I have no idea what is in Ms. Clarke’s contract…and I also have no idea whether her refusal to do any more nude scenes breaks an already existing contract or is just a condition she wants in an upcoming contract.
Nor do I. I was using her as an example.
So let’s imagine another actress, Shemelia Schmarke. She signed a seven year contract to perform in a cable TV production called “A Feast of Snows,” which features inexplicably nude moments amongst the ice and snow of the medieval kingdom of Fictionala.
That contract included a nude rider, because, nudity.
Now the show enters its fourth year, and Shemelia is a breakout star. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent filming and merchandising the show and her image and character.
Can she now decide to withdraw from the nudity rider?
As with the real example you just brought up(and quickly abandoned), I have questions that need to be asked. Where in the real world do starring performers sign seven year contracts at the start of a series? If you can find such an example, can you find a real-world example of one that didn’t have stipulations for renegotiation after so many seasons have passed?
I don’t think HBO has any recourse WRT Emilia Clarke … if she refused to sign upcoming contracts with “nudity riders” (I don’t know if that’s a real term but it SHOULD BE) they got no recourse. However, it could bite her on the ass in the industry … the thought among casting directors might be, “Well, if we sign Ms. Clarke to star in this film/show, we’re running quite a risk here, she might want to change the terms down the road – she’s done it before.” And no, it doesn’t matter to the execs whether nudity is the term being changed or it’s something else – they would just see her as inhibiting their ability to make money down the road … and that’s the Original Sin as far as execs are concerned.
Good point.
It’s not entirely parallel though. It’s not like “Game of Thrones” depends on Emily Clarke and no one else appearing nude. And they have plenty of time to plan future scripts to handle that.
I generally agree with the consensus that she had a contractual obligation, but I’ll play devil’s advocate. After all this is Hollywood, where sleazy and unethical behavior runs rampant.
So what would be the legal situation if the actress was told that the ‘nudity’ clause was standard boilerplate, but got assurances from the production company that in her case there would be no nudity? Or if she was told that the nudity would be on a closed set, and then was asked to strip nude with dozens of onlookers present?
When it comes to nudity and sex, I think the contract should ideally spell out what is required of her in detail. If she’s told she’ll merely be getting out of a bed nude and walking to a bathroom, and then finds out that in fact an naked actor is going to lie on top of her and simulate thrusting while sticking his tongue in her mouth, that’s a pretty different thing, and you can’t blame someone for backing out of that.
I guess the basic question is, how detailed does the nudity clause have to be, and how much leeway does the production have in demanding that actors do humiliating/frightening/degrading things?
Taking it away from the sex angle, can a director demand that an actor be suspended over a cliff from a rig if the actor is terrified of heights? Can a director demand that an actor allow someone to spit in his face, or slap him hard? Can a director demand that an actor urinate on camera? It’s not clear to me where the lines really are, absent a very literal description in a contract.
I also think that when it comes to something as intimate as sex and nudity, there has to be some way to allow for an actor to back out at the last moment. Say an actor has a history of being sexually abused, and signs a contract that allows for ‘some nudity’ - but then freaks out when it comes to the moment of shedding clothes or simulating sex in front of a group of people. If that’s career-destroying, then there’s huge pressure on that actor to go through some pretty severe emotional trauma for the sake of the career.
No easy answers here, but it looks like a fairly difficult problem to me - for both sides.
Legally, yes. We have jobs like bikini-clad waitresses and baristas that agree to that sort of thing in advance. We even have stripping, where you agree in advance that you are getting either fully or semi-naked.
Should a stripper not be fired because she doesn’t want to go on stage and get to the state of undress agrees upon in advance and without coercion?
Socially, I don’t think it would fly in engineering simply because of the feminist outrage that would get sparked. (Sorry for the assumption, but this sort of thing is always written into women’s contracts and not men’s for some reason.)
Not for nothing, but I’ve also heard that the reports of Ms. Clarke’s refusal of future nudity are based more on gossip than news. Apparently someone on the show said that one of the leading ladies was not doing any more nekkidity, but refused to say who, and everyone just assumed it was her because she’s less naked in later seasons than earlier. But maybe that’s just for “artistic reasons” 
.
It’s not the nudity that’s the central issue though, it’s changing the terms. For example, Jessica Alba famously does not do nudity in her films. I don’t hear any outrage about that, because she’s up front about it: if the role demands nudity, or even if you just WANT nudity, don’t cast Jessica Alba. Hell, she was hired to play a STRIPPER in Sin City and she didn’t do nudity. I don’t blame Alba for that, and no one else that I know of does, either. It’s all on whoever did the casting.
I don’t see anything in those clauses that requires the signee to do nudity. Rather, it seems like it says, “If there’s going to be nudity, that will be covered in a separate document.” The same goes for working with dangerous animals, hazardous stunts, etc. All that kind of stuff would be handled in a second, more detailed rider specific to the shoot.
So unless the production company can produce a signed rider that describes pretty much the scene she refused to do, she may be in the right on this. Her career will still be over, but she’s not guilty of violating her contract.
I agree, without a contract the producers have nothing. I don’t think they expect anything either, if they hadn’t been sued I doubt they would have pursued damages from someone who probably can’t pay them anyway.
I live in Vegas, and for once have some industry-specific knowledge: strippers are not employees. They are independent contractors and as such cannot be “fired”; they are simply not allowed to ply their trade at the premises.
I assume they covered contracts at some point in law school. 
Usually contracts are year to year, since the show does not want to be obligated beyond the time the show would be renewed. At the time of contract renewal, her manager or agent can negotiate anything they damn well please. It is more common to negotiate oodles more money, but a no nudity clause would certainly be something that could be on the table. She would not be withdrawing from anything, since she has no contract at this point. Assuming she spends most of her time dressed, the production company would no doubt arrange for a body double. Remember, the issue in the case in the OP was not the use of a double, but the last minute use of one. Putting it in the contract is hardly last minute.
As mentioned, seven year contracts don’t exist. Not in acting. In any case, there are no doubt penalty clauses and the possibility of renegotiation. It all depends on the balance of power.
In my experience, less than in the banking industry. With less harm to the world.
That is what agents are for. The business does not expect actors to be skilled or experienced in negotiating contracts, agents are skilled and experienced. If an agent sent an actor off on the basis of a verbal agreement, the agent should be fired immediately. There are some standards - I don’t know if such a thing would violate them. And as I mentioned above the first thing that any actor with half a clue would do is to call the agent when asked to do something they don’t want to do. Or even if she does want to do it but is surprised. She could get some extra money out of it. Acting is a business and in most cases is treated that way after someone gets hired.
There is nothing wrong with setting limits on what things the actor is expected to do.
As detailed as the agent and actor want to make it. Time is definitely money on a set. Why would a producer want and expensive crew and cast to stand around doing nothing costing money while he fights with an actress?
The lines are literally in the sides the actor gets sent before filming. Besides rehearsals, there are rules about working in smoke. Plus, the camera picks up an actor’s reaction - you can’t act if you are scared stiff. Not to mention an injured or recalcitrant actor is going to cost the production company a lot more than a stunt man. A slap? My daughter learned stage fighting in the fifth grade.
Not to mention that it is a small business, especially among agents. A director known for trying to pull such stunts is not going to get many actors he wants coming to casting calls.
First, doing it on the set is not the same as really doing it. Second, actresses who have been traumatized probably shouldn’t audition for roles with nudity. To repeat myself, unless you can bring in boffo box office delaying a production will get your ass fired and make you unlikely to get a job. (The beginning of Tootsie had some truth to it.) A kid on my daughter’s show who make a habit of vanishing and making people wait for him got his ass fired.
Go back and read the articles near the beginning of the thread. The production company sued her only after she sued them for harassment and all sorts of nasty things. I see nothing saying she didn’t get paid. The company at the time of the shoot didn’t give a crap about the contract, they just wanted to lose as little money because of her as possible. And they say they sent her clips of the kinds of scenes the show did, so she was reasonably well informed.
How would you feel if you hired someone to paint the outside of your house, you buy paint, get everything ready because you are about to put your house on the market, only to have the painter tell you he is afraid of ladders? Hell, that isn’t in the contract isn’t it?
From here:
Can you explain your assertion in light of that story? Were Ty Burrell, Julie Bowen, Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Eric Stonestreet and Sofia Vergara laughed out of the clerk’s office when they claimed their contracts were void because they were longer than seven years, since seven year contracts don’t, according to you, exist in acting?
I have no comment about the effectiveness of legal tactics. According to your cite, their strategy is standard. I’d love to see what the contract says about the show being canceled before the contract expires.
Still, the number of actors covered by long contracts is miniscule. Numerically speaking most are hired show by show, even if they have small continuing roles.
And I mentioned renegotiation and penalty clauses as an escape clause for the few exceptions.
In any case contracts for really major roles are going to be negotiated by an agent who can insert any language about nudity which they wish to insert. Single show appearances seem to mostly get covered by the standard SAG or AFTRA contract with appropriate riders - but the first thing we learned is that everything is negotiable.
How did we get from a one-show contract that that stipulated that nudity would be involved, all the way to a multi-year contract that allows for negotiation at specified points during said contract?
The contract says that they are paid an option, a smaller fee, even if the show is canceled, and that if the show is picked up, a larger payment for actually working on the show is made. The law in California forbids any such contract from exceeding seven years in duration; thus seven year contracts are actually quite common.
You said:
Do you now agree that’s not accurate?