Highest Paid Actresses. What Are They Worth To You?
Saturday, July 9, 2011 at 6:51PM Forbes released a list of the highest paid actresses a few days ago, tallying earnings between last summer and this one. Have you stopped to think it over? As usual there's not much in the way of specifics as to how they earned the money but it's usually a combo of residuals, new movie deals, and commercial endorsements and the numbers are pre-tax and pre-overhead -- their agents and managers get a chunk of this as does the government. (But you know how kind the government is to millionaires so don't worry for their bank accounts! Millionaires aren't expected to help so the ones with true altruism -- hi Angie! -- are even more lauded for it.)
I used to love all lists as I once interpreted all of them as "people love lists as much as I do!" but now of course it only means "crank up the page views!" . Forbes is especially shameless as you actually have to hit arrows and whatnot an incredible 34 times to read every word of the article! Page View Trickery. I'll save you the trouble. The list is as follows:
- ANGELINA JOLIE - $30 million
- SARAH JESSICA PARKER - $30 million
- JENNIFER ANISTON - $28 million
- REESE WITHERSPOON -$28 million
- JULIA ROBERTS - $20 million
- KRISTEN STEWART -$20 million
- KATHARINE HEIGL - $19 million
- CAMERON DIAZ - $18 million
- SANDRA BULLOCK - $15 million
- MERYL STREEP - $10 million
On first glance it might seem like a boring list of ubiquitous names but if you stop to consider it offers up a few different career trajectories. You've got your TV stars who leveraged that into massive global fame and then steady film careers (SJP, HEIGL, ANISTON), you've got a woman who became synonymous with Great Acting (STREEP) early in her career and just refused to vacate her throne, you've got an Otherworldly Movie Queen who seems to belong to the entire world less for her movies than for her celebrity and outreach (JOLIE), you've got the RomCom Queens of the 1990s (ROBERTS, BULLOCK) and their natural successor (WITHERSPOON) who all won Oscars as career honors. [Theory: it's much easier to win an Oscar after RomCom riches than to just win an Oscar due to your dramatic gifts. Discuss!]
And then you've got DIAZ who is sort of in the Roberts/Bullock/Witherspoon school but maybe closer to a Meg Ryan in terms of Hollywood's lack of interest in rewarding her for it (other than monetarily). Finally, you've got a new rock star like franchise queen (STEWART). Will Stewart be able to convert her Twilight fame into a career beyond celibacy-advocate vampirism?
You can't just have a gazillion corporate endorsement print campaigns like Scarlett Johannson or Julianne Moore to name two quick examples, you need to get paid a lot to make the movies that you do make.
Two things are certain about making it to the top ten.
- You need to have long hair.
- If you're not a true original (Streep) and if you haven't slept with Brad Pitt (Aniston and Jolie) it's absolutely crucial to headline romantic blockbusters and/or a single blockbuster franchise. (SJP, Witherspoon, Bullock, Roberts, Diaz, Stewart).
That covers everyone but Katharine Heigl but maybe you'll have better luck explaining her in the comments.
Reader Comments (44)
Heigl made a deal with the devil long ago.
Well, Heigl is someone studios keep trying to force into the Bullock-Witherspoon-Roberts-Ryan rom-com stratosphere. She's a perfect example of faking it until you make it, and how that can translate into lots of money.
I have to admit that I don't get the collective hate for Heigl. I find her pleasant or at least tolerable. Maybe it's because I like the fact that she adopted a baby with special needs. Anyway.
I don't know whether I shouldl be happy about Meryl being on the list in the recent years or sad. I does show that she has become more commercial and I hate that she now "belongs" to everybody including people who don't knopw shit about movies and great acting etc
But these lists kind of mean: We give you 20 or 50 names but even no500 is richer than you'll ever be by doing just 3 movies and is probably younger than you.
Capitalism.... (:p)
Lord, Heigl is such a mess. I mean, this list is pretty messy, but even still, she's the biggest mess there. She makes me think of Jessica Alba...*shudders*
I find Kristen Stewart being there very interesting. Hopefully she can do better projects after this.
I'm okay with Angelina Jolie...I like her as a person, and I think she's a very talented actress.
SJP confuses me...and Jennifer Aniston doesn't confuse me, but it's sad that she gets paid so much for doing the same thing over and over again.
I'm surprised Julia Roberts still gets paid so much, and Cameron Diaz kind of too. I guess Diaz gave up on an Oscar nod?
The biggest observation I made from this list is the fact that Meryl Streep, who is considered to be like the greatest actress ever, just barely made the top 10, and makes a third of what the highest paid actresses do. So someone people consider a GOD in terms of acting is placed there...blatant evidence that the paychecks are obviously not dished out by actual talent.
Oh, and on the "it's much easier to win an Oscar after RomCom riches than to just win an Oscar due to your dramatic gifts." note--
Well, once established as a gifted, top-paid comedic actress, people tend to go OMG!! THEY CAN ACT when they do a dramatic role well (and dramas are much more respected in hollywood and the Oscars, as we all know...even though the romcom queens are the ones raking in all the money...).
I can't even imagine how much Reese Witherspoon would get paid if she was actually famous outside of the states.
Yeah, so many other factors to consider. Fragrance and cosmetics deals are a goldmine for actresses, and let's not forget clothing lines for Topshop, H&M, or whomever. I am sure, for some on the list, non-film earnings outweigh their film salaries. Additional factor to consider is the number of films they headline each year. It seems that Aniston, Heigl, and Diaz star in multiple movies each year.
Nathaniel, Brooke Shields deserves an honorable mention for her corporate endorsements print campaigns. Few months ago, she was featured in four ads in a single magazine edition. She is hocking everything from eyelash fertilizer to furniture.
Heigl is like Aniston and Diaz in that she's there because of the sheer number of films she makes / year. SJP must be a very savvy businesswoman since most of her earnings were not film related. Streep, Roberts & Witherspoon's is probably a combination of fee + back end. Jolie's and Bullock's are all back end -- so the fact that their films made enough to put them on the list is probably why they're considered the biggest stars right now.
RomComs seems to be the easiest route to riches for actresses. It certainly isn't drama and action is still a difficult area for most women. And yes, it seems easier to win an Oscar after you've already achieved fame and riches in comedy.
Re:RomCom and Oscar... Maybe it's that if you are considered good in the romcoms and then you go and impress them with a dramatic perf, you give the impression of a full actor even if not a dramatic giant.
The opposite might also be true. Streep came close to winning (we suppose) for The Devil..Prada.
Just a theory.
The tragedy of Cameron Diaz is that she has done some damn good dramatic work... to have been ignored by Oscar is just crazy. For even a nomination! I would put her on equal footing with Julia and way above Sandra and Reese.
Money lists are boring. They say nothing about good taste just what happens to be popular and sticks for the moment.
What makes Streep original? Was she the first actress of her type? Does she have a type? I think Hollywood sees her as equal to men to a certain degree in allowing her to disappear for years at a time and still is able to come back with quality projects (on paper) and Academy nominations in the BA category even if she's a co-lead or secondary lead (Prada).
Jolie must be looked at as a living legend. I know she's a pretty one-note actress but her international appear has no match, maybe, Kidman and Weaver (Alien franchise is huge) -- she has classic but modern exotic beauty.
Katharine Heigl is very smart. She parlayed her likeability on "Grey's Anatomy" to being a brand for comfortable, commercial romantic comedies. When I go to the movie theater and I see a Katharine Heigl film, I know what to expect. She makes even her worse rom-coms work because of how charming she is. I would choose (and have) a Katharine Heigl movie over everyone else on the list because her brand delivers the promise.
If you want to make my personal romantic comedy from hell, have it star Katherine Heigl and Gerard Butler. Oh wait...they already made that nightmare.
Aniston is the only one from the top 10 that makes my list of people I'm willing to pay for to see onscreen. Jen's problem is she picks so many movies that are good in theory but are executed so poorly from every angle of which she has no control over, for example Love Happens. And for some reason people skip over films she was great in, like the quirky comedy Management. I enjoy that movie so much more than The Good Girl.
What makes Streep original for me is she doesn't and never did seem to care who likes her and who doesn't. I don't, her personality is completely off-putting to me. I don't see what other do in her acting. I see technical decisions in almost every one of her performances.
I think she cares a great deal. The Langes and Pfeiffers are the ones who don't. I hate having to give Streep just a little bit of praise or respect because others have taken their appreciation of her to devotion levels. Maybe a month ago I saw Adaptation again and couldn't enjoy it because of Meryl Streep being not totally comfortable with the direction of her character. This role is the most shocking thing she's done in ages and her career isn't really filled with shocking parts. I believe Sophie and Silkwood are her most badass moments as an actress with any kind of real bite and sexuality. Now if she could remain that woman I might have to join her fan club but those two performances aren't strong enough to over power the stench of everything else she touches were turns to bland. Streep can't do camp! There's no fun there like there is with Dunaway, Lange, Blanchett, Weaver (Galaxy Quest, Dave, Ghostbusters).
Well to me Meryl is by far the most deserving of them all
and the fact that she made the list without even a movie on the year just proves that pont.
Hmm isn't Streep kind of camp-y in 'Death Becomes Her'? What a comedic bite that performance is!
I love Meryl Streep but I'm not blind (and neither is she, if you read her essay on 'The Onion' about the lack of perpetuity in her overall performances you'd know it) and I know there are many performances of her I didn't find all that awesome or roles I thought that could go for other actresses.
But the person, the icon she is and the way she manages to stay relevant (and it's been like this for 30+ years)... it's outstanding.
I'd add 'Postcards from the Edge', 'Devil Wears Prada' and 'Bridges of Madison County' to 'Silkwood' and 'Sophie's Choice'. Maybe 'Death Becomes Her' too. I think these 6 performances embody everything I love about Meryl.
Also (I hated the movie, btw): didn't she make 'Mamma Mia!' seem like 10 times more fun?
Now... Katherine Heigl... I'm running out of excuses to like her.
She makes horrible decisions as a producer (her association with Robert Luketic is a deadly combination) and she really does pick the worst rom-com scripts out there.
I'd reckon she was right about leaving that sinking ship that is 'Grey's Anatomy' but she was so good in dramatic scenes with a bit of comedic bite... Why can't she take those kind of roles instead?
I'd love it if she decided to produce some indie comedies instead of box office successes/critical flops.
I like angelina! Cant stand SJP! Reese doesnt bother me, though I find her over-rated, but she can be very good at times and I like her as a person! Aniston was ok as rachel and rachel alone. I thought she and cox were the least talented and interesting from the friends cast an they are the most successful and I find it very unfair. Heighl is repetitive, has little range but doesnt bother me as well, makes no difference to me.
Cant stand the sight of stewart.
Love sandra b. Off screen. Love her as a person. I admire julia's ability to keep herself on top decade after decade and I think she is very charismatic, she has a natural glow that doesnt seem to fade.
All of the are overpaid.
God, this list is even more lame than usual. That SJP thing is still a big mystery. There is no way she attracts the public more than Bullock. I misses seeing Jodie Foster, Nicole Kidman or Cate Blanchett. How much Kate Winslet is paid by the way? She's never on these lists.
We all know Sandra Bullock didn't deserve her Oscar, but I personally am very excited for the direction her career is headed in, like with her new films. I guess she's taken more seriously now and is offered better roles (I guess that's a given with an Oscar)...I guess I just mean the fact that she's actually offered good dramatic roles now.
Anywho, I kinda rambled there (it's late lol), but I'm excited because Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close seems cool, I'm interested to see her in that. But Gravity??? That shit sounds awesome! Opposite George Clooney??! Girl's moving up big time. It sounds like nothing she's ever done before. Sounds like another Oscar nod possibility.
Angelina Jolie, who I LOVE, made history when Salt was included in the 100 mill dollars club at the box office. Jolie is the first woman to lead an action movie with great commercial success. And she has a great personality, Brad Pitt kids and very sexy. She can also act and is the movie star since the entire world loves her
SJP is a horrible actress
Aniston is in trouble and is in need of a new agent. How can she be Rachel over and over again on all of her romcom movies? Watching the trailers is good enough for me
Heigl tries to be both Bullock and Roberts but fails
Bullock is charming, funny and I like her even though some of her movies are quite bad
Roberts has made some bad ones, but she is the American Sweetheart after all
I like Witherspoon in smart written kind of movies like Election, Legally Blond and American Psycho.
Streep is too safe. Please pick up the phone and call Kidman, Blanchett and Swinton for risky business advice
You're forgetting Sigourney Weaver. I hope she can snag a Supporting Actress statuette. She needs an Oscar any Oscar and although she's a very capable lead, Hollywood doesn't care about grown women not named Streep, Close or Bening.
@James T. What do you mean? Everyone knows she's a great actress. Actors aren't auteurs. Being commercial doesn't have to have a reverse effect on your greatness. And she's one of the most famous actresses on the planet - it's not like she was ever exclusive indie property.
And why is it so jarring that the most talented actress alive is also among the highest-paid? I call that justice. How awesome would this list be if, say, Heigl, Aniston, SJP and Stewart were replaced by Bening, Moore, Blanchette, and Winslet, just to name a few? This roster of names is mostly so shitty, seeing as I can't remember the last time half these women made a relevant movie, and Meryl was the list'e saving grace. I say hooray for that.
Heigl had long hair for a very long time, and developed a following on tv through Roswell and Grey's. She does headline romcoms (poorly); just chooses to go for quantity over quality. I think she can be better as a supporting character.
I remember her from Wish Upon a Star (1996) and My Father the Hero (1994). gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
well the last bit in the list was meant to be tongue in cheek. i don't hate Heigl at all. i just don't understand her career. She seems interesting and feisty as a person but that inner fire just does not translate to the screen... maybe because she has truly awful taste in material (or is letting other people decide for her. who knows) but aside from Knocked Up her movies aren't hits either and yet people keep paying her to make more bad ones.
manuel -- /3rtfull is right. Sigourney headlined the alien franchise -- action -- which made a ton of money, especially if you adjust for inflation. Bigger hits than SALT is what I'm saying. But Angelina is a for real action star because the films usually hit: Wanted, Tomb Raider.
Jorge -- i agree that i think Meryl completely understands her own camp value (in the right role) and sometimes maybe doesn't understand it in the wrong role ;)
Kit -- the interesting thing about romcoms being the easiest route to riches is that they don't actually make that much money. the day of the huge blockbuster romcoms is way behind us. when was the last mega hit? i think it's just that the films have a solid enough draw. In a way they're like horror movies. They have their audience that will always show up no matter how bad it is, so if you can keep costs down you will most likely make a tidy if not spectacular profit.
@ Jorges Rodrigez: I just read Meryl's essay for the Onion, thanks for that!
http://www.theonion.com/articles/name-one-masterpiece-of-cinema-that-ive-starred-in,11490/
Say what you will about her acting (and everyone here has valid points, I think), she makes it very hard for me not to like her as a person, darn her.
Well, only two years ago The Proposal made $160+ million—and that's just stateside.
Heigl, for her part, actually has headlined a few legitimate rom-com hits: in addition to Knocked Up (which, let's face it, would've been a hit with or without her), 27 Dresses did $77 million and The Ugly Truth did $89 million U.S. Add international grosses on top of it, and the $30-40 million budgets of her films seem like very sound investments.
Jolie, unlike Sigourney Weaver, was a star BEFORE her first big action movie (Tomb Raider). And she doesn't work with action maestros like Ridley Scott or James Cameron, and yet her action movies are still sizable hits, often on her back alone. Her windfall makes sense.
Aniston seems way overpaid for what she delivers, as does Stewart, who I just don't see as long-term bankable material. I bet she drops off this list in no time just as Barrymore, Berry and Zellweger have.
Two things are certain? I'd add (3) be white, (4) be thin, (5) be straight, or, if bi, flaunt your het credentials by marrying a superstar and having many children.
Jolie, unlike Weaver, will always be a star. Scott and Cameron weren't brand names when they directed their entries into the Alien franchise. Jolie has yet to be in a classic film, but Sigourney has been in several, sort of the female version of Harrison Ford.
I refuse to support anything Katherine Heigl and Jennifer Aniston are in. I think the last film I saw with Heigl was Knocked Up and with Aniston, Marley & Me (which I was dragged to see with my nephews)...both of them either have horrible tastes or horrible agents (and I'm going with the former). Sure, both can be charming and nice on screen, but you must possess a little something else for me to deck out $10 to see your film. Every one of their films seems like a recycled version of their last, and it really just pisses me off that people continuously flock to the same, stale thing.
SJP and Kristen Stewart are only viable through their respected franchises, so honestly I wouldn't take much stock in them. Say what you want about Jolie, but I think she's a fantastic actress, and although I wish she would step away from the action films for a bit and give us more Girl, Interrupted/Gia performances, you can't deny that she has international appeal and can sale a movie.
As far as Roberts, Witherspoon, Bullock, and Diaz go, I don't begrudge them their rankings because all of them (to some extent) are good at what they do and their resumes are much more diverse than their other contemporaries (aka Aniston, SJP, Heigl). And it is refreshing to see Streep, already in her 60s, still holding her own with the young' uns!
@DeborahLipp: The students studying producing at the MFA program I went to are actually taught not to finance material that is black-focused or will feature a primarily black cast. Isn't that sad? so, in that way, I'm not totally shocked to see a complete absence of color on this list. Hollywood and America in general is willing to accept a lot more diversity in terms of age, race, looks, etc. from its actors, but actresses, it seem, have a harder time as evidenced by this list.
Regarding the romcom queens who win Oscars, I more or less agree. Obviously, no sure career trajectory can get you there, but the seemingly shocking career aboutface that occurs when a romcom actress does a drama is notable. That's why I fully expect Drew Barrymore to win an Oscar someday. Am I crazy? I think the combination of Hollywood royalty combined with a career that has spanned nearly three decades of visibility will get her there the moment she does something even remotely in the Oscar wheelhouse. Like if Grey Gardens had been a theatrical release and not an HBO movie.
I think Nathan needs to watch Seaching for Debra Winger again -- that doc is extremely dated for a number of reasons but the women expressing their dislike for the games Hollywood plays on actresses is still spot on. Whenever I read a question from you asking Why concerning Hollywood thinking I wonder Why you haven't accepted the cold hard reality of sexism, ageism, racism, and how most of the time those first two things don't matter to critics and the academy if you're French, British, or Australian.
I've never understood the point of these lists, making mere mortals hate movie stars because they're overpaid? Showing that quality doesn't equal more money? Even if that's the point, why not discounting the money for taxes (easily a 40% at least?) and the money for their managers (10%?) and the one for the people around them, entourage and all (another 10%?) that would make these figures a 60% lower? It's Forbes, right? Figures are their thing.
About the rom-com thing, the interesting thing is that actresses have to prove themselves as comedic worthy while their male counterparts don't have to. You can have a male movie star that has never played a comedic part. Now, is there any actress below 40 and above 20 that has never been in a rom-com?
Michelle williams has never been in a romcon, and hopefully never will, unless its something of "annie hall/when harry met sally" quality. This is one of the things that sets her apart from other actresses in her age group- she refuses to do stupid crap!
I was gonna say jennifer connelly, but then I remembered she was in "he's just not that into you"! Was hillary swank ever in a romcom? Not that I remember.....
Aniston and heighl do the same thing over and over and over again! I do agree that heighl fits the "tv star turned romcom queen" path, just like aniston and SJP! Aniston is still playing rachel, rachel in her fourties. I'm like-where is ross? Oh, bring me phoebe!!!!
I love drew barrymore!!!!!
Heigl's and aniston's movies are as bad as kate hudson's, who I absolutely cant stand! I dont pay to see none of their movies!
I guess ellen page was never in a romcom as well! How old is she? Twenty something right?
/3rtfull -- if i were to accept it, i'd be just like everyone else. I never plan to accept all the terrible double standards or just scary standards... always plan to rage against the injustices of the machine with my teensy voice on behalf of the great actresses ;)
iggy -- i'd be very surprised if movie stars paid as much percentage in taxes as regular folk. all the laws favor the wealthy, you know. Lots of loopholes once you have the money and the access to high powered attorneys and the like. But even if they paid 75% of their income, they still don't have to pay for things that they can afford since people are alwasy gifting them things. A sweetly absurd life if you can get it but considering the millions who want it it's like winning the lottery... very hard to get ;)
Well, yes, I didn't mean to imply "poor Angelina, she won't afford another diamond bracelet this month." But Forbes is so prestigious for this kind of thing, lists of wealthy people that one might think they are accurate with their numbers (and letting things off to get your point is manipulative with their readers). If they're not, I don't see their point When I was in school and had to solve algebra problems there was no rounding up or down. If the outcome was wrong even following the right proceedings, the whole problem was plainly and rightfully wrong. Actually, I don' t know why I am angry at them [shakes fist in the air]
Amanda, one could make a case for Juno being one (not me) if more skilfull and less formulaic than most. Even the most prestigipus young actress (Winslet) had to go through The Holiday.
Yes, kate and the holiday..... I remember that! I thought about Juno but I wouldnt consider it a romcom myself, but yes, some people would!
I hope Drew gets better parts due to her Grey Gardens success...but I mean, she's done dramatic roles her whole career. Probably not as many as romcoms, but still. I used to be such a huge Drew fan...I mean I still am, but now that I'm grown up and I understand more about film, just not as much. I think she's great and a wonderful person though. She was especially great in Scream, but horror performances get no respect.
Regarding the race thing, it's sad, but not surprising unfortunately. But wasn't Whoopi the highest paid actress in Hollywood at one point in the 90s?
The "Onion" thing wasn't written by Meryl.
No. Those in power make the lockstep choices. You can single-out and bring attention to projects that make good unconventional casting choices, using women of all ages, sizes, races in quality parts or turning old stereotypes on their head. I love this place because it is so hopeful even when I'm generally not. I could learn to love Meryl but then again it would make me like everyone else! Kisses and hugs, me.
Michelle williams has never been in a romcon, and hopefully never will, unless its something of "annie hall/when harry met sally" quality...
I don't know if "Dick" or her next film "Oz: The Great and Powerful" would enter in this category. But again, Williams is entering in this game. Sometimes, you need to play with a few Hollywood rules and next do the film you must want it.
Jolie - I really like Jolie as an actress (Maybe limited in certain aspects but with the right direction she could be wonderful, as Brad Pitt) and right now, she's the biggest female movie star in Hollywood (Even a turd like "The Tourist" make profit).
Streep - Yes, I think Streep needs better decisions but it's refreshing seeing a 60s. actress in the top of her game and good hollywood films (Actually I don't despise Mamma Mia! as many others and also I'm not a fan). Also, I really love her off screen. ;)
Witherspoon - Before 2006, she was great, but after her Oscar... yikes. Same with Roberts
Bullock - Even I didn't think she deserves her Oscar, it's also nice to see her in changelling projects.
Why the hell is SJP so high up that list? Did she even make any movies this year?
The onely one's worth their money to me are Angelina Jolie & Meryl Streep, both great actresses and great human beings, Sandra Bullock and Katherine Heigl. She just needs to stop making RomComs so the rest of the world can see wat a fantastic actress she really is. Please make this happen.