MovieChat Forums > The Men (1950) Discussion > fee of wright diminished her career

fee of wright diminished her career

posted 17 years ago by mpgmpg123
11 replies | jump to latest

This is the movie in which Oscar winner Wright, after a decade of really great 40s movies, was paid $25,000 as opposed to newcomer Brando's fee of, per this site, $50,000. Both gave wonderful performances and certainly deserved higher pay. But in an era in which the top female stars made at least $150,000 to $250,000 per film, Wright's accepting of this role caused a serious decline in her film roles. She was not the biggest of stars, but she certainly was one of the most talented. She said that after this movie she never got the quality roles and movies again. It is true that unfortunatley a lot of her other 50's movies are not big budget or high quality. (The Actress, Track of the Cat, and Something to Live for being exceptions). She was great in all of them but movies like Count the Hours and Escapade in Japan were not that great. However, it seems typical of her to care more about making a good movie than the money. She mostly acted on stage or tv though after the mid 50s (and offered literally dozens of great performances in both mediums). Still sad to see how standing up for a principle of making a good movie for a small fee can hurt a career so much.

[–] mark_shleck-1 16 years ago

I think she was a very special actress. The watershed in her film career was reputed to be 'Enchantment'. After her role in this film, her career seemed to stall never to regain the promise of her early 1940s' movies, such as Mrs Miniver.

You can't hold a candle to Gulbenkian.

[–] invisigothx11 16 years ago

Good. She was histrionic and horrible in this film, and I had to fast forward through her scenes because I could stand her so little. I'm glad her role here sank her career.

[–] geleafa 14 years ago

My guess is that female screen actors of the 40's were told to act this way (histrionic), a lot of them seem to be wilting into hysterics. half of the time and simpering cooing gushy things the other half. Their body language seemed to consist of melting and tilting the head from one side... to the next... during conversations. Exceptions were the actresses who were schooled in the 30's and continued over into the 40's. Many 40's and 50's movies would be a lot better if the female leads weren't so unbelievable. I think it was the way they were taught to behave more than a lack of skill, for many of the women.

"Don't you know all gamblers die broke?"

[–] Milevskiy 15 years ago

So if they had paid her $150.000, Wright's career would have been fine? I don't think so.

[–] lacasa101 15 years ago

I have to disagree with you on this mpgmpg123. Not everyone can have a career in show biz, let alone a stellar one. At the end of the day, when it's all said and done, Miss Wright had a great career. She had longevity, she worked with legends(ie: Brando, Cooper, etc etc) and she's still remembered and well regarded to this day. Maybe she's not seen as a legend like Katharine Hepburn, but like I said, not everyone can have that kind of career. But in the world of the most competitive business in the world, she did quite well for herself. Could of it been better? Yes. But Lord knows it could of been a lot worse. We might not be even talking about her today.

[–] cnicknz 14 years ago

I wonder about the assumption that female stars of the day were making $150,00 to $250,00 per film. Maybe the very top stars (Stanwyck, Davis, Crawford, Grable) were, but Wright was never in their box-office category. She probably got paid the highest salary her agent could get. Two years later, when Marilyn Monroe was in the midst of becoming one of the most famous women in the world, she only got $500 a week for Gentlemen Prefer Blondes!

[–] mandrake62 14 years ago

I think $25,000 was too low considering her work up to that time but $150,000 to $250,000 seems higher that the going rate at that time. I recall reading that megastar Liz Taylor received $150,000 for Giant which was a really big budget film and made a few years later then The Men. Rock Hudson got $100,000 and the role Dean played was budgeted for $60,000 (Dean only received about $12,000) I think this is a reasonable indication of what top stars on big production were receiving around that time. Wright may have taken the lower salary in consideration of the patriotic nature of the film. some stars worked for scale in roles that were for good causes.

As for her acting in Men, it may have been more subtle than she is being credited with. The character was in an almost impossible situation in which she had to repress her inappropriate feelings. Let us not forget the the great director Fred Zinnemann directed and I am sure he got the performance he wanted from her.

Her "diminished" career may have been a result of the rapidly changing role of women in the American culture. She excelled in the girl next door roles for which she was becoming too old and which were no longer in vogue. It is very difficult to escape type casting and that ends many careers.

[–] bradford-1 13 years ago

I'm not sure if it exists on "legitimate" DVD, but try to find the "Playhouse 90" version of THE MIRACLE WORKER, which starred Ms. Wright as Annie Sullivan and Patty (BAD SEED) MacCormack as Helen Keller. This TV version predated the Broadway and film versions. Ms. Wright gives a magnificent performance, all the more remarkable because the show was done live.
"We're fighting for this woman's honor, which is more than she ever did."

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

I think $25,000 was too low considering her work up to that time but $150,000 to $250,000 seems higher that the going rate at that time.

Absolutely! She could never have expected to be paid that sort of money at that time, especially with this film that clearly didn't have a huge budget. She was a good actress, but not a major starlet.🐭

[–] Hypatia42 10 years ago

Isn't possible Ms. Wright took the lower pay so that the production could have an Academy Award winner headline it and promote this delicate topic? Her work in Mrs. Miniver and The Best Years of Our Lives made her a natural choice, but in casting a new comer and men who were actual wounded veterans opposite her it implied the film wasn't given much money. Perhaps she did this as charity?

There are actors and actresses throughout the era of film who have done bit parts or lower work in an indie flick or a feel-good social conscience drama to make it more visible.