On Monday, the 4th of May, Sarah Paulson arrived at the Met Gala wearing a dollar bill over her face. At an event where tickets reportedly cost around $100,000, the symbolism was difficult to ignore. This year’s theme celebrated the idea of “Fashion is Art”, and while celebrities arrived in looks inspired by mythology, cinema, and historical glamour, Paulson took a noticeably darker direction.
Styled by Karla Welch, Paulson appeared in a Matières Fécales distressed grey Tulle ball gown embellished with an oversized bow, but the real commentary was embodied in her accessories. She wore a diamond choker clasped tightly around her neck and a singular dollar bill as a mask. The mask itself was titled “Blinded by Money”, while the overall look was named “The ONE percent.” Paulson took the art-centred theme and transformed it into political commentary and performance art. On Instagram, Matières Fécales explained how the costume “was a reflection of the greed and corruption that comes with extreme power.”
However, Paulson’s choice of outfit was quickly met with criticism online, with many viewers branding Paulson a hypocrite. With a net worth of over 12 million US dollars, Sarah Paulson is part of that very one percent herself. To put that into perspective, Paulson has the net worth of 23 average UK households combined, or 71 average UK citizens. People viewed it as a case of “right message, wrong messenger”. Can someone meaningfully critique an economic system that has benefited them so enormously?
Digging the knife even deeper, a ticket to the MET Gala itself is reported to be around $100,000, the event an exclusive, decadent luxury the average person wouldn’t even dare to dream of. There certainly is a sense of irony in criticising the rich in an event you allegedly paid $100,000 just to get into, not even considering the money spent on her aesthetic details. But couldn’t it be argued that this very irony is what contributes to the artistry in her performance? By navigating the star-scattered red carpet wearing a statement aimed at those around her, Paulson’s outfit transcended her own body and enveloped the entire event around her. Without the wealth, exclusivity, and spectacle surrounding the event, the outfit would arguably lose much of its meaning.
Yet, some argued that if Paulson really wanted to make a statement, she should have bypassed the event completely. But it is easy to see how this silent message would have been overlooked. By attending the event, Paulson effectively held up a mirror to celebrity culture and billionaire excess. Yet public reaction seemed far more focused on criticising the reflection than confronting what was actually being reflected.
What it seems critical to remember is that Paulson’s outfit wasn’t just a message about money, but a castigation of corruption. In the era of the Epstein files, sweat-shops, and rising cost-of-living, we know more than ever that the ultra-rich have no interest in our health. On reflection, Paulson came from a working-class American family; she earned her fortune through hard work and talent, going from Broadway to the screen, taking on project after project.
Now, when we compare Paulson’s net worth to this year’s honorary chair of the MET, we see that Paulson’s pales beside it. Bezos’s net worth of 279 billion US dollars makes him 23,250 times richer than Paulson. This means that Paulson, despite being part of the 1%, has a net worth closer to the average UK citizen than to the real ultra-rich. Suddenly, Paulson’s net worth appears comparatively small.
Perhaps that was the real point of The ONE Percent. Paulson may belong to the one percent, but the outfit highlighted a further divide: the enormous gulf between celebrity wealth and billionaire power. There is rich, and then there is the kind of wealth so extreme it becomes untouchable and incomprehensible.