Haven’t other works with less serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value survived the Miller Test already?
Oh, yes, of course – I was just responding to the idea that “art” vs. “not art” has nothing to do with First Amendment issues.
But wouldn’t both these shows be “art” under this definition? (Or have artistic merit.) I was objecting to the implication that one of these shows is worthy of protection while the other is not.
However point taken on “art” being involved.
Now, while I have you - in your hypothetical, would you distinguish between these shows?
…Jennifer Connelly did Skinamax style nudity on Skinamax…
Oh no she didn’t!
And Sandra Bullock did a Skinamax scene on Skinamax…
Oh no she didn’t!
I think Evil Captor got my point completely.
Oh no he didn’t!
And he read my post properly and noted that I used words like “likely” to indicate that while what I said tends to be the truth, there will always be exceptions…
Oh no he didn’t!
…I’m saying the shows are different. Whether or not you choose to treat them differently for this discussion is entirely up to you.
You can drop the discussion any time you like. I’m not making “esthetic judgements.” Rome and Femmes Fatale are two different types of programme: marketed to two very different market segments and attracting two very different types of talent to their productions.
Where did I say it was? What are you going on about now?
First amendment? That curious American legal thing? That doesn’t apply to me where I live.
Nicholas Cage?
Restricting contract rights?
What on earth are you talking about?
I made an obviously hyperbolic comment that people watched Femme Fatales for a certain reason. Femme Fatales screens on Cinemax: described on wiki as “The main “flagship” feed; Cinemax features blockbuster movies, first-run films, movie favorites and softcore erotica programs.” The wiki description for Femme Fatales calls it “an anthology TV series, inspired by the men’s magazine of the same name, with each episode focusing on an antihero woman, intercut with softcore pornographic scenes and produced by Cinemax.”
You haven’t even seen the programme we are talking about. You compared it to Rome, on the simplistic basis that both have nude/sex scenes. Here is the wiki description of Rome: “Rome is a British-American-Italian historical drama television series created by Bruno Heller, John Milius and William J. MacDonald. The show’s two series premiered in 2005 and 2007, and were later released on DVD and Blu-ray. Rome is set in the 1st century BC, during Ancient Rome’s transition from Republic to Empire. The series begins with Julius Caesar’s conquest of Gaul, and the first series concludes with the assassination of Caesar followed by the rise of the first Emperor Augustus, also known as Gaius Octavian.” It screened on BBC, described as: The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is a British public service broadcasting statutory corporation. Its main responsibility is to provide impartial public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man. The BBC is headquartered at Broadcasting House in London and has major production centres in Salford Quays, Belfast, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff and Glasgow, and smaller production centres throughout the UK. The BBC is the world’s oldest national broadcasting organisation and the largest broadcaster in the world by number of employees, with about 23,000 staff."
My sole point to you in response to your comparison was that Rome and Femmes Fatale’s are two entirely different programmes, with entirely different audiences appealing to two different talent pools. For some reason because the two programmes both have bare breasts you think they are comparable. For legal purposes they obviously are. For the point that you raised with me they obviously aren’t.
And for some reason you have used that sole point as a springboard of all sorts of strange non-sequiturs. I’m still waiting for you to tell me what you think “I object to.”
Of course you can give me a definition as useless as my definition was. Your definition of wide field is not legally specific any more than my definition of sexual entertainment was. Your request was frivolous makework, however, which is why it’s worthy of derision instead of worthy of serious effort: of course legal minds can define sexual entertainment in a way that works reasonably well, and of course there’ll be a lot of back-and-forth before a final definition is agreed upon. So what?
I’m afraid I responded too quickly.
Isn’t the case you mention about the distribution of material? In this discussion we are talking about the application of rules to the creation of material. Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t even judges who wanted to continue to ban Lady Chatterly no want to prevent the creation of such works? (Done in England, of course, but no matter.) Thus art in the present situation has no bearing, even given that it does in First Amendment cases. Assuming that no one is harmed in the creation of the material, privately created and not distributed material. Especially literature - I trust that no one would have made Nin’s diaries illegal before they were published.
The woman in this case is claiming that harm was done to her. She doesn’t seem to be saying that the show should be banned.
Cage has made some bad career choices. The case in question is covered by US law. And some people seem to be saying that contracts involving sexual situations in some way should be governed by different rules from those which aren’t.
I haven’t seen Femme Fatales but I have seen plenty of similar shows. I have seen some episodes of Rome before I got bored.
Well, here it is. Do you think these programs (or programmes) should be treated differently? My point has always been that if you want to treat junk one way you have to treat art the same way. After all, who knows? In 50 years some French critic might find Femme Fatales a striking view of the human condition and Rome as soap opera junk. Stranger things have happened. And legal issues are all I care about, since some who would be quick to limit the rights of junk productions might not be so quick to limit the rights of “good” ones.
BTW, I’m sure Rome got better leads. As for bit parts, probably not a whole lot of difference, though.
…I put the same question to Tripolar earlier in the thread. Who exactly holds this position? It isn’t anyone in this thread.
Thats nice.
Treated differently from what?
What do you think was your point?
I double dog dare you to google “celebrities who have done nude sex scenes.” It’s rather commoplace actually. The ones who don’t do them are the exceptions.
My point is that there is no evidence that doing a nude sex scene will destroy your career.
…I know exactly what my point was. The question is what do you think my point was? And what did your “examples” have to do with anything I actually said?
Oh rubbish. We aren’t talking “celebrities”. We are talking actors. The last New Zealand television production to have any nudity at all in it was “The Almighty Johnsons”, which got cancelled last year, and last season featured almost no nudity at all. Most actors go through life without having to do a nude scene. I double dog dare you to google “television shows” and look at how many actors were on television last year, and how many of them went nude.
Who is claiming this? It certainly isn’t me.
You are right about how most actresses never do nude scenes. Which means that an actress telling her agent she doesn’t want to be submitted for such gigs won’t hurt her career - assuming she has other talents. Which is why not treating contracts with nudity any different from others will not hurt anyone, and why the actress in the OP (remember the OP?) was a twit for backing out at the last minute.
…and no-one, in this thread or otherwise, has claimed that they should be treated any different. But keep pushing that strawman.
I remember the OP. I asked the debate is about: and no-one really knows. This is a contract dispute between two parties that will either be settled in court or settled out of court. Where is the debate?
Most people in this thread haven’t even read the full complaint: and are basing their opinions on hearsay and pre-conceptions. You’ve just labeled Anne a twit. Its taken a while for you to put your cards on the table but at least now we know how you really think. Anne was always allowed to back out. You can’t force someone to take their clothes off or have a sex scene. Whether or not backing out was a breach of contract is something for the courts to sort out.
This is where I thought the hypo was going. Bricker proposes that nudity contracts are void as a matter of public policy. You and others reply that it can’t/shouldn’t be the case because nudity is legal.
Well, consensual slaps on the ass and dirty jokes are also legal. Why can’t a secretary contract to listen to dirty jokes and consent to being slapped on the ass as part of the services she performs as part of her compensation package? Then the day she refuses to allow another slap, we don’t force her to do it against her will but assess monetary penalties?
Is this different that showing breasts in a movie? Why? Because a secretary’s job doesn’t inherently contain such degrading things? An actress’ job doesn’t have to either.
In holding that nudity clauses are valid, one has to make a meaningful distinction for a setting where they are not valid lest sexual harassment laws be contracted away.
The problem, though, is that one is unwanted. Harassment, by definition, is unwanted. So, you get a job as an engineer and all of your coworkers come by and grab your butt because you’re the cute one. Sexual harassment. You don’t want that.
This other one is about taking a job that explicitly says something like “This contains a nude scene, where you will be required to be nude.” She wasn’t hired as an actress, showed up, and then some sweaty, leering director told her she was going to do a nude scene whether she wanted to or not. The terms of the work were agreed upon in advance. The reason these two don’t play together is that nude filming is accepted practice (see: Cinemax; every XXX film ever). Sexual harassment is not.
As a society, we have drawn the line: if you agree to do nudity on camera without coercion (absent other limiting factors, such as being a minor), that’s okay. If you are targeted for your looks and pressured to consent or otherwise demeaned, that’s not okay. It’s an easy distinction to make between the two.
A secretary (or anyone, of any sex in an office environment) does not have a job which this kind of thing is an inherent part of. An actor’s job is to play a particular role. This might involve saying things you’d never say in real life, pretending to kill people, pretend to beat up people or even torture people, to take off your clothes, or eat lobster even if you are a vegetarian (which my daughter actually did.)
And has been mentioned already, no actress has to take such a role. There are plenty of others,
Perhaps an analogous situation would be for someone who hated to fly taking a job as a salesperson who travels all the time, Assuming that this job requirement is spelled out in advance, the candidate should not expect to show up to work and turn down an assignment.
Can I explicitly, up front, say, “This job as an engineer also requires you to occasionally get your butt grabbed?” The terms of work will be thus agreed-upon in advance.
Soooo… has there been any further info on whether the contract did in fact specify nude scenes?
In what way does grabbing an engineer’s ass pertain to the job of engineering?
A relaxed and collegial working environment is always a plus.
More seriously, I was replying to Farin’s post, in which the argument was that the upfront notice was key to allowing the practice.
How long can an actress’ consent be enforced via contract?
Emilia Clarke, who plays intrepid Targaryen heiress Daenrys on “Game of Thrones,” presumably signed a nudity contract when she took the role – and indeed the first three seasons were not without lots of shots of Ms. Clarke’s naked body. Artistically necessary shots, to be sure: she stepped into a raging fire with three dragon eggs and how can you expect clothes to survive that?
Now Ms. Clarke has decided she won’t be doing any more nude shots.
HBO has invested three years and lots of money in making her one the stars of the series. Do they have any recourse against her now? If she did sign a nudity contract three years ago, can they hold her to it? If not, when did they lose the ability to do so? If they can, when if ever WILL they lose the ability to do so?