Question Celebrity

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
With Hank Stuever
Sunday, May 20, 2007

I used to believe that some of the millions earned by movie stars went to pay their long-suffering personal servants: the nannies, the trainers, the extra minions required to fetch dry-cleaning and Starbucks. Of course, the studios pick up some of the big perks during production, but, for decades now, movie stars have made a clear case in public that they think of themselves as independent contractors who, in turn, have their own payrolls to meet. If I don't stay famous and well-paid, celebrities tell us in supply-side terms, then all the people I employ will be out of a job.

Then came the "Sahara" trial, which whittled away one of the last twigs of my celebrity naivete. The Los Angeles Times recently obtained and published detailed expenses for the 2005 Matthew McConaughey movie, which was based on the novel by Clive Cussler. Cussler has sued producers for failing to give him final script approval; film financier Philip Anschutz has countersued Cussler. It's a big mess, revealing more about the tangled world of blockbuster accounting -- how does a $160 million movie earn a projected $203 million and still stay in the red? -- while also providing some delish info about the care and feeding of movie stars: McConaughey, in addition to his $8 million salary, or $615,385 per week, also got $833,923 in perks, according to court documents. Some of these perks included the stunt double, a stand-in, a makeup artist and a colorist -- typical, fine, whatever. But what about the $179,262 the studio paid for the actor's "entourage travel," or $48,893 for his own chef, or $3,488 for a "gym room at hotel," or the $9,375 in "other" expenses? See, this is what I thought part of the $8 million paycheck would go for -- the lifestyle. (Penelope Cruz, who co-starred, didn't even get her 77 cents to every dollar earned by a man doing the same job. She got $1.6 mil for "Sahara," but actually squeezed out almost $2,000 more than McConaughey in perks. Meanwhile, a non-unionized Moroccan prop man earned $233 a week.)

The week after the Times published the film's budget in excruciating detail, McConaughey showed up in an Us Weekly paparazzi spread, having decided to leave his mansion and live for a while in a $336-a-week spot in a trailer park by the ocean. He doesn't have a shower in his custom Airstream, but he has simplicity, and wireless Internet and satellite TV (There may be some method acting at work here -- his next movie is about surfing).

E-mail: celebrity@washpost.com



More From The Washington Post Magazine

[Post Hunt]

Post Hunt

See the results from our crazy, brain-teasing game.

[Date Lab]

Date Lab

We set up two local singles on a blind date.

[D.C. 1791 to Today]

Explore History

3-D models show the evolution of Washington landmarks.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company