Natalie Portman: ‘Ashton was paid 3X as much as me on No Strings Attached’

portman MC

The bulk of Natalie Portman’s Oscar campaign has happened after the election. I remember that she had to walk the red carpet for the LA premiere of Jackie just one day after Donald Trump was elected. I feel like that’s influenced her RBF (resting bitchface) and I don’t hate it. Portman has looked royally pissed off on red carpets and photoshoots for two solid months and it’s like she’s letting her face speak for all of us: we all feel grumpy, bitchy and pissed. Anyway, here’s Natalie Portman on the February cover of Marie Claire UK, looking like she’s about to shank somebody. Portman gets a bit political in the interview too – you can read the full piece here. Some highlights:

The interview took place two days after Trump was elected: ‘Someone said to me that it felt like it had snowed in LA.’

How she interprets Jackie Kennedy: ‘Jackie was really fun and really naughty – still elegant, but she was like a coquette smoking cigarettes in the bathroom at school, getting in trouble with her friends and going out with guys. That was so interesting to me. To have this public image… The dichotomy the public had – that Jackie is the one you marry, but Marilyn is the one you want to f–k or whatever. That difference between how you are and your awareness of how the public perceives you, that friction between those things was super interesting.’

She voted in favor of legalizing marijuana in California: ‘If you see the examples of the states where it’s become legal, people are actually smoking less. It means fewer jail sentences for those who are non-violent offenders. It doesn’t really hurt anybody.’

She’s frustrated by the lack of opportunities for women in Hollywood: ‘I don’t think women and men are more or less capable, we just have a clear issue with women not having opportunities. We need to be part of the solution, not perpetuating the problem.’

How she feels post-election: ‘I feel energised to be an activist; that our art is more urgent than ever. It’s more important to be as good a person as you can be in your community and to be really active in helping people who need more help now.’

Her paycheck for No Strings Attached: “Ashton Kutcher was paid three times as much as me on No Strings Attached. I knew and I went along with it because there’s this thing with ‘quotes’ in Hollywood. His [quote] was three times higher than mine so they said he should get three times more. I wasn’t as pissed as I should have been. I mean, we get paid a lot, so it’s hard to complain, but the disparity is crazy. Compared to men, in most professions, women make 80 cents to the dollar. In Hollywood, we are making 30 cents to the dollar.”

[From Marie Claire UK]

I find the Ashton story very interesting – that film wasn’t made when Natalie was a nobody, you know? No Strings Attached came out in 2011. At that time, Portman was an Oscar nominee, a Harvard grad and a consistently working actress. And Ashton still made three times what she made. That’s gross.

The rest interview is pretty basic and non-controversial. Are we supposed to clutch our pearls that Natalie is pro-pot-legalization? At this point, it feels like a majority opinion, especially since Colorado’s experiment has worked so well (and been so beneficial to the economy). What she says about Trump isn’t even controversial – we know she’s liberal and she voted for Hillary Clinton, so what she says is so… measured. Especially coming just 48 hours after an orange fascist was elected. Just goes to show you… Natalie is really good at Oscar-campaigning.


Photos courtesy of Marie Claire UK.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

91 Responses to “Natalie Portman: ‘Ashton was paid 3X as much as me on No Strings Attached’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Maum says:

    I hate the argument (that you often hear used against actresses speaking out on pay disparity) that she got paid a lot so found it hard to get annoyed that he was getting paid THREE TIMES MORE THAN HER!!!!!!

    It doesn’t matter how much she made- what matters is that an averagely mediocre actor who’s not exactly box office draw made three times the amount she did for no reason other than being a man!!!!!!

    She should be furious disgusted and horrified and sack her agent- there is no excuse for this.

    • JulP says:

      Exactly! It’s a way of shutting down the argument, really (“well you made a lot so you should shut up and stop complaining”). In this case, it’s clearly just because he’s a man too. There’s no argument to be made that he was the bigger box office draw. I mean, Natalie has been acting in films since she was 12 or so, she was in the Star Wars movies, she was nominated for an Oscar, etc. She was the clear box office draw. What was Ashton in aside from That 70s Show and a few flop movies? He’s also a terrible actor, although that clearly doesn’t seem to matter.

      • teacakes says:

        Hilary Swank had TWO Oscars by age 30 but how many of you can name any films she did post-2005 without having to look it up? Oscar noms/wins don’t mean anything unless you leverage them afterwards, they’re not a game-changing advantage except right afterwards (see: Felicity Jones negotiating her way up to 7 figures for Rogue One right after her TtoE Oscar nom, or Jlaw signing on for the Hunger Games right after hers for Winter’s Bone)

      • LAK says:

        Oscars aren’t the issue. Yes your quote goes up, but in this case Natalie has the bigger box office based upon films in her CV. By the time this film came round, she had starred in a few big hitters. There are very few outright flops.

        Ashton’s draw was being TV ( 2 very popular tv shows) and Mr Demi Moore. He learnt a thing or two from Demi about getting a high salary based on slim pickings at the BO, but Natalie should have stood her ground.

        Hilary Swank, 2 oscars not withstanding, has no breakout hit on her resume. Most of her films don’t work or are flops. She doesn’t command a high salary because her BO is non existent. She is a bad picker of projects and was very lucky with the 2 films that got her the oscars.

      • perplexed says:

        I feel a lot of Natalie’s successes come from ensemble films more than her actually carrying a film alone. I don’t remotely think of her as a box-office star. But I still think she should have been paid more than Ashton Kutcher for perceived respectability. Does anyone actually respect Ashton Kutcher as an actor? I have my doubts as to whether even Mila Kunis does.

    • Val says:

      Completely agree. I would have been FURIOUS and would have backed out of the movie – I mean, it was just a dude-romcom type thing… not like she was dying to do it? I don’t understand. I’m currently fighting to get fair pay for a job I’m supposed to start next week and every time I read something like this I’m determined to dig in my heels.

    • Greenieweenie says:

      But this is how sexism in the wage gap perpetuates itself. Women are paid less than men, and your asking salary is based on your pay history. It should be against the law to ask women to disclose their pay history.

    • HeidiM says:

      I thought she was a producer for No Strings attached? Shouldn’t she have had a say in what she was paid?

    • delorb says:

      Bottom line, he asked for more and got it. She asked for less and got it. I’ve gotten jobs where I’ve kicked myself for not asking for more. But that’s all on me and not the next schlub. The pay gap is real, but I don’t know if it applies in this case. It’s not as if there is some set pay for anyone. They all negotiate and she didn’t negotiate well. Come back to me when the pay is actually set and one person is given more, not because he asked, but because he has a penis.

  2. Alix says:

    Ashton Kutcher shouldn’t make 3x as much as anybody, for anything.

    • detritus says:

      This makes it such a perfect example, can even a MRA deny this?
      Cut to Kutcher in Dude where’s my car, and Portman in Black Swan.

      Ashton Kelso Kutcher made triple award winning Natalie Portman. This world uugh

      • teacakes says:

        She wasn’t yet ‘award winning Natalie Portman’ when they made No Strings Attached, but ok.

      • Erinn says:

        She still had the awful Star Wars performances on her record at that point, and Zoolander (as much as I’ve enjoyed it in the past) isn’t something brag worthy for a career. She was getting worst supporting actress Razzies for the Star Wars movies.

        He’d done The Guardian before that time too, as well as Bobby – which were a lot more serious roles than Dude Where’s My Car.

        I’m in no way saying that he was some acting gem, but she had her flops as well.

      • detritus says:

        She was a Golden Globe in 2005 for Closer, and do not forget the highly prestigious Teen Choice Award in 2002 for Princess Amidala.

        So, yes, she had been awarded by then, just not the Oscar yet.

        And yeah, it would be more fair to compare Portman’s Star Wars to Kutcher’s Dude where’s my car. Then you end up comparing Butterfly Effect to Black Swan and Kutcher is still lacking in both cases.

      • Val says:

        But she was sort of Hollywood royalty with her Leon performance, no? She was a big name regardless…

      • perplexed says:

        Yeah, pretty much. After Leon, she had that performance in Beautiful Girls, and everyone kept hailing her as some kind of prodigy akin to Jodie Foster. I don’t necessarily agree, but that’s always been her reputation. Even when her rep was in trouble after Star Wars, directors like Mike Nichols were willing to bail her out with decent roles that could land her nominations.

        I don’t think of her as a box-office star, but she’s always been respected.

      • teacakes says:

        @detritus – again, award nominations in and of themselves are not a guarantee of career advancement or being paid more than your costars years after your nom/win.

        I mean, look at Adrien Brody – he WON a damn Oscar in 2003 as the youngest man ever to win Best Actor but by 2007 he was hardly working (there’s the Wes Anderson movie but other than that, nope).

        3× gap is crazy but neither do I buy the ‘she had an Oscar nom 5 years ago, she should have automatically got more!’ train of thought.

    • boredblond says:

      Talent or not, Kutcher was a ‘known’ name, because of his years on TV. She and her representative made their own deal, separate of his, and Hollywood producers care more about green than pink or blue…if her name had been Sandra Bullock, the $ roles would’ve been reversed.

  3. Shambles says:

    “I feel energised to be an activist; that our art is more urgent than ever.”

    Umm… What kind of ‘art’ is she making that makes her an activist? Right now the only thing she’s an activist for is living in Paris or living in America depending on what day of the week it is.

    • Esmom says:

      Ha, I had the exact same thought. I guess the implication is that she will be more engaged in activism? Just not yet.

    • teacakes says:

      This is at least better than the time she said she was “excited” about the upcoming recession because of how much art would come out of it.

    • Val says:

      I guess you make artsy movies as an activist?

      I’m an activist and I want to make activist movies… that are art, because they are movies. So many non-pretentious ways to say this lol

    • Shambles says:

      Yeah, she’s kind of a pretentious dick.

  4. mellie says:

    I don’t know that either of them should have been paid anything for No Strings Attached…what a crappy movie and the chemistry between them was non-existent.

    • Don't kill me I'm French says:

      No chemistry and if I remember well,her character was annoying (in my opinion)
      Whatever ,there is no reason who justified she was less paid than him.

    • JulP says:

      Lol yeah it was pretty bad. The version with Mila Kunis and Justin Timberlake was actually better (and I find Timberlake to be very grating)

      • mp says:

        really?????? I hate that one, JT kills everything, he’s just a big noooo for me.

      • TyrantDestroyed says:

        I hate to say this because I think J.T. should retire from acting but I found the couple more credible in that version too. Natalie and Ashton had zero chemistry.

      • perplexed says:

        Yeah, the JT and MK version was better. Mila and Justin had chemistry. I even wondered if they had hooked up.

    • Doc says:

      came here to say that. she has two facial expressions. Don’t kill me, but i think A.K. was fantastic as the dopey Michael kelso from that 70’s show and at least he’s fun in his roles and doesn’t seem to take his acting too seriously. I’d take some of his rom-coms over anything Portman has starred in… ‘A lot like love’ for example. i watch it once a year and i am not ashamed 🙂

  5. Kasia says:

    This is ridiculous. Natalie has always been an A-lister – at least since Star Wars. Ashton at no point in time was more popular than her. She should have been paid 3 times more than him, not the other way round!

    • Tris says:

      Agreed. Heartbreaking and outrageous that this happened, and good for her for outing it.

    • noway says:

      She has had both critical and box office success in other films, Cold Mountain and Heat to name a few. While Ashton really just had 70’s show. Even today her avg. box office is 75 million with an Oscar and his is 54 million with tv shows. For all of those trying to make excuses for a 3X pay increase for a debatable bigger name, think about Kaley Couco in Big Bang Theory or Sofia Vegara in Modern Family are they going or making 3X more than an established movie star with a pretty good box office take in the majority of his movies. Doubt it. I do think there is a social issue though, a lot of women just take it and think okay I get this whereas men generally would never say they get it. Even if they understood the reasoning, they would still fight for more money tooth and nail.

      • LAK says:


        People forget that she has had a fairly decent BO compared to Ashton. She should have stood her ground based on that alone.

        The critical success is a bonus that adds a feather in her cap.

        Ashton doesn’t have a movie BO record worth discussing despite his success in tv.

  6. Talie says:

    I think that was the height of Ashton’s box office power…soon after that, he reinvented into the tech guy thing. I mean, I’m no fan, but at one point he was making studios money.

    • Jegede says:

      Pretty much.

    • teacakes says:

      Exactly . The whole ‘how dare he get paid more than her’ leaves off the fact that at the time (2009-10, before Black Swan started awards rounds) he was seen as a pretty profitable bet in comedies, while she wasn’t as experienced in the genre plus had had a bunch of flops in the years just before.

      • Bridget says:

        I disagree. Kutcher never really took off as a leading man, despite being very pretty. By the time this movie came around he already had a series of flops behind him, not to mention the embarrassing incident where Cameron Crowe recast him (with Orlando Bloom no less) because he was such a bad actor. On no planet should Kutcher have been paid 3 times more. Not to mention, Natalie was a producer on the movie!

      • LAK says:

        Nope. Ashton has always been popular for his tv shows, nothing he did on the big screen.

        The years you quote, the only hit he had was WHAT HAPPENS IN VEGAS with Cameron Diaz. Her comedies are gold whoever is cast opposite her, so i would put that movie’s success down to her.

        Every movie Ashton is in from 2003 -2011 has him paired with a big ger star with few exceptions and whilst they all had high visibility, BO was less than great for most of them.

        For Natalie in the same time frame, from 2003 -2011, 5 breakout BO hits in which she is the star. Her BO is much higher than Ashton even if you remove Starwars.

        And that’s not taking into consideration her 1994 -2003 successes.

      • teacakes says:

        @LAK – I posted 2005-09 box office numbers for both Ashton and Natalie’s films (meaning after Star Wars ended but before NSA got made) and I hate to say it but his look higher.

        Her 1994-2003 successes and Star Wars wouldn’t have factored into the salary negotiations in 2009-10 any more than Ashton being in Dude Where’s My Car in 2000, would have done. If the studio behind NSA were checking for relatively recent box office grosses of projects with their names attached, his numbers likely looked better than hers plus she had no history of doing comedy and he did.

    • Ramona says:

      Wrong (in Trumps voice). To this day, his only movie to cross the 100M mark was Valentines Day, an ensemble film he was barely in. In fact none of the few movies that hit 50M were on him. Open Season was animated and that was again ensemble and he wasnt even the top name. What Happens in Vegas was a Cameron Diaz film. Ashton was more famous for Punking celebs on TV and marrying Demi Moor (who was in her day a legitimate box office draw and the first woman to cross the 10M salary mark, btw). Someone on reddit did the math and they were pretty much head to head box office wise when they signed on. Natalie is far ahead now.

      Basically, Hollywood set a salary range for male stars and a much lower one for female stars. It has little to do with box office power and everything to do with what they can get away with. Because the range is instituted by an industry wide unspoken code, the actresses have no choice but to negotiate within the range if they want to work. Its good to see that even Ashton acknowledges this and has issued a statement supporting her.

      • Talie says:

        I said I was no fan, but facts are facts. The man did make bank for studios at one point, domestically and internationally.

        Natalie is a great actress, but she’s never been Julia Roberts, racking up hits.

      • Ramona says:

        I’m sorry Talie but you didnt understand my post (or research your point at all). He DIDNT make bank, thats why this story is so gross. He was simply placed in an earning range because he was a guy being offered a leading role. Read the numbers again.

      • noway says:

        Facts are facts and yours are wrong. Natalie’s movies have made more than Ashton’s, even at that point, plus she has done the actor thing of making several art and independent films which dramatically lowers her overall box office. Whereas I wouldn’t really say Ashton has done that much.

        Still this is another justification that really just doesn’t hold water. Even if you believed he was more bankable- which is more than debatable as I am not sure what they are looking at maybe the dreaded Q rating which keep in mind Ashton was a social media darling for a long time too, and we know that doesn’t always translate to box office cash. Thank god for that or all we would be seeing is Kardashian movies. Still 3X as much, nope this is just a way to pay actresses less.

      • Bridget says:

        @Ramona: it’s interesting that you bring up Moore in your example. Demi Moore was in fact at one point the highest paid woman in Hollywood, making $12 million for the movie Striptease. Of course, at the time male superstar counterparts were making $20 million, and they didn’t have to take off their clothing.

      • Talie says:

        I don’t know why this is touching such a nerve to point out, at one point, Ashton Kutcher was big deal. And sure, if we count Star Wars, I guess Natalie Portman would swamp everyone…except no one sees those movie for the actors.

      • LAK says:

        Talie, Ashton Kutcher was a big deal at one time, but not to extent you imagine. You are conflating celebrity with BO.

        Ashton Kutcher was on a TV show from 1998 – 2006 with the occassional movie inbetwixt.

        Simultaneously he worked on another TV show ‘Punk’d’ for MTV from 2003- 2012 which made him even more famous.

        His celebrity was heightened by his relationship with Demi, but if you look at the facts of his BO record during that time, his movies under performed.

        1998 -2012 he has only 19 credits and only the one with Cameron Diaz was a huge success.

        The other successes were also down to the bigger star he was paired with eg Bernie Mac or Kevin Costner.

        By contrast, even if you take out Natalie Portman’s Star Wars BO, she had a much better record of films in which she was the star.

        Her average BO is much higher than Ashton even though she is less visible as a celebrity in the same time frame.

      • teacakes says:

        @Ramona – No Strings Attached was an early 2011 release, so they started making it well before Black Swan came out, so Black Swan’s later success is entirely moot in terms of whatever negotiations went down.

        Just for argument’s sake, here are Natalie Portman’s movies post-Star Wars (which made money but got her no professional leverage since they were so hated)

        Free Zone – box office $410,392 on a $1 million budget
        V for Vendetta (2006) – grossed $132.5 million on a $54 million budget – definite hit.
        Paris, je t’aime – grossed $17.5 million on a $13 million budget (this was an ensemble made up of segments)
        Goya’s Ghosts – grossed $ 9.4 million on a budget of $50 million
        My Blueberry Nights (2007) – grossed $21 million on a $10 million budget (Norah Jones was the lead though)
        The Darjeeling Limited – (she had a bit part, her character was never named)
        Mr Magorium’s Wonder Emporium – grossed $69.5 million on a $65 million budget
        The Other Boleyn Girl – $75 million gross on a $35 million budget
        Brothers – $43 million on a 26 million budget
        Hesher – $449,702 on a $7 million budget.

        Meanwhile, Ashton Kutcher in that same time frame *meaning 2005-2009

        Guess Who – grossed $101.8 million on a $35 million budget
        A Lot Like Love – $42.8 million on a $30 million budget
        The Guardian – $94.9 million on a $70 million budget
        Bobby – he had basically a bit role.
        Open Season – $197.3 million gross on an $87 million budget (note: voice role)
        What Happens in Vegas (2008) – $219.3 million on a $35 million budget
        Spread (2009) – grossed $12 million on a $4 million budget

        I left off all 2010 and after films for both.

        It’s all very well to say his successes ‘don’t count’ because he had a big-name costar, but the numbers tell a different story, and the plain fact is that in the years immediately before No Strings Attached was made, his movies were more profitable/made more money and had his name in a prominent place on the poster. Her child-star rep and Star Wars didn’t count there, and no actor in Hollywood gets paid on the basis of successes of over five years ago. Which would also apply to Kutcher after his movie career stopped working, he would not have been paid more than Natalie in 2014.

      • detritus says:

        This is a good break down, thanks for finding it all

    • perplexed says:

      I can’t remember Ashton ever making box-office money.

      I don’t think Natalie does either, but Ashton is one of those people I’m not even sure people perceive as being a real actor. He’s always seemed like a bit of a joke to people, despite being conventionally good-looking and having starred in That ’70s Show. I dislike Natalie, but she seems to have SOME fans (probably male), while I can’t recall anyone ever saying “Yeah, you know, that Ashton Kutcher, I really like him!”

      I don’t know if it’s because of his marriage to Demi Moore, but Ashton has always seemed like more of a tabloid star to me.

      I think it is possible that Natalie’s record ties Ashton, but I think that has more to do with her being such a poor box-office star rather than him actually being anywhere near decent.

      • LAK says:

        Ashton has always been a bigger celebrity than any of the things he does as a job. People confuse his huge celebrity with BO success. The reality doesn’t match.

      • teacakes says:

        @LAK – I agree, but the same could be said about Blake Lively – who, before last year, has nothing but flops but still had “star power” to her name thanks to successful pap strolls and public appearances.

        Basically, name recognition is name recognition even if people come by it in ways we’d scoff at (i.e. via their love life/social media rather than any actual box office success). And studios like name recognition.

  7. teacakes says:

    It’s worth pointing out that that movie was cast/made in 2009-20 BEFORE Natalie had her Black Swan awards run, and just when she was coming off a string of flops/indies like Other Boleyn Girl, Hesher, Mr Magorium etc etc (Star Wars prequels were commercial hits but everyone hated them, even she acknowledged that).

    And Kutcher, douche that he may be otherwise, has made a statement saying he’s proud of Natalie for speaking up about the wage gap. Which is at least classier than what Jeremy Renner had to say about the gap between his and his female costars’ wages (“not my department”).

    • Bridget says:

      Kutcher had some huge flops of his own, though. He never really broke into leading man territory despite his best efforts. Think about it: they both had flops, but his were excused and hers weren’t? And again, he was paid 3x as much? No way.

      • teacakes says:

        I just posted the box office numbers on their movies between 2005-09 i.e. the time NSA was made (all checked via boxofficemojo).

        3x is a crazy gap but it’s worth remembering that award prestige doesn’t always translate to $$$$ for actors.

      • Bridget says:

        @teacakes, I saw, but you’re really sticking with TV guy Ashton Kutcher being worth 3x as much as Natalie Portman, in a rom com, in which she was also a producer?

        Not to mention, you’re trying to divide and contextualize, but are doing so narrowly. Ashton Kutcher never carried a movie of his own. He was a safe, attractive white man who was always paired with someone that could reliably draw an audience (no one saw What Happens In Vegas for him). It’s cool if you’re not a huge Portman fan. The movie *stunk* and she’s not my favorite. But I agree with the point she made.

      • teacakes says:

        @Bridget – you’re right on the ‘TV guy’ part and him having high profile costars but he was also the ‘comedy guy’ and NSA was a romcom. And her movies barring V for Vendetta in that time were all ensembles/two-handers with high profile costars, or so low-grossing I wouldn’t even remember them without wiki.

        I thought it was only fair to look at both their careers in the handful of years before this movie got made, you can dismiss that if you want but I used the exact same yardstick for both.

        Also I can’t believe I am defending Ashton Kutcher, UGH.

    • detritus says:

      It was before she’d won her Oscar, but she’d been nominated for other work and she’d won a Globe at this point. Kutcher had only won a Teen Choice. In fact, I don’t see anywhere he was even nominated for anything more prestigious than Kids/Teens Choice.

      Portman may be an entitled twat, but shes a decent actress and Kutcher is also an entitled twat, but really not that decent an actor.

      And if you look into the history of their nominations for awards, well it shows a large difference as well.

      • teacakes says:

        …..this was a ROMCOM. Oscar/award nominations don’t exactly make a difference in that genre, so his having Teen Choice awards vs her Oscar nomination, is irrelevant.

      • detritus says:

        So, to be clear, I’m arguing Kutcher should never be getting 3x as much as Portman in a film that they are both leads in. Let alone one she helped produce, unless she made that choice clearly to get the movie made or what have you. Except she felt pressured to go along.

        You are arguing he does deserve 3x as much because he is a bigger comedian and has slightly better return on investment, and you feel he has more name recognition? 2x? Or do you just want to say he’s better? I’m just not sure what’s going on here.

      • teacakes says:

        I’m merely pointing out that award nominations from 5 years ago are not an automatic entitlement to be paid more, especially since prestige doesn’t mean much when it comes to romcoms.

      • detritus says:

        Well, that I can get behind, even if I don’t agree with it in this case.

    • LAK says:

      The only success ashton had in the same timeframe was the movie he made with Cameron Diaz, but she has always been a success no matter who she is paired with.

      Star wars aside, Natalie was much more successful compared to Ashton. His celebrity due to Punk’d and being Mr Demi Moore blinds everyone to the reality.

      • teacakes says:

        She had more award show appearances and prestige, it didn’t always translate to box office.

        3x is still not a justifiable gap, but I posted their box office numbers for films they made in the post-Star Wars/pre-NSA time (2005-09) and his numbers def. look higher than hers.

  8. canofpineapples says:

    She sure is pushing hard for another “golden idol”… She hustled like the rent was due for the last one, but then suddenly was above all that.
    Her losing at the Golden Globes was just glorious. Hard to be the oh-so-gracious winner who doesn’t need the award but blesses us all by accepting it… If you don’t win.

  9. Emma says:

    So bloody, what?

  10. I Choose Me says:

    Not surprised. I’m not the biggest fan of her acting but she’s ten times better than Kutcher and deserved more esp., based on her status at the time. I understand why she didn’t make a fuss though. For the same reason Jennifer Lawrence and many other actresses have cited. As a woman you make demands and you’re considered too aggressive. You’re taught to keep your head down and not complain for fear of losing out on job opportunities.

    Not holding my breath for Hollywood to get it together. Not with all the misogynists and perverts that plague the industry.

  11. SM says:

    She is right about one thing – she shoild have been furious about the pay. Kutcher is an actor only because he is in a movie not because he can act and still he gets 3 times more?!,!! I feel like she is one of those women who think that she is an aristocrat and hence she shoild not care about the money ir talk about money. I appreceate though that she does say that actors in general are quite lucky. That makes her sound less like a whiner compared to some other actors

  12. Lucy2 says:

    In retrospect, that seems crazy. I get the argument that he was popular at the time, but then maybe he gets 10% more or something. Not three times.
    I do like that she admits she knew, and should’ve been more angry about it.

  13. Alessio says:

    Seems unfair. Looking at both Natalie’s and Ashton’s box office numbers before their film together, they both had similar flops and successes (plus Natalie even had those little Star wars films, but she said several times they hurt her a lot more than what she probably made for those), so I really can’t imagine her quote being that much lower than his other than she’s a woman. i find it nice that she aknowledged she still got paid so much she finds it hard to complain for a smaller check, but it’s still a smaller check than Ashton’s and that should never happen to any actor

  14. Karla says:

    This is crazy!

    Natalie was an amazing child star and has made an eclectic body of work. Ashton is a mediocre actor. They are probably on the same level talent wise (Nat peaked in childhood IMO) and Ashton should definitely not have been paid more than her. I am glad actresses are highlighting this issue

  15. Julie says:

    I don’t know what my coworkers make. I kind of wish I did, as long as it doesn’t anger me.

  16. perplexed says:

    Wasn’t she a producer on No Strings Attached? I’m confused by who determines the salary.

  17. Juniper says:

    You know how they say that after a certain age you start getting the face you deserve? Natalie needs to take note. Smile a bit more often, laugh. Have some fun. Because that mug is getting HARD.

    • Mathilde says:

      Maybe she does, in private. But not to every Tom, Dick and Harry! Why are women always told to smile??!

      • perplexed says:

        I don’t think people are expecting her to smile to every Tom, Dick and Harry. Just for portraits where she’s promoting herself on the cover of a magazine as a movie star. Maybe people want friendly glamour from their movie stars.

  18. perplexed says:

    I don’t think Ashton deserves to be paid more than my pinky.

  19. Bridget says:

    On a superficial note, I wonder how this works now because supposedly Natalie and Mila had a falling out years ago (after Black Swan) because of Mila’s breakup with Macauley Culkin.

  20. kimbers says:

    I was really bored with that movie do i might not remember correctly, but wasnt the male character the lead in the movie? If it’s mainly about a specific character, shouldnt that character/actor be paid more? Is she trying to stir the ashes of injustice with a bad example? She wanted to do the movie bc he was hot at the time and she wanted that association for her career…sometimes people take less money for exposure bc they think they’ll make more money or roles later from it.

    • perplexed says:

      I think they were co-leads. But, yeah, I did wonder if she purposely took a lower salary, either in order to get the film made since she was a producer or to re-ignite her film career.

      Ultimately, because she was a producer on the film, I’m confused as to why she had to get a lower salary. I also don’t think this is the type of film worth taking a pay-cut for. Did she have some back-end deal worked out like Leo D did when he made Inception?, except this movie flopped (because, duh, it starred Ashton). The movie might have been successful if she had a different co-star, but other than Justin Timberlake, I don’t know who would have been willing to do a film this terrible. Since she was a producer, I guess she must have really believed in this film, but I don’t know why. I also don’t get why she believed in Ashton as a co-star. Did she really love Dude, Where’s My Car?

      • Bridget says:

        She actually talks about that in the Vanity Fair excerpt. Basically, she was younger and inexperienced and felt like she had to go along.

  21. serena says:

    I don’t mind her RBF, at least it’s more authentic than her smiling like she had a fork stuck on her ass. Anyway I like the editorial very much!

  22. neil says:

    I just lately came across her SNL rap video, (recommend the uncensored one) and yes this girl has some unexpected other interests AND talent.

  23. perplexed says:

    Is the producer salary separate from the actor salary?

    Even if she was younger and inexperienced at vocalizing what she wanted, I still don’t get how she could have made less based on being BOTH a producer and an actress on the movie.

  24. Rebecca says:

    Why was Ashton paid more? Did they think he would bring in more people to see the movie than her? Ashton Kutcher is a horrible actor. They won’t even make movies with him in it anymore. Natalie Portman is 100x a better actor. I don’t think there was any reason for this other than he is a man and they were going to discriminate. This one really pisses me off.