Like almost everything else in life, the answer is “It depends”. Most porn actresses have rules about who they will and won’t work with (famously “No animals or Ron Jeremy”). Bridget Monet was famous for only working with one guy. In fact, the common advice for men wanting to get into porn is “Get your incredibly hot girlfriend into the business doing “girl-girl”, then be the only guy she will work with.” Of course in these post-Viagra days the need for reliable “Woodsmen” is much less great. Back in Jeremy’s heyday, the number of men who could get wood on demand was tiny.
Any female pornstar with any kind of fanbase at all gets to pick and choose who she works with.
Porn is all about the women, meaning they have most of the power.
I’m pretty sure that was for Fireproof, a movie I saw once (his wife-kissing scene had them silhouetted so you couldn’t tell it was a different actress.
(As to the rest of the movie, Cameron was easily the best actor of the bunch (I guess he’s the only good fundamentalist Christian actor) and the writing was, as you might suspect, heavy-handed.)
Anyways, I heard that a lot of actresses turned down the role of the girlfriend in The Brown Bunny for undisclosed reasons, but the rumour is that it was because of the unsimulated oral sex scene (gee, they’ll sleep with the director off camera, but not on?) The woman who got the role, the now-infamous Cloe Sevigny, was the director/male actor’s ex-girlfriend, which is probably why she had no qualms about the role or scene.
I just realized that I may be the first person to reference Fireproof and The Brown Bunny in the same post on the same topic! (Both are also pretty badly panned but, while I’ve only seen the first one, from what I’ve heard, Fireproof is the much better movie hands down (even the sex scene doesn’t save The Brown Bunny. And that’s saying something because I agree Fireproof is not a great movie by a long shot.)
Perfect analogy- thanks.
I understand Kirk Cameron was originally offered the lead of Brown Bunny but wanted to substitute the back of his wife’s head for the heroine’s during the oral sex scene, and wanted to substitute a banana for his penis.
Fine by me – he gets a ton of slack in my book for playing Buck Compton in Band of Brothers.
I don’t understand this.
I would not have sex with any man other than my Mig. But I don’t condemn anyone who has an open relationship and I’d rally for them if I felt they were being done any injustices.
It’s not religion, I just wouldn’t do that, whether it was real or simulated, because I just wouldn’t want to GO there. It would make me extremely uncomfortable, and I know it would make Mig feel uncomfortable. To me personally I think it might stir up an unnecessary temptation. We’re not all these modern types who think it’s fun to play kissing games at couples parties.
I sound like a prude from the sixties but I swear I’m not.
I am not religious at all but I do understand taking a stand for your partner if you’ve decided together that this would not be a good idea. I’m sure someone could incorporate it into their religious beliefs, but it seems no more than simple respect for his wife and using religion as his reason.
I think it’s cool that he’s personally against it but doesn’t have a problem with what other people do. That to me is an encounter with one of the GOOD Christians that don’t make everyone else practice their traditions.
I don’t see the two things as analogous. Not bugging you about what you do that I think is wrong is one thing, but actively promoting it is another entirely. It’s not like Christianity teaches that only Christians have to act a certain way.
Now, if you want to argue that the movie isn’t actually promoting it, that’s different. As is what you do seem to be arguing: that religion has less to do with it than a personal discomfort with the idea.
I think the problem may be the idea that each person has their own religion. Each person may have their own beliefs, but religion is the a set of beliefs of a GROUP of people. There are some religions that argue that everyone should be able to do what they want, but Christianity really isn’t one of them. Even Catholicism, which does not say that everyone will go to hell, still believes that they are right and others are wrong.
So, as long as the guy says he’s doing it for Catholic beliefs, then I feel he is being hypocritical. He has confessed to believe that having sex outside of marriage is wrong, and thus should not be in a production that says it’s perfectly fine and normal.
You have to expect this kind of thing is rare just because it’s so expensive to replace an actor in a movie that’s already being shot, and on TV it’s even worse because the audience has already started to identify the actor with the character. So while people might get turned down for a part because they won’t get nude, they’re almost never going to get fired for it. I remember reading an article about Jennifer Tilly, who was asked if she could dance for a role (Bride of Chucky, if you must know.) And she said absolutely. By the time they learned this was a lie, they already had a few reels in the can and had spent millions of dollars, so replacing her wasn’t an option. So they made it work. And that’s why directors shoot those scenes first, as noted upthread – so however things go down, if it needs to be fixed, it can be done rather cheaply.
–Cliffy
If it’s a filmed television series (like Oz), the Screen Actors Guild contract rules about nudity are identical to those of theatrical films.
Aaaaand that summarizes the thread. Well done.
No, he said that having adulterous sex is wrong. And clearly his perspective is that adultery, at least within his understanding of his marriage vows, occurs regardless of motivation; whether he’s being physically intimate with another woman because he wants to actually be intimate with her or because he’s filming a television program, it’s equally wrong for him to do. That’s his approach to his religiously-based commitment to his marriage, it’s not hypocritical for him to feel that his vows are binding on himself (and presumably his wife, though she’s not an actor) but not for others.
But he’s not committing adultery. It’s only make believe. Murder is wrong too, but he doesn’t have a problem with pretending to murder people.
I don’t really care. It’s his life, his career, his moral code. If he wants to turn down a part, that’s no skin off anyone else’s dick, but sex scenes in a tv show aren’t really sex any more than the aliens are really aliens.
I know at least one person in real life who considers simple kissing adultery.
In this poll of mine, 48 out of 237 voters opined that (in the fictional scenario) a married man kissing another woman was cheating. You were one of those who voted that way, I think.
Perhaps Mr. McDonough falls in that camp, and makes not exceptions for pretense. Murders committed on film are faked. Kisses, generally, are not.
Movie/tv kisses are always faked; your poll doesn’t apply to them. They’re about as close to real kissing as mouth to mouth resuscitation.
In your view and mine, maybe. But clearly not his.
I was addressing your post, not his position. You equated movie kissing with real kissing. They are not the same at all.
Can you explain this? In a fictionally-performed murder, the actor is obviously lacking actual murderous intent, and he lacks a real gun, real bullets, real blood, and real bullet holes in the other actors body.
In a fictionally-performed kiss, the actor lacks actual lustful intent (well, maybe)… but I’m hard pressed to see how you can fake placing your lips and tongue on the other actor’s lips and tongue and still get a believable on-screen kiss. Rather it seems that an actor actually does place his lips and tongue on her lips and tongue.
:dubious: Not everybody kisses with a tongue.
Uh… we’re talking about sex scenes, my friend.
If you don’t kiss with tongue during sex, I’m very sorry.