The White Lotus is breaking the Hollywood pay code

Sadly Dunst’s experience has been the rule, not the exception. Other high-profile cases have repeatedly exposed the structural inequities at play – Gillian Anderson’s initial offer of half David Duchovny’s salary for The X-Files revival, Michelle Williams earning less than $1000 for reshoots of All the Money in the World while Mark Wahlberg secured $1.5 million for the same work.

These are not isolated incidents but rather symptoms of an industry built on obfuscation and exclusivity, where financial negotiations are shaped not merely by talent or effort, but by access to power and leverage.

The decision by The White Lotus to dismantle these norms is more than an administrative choice; it is a direct challenge to the assumption that compensation must always reflect hierarchy rather than contribution.

The move has not been met without resistance. Critics argue that treating all actors as financially equal ignores the nuances of career trajectories and erases the distinction between those with decades of experience and those stepping into their first major role.

Others counter that this flattening of the pay structure mitigates exploitative practices, particularly for younger or lesser-known actors, who are often systematically undervalued despite playing equally significant roles in a production’s success.

Some just think $40,000 per episode is still a gross overpayment – especially given the financial struggles faced by much of the population.

The debate mirrors wider tensions beyond Hollywood. In corporate settings, salary secrecy allows companies to suppress wages and maintain disparities. Industries with clearer pay structures tend to have fairer compensation models overall, yet transparency remains elusive, as those with the most to gain from opacity continue to resist it.

Research has consistently shown that pay transparency reduces wage gaps and fosters more equitable work environments, yet it remains an exception rather than a norm. The financial structures of Hollywood serve as a reflection of these broader economic dynamics, where visibility and negotiation power dictate earnings far more than labor or impact.

The deeply ingrained belief in meritocracy continues to underpin discussions about wage distribution, both within the entertainment industry and across other professions. The assumption that salaries are a direct reflection of skill, effort, and value remains pervasive, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The entertainment industry, despite its performative progressivism, has long resisted fundamental change in its compensation models. The precedent set by The White Lotus does not immediately dismantle the entrenched hierarchies that have governed Hollywood for decades, but it forces a confrontation with the assumptions that sustain them.