In the latest issue of The Hollywood Reporter, there’s a fascinating article called “The New Politics of Hollywood Sex Scenes in the #MeToo Era.” It’s all about how some things are different on film and TV sets now that some people are being more careful about nude scenes and sex scenes in general. The article is about how it’s a mixed bag, and how of course some actresses are still being taken advantage of, but no-nudity clauses and sex-scene riders are being enforced and protected. You can read the full piece here. There were some interesting comments by actresses and one unnamed source:
Actresses with leverage: Sarah Jessica Parker, for one, has a no-nudity clause for her HBO series Divorce, as she did with Sex and the City. “I’ve always had one,” she recently told THR. “Some people have a perks list and they are legendary. They have to have white candles in their room. I don’t have a crazy list like that. I’ve just always had [a no-nudity clause].” Game of Thrones actress Emilia Clarke is said to have scored the right to veto any nude scenes in her most recent renegotiation. And The Handmaid’s Tale star Elisabeth Moss, also an executive producer on the show, recently told THR, “I have 100 percent approval over all the footage and I can literally say, ‘You cannot use that scene.’ I can say, ‘I’m comfortable with this, but I’m not comfortable with that.’ They can’t send out a cut without me approving it.”
Whether unused scenes/footage are truly destroyed: If a shot scene isn’t used, most nudity riders call for the producer to use “good faith efforts” to delete the scene at the artist’s behest. Yet the very vague and nebulous idea of “good faith efforts” elicits a scoff from a number of representatives. Perhaps that’s why an increasing number of them are also calling for unused nude footage to be destroyed, though there’s little accountability on that front, either. Sources involved with the 2015 Todd Haynes forbidden-love drama Carol, which included nude sex scenes between Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara, say there are worries that Harvey Weinstein, who distributed the movie, kept unused footage for his own personal collection. “I don’t even think it’s possible to destroy anything in the digital age,” says one Carol insider. “The idea of anything being erased from existence is naive.” (A rep for Weinstein says he never kept any footage from the film.)
I’m so naive that this is the first time I even considered the possibility – and probability – that Harvey Weinstein probably has a vault full of unused footage from all of his films, and that the vault includes sex scenes and nude footage which should have been deleted, and footage which actresses were told was deleted. Of course he does. I bet he has Carol footage and footage from ALL of the films he’s ever produced. Jesus. Now I wonder if he’s ever used that footage for blackmail purposes.
Photos courtesy of WENN, Backgrid.
Doesn’t sound at all farfetched. But at this point, even if he had that stuff wouldn’t it have possibly been seized? Or pre-emptively destroyed by him?
Being seized means it will then be watched by countless law enforcement agents, attorneys, associates, jury members, judges, clerks, bailiffs, etc. Every time an actress has said that she has done a nude scene and that it was “cut” I felt sick, because I knew what it meant: The director was producing porn for himself. Every time. He coerced women into doing a role, telling her it would be empowering, etc. Then he says that there was a boom in the way, or the audio wasn’t clear enough, or (worse still) that her performance wasn’t as good as other takes. This is how they do things.
or that it was cut because it “centered male pleasure”…
I would be more surprised if he didn’t keep film like this. I’d be surprised if he didn’t film some of his assaults. Sick.
Of course he did. Didn’t he insist on adding a completely gratuitous nude scene in Salma Hayek’s Frida as well? Pig.
I read that he made her film a sex scene with another woman as a condition for the movie not being shelved and those scenes were not used in the movie afterwards.
I hate him. Someone should shove him in a washing machine. Head first.
I’ll echo that Of Course He Did
Ugh! Of course he does. And it’d be naive to think he’s the only one. The idea of actresses being uncomfortable with, but forced/manipulated into, performing nude and/or sex scenes only to have that footage kept as part of what is essentially a personal porn collection is just beyond disgusting. I can only imagine the horror those actresses are feeling right now at the possibility that supposed destroyed footage was, in fact, kept. I know some actresses are okay with nudity or sex scenes, but for it to be used in a way that wasn’t intended is still a huge violation. This so gross.
I keep thinking about this with James Franco and his acting classes. Part of his lessons dealt with filming sex scenes and nudity. I’m not sure if I remember this correctly, but I swear one woman said she found some footage of herself on a porn site. That this was some film of her from one of Franco’s acting classes. I’ve been thinking since then that Franco and many other directors and producers probably keep a lot of that stuff for themselves. And maybe pass it around or do who-knows-what with it. And some of these women talked like they were forced into performing some of these scenes.
Of fu*king course he does and I would bet good money that he has actresses film nude scenes that he knows will never be used in the movie just so he can vault them for his own sick purposes.
Ugh.. I hope this man goes to prison. I have never like Harvey Weinstein at all because of what he did at the 1998 Oscars when heade a smear campaign on Steven Speilberg and his movie. I will not go into details. But this just to show that HW thinks he has the power to manipulate and coerced actresses into having a nude/sex scenec for his own that he can get away it. Look where he is now. I am sure there are more people like HW in Hollywood that will do that but he just the first of many. Oh Karma is such a great friend to women, men and #Metoo movement.
Weinstein is a pig, but if we keep circling back to all the horrible things he did, I’m afraid nothing will be done about any of the other disgusting people that are probably still comfortably working in Hollywood today. Thandie Newton had an audition tape saved and shared by a director (not Weinstein), he’d show it poker parties to all his gross buddies.
Not really the point of this story but those two had zero chemistry. And nothing happened in the movie. The clothes were nice.
I so agree. The film was very disappointing. There was absolutely no chemistry, making the romance completely unbelievable. I would love to have seen Julianne Moore in the older woman role–the part and the story would really have suited her, and the younger woman role should have been given to someone less “edgy.”
This also happens in filmed auditions. Didn’t Thandie Newton speak on this from personal experience and how it traumatised her.
As for it not being possible to destroy footage in the digital age. I bet if the are suddenly potentially career-tanking penalties for companies, directors and producers footage “escapes” from or is discovered with, like magic the delete button will be found in a snap.
I’m probably one of the few but I think nude scenes should be done away with. I can’t think of any movie where it was absolutely necessary to show people having sex. I’m a prude I guess. Also hearing stuff like this is another reason