to do with reality fat.
True and that’s a huge problem . When people who are at a healthy weight are told they are fat and those who are dangerously thin are paraded around as being healthy its dangerous.
We could always try “high-displacement”. That has very positive connotations with car enthusiasts, at least.
But we are not talking about now , or 2015 or 2007. We are talking about what she looked like when she was lobbying for the role. That’s all you can base it on, or what she had looked like before then which shows a history of weight fluctuation. You cant base support the argument that weight is an issue with after the fact with weight gain made since then.
As to not knowing whether she is fat or pregnant in that photo you posted all you had to do is read the article they were posted with and you would have known.
“I can’t tell when women are pregnant or when they aren’t when they can’t manage to get married first”
What does that mean??
So if she was married and you’d seen that photo you would have assumed she was pregnant but since she wasn’t you assumed she was just fat? lol
READ the articles you grab photos first.
Schlesinger? I assume you mean Schumacher , who is a horrible director but even then managed to make two good films, Falling Down, Phone Booth .
No, I call bullshit on this. Actors are not hired for their negotiating ability — they are not diplomats or lawyers — they are actors. This series is about two people, and those two people have equally important roles in that show. By your reasoning, they should have low-balled Duchovony as well, but they didn’t. Kudos to him for sharing that information with his co-star so she could negotiate. I don’t care if the show wanted to low-ball their two main actors, but they should have done it evenly to reflect that they were both equally important. They didn’t.
That’s beyond ridiculous. They have agents, who ARE hired for their negotiating ability. Furthermore, we are all obligated to learn how to negotiate: it’s a life competency skill that apparently some women feel they should be insured against failing. If you can’t learn to make the best deals for yourself, shame on you. Finally, how do you know the show didn’t lowball Duchovny? I assume they did. Or do you think businesses are obligated to make a maximum offer as their first one? Really? I could argue that Duchovny, whom I despise, should have the larger fee. He’s had other US hits since X-Files, while his co-star has been in England doing British drama. Her last US project was a bomb. There are other redhead actresses….or at least that would be my bargaining position.
I would also note that “Scully’s” lowball first offer was for more than you and I make in a year or more combined.
They aren’t required to offer the maximum, they are required to approach them equally. Your analysis *might* be correct if this was a new venture, but it wasn’t. They are revamping an old, successful show where the two characters were (and are) equally important. Thus, their success (or lack thereof) after the initial series is irrelevant.
Sheesh. Even the best law firms lock step their associates until they get to a senior level (usually 5th to 8th year). And these are the best of the best who are hired for their analytical and negotiating abilities.
This show truly is unique in that the two characters are equally important. The salaries should reflect that.
“They are revamping an old, successful show where the two characters were (and are) equally important. Thus, their success (or lack thereof) after the initial series is irrelevant.”
You’re assuming facts not in evidence. The old show was about two young, intrepid, very different FBI agents gettingt to know each other under stressful problem solving. That’s not the new show. The new show is about two fiftyish long time colleagues re-uniting. If they really wanted to do a re-boot of the old show, they would have cast Emma Stone and Ryan Guzman. Or, as something in between, have the show about old Mulder having to break in a new skeptic, young female partner. I was only half-kidding about Lindsay Lohan. Nor do the two partners have to be equal in the new show—as the linked piece notes, originally Scully was a sidekick, not a co-star, because nobody had heard of Anderson, and DD was established.
I just faced this kind of dilemma is hiring tow performers, one male, one female, for two ProEthics musical seminars. The male has done four seminars already; he’s know to our clients. The female is unknown to them, and this our first time using her. The male’ fee has risen over the years. He expects a certain amount. The female has no context: she wants the work. I don’t have to do that seminar at all. Meanwhile, we have a small business: expenses are a big deal. Am I obligated to offer the female artist what we are now paying the male, established artist? Is their work truly “equal”? If I lowball the female, am I unethical?
What do you think the ethics firm decided to do?
It’s not a reboot, it’s a continuation. Your analysis doesn’t hold.
As for your situation, it doesn’t compare to the X-Files at all because they haven’t done the same amount of shows with you. It’s up to you what you want to offer, BUT, if you think that the female is equally good and plays just as important as a role, then yes, I would offer them the same amount.
Isn’t whether or not they’re equally important entirely up to how the employer feels? A carpenter can argue all day that his labor is just as valuable as that of a doctor or lawyer, for whatever reason he can dream up, but to be blunt, it just isn’t. If I’m hiring carpenters, I should be able to pick one over the other because I’m partial to redheaded carpenters if I want. Its my money. Either can walk if they don’t like my offer.
Except they are both actors. If one is a carpenter and the other was a doctor, then you might have an argument.
I was being hyperbolic, but I believe the principle still stands, at least from an ethical (perhaps not legal) point of view. I can’t see any other assumption to begin a negotiation under that isn’t coercive in nature.
This whole issue reminds me of a recurring ad I see in airline magazines, where there’s a fortune cookie that says, “You will not get what you deserve. You will get what you negotiate.” Then it has a picture of a youthful-looking female business executive grinning and holding a lit cigar. (I forget what it’s actually an ad for, but that’s irrelevant.)
Apparently none of the people complaining about the low-balling have ever seen that ad, or they don’t think it’s true, or they don’t think it’s an acceptable state of affairs? I think it’s a fairly important message.
Of course, I’m not much good at negotiations myself, since I had to tone the adversarial part of myself way down. I still respect the principle, though.
They would have been bitching about the cigar, too. ” It’s bad for you! It’s a patriarchal phallic symbol”, et cetera.
I have a friend that makes a substantial living flipping everything from plastic containers, to cars. I watch him negotiate when he’s buying something, and I think ” I couldn’t do it”.
I’m an actor and I negotiate my pay all the time. I do not just accept the first offer. Have I lost work? Nope. Have I seen my pay double , triple and quadruple? Yep.
And if you triple your salary, do you complain to everyone else about what the original offer was?
God no, I’m an adult.
Exactly.
Well, I’m watching the X-Files, and now I think both of them should have been low-balled with a “take it or we hire young actors with some energy” offer. Ducovney sounds like he has a cold, and is sleepwalking, Anderson is hoarse, she’s forgotten how to do a credible American accent, and she’s had so much work done that her butt must be between her shoulder blades. Depressing. Sooo depressing.
Her accent is natural, she lived here long enough to acquire one.
Her English accent on the other hand sound horrible, like something out of a Marx Brothers movie.
I don’t think she has had any work done, she’s always had that puckered fish face lip thing going on.