Were people paid to watch Melani’s film

1. The headline: big money spent, not payrolls for audiences

Multiple outlets emphasize that Amazon paid extraordinarily large sums to acquire and promote the film — about $40 million for rights plus roughly $35 million for promotion and distribution, figures repeatedly cited in reporting on the deal ^{[4] [1]}; coverage frames that spending as lavish and politically fraught, but those articles describe purchaser fees and marketing budgets, not line items for paying viewers to sit in theaters ^{[4] [1]}.

2. What the box‑office numbers actually show

Box‑office reporting puts the film’s opening weekend at roughly $7–8 million in North America, with analysts noting the gross was “front loaded” and that theater owners keep about half of ticket sales — suggesting the cadence of attendance was driven by buyers, not by disclosed payments to sitters ^[1]. Trade and news pieces interpret the early spike as driven by fans and targeted marketing rather than any reported stipend program ^{[5] [1]}.

3. Invite‑only screenings and VIP lists, not payrolls

There were clearly curated, invite‑only events — a White House screening for family and friends and a Kennedy Center premiere attended by Trump allies — which reporters describe as exclusive but do not equate with paid audiences ^[2]. Coverage notes celebrity and donor attendance and describes pre‑release access for select outlets, but no source documents organized payments to audience members to watch the film at public screenings ^{[2] [6]}.

4. Accusations and speculation about “goosed” sales — what is supported

Some commentators and analysts raised the possibility that advance online ticketing or concentrated campaigning could “goose” box‑office figures — a tactic observed in other cultural campaigns — but those pieces frame this as hypothetical or procedural possibility rather than reporting that Amazon or the film’s backers paid people to attend ^[3]. News outlets and critics point to heavy promotional spend and a concentrated demographic turnout (older, pro‑Trump viewers in certain states) as plausible explanations for the opening pattern, not as evidence of direct payment to attendees ^{[5] [1]}.

5. Critics, producers and conflicts of interest — different claims, different evidence

Critics labelled the film a vanity project or propaganda and flagged the extraordinary $75 million all‑in figure as politically tone‑setting; those critiques focus on motive and ethics (the Trumps profiting, Amazon’s relationship to the White House), not on any documented program of paying viewers ^{[7] [4] [8]}. Reporting on editorial control and the director’s background likewise addresses production and content integrity without alleging paid audiences ^{[9] [10]}.

6. What the reporting does not say — the important caveat

No provided source asserts or documents that attendees were handed cash or stipends to show up; absence of reporting is not proof of absence, but in this dataset the concrete, repeatedly cited facts are the rights fee, the marketing budget, curated premieres and front‑loaded sales patterns — none of which the sources tie to paying moviegoers ^{[4] [1] [2] [3]}. If evidence of organized payment exists, it is not present in the cited coverage.

Conclusion

On the record compiled by mainstream outlets and trade reporting, there is no verified claim that people were paid to watch Melania’s film; the observed phenomena — big opening weekend, targeted demographics, exclusive premieres and huge corporate spending on rights and marketing — explain attendance patterns without requiring a pay‑to‑sit scheme, and every major story cited sticks to those points rather than asserting direct payment for viewers ^{[1] [5] [2] [3]}.