Devil’s advocate:
Even though she signed the contract, as a matter of public policy any contract that requires a woman to display her body in ways she’s not comfortable with should be void. If she had signed a contract requiring her to have real, unsimulated sex on camera, we wouldn’t feel she should have to abide by it, would we?
Not my view, but I’m curious to hear rebuttals.
Given that nude scenes are hardly new or illegal, she did not sign a contract that was improper in any sense. Being a woman with a sudden attack of modesty isn’t an ironclad get out of jail free card. If this was the first nude scene in the history of movies, I could see where she might have been taken by surprise by a contract that she didn’t read as well as she should have. Since nudity is so commonplace, a reasonable person would expect any actress to read the contract and also make it clear to her agent which types of scenes she won’t do.
In ways she’s not comfortable with? Where does that end? What if she’s “uncomfortable” with showing too much cleavage or a skirt that is 3" above her knees? A clear line can be drawn between nudity and sex, and as long as she’s safely on the non-sex side, then your analogy fails. See my earlier post (#16).
I dunno, if one allows outs on contracts for lack of comfort then what’s the angle on any contract law? In general, I accept the premise that ‘you’re responsible for what you sign so don’t sign anything you haven’t read’.
Wait until she finds out what she has to do to get another part after this.
Why wouldn’t we? That is basically describing the contract for any porn movie. This suggestion would invalidate any contract dealing with the porn industry.
Moral of the story: Read everything before you sign it.
Assuming it’s legal (and I think it is), why wouldn’t we require her to either abide by the contract she signed or be liable for any damages whether the contract required nudity or sex or singing ? No, we’re not going to force her to have sex on camera. We’re also not going to force her to sing on camera even if her contract requires it. We are rarely , if ever, going to force a person to perform any action whether it is contractually required or not. We will hold them liable for damages or prohibit other actions such as performing the same service for a differnet entity, but that’s pretty much it.
Isn’t the first one a ‘nude scene’ and the second one a ‘sex scene’?
(Also, in Europe a nude scene means nudity as opposed to a topless scene.)
As I recall, a mirror image of this situation occurred in the movie “Striking Distance.” The film’s director wanted Sarah Jessica Parker to do a nude scene, but she had a no-nudity clause in the contract, apparently a standard thing with her, and so the director had to go pound sand. Seems fair in that case, if you’re a director and you sign up an actress who has a no-nudity clause in her contract and you want her to do a nude scene, you’re a damn fool, especially considering Hollywood is crawling with attractive, talented actresses who WILL do nude scenes.
And I’ve seen a few episodes of Femme Fatales, it’s hard to see how any actress could sign up for a lead role in any episode and not know they were going to be doing some softcore porn scenes. Ms. Green can go pound sand, too.
Contract law includes the concept that certain provisions that would be enforceable if properly contracted-for are nonetheless not enforceable because they are thought to be against the public policy of the state.
For example, I can require you to sign a contract to lease a home from me and, as part of that contract, forbid any animals from being housed on the property.
But even if you sign it, that provision is not enforceable if you require a seeing-eye dog, because as a matter of public policy we won’t enforce a contract that forbids medically necessary helper animals.
It’s generally accepted that you cannot contract for sex, for example. Even if I’ve contracted you to have sex with me in some legal context – such as filming a porn movie – I can’t require that you actually do it if you no longer want to. The reason is that public policy forbids the judicial enforcement of performance of a sexual act.
This is not really my area of law, mind you. But I’m advancing the devil’s advocacy that exposing one’s naked form as a matter of contractual requirement also should fit into that category.
The studio is saying the specific nudity required as explained to Greene and her agent when the role was being cast. They were told the role “would “require partial nudity,” defined as “chest” and “behind.””
I believe it is unconscionable for actractive actresses NOT to appear in the nude, contract or not!
I’m glad you posted this. I really did want somebody to take the other side. A debate where everyone is arguing the same side is pretty pointless.
I concede your point that there are some acts that are so outrageous that they can’t be required, even if they’re contracted. A contract to commit a murder for hire, for example, is unenforceable*.
But on this specific issue, I don’t think this is a valid argument. Many people might not want to perform nude in a film but it’s a common enough occurrence that I don’t think we can reasonably describe it as a violation of public policy.
*A side note: I was once involved in an “investigation” when I was working in a prison. One of the prisoners had filed an official complaint to the warden that he had made a deal with another prisoner. He would perform oral sex on the other prisoner and in exchange he would receive a pair of pajamas. He had performed the sex but then the other prisoner refused to give him the pajamas. So he wanted us to enforce the “contract” by confiscating the pajamas and giving them to him.
The official response was pretty much in line with what you’ve said. We informed the prisoner that the sex was illegal and therefore the contract was invalid.
The remedy for a breach of contract doesn’t necessarily have to mean forcing the defendant to perform the contracted action, does it? I mean, if I contract someone to photograph my wedding, and the guy doesn’t show up, obviously I can’t have the court force him to fulfill the contract - the weddings over and done with at that point. But I can use the contract as a basis for suing to recover for damages or expenses caused by him failing to fulfill his contract.
It seems something similar should be at play here. Obviously, a court should never require someone to perform a sex act as part of their verdict - but if someone contracts to perform a sex act as part of a film, and backs out, I don’t think I have a problem with the courts imposing some sort of a penalty on the recalcitrant actor, at least if it can be shown that their refusal caused the business they contracted with some sort of tangible harm.
Your case implies that being naked and simulating sex are somehow more horrible things than most other chores required of actors. Would that be the case, in your scenario? I.e., as part of your devil’s advocacy, are you willing to accept this implication?
If the transaction was illegal, should not the person who received the blowjob be ordered to return it to it’s previous owner? Either this, or it should have been returned to the guards and confiscated.
I’ve always wondered how Hollyweird handles artist’s contracts, considering all of the rewrites and changes that seem to be SOP on any production.
As I understand this particular situation, Greene filed her complaint/suit first and the production company counter-sued. hmmmm.
*Anne Greene, a.k.a. Anne G., filed a complaint in 2012 saying she was bullied into performing nude and having simulated sex with the threat of being sued. The lawsuit was against Time Warner, HBO, Cinemax, and a production company called True Crime LLC. Now, two months before the scheduled trial, True Crime’s counter-complaint against the actress is that Greene violated the “Nudity Rider” she signed.
While working on the show “Femme Fatales,” Greene said on Dec. 6, 2011, the first day of shooting, “she was blindsided with rewrite after rewrite which necessitated her character to simulate sexual intercourse and for her to appear nude but for pasties on her nipples and a sticker on her private parts.”
Not only did she say that she was essentially forced to be involved in “soft-core porn,” she accused the “executive director” Steve Kriozere and “assistant director” Joe Schwartz of making inappropriate, sexual comments towards her. Of the comments made by the pair, Greene said the pair told her that showing her “tits” was a “prerequisite to even be on this show.”*
I have heard that on shoots like this, it is common practice to do the nude scenes first. That way, if the actor gets cold feet, the production staff can simply recast the role without having the problem that they apparently ended up with here - having to redo a bunch of other shots as well. I wonder why that wasn’t done in this case.
Indeed, that’s a very standard solution to these problems. The kind of thing one learns in the first year of law school.
I just wanted to add this commentary form the AV Club: