according to imdb, bogart made 300,000 dollars, whereas william holden made 150,000 and hepburn made 15,000. now i think about what some people have been saying here about the misogyny in this film and this question came to my mind
shareWell, Bogie and Holden were established stars, while this was Hepburn's second major film. They were established box-office draws and she wasn't, but this film made her one.
Sometimes that's how things work in Hollywood, the big payday for the film that makes you a star comes with your next job, and the next ten years of jobs after that.
from what i understand, she had just won an oscar the year before
She won an Oscar that year, 1954, for a film released the year before. I imagine the contracts, and possibly the making of Sabrina, were all done before the award was announced. I think Otter is correct, at the time she was an unknown newcomer alongside two established stars.
shareI'd forgotten about the early Oscar, but yeah. She may have signed for "Sabrina" before winning, or she may have been under a studio contract that didn't pay her big money at the time, or her comparatively unimpressive fee may have been a big step up from her previous acting job. Because she really was an unknown when she made "Roman Holiday" the year before, she probably got paid some pocket change for that, but it launched a career that made her a wealthy woman.
Because yeah, in Hollywood, sometimes the payday comes with the next job.
[deleted]
It is possible for a movie to not be misogynistic, but the business deals that make it up to be.
That is kind of a weird question don't you think.
I mean pointing it out is important and it is fair discussion.
The world is changing.
YES...THEY ARE CALLED CLASSICS...AND WHILE THE PAY GAP WAS SHAMEFUL,THATS JUST THE WAY IT WORKED THEN.
shareBogart and Holden had already long been stars in Hollywood. Paying Hepburn so much less is undoubtedly awful since she carries the film largely alone-- but Hollywood probably still saw her as an up-and-comer. Even if she had won an Oscar and been a sensation in ROMAN HOLIDAY, for all they knew, she might only be a one-hit wonder. They might have felt her male co-stars were insurance so to speak, attracting a pre-established fanbase.
This is nothing new or even exclusive to actresses-- in 1921, Rudolph Valentino had made a splash with THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE and yet though he is the main character of the subsequent film THE SHEIK, the studio paid him way less than he was worth (only $500 a week) despite him being the main draw. Hollywood just sucks.