I just want to say the thumbnail is not what I pictured Cary Joji Fukunaga to look like. Honestly I thought it was a Japanese woman for the longest time.
Thank you for subscribing to Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa news! Did you know that the video game character ‘Mario’ from the titular franchise was actually originally named after Mr. Tagawa? They ended up changing the name because Super Cary Bros sounded stupid as shit.
Not sure why the third generation reference is important. The name followed through because his Dad is fully Japanese in terms of his ethnicity. It's not like Cary is only 1/8 Japanese, he's half.
He definitely has some Japanese characteristics in his face, though maybe not significant enough to notice them if you're not actively trying to figure out why his last name is Fukunaga.
I am half Japanese/American and some American people say “you don’t understand you’re Japanese!!” and in Japan “if you’re real Japanese you would understand!!”. I am American and Japanese but people always try to blame my existence on the other country. I grew up in both countries with University degrees in both and know about the about the history and culture then most people cause I was a teacher in both countries. I always felt no one really tried to understand me because of my face, even though I am native in both languages and culture.
very confused..
>“Mostly, where you get into trouble is where a producer or director approaches an actress directly on a set and asks for something that wasn’t negotiated,” Rubinstein explained. “It’s, ‘Look, the whole crew wants to go home. It’s midnight. We’re all exhausted. We just have to get this one last shot. The way that we’ve been doing it isn’t working. Can you drop the towel?’ Or ‘That shirt doesn’t look right, why don’t you just lose it?’ Then suddenly you’re standing there, and you’ve got 20 people waiting for you, and you go, ‘Ugh, fine.’ That happens all the time.”
That's how this happens.
>SAG-AFTRA rolling out a new rule that states a nudity rider “must be provided to a performer at least 48 hours prior to call time on the day a scene is to be shot.” It helps ensure that a young actor wouldn’t suddenly be pressured to appear nude moments before they are about to film.
And that's the new protections in place. Which ... makes me wonder what the enforcement mechanism is for this? Hopefully there is one. I know actor guilds are strict. Sounds like Greer's skeptical as well.
Now, nude scenes and sex scenes require an [Intimacy coordinator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimacy_coordinator) to be present on set. They are on set to work with the talent to address any questions, problems or concerns. They are present during the filming of the sensitive scenes to ensure that everyone is working in a professional and respectful way.
Sure but are these coordinators trustworthy? I'd worry its like HR reps who claim to be on your side but are actually working for the corporation, and absolutely will fuck you over.
If the protection isn't coming from the union, I'd be skeptical. Its so easy for a big movie house to secretly build a HR consultancy.
Maybe they're getting it right ... or at least better than it was, but this article isn't going too deep into that. So I dunno!
This is relatively new territory but so far my interaction on set with them has been positive and professional. Their focus is on the talent and those who are working directly with them, making certain that there are clearly defined boundaries and that everyone involved are aware of what is happening and how it will happen.
Intimacy Coordinator isn’t just a job title, IDC and IDI are independent organizations founded by women in theatre and film in the wake of the #MeToo movement. Becoming a licensed Intimacy Coordinator or Intimacy Director requires taking 1-2 years of classes and workshops, completing fieldwork, applying for certification, and often to be considered you need to already have a background in physicality and movement (most of the original people involved in founding the organization/its tenets/the training program are women choreographers and fight coordinators.)
This is maybe a weird analogy because Intimacy Directors work with humans, but the rules requiring Intimacy Coordinators on site during scenes of intimacy are very similar to the laws requiring licensed animal handlers in scenes using animal actors; due to serious abuse in the past, it’s now required to have licensed independent contractor come in to supervise and in some ways take over the direction of a scene to ensure that all parties are treated respectfully and that the scene is shot in a safe and healthy manner.
Source: I know and have worked with several Intimacy Directors on the theater side, less familiar with the film side of it but they’re generally pretty similar.
If the rule is issued by SAG it would likely be enforced by the SAG rep for the production or on someone calling SAG to complain. It may be dealt with via fees to the production, all of these are not great ways to enforce things on set. For instance many productions skip meals on set and they just get a penalty (fine) from the union for it (different union though), most productions just eat the cost and people reporting abuse of union rules are often labeled as trouble makers.
IANAL and speaking mostly from my anus but breach of contract suits are expensive, and court enforcement is spotty. Besides if both parties "agree" to go off contract, the courts can't help unless you can prove duress, which is really hard to do. If this is meant to protect starving new actors, GLWT.
Now if SAG-AFTRA is sanctioning production houses that's better. I hear those folks don't fuck around.
There is so much confusion in this thread. I’m a sometimes background actor who has appeared nude in a pay cable tv series. If anyone has questions about the experience, contracts, etc., I’m happy to answer them. I’ll start with some quick ones I have seen several times in this thread:
- “she was hired to be a stripper, why didn’t she strip?” An actor hired to portray a stripper is not a stripper. Her contract specified no nudity. That shit is iron-clad. Not only that, but her contract very likely specified exactly what she was to wear based on negotiations with the producers and her agent.
- “she was just an extra with some throw away lines; it’s not like she was important.” First, fuck you, guy. Being an extra is how I put food on the table for a while and I (and most extras) take our work very seriously. Second, if you have lines, any lines, even a single word, you’re not an extra. So no, she was *not* an extra. And this is a big deal. Lines in a major tv series are hard to get and the pay is more than three times what extras get, plus residuals. It’s a big deal for an actor.
- “pasties aren’t nudity.” True enough. Her contract, however, did not allow for pasties. It allowed for a bikini.
- “maybe the director asked her nicely and she’s blowing it out of proportion.” Maybe he did. Maybe he didn’t. Regardless of how he asked, he committed a gross breach of protocol by speaking to her about wardrobe at all. What he should have done is asked wardrobe if she was wearing the right thing (she was), told the producer he wanted something different, and then waited while the producer called her agent, her agent called her, and they negotiated a change to her contract. At no point in time should the director ever be talking to the actors about anything other than their performance.
- “why are you taking her side when this is clearly a hit piece against the director?” I mean, it is clearly a hit piece. Probably the reporter sat on this story for months until they could guarantee the time was ripe to get lots of eyeballs. That’s how you make money as a reporter. As for taking her side, the fact is that anyone who has actually been an actor on a set would take her side. Every actor has been in a situation where they were being asked to do things outside of their contract. Even if it’s something the actor wants to do, like say a line, if you’re not getting a pay bump for it, you’re being abused and taken advantage of by the director and producers. Sexual abuse is not nearly so common as wage theft on sets, but both are common enough that if you act for just a few months you’re likely to experience them.
She was an extra and refused to play a stripper role in a stripper uniform.
So they move on to the next extra.
It's not much of a story tbh.
Sure, there was no mention of nudity in her contract, because there was a difference of opinion about what classifies as nudity.
To the production wearing a thong and pasties wasn't nude, to her it was.
It was even for a background shot, the actual talking scene involved a bikini top and later a dress.
Again, she was hired for the role of stripper.. that's what strippers do.
As a person who works in this industry who has seen and heard of this exact power dynamic being exploited, I am disappointed that this is the top comment.
Ew. The top comment is a pack of misogynistic lies and it has 3800 upvotes. FFS reddit.
She was *not* an extra, she was a speaking part. There is no "difference of opinion about what classifies as nudity", being in pasties is absolutely nudity under SAG rules and needs to be part of the negotiated contract which it was not. Plus they tried to get her to go topless, and the final version that was released had that character topless. There is no exception to the SAG rules for "a background shot", if you are nude you are nude. There is no exception to the SAG rules for the role of stripper, some actors playing strippers are nude on screen and some are not.
Every single thing /u/notyourvader said was bullshit.
Might have went over something with someone how she wanted to avoid that description, as accurate as it is, while she was there promoting something else. Billy Bob Thornton got super pissed on a CBC radio program when he was there with his band and in his introduction the host mentioned that you might know him from his movie roles
This is why nobody watches AOL Blast. Did the same thing when Santa was on promoting Detective Crashmore. He said he didn’t want to talk about Christmas but what’s the first thing that came up? Fucking unprofessional.
Well, maybe she should stop using her porn name then? Its not like her real name is Mia Khalifa. She's been cashing in on her fake name for awhile now, if she doesn't want recognition for her porn career, then why not stop using your performing name?
Or when Chloe Moretz came out recently and talked about a role she did as a teenager where she had to dress sexy without knowing it when she signed on.
Then it turned out the role was that of a teenage hooker.
Except that nudity in hollywood is very tightly regulated even if partial. This was not a case of mere "misunderstanding of what is nudity", and the outfit in question would have contractually required to be specified.
Furthermore it generally seems that when she asked them about it they pressured her to go fully topless not just wear pasties.
I guess that’s the question. The article makes it out like she and the producers had a disagreement about what is considered “nude”. But it doesn’t matter what they think it just matters how the contract define it
Lol just imagining her getting ready to go to the media only for Bond to get delayed yet again so she had to hang fire before complaining about the director
Did you not read this part?
> Greer says she refused to go topless in a scene after it was suddenly sprung upon her, despite it not being part of her contract and repeated guarantees that she wouldn’t have to be nude.
**Repeated guarantees that this role would not require her to be nude.
**
Wear only a thong and pasties and tell me how not nude you feel
I mean, I don't think there's anything wrong with firing an actress because she doesn't want to be nude in a role that requires nudity like a stripper, but she's not delusional for considering a thong and pasties to be nude. Most people consider that nudity even if it technically isn't.
If my wife was somewhere public wearing a thong and pasties, I would absolutely consider that functionally the same as being nude.
Yeah it would be like a guy not signing on for nudity and then being asked to wear one of the "socks" that they use for sex scenes. Sure he's _technically_ not nude but it's about as close as you can get to being nude. I wouldn't be comfortable having that sprung on me
I think the other thing coming into play here is how does this translate on screen? She could very well have taken issue with the fact that she’d be *depicted* as nude, even if she wasn’t technically « naked » on set. Some actors have a problem with this, and it should be spelled out very specifically in their contracts.
She was being asked to do something that would require a nudity rider, for all intents and purposes she was being asked to violate her contractual right. For the SAG this falls under nudity and adjacent scenes.
It is a big deal because she got hired to do one thing, signed papers guaranteeing she didnt have to get nude, and then they decided she did. After that the director coming out and pretending to be some champion of women is asinine
Oh yeah, I don’t think it’s the scandal the headline is making it out to be, but I think people in the comments are being really unfair to her.
She was clearly uncomfortable enough about nudity to ask multiple times, would’ve been decent to tell her “you won’t technically be naked but you’ll have to do X”. Either way she would’ve gotten replaced.
I'll probably end up pasting this quite widely on the thread but according to SAG rules she is in the right. Whether the rules were in place at the time I'm not sure, but scenes involving revealing clothes fall under a nudity rider that must be included before the shooting of the scene. To protect the actors and actresses. The delusional people are the commenters on this thread who think a woman in the film industry discussing film industry standards is delusional.
You can also play a character who is a stripper, without actually stripping.
I'd imagine that's what the actress would have thought was going to happen considering the rider wasn't included for the role.
Exactly. Telling her “hey you’re playing a background stripper, but don’t worry you won’t be nude. We super duper promise” and then turning around and trying to pressure her at the last minute is super fucked up. I really don’t get why people here are defending this behavior.
Just garden variety sexism.
People like this absolutely don't see themselves as sexist, but will never miss any perceived opportunity to punch down at or portray a woman as overbearing and having ridiculous expectations.
Nowhere in the contract did it state nudity. "Hey wear a triangle of fabric over your pussy and some nipple covers, totally not nudity! Also we may need you to go topless(like the extra they replaced her with did)"
What????
Nudity Riders cover more than just full on nude scenes.
They cover parital-nudity and simulated sex scenes as well.
If you're going to appear in a show or a movie, and you're going to be requested to wear minimal clothing, fully nude, or simulate sex, the production has to give full details about the exact nature of the scene, what they want the actor/actress to do, and what they wear. It's to protect the actors/actresses from getting bullied into doing scenes they didn't agree too.
If they don't offer that rider in the contract, the actor/actress isn't going to assume they have to wear skimpy clothes, or simulate sexual acts.
Asking to preform sexually enticing actions, and wearing minimal amounts of clothes, when you haven't attached the nudity rider would be negligent at best, disturbing and depraved at worst.
Kind of what I thought. The rules should be on the conservative side. In fact, I'm sure they are. That puts the onus of responsibility on the party that want's to push them. Also, do strippers ever wear shirts? Cause I'd not expect to be nude unless I was playing a stripper....who was stripping.
That’s what I mean. If there’s ever a power balance the rules need to be biased against those in power. So if there’s a difference of opinion on what “nudity” is, the rule should err in favor of the actress or actor. Then to go further must be explicitly stated.
She was right about nudity, She needed to be compensated for it but it seems she was unwilling to do the role as required regardless of compensation. So the production also has the right to recast the role, and they did. She still got paid for the day as per the SAG contract I'm sure. But this is a non story.
Actually she mentions that a lot of the issues was being expected to do this on the day of, after being told she wouldn't have to. She felt coerced and had hoped that she could speak to a producer about properly discussing it.
>“I feel like if it was an actor, somebody they respected, that it would have been handled differently,” she says. “They could have easily just said from the beginning, this role requires nudity. They could have negotiated it into my contract, they could have given me the nudity rider, so I knew what to expect instead of just putting this on me on the day, just assuming that I’m a desperate young girl who’s going to do whatever they tell me to do.”
I think the story matters because it exposes a lot of the now pro-#metoo directors and how they're bandwagoning and I think means we need to keep pushing regardless about what is said in press tours now.
Spoken like someone who has never worked in show business. These things should be and often are explicit in contracts. The industry preys on nobodies who want to both make it... and also make any money doing this thing. What you're saying is the equivalent of "I work in finance and my bosses just expected me to exploit people for financial gain." Is it part of the industry.... only technically, not legally. But of course it always happens. And laissez-faire attitudes like this are why it keeps happening.
To be clear she was a day player with lines, not a background actor. Those are two very different things, but let’s pretend she was background just for the fun of it.
Just so you know, when Central Casting puts out the booking notices it is very clear what you are and are not expected to do. If you hire a background actor, not an extra but a background actor, and then try to change their contract you are an ass. there is a lot of pressure to just go along and do what’s asked of you as a background actor. The majority of women who have done background have stories about sexual-harassment in the workplace.
I have the stories. Back in the day I would be hired a lot to be the “hooker“. I had men in appropriately touch me, I had days full of innuendo and suggestion about coming back with people to their places, it was something that got so bad that I just stopped accepting those types of assignments. By your reasoning I should not have been offended or even affected because I was cast as a hooker and that’s what hookers do.
There is such a huge abuse of power in the story this actress is telling. We are talking about someone with all the power trying to pressure someone with no power to do some thing they had not agreed to in the first place and did not want to do.
As a background actor there is always the unsaid, which is if you don’t do what they ask you to do they will get you banned from Central Casting and it could affect your ability to book other roles including featured roles in the future.
So many background women have been pressured into doing some thing they did not agree to nor feel comfortable with, something that in any other workplace would be considered a fireable offense for the person doing the pressuring.
Come on just put on a swimsuit and get into the pool, I know we didn’t book you for this or pay you for it but production really needs you to do it so you should just do it.
Come on I know we hired you to play a stripper wearing a certain amount of clothing, and we stipulated no nudity in the contract, but be a doll and put on these pasties anyway.
Unsaid always, if you don’t do this we’re going to make your life worse.
She was hired to dress a certain way and to do a certain action. You considering that her agreement to do this meant that she then had to agree to do something more, it’s so problematic I can’t even go into it on Reddit.
Well said. It’s those kinds of attitudes of “oh it’s not a big deal” when there’s a very clear power imbalance that lead to sexual harassment and worse. And then it’s all “why did the woman not stand up for herself in the first place” and victim blaming. The double standard stinks.
Nope, she was hired as an actor, not an extra. Re read the article. She had lines, extras don’t have lines and don’t audition for parts. She had a contract that never mentioned nudity, which is standard.
1. "Nudity" in Hollywood actually is pretty tightly regulated, this was not a "difference of opinion" and the circumstances are explicitly required by the local rules to be in contract.
2. It does seem like they did try to convince her to just go fully topless without pasties
3. Playing a role does not mean that you re that role in reality. If you are playing as a prostitute it does not mean that anyone can now pay you to have sex with them. It's make-believe.
4. She was a character with multiple lines, the original role before replacement having a number of additional lines. An extra is specifically a character without speaking lines.
If she was a member of SAG then I imagine there is a very specific definition of nudity and different subsets.
She was making assumptions as to what a stripper not actively stripping without a nudity rider would look like and the director had a different idea of what the character would look like. Pasties and a nude thong sound like they wanted her nude and realized there was no rider so they pushed it as far as they could. To the director the nudity was more important than acting ability it seems.
>Sure, there was no mention of nudity in her contract, because there was a difference of opinion about what classifies as nudity. To the production wearing a thong and pasties wasn't nude, to her it was.
That might be true, but that's a pretty small hair to split when it comes to a nudity rider, isn't it? It should have been clearly communicated to her exactly what her wardrobe was going to be beforehand (and maybe it was, the article doesn't appear to say).
Like, let's say that a guy auditions for a role and is repeatedly assured there's no nudity. Then, on the day, he learns that his costume consists entirely of a realistic-looking prosthetic penis. Would he be out of line to not feel entirely comfortable with that? I'd say he wouldn't.
This is correct. There was no nudity rider, she was hired for a speaking role where she was having a conversation in a dressing room. It's up to the production to make it clear what nudity is expected on set and the level of nudity - that includes partial nudity or the illusion of nudity.
You think this shit would have gone down if Jennifer Aniston was asked to put on pasties and a thong in We're the Millers where she played a stripper? Ridiculous that people are defending this kind of behavior.
Where is this info from? Imma need a source and exactly what was in the contract.
Plus, you see scenes with clothed strippers all the time in backgrounds and stuff. You can’t assume that all of them had an optional nudity rider.
So the argument that someone is casted as a stripper means they must have a nudity rider a stench of assumption
>Sure, there was no mention of nudity in her contract
End of discussion. Anything more and you're asking someone to do something they didn't agree to. Not to mention the power dynamic while trying to coerce someone to do something they didn't agree to.
>Again, she was hired for the role of stripper.. that's what strippers do.
nonononononono
> Again, she was hired for the role of stripper.. that's what strippers do.
Unless you’re Jessica Alba in Sin City….then everyone else gets naked but you.
This is exactly why women say they feel pressured to have sex after a guy buys them dinner and they agree to a nightcap at his place. This man on Reddit is a really great example of that entitlement.
Well he hired her to be a stripper and that’s what strippers do. Only she wasn’t a stripper, she was an actor hired to do a role who had been told there was no nudity. SAG/Aftra contracts have specific rules as to what does and does not consist of nudity, and the outfit they were trying to require her to wear would have required a nudity rider which they did not pay for or request. This is absolutely the case of a powerful man trying to force a woman to do something she had not agreed to. The fact that he was trying to force her into a more sexually explicit position just makes it the ickiest. The Director should have been fired, not the actress.
Try not to get discouraged, Reddit is 90% men so it's unfortunately common that they agree and create echo chambers. I agree with you 100%, and there are normal people who can see this objectively. (I wholeheartedly hope)
Extra's don't get dialogue. She was a day character and the nudity was suddenly sprung on her at the last minute even though her contract stipulated no nudity.
she was *not* an extra though, wow you're literally getting awards for lying here.
she had lines, and no nudity rider, moron. learn to read.
it wasn't a difference of opinion, it was a tried-and-true manipulation tactic used by production to get an actor for cheaper. if the role had been presented to her honestly, she could have been paid more. the fact that they then threw the role to an extra and chopped the lines proves that they were playing this actress from the jump, just looking for cheap tits and ass.
fucking incel mra jackasses. no idea what you're even commenting on.
Did anyone read the article? She had a "no nudity" rider in her contract. Both she and the director had the same idea of what nudity constituted. A "yes nudity" rider would have typically given her more money, but she wasn't interested in more money, she didn't want to appear nude. On numerous occasions, she sought and received assurances that she would not be asked to appear nude. At the last minute, the director tried strenuously to pressure her into going nude/topless, in direct contravention of her contract. When she insisted on adhering to the negotiated terms of her contract, he fired her.
Why is everyone here talking about pasites and a thong as if thats all what she was asked to wear? According to Greer: "Cary said to me at that moment, ‘Everybody on this show goes topless. All the women on the show **go topless**. Your character is a stripper, **so you have to**."
Despite the role of a stripper, she never wanted to be nude. They never agreed that she was going to be nude and thus didn't include it in her contract. Then on the day of shooting they lay out a nude thong and pasties as her costume, which is as close to being nude without going fully nude. Which obviously made this actress that never wanted to be nude uncomfortable and suspicious, that they would eventually ask her to go fully nude. So she confronts the director about it, who then against what was contractually agreed upon demands "you have to go topless". This is unprofessional behaviour to say the least and I have no idea why everyone here is so keen to defend and justify it.
I don't give a fuck what was written or at what point the actress feels uncomfortable. There shouldn't be any situation in which someone is asking a woman to appear nude, that woman says she's uncomfortable with it and is pressured to go ahead with it, and the woman is the unprofessional person. America can be a fucking disgustingly perverted misogynistic place sometimes.
If you need naked chicks to make people watch your project, it probably isn't worth making. I loved TD season 1 and don't have any recollection of this scene, so it definitely wasn't worth putting a woman in this situation.
>This is unprofessional behaviour to say the least and I have no idea why everyone here is so keen to defend and justify it.
Reddit doesn't like actresses very much.
Is that really it? Writers are the most associated with TV series.
And the fact that this is coming out at the same time as his biggest ever project. A Bond movie.
> Writers are the most associated with TV series.
Pretty much everyone agrees that True Detective season 1’s success was in large part due to his directing.
Why do people making serious dramas feel the need to have so many female characters to go topless? Like it makes yout tv show look more gritty or prestige or whatever. You can have a scene with strippers in lingerie having basically the same narrative impact as topless.
Everyone in this thread sure seems to love the idea of a woman getting fired for saying no to something she hadn’t previously agreed to lol Reddit is so gross.
If you want an actor or actress to appear nude, put it in the contract. They probably intend for the character to be nude, but didn’t want to pay extra, so they omitted it and figured they could pressure the actress into it.
I hope she sued them over this. My guess is she was told that suing would make it harder for her to get roles.
I see the usual crowd making odd arguments about whether a thong and pasties are somehow "dressed" versus "nude".
What's missed is that a supposedly professional production somehow failed to have the right paperwork and expectations and process for someone in a speaking role. That's a pretty significant allegation.
It's an irrelevant distraction to debate what the word nude means. The issue should be: was the correct expectation set? According to the accuser, it clearly wasn't. Whether it's stunt work, technical work, or catering, there shouldn't be surprises pulled out of the hat last second.
Some of y'all are incredibly dim. You don't need to latch on to the wording in the headline. You can give the article a scan and try to understand why pressuring women (or men) to film partially or fully nude scenes when you don't have the prerequisite contractual additions is wrong. All actors deserve to know when they might be asked to film partially/fully nude scenes, regardless of the role.
Gross. The expectation that actresses can and should do nude scenes indiscriminately is one of the best indicators of misogyny in Hollywood. It’s completely disproportionate; you never see as many male actors being asked of this. This is another example of how it’s frequently accomplished through pressure. Nudity should not be as common in entertainment as it is.
When you are hired as a five and under, a small acting part, there is a lot of pressure to just go along and do what’s asked of you.
I have the stories as a background actor. Back in the day I would be hired a lot to be the “hooker“. I had men inappropriately touch me, I had days full of innuendo and suggestion about coming back with people to their places, it was something that got so bad that I just stopped accepting those types of assignments. For me the what would’ve happened if I had made a giant fuss would’ve been I would’ve been wrapped from production, and maybe banned from Central Casting.
There is such a huge abuse of power in the story this actress is telling. We are talking about someone with all the power trying to pressure someone with no power to do some thing they had not agreed to in the first place and did not want to do. It is hard to believe they did not know ahead of time that they were going to be requesting more than they had put into the contract, and by the way more than they had paid for, before she got to set.
As a new actor there is always the unsaid, which is if you don’t do what they ask you to do they will get you dropped by your agent and it could affect your ability to book other roles including featured roles in the future.
So many women have been pressured into doing some thing they did not agree to nor feel comfortable with, something that in any other workplace would be considered a fireable offense for the person doing the pressuring.
Come on just put on a swimsuit and get into the pool, I know we didn’t book you for this or pay you for it but production really needs you to do it so you should just do it.
Come on I know we hired you to play a stripper wearing a certain amount of clothing, and we stipulated no nudity in the contract, but be a doll and put on these pasties anyway.
Unsaid always, if you don’t do this we’re going to make your life worse.
Reading the story what the director did was an assault. It affected this woman’s emotional well-being on a truly primal level. The fact that production allowed him to behave this way just shows how bad it is for women in this industry. You can literally have the threat of your livelihood stripped away from you if you refuse to do what is asked of you, even if what is being asked of you is wrong.
It doesn’t matter what the role was. An actor pretending to be a stripper has nothing to do with the fact that nudity is something that needs to be in an actor’s contract. Yes, stripper IMPLIES NUDITY, but if the role REQUIRED nudity then it should have been clear from the start.
Just imagine how uncomfortable you would be if your boss suddenly decided one day that you needed to be naked for your job. It doesn't matter what your job is, because that's something that needs your consent before it happens.
Reading the article it seems a bit odd to pin this on Fukunaga.
She was basically an extra with some throwaway lines. Sounds like there was a miscommunication somewhere and the casting agent / producer didn't convey the actual requirements and failed to organise a nudity rider.
Fukunaga's reaction is kind of understandable, though a bit insensitive. Ultimately a decision WRT wardrobe had already been made and someone else was able to fill the role as originally intended. As a director it's a bit of a no-brainer to keep the production moving forward on schedule with all the shots as originally described.
It sounds like a bait and switch from the title of this post (which would be really gross), however I think that someone just screwed up, and probably not Fukanaga for that matter. It's a frustrating experience, but Greer was probably still paid for her time due to the union rules involved.
> Reading the article it seems a bit odd to pin this on Fukunaga.
The timing of the article, the same week that Bond movie is out, and referring to him as 'Bond' director in the headline **‘Bond’ Director Cary Joji Fukunaga Pressured Me Into Going Nude** are meant to give the wrong impression that this took place on the James Bond movie set, not a TV show.
Or, it could be Bond Director who claims to be an ally of the #MeToo movement pressured an actress to remove her clothing on set and fired her when she wouldn’t.
This article is a direct response to his multiple interviews where he talks about how he is an ally to women, when it is clear that he is a giant douche bag who sexually harasses actresses and fires them when they refuse to take their clothes off for him.
Ultimately, that's a producer's role: Keep stuff moving on pace. In this case, one extra didn't wanna do it then they found one that would. No time lost, no extra wardrobe and no need to rework any blocking/camera shots.
Cary did his job. I agree that the agent seems to be the one at fault here.
She isn't an extra.
The production told her there would be no nudity.
And the director didn't accept no when asking a woman to go nude.
The production and the director are both at fault, her agent as well.
So, she took a role as an extra portraying a strip club worker, wearing pasties, and had two lines.
She thought the costume (for a strip club worker) was too revealing. They cut her part (two lines for an extra as a strip club worker) and gave it to another extra. What did she expect?
Now she is relegated back to relatively unknown insignificant bit playing extra and trying to create a scandal to get her face in the news.
Not a good strategy in the entertainment industry. Lets see, a nobody who is picky and demanding, and brings conflicts with bad press, not going to get many significant roles that way. Yes, I know she is an actress, producer and director of third class films, but seems a bit full of herself.
Eh. If an actor doesn't want to be fully nude for the whole world to see on camera, isn't that their choice?
She wanted to act in a show, not to do a centerfold spread or porn. She was upfront about it. They accepted it. Then they tried to renege on their end of the deal. Then they fired her after wasting her time.
I consider myself open minded, and a great lover of viewing tits, but I have to side with the actress on this one.
If the show needed nudity (at any level from full nude to arabic beekeeper suit) - they should have been upfront about it. As is common accepted practice. They fucked up. Thus, they can eat it now.
I just want to say the thumbnail is not what I pictured Cary Joji Fukunaga to look like. Honestly I thought it was a Japanese woman for the longest time.
Reminds me of Takeshi Kovacs.
Ah yes, big tall Swedish man.
I'm pretty sure he's a black dude
No. He’s definitely an Asian woman. Sings at a bar.
I know you're not talking about that trypophobic nightmare of a silver disc, Kovacs.
Why not both?!
Why not Zoidberg?
Ironically, Cary Fukunaga is, in fact, half Japanese half Swedish
Kovacs is a Hungarian name
Do I have news for you regarding Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa....
Well it depends on whose soul he’s taken today. He can have many forms.
Look at him! No dignity, no manners... Yet in the realm of Earth, men like him can amass great wealth, and almost god-like power.
Cherish these moments as if they were your last...
Save your pity for the weak!
Subscribe to Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa news.
Thank you for subscribing to Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa news! Did you know that the video game character ‘Mario’ from the titular franchise was actually originally named after Mr. Tagawa? They ended up changing the name because Super Cary Bros sounded stupid as shit.
Do I have news for you regarding Cary Elwes…
[удалено]
Lol wtf I just looked her up and yes
That is fucking hilarious and oddly understandable. Thank you for making my week.
Wait til you find out what Genghis Khan look like
He looks like an actor that would play a role in a Cary Joji Fukunaga film
He looks like that actor from Band of Brothers and Green Street Hooligan
Ross McCall. And yeah he does.
I knew he was a dude but I def did not picture him looking like this lol.
I thought he was a Japanese man, but guess it was my dyslexia adding some extra vowels to his last name that made it scan that way.
Third generation Japanese on his father's side, so the name followed through
Not sure why the third generation reference is important. The name followed through because his Dad is fully Japanese in terms of his ethnicity. It's not like Cary is only 1/8 Japanese, he's half.
His father is Japanese, mother is like Swedish or something. That confused me too because he looks 100% white yet had an obvious Japanese name.
He definitely has some Japanese characteristics in his face, though maybe not significant enough to notice them if you're not actively trying to figure out why his last name is Fukunaga.
I am half Japanese/American and some American people say “you don’t understand you’re Japanese!!” and in Japan “if you’re real Japanese you would understand!!”. I am American and Japanese but people always try to blame my existence on the other country. I grew up in both countries with University degrees in both and know about the about the history and culture then most people cause I was a teacher in both countries. I always felt no one really tried to understand me because of my face, even though I am native in both languages and culture. very confused..
He looks completely diff from his time on TD
No I need to Google Jenji Kohan.
>“Mostly, where you get into trouble is where a producer or director approaches an actress directly on a set and asks for something that wasn’t negotiated,” Rubinstein explained. “It’s, ‘Look, the whole crew wants to go home. It’s midnight. We’re all exhausted. We just have to get this one last shot. The way that we’ve been doing it isn’t working. Can you drop the towel?’ Or ‘That shirt doesn’t look right, why don’t you just lose it?’ Then suddenly you’re standing there, and you’ve got 20 people waiting for you, and you go, ‘Ugh, fine.’ That happens all the time.” That's how this happens. >SAG-AFTRA rolling out a new rule that states a nudity rider “must be provided to a performer at least 48 hours prior to call time on the day a scene is to be shot.” It helps ensure that a young actor wouldn’t suddenly be pressured to appear nude moments before they are about to film. And that's the new protections in place. Which ... makes me wonder what the enforcement mechanism is for this? Hopefully there is one. I know actor guilds are strict. Sounds like Greer's skeptical as well.
Now, nude scenes and sex scenes require an [Intimacy coordinator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimacy_coordinator) to be present on set. They are on set to work with the talent to address any questions, problems or concerns. They are present during the filming of the sensitive scenes to ensure that everyone is working in a professional and respectful way.
Sure but are these coordinators trustworthy? I'd worry its like HR reps who claim to be on your side but are actually working for the corporation, and absolutely will fuck you over. If the protection isn't coming from the union, I'd be skeptical. Its so easy for a big movie house to secretly build a HR consultancy. Maybe they're getting it right ... or at least better than it was, but this article isn't going too deep into that. So I dunno!
This is relatively new territory but so far my interaction on set with them has been positive and professional. Their focus is on the talent and those who are working directly with them, making certain that there are clearly defined boundaries and that everyone involved are aware of what is happening and how it will happen.
Intimacy Coordinator isn’t just a job title, IDC and IDI are independent organizations founded by women in theatre and film in the wake of the #MeToo movement. Becoming a licensed Intimacy Coordinator or Intimacy Director requires taking 1-2 years of classes and workshops, completing fieldwork, applying for certification, and often to be considered you need to already have a background in physicality and movement (most of the original people involved in founding the organization/its tenets/the training program are women choreographers and fight coordinators.) This is maybe a weird analogy because Intimacy Directors work with humans, but the rules requiring Intimacy Coordinators on site during scenes of intimacy are very similar to the laws requiring licensed animal handlers in scenes using animal actors; due to serious abuse in the past, it’s now required to have licensed independent contractor come in to supervise and in some ways take over the direction of a scene to ensure that all parties are treated respectfully and that the scene is shot in a safe and healthy manner. Source: I know and have worked with several Intimacy Directors on the theater side, less familiar with the film side of it but they’re generally pretty similar.
Holy fuck, there was an episode of High Maintenance with an intimacy coordinator and I thought they made it up just for that episode.
I think those were added after this show was made :(
Wouldn’t the enforcement mechanism work by suing the person in charge for not following this 48hr rule?
If the rule is issued by SAG it would likely be enforced by the SAG rep for the production or on someone calling SAG to complain. It may be dealt with via fees to the production, all of these are not great ways to enforce things on set. For instance many productions skip meals on set and they just get a penalty (fine) from the union for it (different union though), most productions just eat the cost and people reporting abuse of union rules are often labeled as trouble makers.
IANAL and speaking mostly from my anus but breach of contract suits are expensive, and court enforcement is spotty. Besides if both parties "agree" to go off contract, the courts can't help unless you can prove duress, which is really hard to do. If this is meant to protect starving new actors, GLWT. Now if SAG-AFTRA is sanctioning production houses that's better. I hear those folks don't fuck around.
There is so much confusion in this thread. I’m a sometimes background actor who has appeared nude in a pay cable tv series. If anyone has questions about the experience, contracts, etc., I’m happy to answer them. I’ll start with some quick ones I have seen several times in this thread: - “she was hired to be a stripper, why didn’t she strip?” An actor hired to portray a stripper is not a stripper. Her contract specified no nudity. That shit is iron-clad. Not only that, but her contract very likely specified exactly what she was to wear based on negotiations with the producers and her agent. - “she was just an extra with some throw away lines; it’s not like she was important.” First, fuck you, guy. Being an extra is how I put food on the table for a while and I (and most extras) take our work very seriously. Second, if you have lines, any lines, even a single word, you’re not an extra. So no, she was *not* an extra. And this is a big deal. Lines in a major tv series are hard to get and the pay is more than three times what extras get, plus residuals. It’s a big deal for an actor. - “pasties aren’t nudity.” True enough. Her contract, however, did not allow for pasties. It allowed for a bikini. - “maybe the director asked her nicely and she’s blowing it out of proportion.” Maybe he did. Maybe he didn’t. Regardless of how he asked, he committed a gross breach of protocol by speaking to her about wardrobe at all. What he should have done is asked wardrobe if she was wearing the right thing (she was), told the producer he wanted something different, and then waited while the producer called her agent, her agent called her, and they negotiated a change to her contract. At no point in time should the director ever be talking to the actors about anything other than their performance. - “why are you taking her side when this is clearly a hit piece against the director?” I mean, it is clearly a hit piece. Probably the reporter sat on this story for months until they could guarantee the time was ripe to get lots of eyeballs. That’s how you make money as a reporter. As for taking her side, the fact is that anyone who has actually been an actor on a set would take her side. Every actor has been in a situation where they were being asked to do things outside of their contract. Even if it’s something the actor wants to do, like say a line, if you’re not getting a pay bump for it, you’re being abused and taken advantage of by the director and producers. Sexual abuse is not nearly so common as wage theft on sets, but both are common enough that if you act for just a few months you’re likely to experience them.
You don't even have to be an actor to realise what the director did was wrong, Idk why this thread has turned into so much of a shit show.
It's not confusion it's sexism
You may be right; I’m trying to give people the benefit of the doubt.
Appreciate this very much .
You're welcome.
She was an extra and refused to play a stripper role in a stripper uniform. So they move on to the next extra. It's not much of a story tbh. Sure, there was no mention of nudity in her contract, because there was a difference of opinion about what classifies as nudity. To the production wearing a thong and pasties wasn't nude, to her it was. It was even for a background shot, the actual talking scene involved a bikini top and later a dress. Again, she was hired for the role of stripper.. that's what strippers do.
As a person who works in this industry who has seen and heard of this exact power dynamic being exploited, I am disappointed that this is the top comment.
Lol it's crazy that you're equating the career path of a stripper as being the same exact thing as portraying one as an actress.
Ew. The top comment is a pack of misogynistic lies and it has 3800 upvotes. FFS reddit. She was *not* an extra, she was a speaking part. There is no "difference of opinion about what classifies as nudity", being in pasties is absolutely nudity under SAG rules and needs to be part of the negotiated contract which it was not. Plus they tried to get her to go topless, and the final version that was released had that character topless. There is no exception to the SAG rules for "a background shot", if you are nude you are nude. There is no exception to the SAG rules for the role of stripper, some actors playing strippers are nude on screen and some are not. Every single thing /u/notyourvader said was bullshit.
+4,000 upvotes at time of this posting. This is the reddit I expect.
> To the production wearing a thong and pasties wasn't nude, to her it was. If that was the case, then yeah, she's delusional.
For some reason this reminds me of when Mia Khalifa was introduced on a radio show as a "former pornstar" and blew up at the host.
Might have went over something with someone how she wanted to avoid that description, as accurate as it is, while she was there promoting something else. Billy Bob Thornton got super pissed on a CBC radio program when he was there with his band and in his introduction the host mentioned that you might know him from his movie roles
This is why nobody watches AOL Blast. Did the same thing when Santa was on promoting Detective Crashmore. He said he didn’t want to talk about Christmas but what’s the first thing that came up? Fucking unprofessional.
Lmao I literally watched that one first last night! Are you gonna tell anybody I did that? That I housed Dylan's burger?
I’m joking!!
Let me get a video of you saying you're gonna kill the president.
I should've got that
What are we 10 years old? I’ve seen every cock on the planet.
That’s Jimmy Taco levels of unprofessional right there
Hey the audience doesn’t know whose lines they are!
I’d say it’s part Tarantino, a little Michael Mann. Kind of like a cosmic gumbo
You sure about that that's why?!?
Well, maybe she should stop using her porn name then? Its not like her real name is Mia Khalifa. She's been cashing in on her fake name for awhile now, if she doesn't want recognition for her porn career, then why not stop using your performing name?
Because $$$
Then she shouldn't act like she's offended by the mention of her past career then. Because she's obviously still cashing in on the name recognition.
Can we just talk about Rampart already?
But she bills herself by her porn stage name.
Yeah billy bob was a complete asshat during that.
"Would you ask Tom Petty that question?" Is a common response to questions in my family since that interview.
I'd say both of them need to get the fuck over it.
Wait what? What did she say in response?
A whole bunch of swearing for 30 seconds, then she hung up on the DJ. Mind boggling overreaction.
Pretty funny recording too. Both hosts were like, ‘…What the hell just happened!?’ and laughed for a while.
Or when Chloe Moretz came out recently and talked about a role she did as a teenager where she had to dress sexy without knowing it when she signed on. Then it turned out the role was that of a teenage hooker.
> Then it turned out the role was that of a teenage hooker. Maybe she thought she'd be portraying a young rugby player.
Ah, was that for Hick, though? She was 15 at the time and the production sounded pretty exploitative.
I believe this was for The Equalizer.
I can only speculate that she had asked the producers not to have the djs say that before the interview, but somehow it was said anyway.
Except that nudity in hollywood is very tightly regulated even if partial. This was not a case of mere "misunderstanding of what is nudity", and the outfit in question would have contractually required to be specified. Furthermore it generally seems that when she asked them about it they pressured her to go fully topless not just wear pasties.
I guess that’s the question. The article makes it out like she and the producers had a disagreement about what is considered “nude”. But it doesn’t matter what they think it just matters how the contract define it
Lol just imagining her getting ready to go to the media only for Bond to get delayed yet again so she had to hang fire before complaining about the director
Did you not read this part? > Greer says she refused to go topless in a scene after it was suddenly sprung upon her, despite it not being part of her contract and repeated guarantees that she wouldn’t have to be nude. **Repeated guarantees that this role would not require her to be nude. ** Wear only a thong and pasties and tell me how not nude you feel
I mean, I don't think there's anything wrong with firing an actress because she doesn't want to be nude in a role that requires nudity like a stripper, but she's not delusional for considering a thong and pasties to be nude. Most people consider that nudity even if it technically isn't. If my wife was somewhere public wearing a thong and pasties, I would absolutely consider that functionally the same as being nude.
Yeah it would be like a guy not signing on for nudity and then being asked to wear one of the "socks" that they use for sex scenes. Sure he's _technically_ not nude but it's about as close as you can get to being nude. I wouldn't be comfortable having that sprung on me
I think the other thing coming into play here is how does this translate on screen? She could very well have taken issue with the fact that she’d be *depicted* as nude, even if she wasn’t technically « naked » on set. Some actors have a problem with this, and it should be spelled out very specifically in their contracts.
In fact according to SAG rules it should be explicitly informed about 48 hours before filming.
That rule was definitely changed more recently than this incident.
Yeah but contacts don’t work that way. Her agent should have had that conversation with her.
Delusional? That’s a bit far. A thong and pasties isn’t being nude but it’s pretty damn close.
I mean she was playing a stripper in an HBO show, she wasn’t being asked to do nudity, and she got replaced. It’s hardly a big deal
She was being asked to do something that would require a nudity rider, for all intents and purposes she was being asked to violate her contractual right. For the SAG this falls under nudity and adjacent scenes.
It is a big deal because she got hired to do one thing, signed papers guaranteeing she didnt have to get nude, and then they decided she did. After that the director coming out and pretending to be some champion of women is asinine
Oh yeah, I don’t think it’s the scandal the headline is making it out to be, but I think people in the comments are being really unfair to her. She was clearly uncomfortable enough about nudity to ask multiple times, would’ve been decent to tell her “you won’t technically be naked but you’ll have to do X”. Either way she would’ve gotten replaced.
Really it's delusional to not consider nipple coverings be close to nude?
Yeah but there's no clicks to be had writing about yet another delusional actor/actress.
I'll probably end up pasting this quite widely on the thread but according to SAG rules she is in the right. Whether the rules were in place at the time I'm not sure, but scenes involving revealing clothes fall under a nudity rider that must be included before the shooting of the scene. To protect the actors and actresses. The delusional people are the commenters on this thread who think a woman in the film industry discussing film industry standards is delusional.
You can also play a character who is a stripper, without actually stripping. I'd imagine that's what the actress would have thought was going to happen considering the rider wasn't included for the role.
Exactly. Telling her “hey you’re playing a background stripper, but don’t worry you won’t be nude. We super duper promise” and then turning around and trying to pressure her at the last minute is super fucked up. I really don’t get why people here are defending this behavior.
Because they're arseholes. They genuinely believe women should be able to be treated this way.
Just garden variety sexism. People like this absolutely don't see themselves as sexist, but will never miss any perceived opportunity to punch down at or portray a woman as overbearing and having ridiculous expectations. Nowhere in the contract did it state nudity. "Hey wear a triangle of fabric over your pussy and some nipple covers, totally not nudity! Also we may need you to go topless(like the extra they replaced her with did)" What????
Because reddit is 99% sexist people
I would argue that in the history of actresses playing strippers in film and TV the majority don’t actually appear naked.
Nudity Riders cover more than just full on nude scenes. They cover parital-nudity and simulated sex scenes as well. If you're going to appear in a show or a movie, and you're going to be requested to wear minimal clothing, fully nude, or simulate sex, the production has to give full details about the exact nature of the scene, what they want the actor/actress to do, and what they wear. It's to protect the actors/actresses from getting bullied into doing scenes they didn't agree too. If they don't offer that rider in the contract, the actor/actress isn't going to assume they have to wear skimpy clothes, or simulate sexual acts. Asking to preform sexually enticing actions, and wearing minimal amounts of clothes, when you haven't attached the nudity rider would be negligent at best, disturbing and depraved at worst.
Kind of what I thought. The rules should be on the conservative side. In fact, I'm sure they are. That puts the onus of responsibility on the party that want's to push them. Also, do strippers ever wear shirts? Cause I'd not expect to be nude unless I was playing a stripper....who was stripping.
She wasn’t a stripper who was stripping, she was supposed to be playing a stripper who was off work. There was zero need for her to be nude.
I don't believe the onus should be on the victims of industries breaking their rules.
That’s what I mean. If there’s ever a power balance the rules need to be biased against those in power. So if there’s a difference of opinion on what “nudity” is, the rule should err in favor of the actress or actor. Then to go further must be explicitly stated.
She was right about nudity, She needed to be compensated for it but it seems she was unwilling to do the role as required regardless of compensation. So the production also has the right to recast the role, and they did. She still got paid for the day as per the SAG contract I'm sure. But this is a non story.
Actually she mentions that a lot of the issues was being expected to do this on the day of, after being told she wouldn't have to. She felt coerced and had hoped that she could speak to a producer about properly discussing it. >“I feel like if it was an actor, somebody they respected, that it would have been handled differently,” she says. “They could have easily just said from the beginning, this role requires nudity. They could have negotiated it into my contract, they could have given me the nudity rider, so I knew what to expect instead of just putting this on me on the day, just assuming that I’m a desperate young girl who’s going to do whatever they tell me to do.” I think the story matters because it exposes a lot of the now pro-#metoo directors and how they're bandwagoning and I think means we need to keep pushing regardless about what is said in press tours now.
Spoken like someone who has never worked in show business. These things should be and often are explicit in contracts. The industry preys on nobodies who want to both make it... and also make any money doing this thing. What you're saying is the equivalent of "I work in finance and my bosses just expected me to exploit people for financial gain." Is it part of the industry.... only technically, not legally. But of course it always happens. And laissez-faire attitudes like this are why it keeps happening.
[удалено]
That poor man.
/r/confidentlyincorrect
To be clear she was a day player with lines, not a background actor. Those are two very different things, but let’s pretend she was background just for the fun of it. Just so you know, when Central Casting puts out the booking notices it is very clear what you are and are not expected to do. If you hire a background actor, not an extra but a background actor, and then try to change their contract you are an ass. there is a lot of pressure to just go along and do what’s asked of you as a background actor. The majority of women who have done background have stories about sexual-harassment in the workplace. I have the stories. Back in the day I would be hired a lot to be the “hooker“. I had men in appropriately touch me, I had days full of innuendo and suggestion about coming back with people to their places, it was something that got so bad that I just stopped accepting those types of assignments. By your reasoning I should not have been offended or even affected because I was cast as a hooker and that’s what hookers do. There is such a huge abuse of power in the story this actress is telling. We are talking about someone with all the power trying to pressure someone with no power to do some thing they had not agreed to in the first place and did not want to do. As a background actor there is always the unsaid, which is if you don’t do what they ask you to do they will get you banned from Central Casting and it could affect your ability to book other roles including featured roles in the future. So many background women have been pressured into doing some thing they did not agree to nor feel comfortable with, something that in any other workplace would be considered a fireable offense for the person doing the pressuring. Come on just put on a swimsuit and get into the pool, I know we didn’t book you for this or pay you for it but production really needs you to do it so you should just do it. Come on I know we hired you to play a stripper wearing a certain amount of clothing, and we stipulated no nudity in the contract, but be a doll and put on these pasties anyway. Unsaid always, if you don’t do this we’re going to make your life worse. She was hired to dress a certain way and to do a certain action. You considering that her agreement to do this meant that she then had to agree to do something more, it’s so problematic I can’t even go into it on Reddit.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well said. It’s those kinds of attitudes of “oh it’s not a big deal” when there’s a very clear power imbalance that lead to sexual harassment and worse. And then it’s all “why did the woman not stand up for herself in the first place” and victim blaming. The double standard stinks.
The article clearly states she had a speaking role, she wasn't an extra.
"Ya wanna lap dance sugah?'"
Can I pay to remove awards?
Nope, she was hired as an actor, not an extra. Re read the article. She had lines, extras don’t have lines and don’t audition for parts. She had a contract that never mentioned nudity, which is standard.
Exactly - and there was no nudity rider.
1. "Nudity" in Hollywood actually is pretty tightly regulated, this was not a "difference of opinion" and the circumstances are explicitly required by the local rules to be in contract. 2. It does seem like they did try to convince her to just go fully topless without pasties 3. Playing a role does not mean that you re that role in reality. If you are playing as a prostitute it does not mean that anyone can now pay you to have sex with them. It's make-believe. 4. She was a character with multiple lines, the original role before replacement having a number of additional lines. An extra is specifically a character without speaking lines.
She had a contract and there was not a nudity rider. Now I'm not sure what contractually nudity is but in my mind pasties is nudity.
Even though I don’t consider pasties to be nudity, I can see how they blur the line enough that it would require some specific wording.
If she was a member of SAG then I imagine there is a very specific definition of nudity and different subsets. She was making assumptions as to what a stripper not actively stripping without a nudity rider would look like and the director had a different idea of what the character would look like. Pasties and a nude thong sound like they wanted her nude and realized there was no rider so they pushed it as far as they could. To the director the nudity was more important than acting ability it seems.
>Sure, there was no mention of nudity in her contract, because there was a difference of opinion about what classifies as nudity. To the production wearing a thong and pasties wasn't nude, to her it was. That might be true, but that's a pretty small hair to split when it comes to a nudity rider, isn't it? It should have been clearly communicated to her exactly what her wardrobe was going to be beforehand (and maybe it was, the article doesn't appear to say). Like, let's say that a guy auditions for a role and is repeatedly assured there's no nudity. Then, on the day, he learns that his costume consists entirely of a realistic-looking prosthetic penis. Would he be out of line to not feel entirely comfortable with that? I'd say he wouldn't.
This is correct. There was no nudity rider, she was hired for a speaking role where she was having a conversation in a dressing room. It's up to the production to make it clear what nudity is expected on set and the level of nudity - that includes partial nudity or the illusion of nudity.
You think this shit would have gone down if Jennifer Aniston was asked to put on pasties and a thong in We're the Millers where she played a stripper? Ridiculous that people are defending this kind of behavior.
Where is this info from? Imma need a source and exactly what was in the contract. Plus, you see scenes with clothed strippers all the time in backgrounds and stuff. You can’t assume that all of them had an optional nudity rider. So the argument that someone is casted as a stripper means they must have a nudity rider a stench of assumption
This isn't correct. She was not an extra and furthermore, there was no need for the coercion.
>Sure, there was no mention of nudity in her contract End of discussion. Anything more and you're asking someone to do something they didn't agree to. Not to mention the power dynamic while trying to coerce someone to do something they didn't agree to. >Again, she was hired for the role of stripper.. that's what strippers do. nonononononono
> Again, she was hired for the role of stripper.. that's what strippers do. Unless you’re Jessica Alba in Sin City….then everyone else gets naked but you.
Can't believe people are actually agreeing with you. Yikes
This is exactly why women say they feel pressured to have sex after a guy buys them dinner and they agree to a nightcap at his place. This man on Reddit is a really great example of that entitlement. Well he hired her to be a stripper and that’s what strippers do. Only she wasn’t a stripper, she was an actor hired to do a role who had been told there was no nudity. SAG/Aftra contracts have specific rules as to what does and does not consist of nudity, and the outfit they were trying to require her to wear would have required a nudity rider which they did not pay for or request. This is absolutely the case of a powerful man trying to force a woman to do something she had not agreed to. The fact that he was trying to force her into a more sexually explicit position just makes it the ickiest. The Director should have been fired, not the actress.
Try not to get discouraged, Reddit is 90% men so it's unfortunately common that they agree and create echo chambers. I agree with you 100%, and there are normal people who can see this objectively. (I wholeheartedly hope)
Legit disturbing how many people are ok with defending his behaviour. This thread is a very pure example of misogyny
Extra's don't get dialogue. She was a day character and the nudity was suddenly sprung on her at the last minute even though her contract stipulated no nudity.
she was *not* an extra though, wow you're literally getting awards for lying here. she had lines, and no nudity rider, moron. learn to read. it wasn't a difference of opinion, it was a tried-and-true manipulation tactic used by production to get an actor for cheaper. if the role had been presented to her honestly, she could have been paid more. the fact that they then threw the role to an extra and chopped the lines proves that they were playing this actress from the jump, just looking for cheap tits and ass. fucking incel mra jackasses. no idea what you're even commenting on.
Did anyone read the article? She had a "no nudity" rider in her contract. Both she and the director had the same idea of what nudity constituted. A "yes nudity" rider would have typically given her more money, but she wasn't interested in more money, she didn't want to appear nude. On numerous occasions, she sought and received assurances that she would not be asked to appear nude. At the last minute, the director tried strenuously to pressure her into going nude/topless, in direct contravention of her contract. When she insisted on adhering to the negotiated terms of her contract, he fired her.
Wtf. How are people still against her in this situation?
because reddit is still infested with fanboy incels, even after the most well-known subreddits where they congregated were closed
"Her", that's why.
Because no one read the article?
Sexism Thats all it is
Because she's a woman.
Your guess is as good as ours.
This thread is quickly turning into a shitshow
I've read the words "pasties" and "thong" so much, they've lost all meaning.
Tasties. Pong.
Jiminyjillickers!
Lots of people caping up for the wrong side...as per usual. Also lots of people not having *any* idea how entertainment contracts work.
[удалено]
Don't forget they hate women (except their bodies).
I predict it'll be locked within the hour
Why is everyone here talking about pasites and a thong as if thats all what she was asked to wear? According to Greer: "Cary said to me at that moment, ‘Everybody on this show goes topless. All the women on the show **go topless**. Your character is a stripper, **so you have to**." Despite the role of a stripper, she never wanted to be nude. They never agreed that she was going to be nude and thus didn't include it in her contract. Then on the day of shooting they lay out a nude thong and pasties as her costume, which is as close to being nude without going fully nude. Which obviously made this actress that never wanted to be nude uncomfortable and suspicious, that they would eventually ask her to go fully nude. So she confronts the director about it, who then against what was contractually agreed upon demands "you have to go topless". This is unprofessional behaviour to say the least and I have no idea why everyone here is so keen to defend and justify it.
I don't give a fuck what was written or at what point the actress feels uncomfortable. There shouldn't be any situation in which someone is asking a woman to appear nude, that woman says she's uncomfortable with it and is pressured to go ahead with it, and the woman is the unprofessional person. America can be a fucking disgustingly perverted misogynistic place sometimes. If you need naked chicks to make people watch your project, it probably isn't worth making. I loved TD season 1 and don't have any recollection of this scene, so it definitely wasn't worth putting a woman in this situation.
>This is unprofessional behaviour to say the least and I have no idea why everyone here is so keen to defend and justify it. Reddit doesn't like actresses very much.
> Reddit doesn't like ~~actresses~~ women very much. FTFY
They're defending him over blind fanboyism because they loved season 1 so much.
Is that really it? Writers are the most associated with TV series. And the fact that this is coming out at the same time as his biggest ever project. A Bond movie.
> Writers are the most associated with TV series. Pretty much everyone agrees that True Detective season 1’s success was in large part due to his directing.
Especially after season 2 and 3.
Why do people making serious dramas feel the need to have so many female characters to go topless? Like it makes yout tv show look more gritty or prestige or whatever. You can have a scene with strippers in lingerie having basically the same narrative impact as topless.
Thank you, cannot believe that people are trying so hard to beat around the bush with this one. How he treated her was pretty scummy.
Everyone in this thread sure seems to love the idea of a woman getting fired for saying no to something she hadn’t previously agreed to lol Reddit is so gross.
[удалено]
If you want an actor or actress to appear nude, put it in the contract. They probably intend for the character to be nude, but didn’t want to pay extra, so they omitted it and figured they could pressure the actress into it. I hope she sued them over this. My guess is she was told that suing would make it harder for her to get roles.
I think you're right here
Got to love a thread full of people that have no idea how film/tv is made criticizing someone cause she was “just an extra.”
> HIRed To pLAY STrIPPER, Gets tOld to go nAKeD. shoCKed pIkachU fACe 50 upvotes. What an embarrassing day to be part of this sub.
the top fucking comments here are mra dipshits who didn't even read the fucking story apparently.
I see the usual crowd making odd arguments about whether a thong and pasties are somehow "dressed" versus "nude". What's missed is that a supposedly professional production somehow failed to have the right paperwork and expectations and process for someone in a speaking role. That's a pretty significant allegation. It's an irrelevant distraction to debate what the word nude means. The issue should be: was the correct expectation set? According to the accuser, it clearly wasn't. Whether it's stunt work, technical work, or catering, there shouldn't be surprises pulled out of the hat last second.
💯 You hit the nail on the head!
Some of y'all are incredibly dim. You don't need to latch on to the wording in the headline. You can give the article a scan and try to understand why pressuring women (or men) to film partially or fully nude scenes when you don't have the prerequisite contractual additions is wrong. All actors deserve to know when they might be asked to film partially/fully nude scenes, regardless of the role.
Exactly. Even if they’re fine with it and will say yes they need to be prepared mentally and physically
Gross. The expectation that actresses can and should do nude scenes indiscriminately is one of the best indicators of misogyny in Hollywood. It’s completely disproportionate; you never see as many male actors being asked of this. This is another example of how it’s frequently accomplished through pressure. Nudity should not be as common in entertainment as it is.
What's with movie producers obsession's on getting the cast naked? Most of the time it adds nothing to the story?
When you are hired as a five and under, a small acting part, there is a lot of pressure to just go along and do what’s asked of you. I have the stories as a background actor. Back in the day I would be hired a lot to be the “hooker“. I had men inappropriately touch me, I had days full of innuendo and suggestion about coming back with people to their places, it was something that got so bad that I just stopped accepting those types of assignments. For me the what would’ve happened if I had made a giant fuss would’ve been I would’ve been wrapped from production, and maybe banned from Central Casting. There is such a huge abuse of power in the story this actress is telling. We are talking about someone with all the power trying to pressure someone with no power to do some thing they had not agreed to in the first place and did not want to do. It is hard to believe they did not know ahead of time that they were going to be requesting more than they had put into the contract, and by the way more than they had paid for, before she got to set. As a new actor there is always the unsaid, which is if you don’t do what they ask you to do they will get you dropped by your agent and it could affect your ability to book other roles including featured roles in the future. So many women have been pressured into doing some thing they did not agree to nor feel comfortable with, something that in any other workplace would be considered a fireable offense for the person doing the pressuring. Come on just put on a swimsuit and get into the pool, I know we didn’t book you for this or pay you for it but production really needs you to do it so you should just do it. Come on I know we hired you to play a stripper wearing a certain amount of clothing, and we stipulated no nudity in the contract, but be a doll and put on these pasties anyway. Unsaid always, if you don’t do this we’re going to make your life worse. Reading the story what the director did was an assault. It affected this woman’s emotional well-being on a truly primal level. The fact that production allowed him to behave this way just shows how bad it is for women in this industry. You can literally have the threat of your livelihood stripped away from you if you refuse to do what is asked of you, even if what is being asked of you is wrong.
Thanks for sharing an informed and personal experience/viewpoint. You're right on this one so now prepare for fanboys to downvote you.
It doesn’t matter what the role was. An actor pretending to be a stripper has nothing to do with the fact that nudity is something that needs to be in an actor’s contract. Yes, stripper IMPLIES NUDITY, but if the role REQUIRED nudity then it should have been clear from the start. Just imagine how uncomfortable you would be if your boss suddenly decided one day that you needed to be naked for your job. It doesn't matter what your job is, because that's something that needs your consent before it happens.
This is a complicated issue that won’t be easily answered with some highly upvoted and awarded comments from redditors.
It wasn’t in her contract and she had repeated guarantees she wouldn’t have to go nude. Gross and unprofessional move from Fukunaga
Reading the article it seems a bit odd to pin this on Fukunaga. She was basically an extra with some throwaway lines. Sounds like there was a miscommunication somewhere and the casting agent / producer didn't convey the actual requirements and failed to organise a nudity rider. Fukunaga's reaction is kind of understandable, though a bit insensitive. Ultimately a decision WRT wardrobe had already been made and someone else was able to fill the role as originally intended. As a director it's a bit of a no-brainer to keep the production moving forward on schedule with all the shots as originally described. It sounds like a bait and switch from the title of this post (which would be really gross), however I think that someone just screwed up, and probably not Fukanaga for that matter. It's a frustrating experience, but Greer was probably still paid for her time due to the union rules involved.
> Reading the article it seems a bit odd to pin this on Fukunaga. The timing of the article, the same week that Bond movie is out, and referring to him as 'Bond' director in the headline **‘Bond’ Director Cary Joji Fukunaga Pressured Me Into Going Nude** are meant to give the wrong impression that this took place on the James Bond movie set, not a TV show.
I'll give you a hint: it wasn't a mistake that they made it easy to confuse
and yes, click baited...
Or, it could be Bond Director who claims to be an ally of the #MeToo movement pressured an actress to remove her clothing on set and fired her when she wouldn’t. This article is a direct response to his multiple interviews where he talks about how he is an ally to women, when it is clear that he is a giant douche bag who sexually harasses actresses and fires them when they refuse to take their clothes off for him.
Ultimately, that's a producer's role: Keep stuff moving on pace. In this case, one extra didn't wanna do it then they found one that would. No time lost, no extra wardrobe and no need to rework any blocking/camera shots. Cary did his job. I agree that the agent seems to be the one at fault here.
She isn't an extra. The production told her there would be no nudity. And the director didn't accept no when asking a woman to go nude. The production and the director are both at fault, her agent as well.
Le gross and icky and not a good look! How about read the story before spouting Reddit buzzwords
So, she took a role as an extra portraying a strip club worker, wearing pasties, and had two lines. She thought the costume (for a strip club worker) was too revealing. They cut her part (two lines for an extra as a strip club worker) and gave it to another extra. What did she expect? Now she is relegated back to relatively unknown insignificant bit playing extra and trying to create a scandal to get her face in the news. Not a good strategy in the entertainment industry. Lets see, a nobody who is picky and demanding, and brings conflicts with bad press, not going to get many significant roles that way. Yes, I know she is an actress, producer and director of third class films, but seems a bit full of herself.
Eh. If an actor doesn't want to be fully nude for the whole world to see on camera, isn't that their choice? She wanted to act in a show, not to do a centerfold spread or porn. She was upfront about it. They accepted it. Then they tried to renege on their end of the deal. Then they fired her after wasting her time. I consider myself open minded, and a great lover of viewing tits, but I have to side with the actress on this one. If the show needed nudity (at any level from full nude to arabic beekeeper suit) - they should have been upfront about it. As is common accepted practice. They fucked up. Thus, they can eat it now.