If she doesn’t want to do it, that’s fine.
She is breaking a signed contract and is liable for the damages ensued by the company.
Is this even a debate…?
I know she wasn’t asked to give a blow job. But you seem to be of the mind that nudity is pretty much an everyday occurrence by any actor/actress. That it’s almost akin to a kiss. I don’t think that’s accurate.
True, but wouldn’t the point at which such a contractual requirement should be challenged be the point at which:
a) You were offered the contract,
b) you said, “I’ll take the job, but without that nude scene which I claim can’t be required by contract,” and
c) they said, “this is the contract, take it or leave it.”
At that point, the plaintiff, having turned down the contract, could take it to court, demanding that she be paid to perform that role, and not have to do the nude scene.
I would think that once she took the job without a legal protest up front (so to speak), she was implicitly recognizing the validity of the contract.
The question I now have is brought to the fore by Bricker’s earlier post. If a woman can revoke consent for sex at any time, how do those laws regarding rape fit in with contractual law. As far as I understand, the contractual obligation cannot override basic laws against something that would be, in essence, rape. Interesting conundrum.
I don’t see where she was asked to perform sex.
andros:
Thank you. I couldn’t get that matter out of my mind the entire time reading this thread.
No, that’s not how voidness works. You can’t ratify a void contract by agreeing to it. A contract that’s void is simply not valid, and never was – even if she thought it was.
To continue the analogy, let’s say I’m a skeevy landlord, and I rent you a room and tell you that the first time you’re late with the rent, there’s no charge, but any subsequent late rent payments means have have to blow me. (“You got a purty mouth, boy.”)
You, not knowing any reason that such a contract is void, agree to the terms, confident that you’ll never be late and thus won’t have to perform, so to speak.
But circumstances go south for you, your live-in girlfriend steals your money and runs off with a busboy from Yonkers, and now you’re late for the second time.
You can see that it’s true that the law won’t force you to perform, even though you believed at the time you entered into the agreement that it was valid and enforceable…yes?
She wasn’t.
I am suggesting that being forced to disrobe in front of strangers, and in intimate proximity to another actor that she finds distasteful, are acts that should be treated the same as sex for the purposes of this analysis.
The bleeding was accidential during a rough sex scene. But … since the whole thing is memorialized on film/digital, including the director refusing her requests to to stop and then telling the bleeding actor to “cup her breasts”, your belief of whether or not it actually happened shouldn’t be an issue.
How do you know this stuff?
Because I have experience in these matters. It is no accident when they try to get more from you.
I do not agree that being naked and simulating sex is very different from other chores involved in acting, as it remains a simulation and as for being naked, pfft, it’s nothing. I realize however that my attitudes here are at variance with many other people’s.
However, it has occurred to me that there MAY be precedent here. Stunt people. Suppose a stunt person signs on to do the incredible double reverse horse flip over a flaming pool of oil for a movie, confident that they can do the stunt, then when they get on set, they chicken out, saying it’s just too dangerous, even though other actors have done it before (though all agree it’s really dangerous). Now, I imagine it’s also not legal to force someone to do something that has a high probability of serious injury. Does this mean the stunt guy can’t be sued for chickening out because the contract to do the stunt was illegal ab initio?
I was responding to post #64.
Actually it is an everyday occurence. Not just in the cases where it’s stated in the contract, but even without the nudity being presented in the final product actors must often appear in a state of near nudity. The actors may wear pasties or something else, but they would be expected to do the scene in a way that allows them to be depicted as nude in the film. Every actor knows this, and that’s why there are nudity clauses in their contracts to avoid confusion. Acting contracts are full of special clauses, this is the converse of something called Pay-or-Play where actors get paid even if they aren’t needed in the production in the end. The producers spent money to start shooting this movie based on her agreement to appear nude, and if she doesn’t do that she should pay damages.
On top of all that plenty of actors (mostly men I think) will play a role nude even when they don’t have to. Anthony Geary was known for this, actresses would be surprised to crawl into bed with him for a soap opera scene and find out he was totally naked even though it wasn’t necessary for the scene. Some actresses forego the pasties in topless scenes even though their nipples will be covered with a blanket the whole time. Karen Allen didn’t want to expose her butt in Animal House but John Landis explained to her that it was a badge of honor in show business. He told Donald Southernland to show him his butt and Southerland turned around and dropped his pants on the set. Nudity is an everyday occurence in Hollywood.
I think I’ll just wait until I get the whole story. You may or may not have experience in such matters, but I doubt you have much experience in this particular case.
This is not the same thing. There is no danger in showing your breasts. If the stuntman had agreed to do his job in the nude he could get sued if he refused to do that.
What about a nude model who refuses to drop her robe? What about a Vegas showgirl who refuses to appear topless?
I’d wager she never would have got the job if she didn’t agree to the nudity. There’s no shortage of actresses in Hollywood willing to expose themselves.
It seems to me that, as a general principle, if something is legal to do, a contract to do it ought to be legally enforceable. If it’s legal to show titties in a movie, it should be legal to sign a contract to show your titties in a movie, and to expect that contract to be enforced.
I agree that there are certain actions that a court should not be able to force a private individual to do, such as perform a sex act. Or undertake a dangerous action, or violate a religious principle. If someone is paid a million dollars by the National Pork Board to be their celebrity spokesperson, and shortly before the campaign launches, they convert to Judaism and refuse to touch pork products, they should be, at least, forced to give the money back. They shouldn’t be forced to eat a bacon sandwich. Likewise, if Evil Kneival gets cold feet before a jump, and refuses to go, a court shouldn’t be able to force him to get on the motorcycle, but should hold him liable for any expense incurred in promoting/televising the stunt.
Also, if we did adapt your position, where do we draw the line? Can someone get out of a contract that requires them to wear a swimsuit, or scanty (but not revealing) neglige?
Glad to hear it, since no one said she did.
Then let me rephrase:
Do you find anything in the case under discussion that leads you to believe that “something that would be, in essence, rape” was involved?
Greene filed her complaints first. In 2012.
The production company, True Crime LLC, filed their counter-suit, in 2014, two months before Greene’s case is to be heard.
I wonder why True Crime LLC waited so long before attempting to be made whole (recover their money)?
It’s possible that the production company is simply trying to undermine Greene’s complaint before a judge or jury hears the case.