Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp here. Last time I will comment on this thread. It’s weird for me to see how the delivery scene is being made a big deal by the fanatical poster, and here is why.

When I had my first kid, I took all of those prenatal classes that hospitals offer. One of the main takeaways from those classes is the bond that you want to form with your baby in those first few hours after birth. They emphasize connecting with your baby because birthing can be a very traumatic experience for the baby.

I remember both me and my husband with thin tshirts on, because we were told that skin to skin was the best bonding experience with the newborn baby those first few hours. And we followed the guidance given (along with breastfeeding, swaddling, ferbering, etc). No one in the delivery room viewed our actions as abnormal or uncomfortable or sexual. Moreover, our kids (we have more than one) were delivered by both male and female doctors.

I remember clearly that when I gave birth to one of my kids that there were at least 3 male doctors/assistants in the room, along with my female doctor and husband. [The female doctor was delivering for us because my main doctor (a male) was not on duty when I went into labor].

Nothing about me being unclothed from the waist down was viewed as weird, etc. because everyone was there for a purpose—to deliver that baby. There is always more than one doctor/assistant/nurse in the delivery room. And they all see your body as is because they are there to deliver that baby safely and whisk that baby away soon thereafter for testing, etc.

This is why it’s hard for me to wrap my head around discomfort for the delivery scene by BL. Maybe for a movie, the scene didn’t have to be 100 percent authentic to be believable, and she is right to want to negotiate that. But that doesn't knock the effort by the director. That’s just how babies are born.

And my baby was born at a top hospital, from a top ob practice. Nothing seems weird or off to me so far about how this delivery scene in context was scripted.

Baldoni wanted to film Lively in the birth scene, and tried hard to coerce Lively to agree to film the scene, with Lively topless, nearly naked except for the bump and some panties. You talk about being naked from the waist down, but if Baldini had gotten his way, you would have seen her breasts. That wasn’t your experience, and it wasn’t my experience, and that amount of nudity for a delivery scene would be unusual given the other scenes PP noted. Baldoni said being mostly covered with a hospital gown, as you and I were, was “not normal.”

Lawsuits are not about what if’s. I personally was not mostly covered in a hospital gown, nor was I wearing briefs or a pregnancy suit. Moreover, you continue to mix up Heath and Baldoni. They are two separate people.

DP but asking an actor to do nudity that is not in the script without an IC present on the day the scene is filmed could be considered harassment, even if the actor manages to convince the director that they should be able to wear more than what has been asked. It's coercive. If the actor refuses, the scene could be postponed and the actor will be blamed for costing the production money.

That's why nudity is always supposed to be in the script and flagged ahead of time, no surprises. Because otherwise there's a ton of pressure on actors to just do what is being asked of them so they can get the shot and keep to schedule. It is a very unprofessional for a director to spring nudity on an actor right before a scene.

Unprofessional is not sexual harassment.

Trying to coerce an actor into doing nudity they didn't sign on for is kind of textbook harassment on a film set though, isn't it? Even if the actor fights back and winds up wearing more clothes. The whole reason they started using ICs and requiring nudity riders was because directors and producers used to abuse their positions to get actresses to do things they weren't comfortable with.

It's a major red flag to me that they suggested the nudity all of a sudden not the day they filmed the scene, and that they didn't involve the IC. They had an IC on the movie, why wouldn't they flag this scene and involve her? The fact that they didn't is a sign that either (1) they are stupid or (2) they were trying to get away with something.

What it isn’t is sexual harassment.

You keep saying this like it's a fact but unless you can provide some textbook definition that will make that clear, people will continue to argue with you.

Lively's SH claim is that Baldoni and Heath created a hostile or abusvie work environment by misconduct that is "severe and pervasive." Her claims of misconduct will thus not be considered individually but cumulatively. So you can't say that as a discrete act, pressuring Lively to do the birth scene nude is not SH. It is supposed to be considered as part of a pattern of behavior, most of which we don't have enough evidence on either way at this point.

So the truth is, you don't know if it was SH or not. It certainly could be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The allegations in Blake’s complaint are old news at this point. Everyone that is going to have paid attention already has made a decision. It’s wild how Justin had the foresight to keep receipts. He’s winning public opinion sentiment by mile.

+1. We can rehash this birth scene a million times over, but she'll never work again in anything she and her husband don't fully fund and produce. It's done. Even a victory in court (unlikely) is not going to change that. As a super high maintenance, mind-bogglingly entitled, combative, and difficult person with limited talent, she had a decent run, but no one will hire her. The men will be afraid of frivolous lawsuits and the older actresses/producers/directors producing their own content will blame her for weaponizing MeToo. She's putting herself in the bucket with the 2% of rapes that are found to be false accusations. This is a wildly, wildly unpopular group to join. Unless she has something mind-blowing that somehow never entered into her complaint, she's toast. This isn't a story of SH, this is a David and Goliath powerplay by her and her husband. It's ludicrous they're not settling.

On this specific point, I would also like to mention that during this time, Blake's responses about Weinstein were basically, "Well, he didn't rape ME!!!" so there's not a lot of existing goodwill there.

That's not at all what she said, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The allegations in Blake’s complaint are old news at this point. Everyone that is going to have paid attention already has made a decision. It’s wild how Justin had the foresight to keep receipts. He’s winning public opinion sentiment by mile.

+1. We can rehash this birth scene a million times over, but she'll never work again in anything she and her husband don't fully fund and produce. It's done. Even a victory in court (unlikely) is not going to change that. As a super high maintenance, mind-bogglingly entitled, combative, and difficult person with limited talent, she had a decent run, but no one will hire her. The men will be afraid of frivolous lawsuits and the older actresses/producers/directors producing their own content will blame her for weaponizing MeToo. She's putting herself in the bucket with the 2% of rapes that are found to be false accusations. This is a wildly, wildly unpopular group to join. Unless she has something mind-blowing that somehow never entered into her complaint, she's toast. This isn't a story of SH, this is a David and Goliath powerplay by her and her husband. It's ludicrous they're not settling.

On this specific point, I would also like to mention that during this time, Blake's responses about Weinstein were basically, "Well, he didn't rape ME!!!" so there's not a lot of existing goodwill there.

That's not at all what she said, though.

It's the first part. Then she blames others for not speaking out about this.

"While countless women were condemning Harvey Weinstein and other male predators in Hollywood, Blake low-key defended the producer, who was accused of sexual harassment and/or abuse by more than 80 women. “That was never my experience with Harvey in any way whatsoever,” she told The Hollywood Reporter in October 2017. “I think that if people heard these stories … I do believe in humanity enough to think that this wouldn’t have just continued. I never heard any stories like this — I never heard anything specific — but it’s devastating to hear.”

Confusingly, she then emphasized the importance of listening to women. “The number one thing that can happen is that people who share their stories, people have to listen to them and trust them, and people have to take it seriously,” Blake told THR. “As important as it is to remain furious about this, it’s important to also say that this exists everywhere so remember to look everywhere.” She noted that sexual harassment and abuse happens in “every single industry.” Blake, you were so close… just delete that whole first part."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actor playing the obstetrician conducted himself professionally, did he not? He was in close proximity, but he didn’t see anything (other than her briefs), he didn’t touch her inappropriately, he did not make inappropriate comments?

DP. I don’t think the friend did anything inappropriate but I think it was very poor judgment for Baldoni to put his friend in the birth scene. He could have put him in any scene. He already knew Blake didn’t feel comfortable, felt very vulnerable, and wasn’t feeling safe on set so to tell his personal friend, hey I know what you can do, you can get up between her legs, was a really inappropriate and poor choice.

Was that actor hired so late into the production, once filming had begun? Is that timeline anywhere? Or was he supposed to have that role from the outset and then various unrelated problems emerged (allegedly).

It wasn’t a role and he wasn’t really hired. It was one of Baldoni’s best friends was on set who Baldoni wanted to put in the movie. Blake’s sister also had a similar small bit as did Baldoni’s wife and kids. It isn’t unusual to give family and friends a walk on background bit. But the choice to give this scene to one of the family / friends is what upset Blake.

That doesn’t sound right. JB’s complaint said he was an experienced theater guy who did bit parts on the regular, and was not hired because he was a friend. He said he told Blake he was a friend when he introduced her to the guy but it wasn’t why he was hired. Lively’s sister was hired because she was Lively’s sister at her request.

He had done one other movie bit in 2012. That’s it. He is from Baldonis church and one of his best friends. He wasn’t hired for a role - it was a non speaking bit with his face covered with him barely making an appearance.

Lively's complaint states that such parts are generally filmed using a local actor. This implies a small time, but professional, actor. A professional actor with an MFA in acting who does regular theater roles and has one onscreen credit seems to fit that paradigm just fine. He might be Baldoni's friend too. Lots of nepotism in Hollywood. But he is not just a random friend who is not in the business of acting, as I originally assumed reading her complaint. I also understand now that she had some power on the set due to the leverage of not having signed her contract, so it is harder for me to belive that she had no ability to object to this casting.

In the end this also shouldn’t be hard to prove. If the casting department found him and hired him based on his acting resume then that will be on record. If that is the case Baldoni’s must have been shocked to find out that one of his closest friends ended up being cast in his movie despite not having movie acting experience. What a coincidence!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The allegations in Blake’s complaint are old news at this point. Everyone that is going to have paid attention already has made a decision. It’s wild how Justin had the foresight to keep receipts. He’s winning public opinion sentiment by mile.

+1. We can rehash this birth scene a million times over, but she'll never work again in anything she and her husband don't fully fund and produce. It's done. Even a victory in court (unlikely) is not going to change that. As a super high maintenance, mind-bogglingly entitled, combative, and difficult person with limited talent, she had a decent run, but no one will hire her. The men will be afraid of frivolous lawsuits and the older actresses/producers/directors producing their own content will blame her for weaponizing MeToo. She's putting herself in the bucket with the 2% of rapes that are found to be false accusations. This is a wildly, wildly unpopular group to join. Unless she has something mind-blowing that somehow never entered into her complaint, she's toast. This isn't a story of SH, this is a David and Goliath powerplay by her and her husband. It's ludicrous they're not settling.

I actually think she's definitely work again and don't understand why you (or others) keep asserting this. Whatever happens with the SH claims, the movie was a success and Lively's marketing for it drove that success. Paul Feig, who directed her on a movie after this one, is backing her up publicly and that movie is getting a fairly showy premiere at SXSW (even though it's just a streaming feature without a theater release). They announced the SXSW premiere after all Baldoni's evidence came out.

I guess if that movie is a big flop that could impact whether she works again, but I actually bet all the interest in this conflict will drive more interest in that movie, just like it drove more interest in IEWU. Actors don't always have to be likable to be bankable -- Tom Cruise is a great example of an actor with a weird, often unpleasant public persona but it doesn't stop people from going to his movies. A lot of people dislike JLo but she still works a ton. I think sometimes being a controversial person actually helps attract attention to their projects.

And I don't think people will worry about Lively accusing them of SH either, even if they think her claims here are overblown. Badoni is not some well-respected or well-known director and a lot of the details of his set indicate that even if he didn't commit SH, it was an unprofessional, disorganized production. I think if a director thought Lively would be a good addition to a project, they wouldn't care that much about this because they don't run their sets like that. Sometimes there are disagreements on set and people wind up hating each other, that's what happened here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp here. Last time I will comment on this thread. It’s weird for me to see how the delivery scene is being made a big deal by the fanatical poster, and here is why.

When I had my first kid, I took all of those prenatal classes that hospitals offer. One of the main takeaways from those classes is the bond that you want to form with your baby in those first few hours after birth. They emphasize connecting with your baby because birthing can be a very traumatic experience for the baby.

I remember both me and my husband with thin tshirts on, because we were told that skin to skin was the best bonding experience with the newborn baby those first few hours. And we followed the guidance given (along with breastfeeding, swaddling, ferbering, etc). No one in the delivery room viewed our actions as abnormal or uncomfortable or sexual. Moreover, our kids (we have more than one) were delivered by both male and female doctors.

I remember clearly that when I gave birth to one of my kids that there were at least 3 male doctors/assistants in the room, along with my female doctor and husband. [The female doctor was delivering for us because my main doctor (a male) was not on duty when I went into labor].

Nothing about me being unclothed from the waist down was viewed as weird, etc. because everyone was there for a purpose—to deliver that baby. There is always more than one doctor/assistant/nurse in the delivery room. And they all see your body as is because they are there to deliver that baby safely and whisk that baby away soon thereafter for testing, etc.

This is why it’s hard for me to wrap my head around discomfort for the delivery scene by BL. Maybe for a movie, the scene didn’t have to be 100 percent authentic to be believable, and she is right to want to negotiate that. But that doesn't knock the effort by the director. That’s just how babies are born.

And my baby was born at a top hospital, from a top ob practice. Nothing seems weird or off to me so far about how this delivery scene in context was scripted.

Baldoni wanted to film Lively in the birth scene, and tried hard to coerce Lively to agree to film the scene, with Lively topless, nearly naked except for the bump and some panties. You talk about being naked from the waist down, but if Baldini had gotten his way, you would have seen her breasts. That wasn’t your experience, and it wasn’t my experience, and that amount of nudity for a delivery scene would be unusual given the other scenes PP noted. Baldoni said being mostly covered with a hospital gown, as you and I were, was “not normal.”

Lawsuits are not about what if’s. I personally was not mostly covered in a hospital gown, nor was I wearing briefs or a pregnancy suit. Moreover, you continue to mix up Heath and Baldoni. They are two separate people.

DP but asking an actor to do nudity that is not in the script without an IC present on the day the scene is filmed could be considered harassment, even if the actor manages to convince the director that they should be able to wear more than what has been asked. It's coercive. If the actor refuses, the scene could be postponed and the actor will be blamed for costing the production money.

That's why nudity is always supposed to be in the script and flagged ahead of time, no surprises. Because otherwise there's a ton of pressure on actors to just do what is being asked of them so they can get the shot and keep to schedule. It is a very unprofessional for a director to spring nudity on an actor right before a scene.

Unprofessional is not sexual harassment.

Trying to coerce an actor into doing nudity they didn't sign on for is kind of textbook harassment on a film set though, isn't it? Even if the actor fights back and winds up wearing more clothes. The whole reason they started using ICs and requiring nudity riders was because directors and producers used to abuse their positions to get actresses to do things they weren't comfortable with.

It's a major red flag to me that they suggested the nudity all of a sudden not the day they filmed the scene, and that they didn't involve the IC. They had an IC on the movie, why wouldn't they flag this scene and involve her? The fact that they didn't is a sign that either (1) they are stupid or (2) they were trying to get away with something.

What it isn’t is sexual harassment.

You keep saying this like it's a fact but unless you can provide some textbook definition that will make that clear, people will continue to argue with you.

Lively's SH claim is that Baldoni and Heath created a hostile or abusvie work environment by misconduct that is "severe and pervasive." Her claims of misconduct will thus not be considered individually but cumulatively. So you can't say that as a discrete act, pressuring Lively to do the birth scene nude is not SH. It is supposed to be considered as part of a pattern of behavior, most of which we don't have enough evidence on either way at this point.

So the truth is, you don't know if it was SH or not. It certainly could be.

You’re back again, and you are reaching. But for her feeling discomfort in filming this scene, just not seeing the SH. Again, didn’t she reject the IC that was offered?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a pretty modest birth scene. Nothing odd about it at all.

Her issues are with the requests for nudity that were made of her, the lack of following protocol, the pressure on her to do things not in the script that she wasn’t comfortable with in this specific context, the sharing of personal experiences by Baldoni and Heath to pressure her, and Baldoni’s friend being in between her legs.

She has done far less clothed scenes in her life…with her consent and within the proper protocols.

Yes, and not a single one of those is sexual haesssment. Further much of it didn’t actually happen in the way she claims, but even if it had, not sexual harassment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The allegations in Blake’s complaint are old news at this point. Everyone that is going to have paid attention already has made a decision. It’s wild how Justin had the foresight to keep receipts. He’s winning public opinion sentiment by mile.

+1. We can rehash this birth scene a million times over, but she'll never work again in anything she and her husband don't fully fund and produce. It's done. Even a victory in court (unlikely) is not going to change that. As a super high maintenance, mind-bogglingly entitled, combative, and difficult person with limited talent, she had a decent run, but no one will hire her. The men will be afraid of frivolous lawsuits and the older actresses/producers/directors producing their own content will blame her for weaponizing MeToo. She's putting herself in the bucket with the 2% of rapes that are found to be false accusations. This is a wildly, wildly unpopular group to join. Unless she has something mind-blowing that somehow never entered into her complaint, she's toast. This isn't a story of SH, this is a David and Goliath powerplay by her and her husband. It's ludicrous they're not settling.

On this specific point, I would also like to mention that during this time, Blake's responses about Weinstein were basically, "Well, he didn't rape ME!!!" so there's not a lot of existing goodwill there.

That's not at all what she said, though.

It's the first part. Then she blames others for not speaking out about this.

"While countless women were condemning Harvey Weinstein and other male predators in Hollywood, Blake low-key defended the producer, who was accused of sexual harassment and/or abuse by more than 80 women. “That was never my experience with Harvey in any way whatsoever,” she told The Hollywood Reporter in October 2017. “I think that if people heard these stories … I do believe in humanity enough to think that this wouldn’t have just continued. I never heard any stories like this — I never heard anything specific — but it’s devastating to hear.”

Confusingly, she then emphasized the importance of listening to women. “The number one thing that can happen is that people who share their stories, people have to listen to them and trust them, and people have to take it seriously,” Blake told THR. “As important as it is to remain furious about this, it’s important to also say that this exists everywhere so remember to look everywhere.” She noted that sexual harassment and abuse happens in “every single industry.” Blake, you were so close… just delete that whole first part."

That doesn't strike me as her defending him at all, so those statement don't seem inconsistent to me. I don't take "That was never my experience" to mean that she doesn't believe the women who DID experience SA and SH from Weinstein. I just take it to mean she is clarifying that she didn't have that experience. And then she goes on to say she had not heard of specific accusations against him and that she's devastated to learn what happened and that people should listen to people who bring these kinds of accusations to light.

None of that sounds like a defense to me. She doesn't say she doesn't believe it -- she clearly indicates she does believe it but that it came as a surprise to her because she didn't have that experience.

Whether you believe that or not, I don't know. I find it hard to believe she didn't know about his reputation. But I also don't think helped him abuse anyone. I think she either genuinely never experienced any inappropriate behavior for him and perhaps just counted herself lucky in that, or she did experience it and for whatever reason doesn't want to share that. Either way, she's not defending him, she clearly believes his accusers, and she is expressing support for them and horror at what he did. I don't get what is wrong with that statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp here. Last time I will comment on this thread. It’s weird for me to see how the delivery scene is being made a big deal by the fanatical poster, and here is why.

When I had my first kid, I took all of those prenatal classes that hospitals offer. One of the main takeaways from those classes is the bond that you want to form with your baby in those first few hours after birth. They emphasize connecting with your baby because birthing can be a very traumatic experience for the baby.

I remember both me and my husband with thin tshirts on, because we were told that skin to skin was the best bonding experience with the newborn baby those first few hours. And we followed the guidance given (along with breastfeeding, swaddling, ferbering, etc). No one in the delivery room viewed our actions as abnormal or uncomfortable or sexual. Moreover, our kids (we have more than one) were delivered by both male and female doctors.

I remember clearly that when I gave birth to one of my kids that there were at least 3 male doctors/assistants in the room, along with my female doctor and husband. [The female doctor was delivering for us because my main doctor (a male) was not on duty when I went into labor].

Nothing about me being unclothed from the waist down was viewed as weird, etc. because everyone was there for a purpose—to deliver that baby. There is always more than one doctor/assistant/nurse in the delivery room. And they all see your body as is because they are there to deliver that baby safely and whisk that baby away soon thereafter for testing, etc.

This is why it’s hard for me to wrap my head around discomfort for the delivery scene by BL. Maybe for a movie, the scene didn’t have to be 100 percent authentic to be believable, and she is right to want to negotiate that. But that doesn't knock the effort by the director. That’s just how babies are born.

And my baby was born at a top hospital, from a top ob practice. Nothing seems weird or off to me so far about how this delivery scene in context was scripted.

Baldoni wanted to film Lively in the birth scene, and tried hard to coerce Lively to agree to film the scene, with Lively topless, nearly naked except for the bump and some panties. You talk about being naked from the waist down, but if Baldini had gotten his way, you would have seen her breasts. That wasn’t your experience, and it wasn’t my experience, and that amount of nudity for a delivery scene would be unusual given the other scenes PP noted. Baldoni said being mostly covered with a hospital gown, as you and I were, was “not normal.”

Lawsuits are not about what if’s. I personally was not mostly covered in a hospital gown, nor was I wearing briefs or a pregnancy suit. Moreover, you continue to mix up Heath and Baldoni. They are two separate people.

DP but asking an actor to do nudity that is not in the script without an IC present on the day the scene is filmed could be considered harassment, even if the actor manages to convince the director that they should be able to wear more than what has been asked. It's coercive. If the actor refuses, the scene could be postponed and the actor will be blamed for costing the production money.

That's why nudity is always supposed to be in the script and flagged ahead of time, no surprises. Because otherwise there's a ton of pressure on actors to just do what is being asked of them so they can get the shot and keep to schedule. It is a very unprofessional for a director to spring nudity on an actor right before a scene.

Unprofessional is not sexual harassment.

Trying to coerce an actor into doing nudity they didn't sign on for is kind of textbook harassment on a film set though, isn't it? Even if the actor fights back and winds up wearing more clothes. The whole reason they started using ICs and requiring nudity riders was because directors and producers used to abuse their positions to get actresses to do things they weren't comfortable with.

It's a major red flag to me that they suggested the nudity all of a sudden not the day they filmed the scene, and that they didn't involve the IC. They had an IC on the movie, why wouldn't they flag this scene and involve her? The fact that they didn't is a sign that either (1) they are stupid or (2) they were trying to get away with something.

What it isn’t is sexual harassment.

You keep saying this like it's a fact but unless you can provide some textbook definition that will make that clear, people will continue to argue with you.

Lively's SH claim is that Baldoni and Heath created a hostile or abusvie work environment by misconduct that is "severe and pervasive." Her claims of misconduct will thus not be considered individually but cumulatively. So you can't say that as a discrete act, pressuring Lively to do the birth scene nude is not SH. It is supposed to be considered as part of a pattern of behavior, most of which we don't have enough evidence on either way at this point.

So the truth is, you don't know if it was SH or not. It certainly could be.

Even if I did explain why it wasn’t sexual harassment, and I and others have dozens of times at this point, you would and have continued to post as if it was never explained. So here we are and I’m quite sure you’ll roll this all out again tomorrow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp here. Last time I will comment on this thread. It’s weird for me to see how the delivery scene is being made a big deal by the fanatical poster, and here is why.

When I had my first kid, I took all of those prenatal classes that hospitals offer. One of the main takeaways from those classes is the bond that you want to form with your baby in those first few hours after birth. They emphasize connecting with your baby because birthing can be a very traumatic experience for the baby.

I remember both me and my husband with thin tshirts on, because we were told that skin to skin was the best bonding experience with the newborn baby those first few hours. And we followed the guidance given (along with breastfeeding, swaddling, ferbering, etc). No one in the delivery room viewed our actions as abnormal or uncomfortable or sexual. Moreover, our kids (we have more than one) were delivered by both male and female doctors.

I remember clearly that when I gave birth to one of my kids that there were at least 3 male doctors/assistants in the room, along with my female doctor and husband. [The female doctor was delivering for us because my main doctor (a male) was not on duty when I went into labor].

Nothing about me being unclothed from the waist down was viewed as weird, etc. because everyone was there for a purpose—to deliver that baby. There is always more than one doctor/assistant/nurse in the delivery room. And they all see your body as is because they are there to deliver that baby safely and whisk that baby away soon thereafter for testing, etc.

This is why it’s hard for me to wrap my head around discomfort for the delivery scene by BL. Maybe for a movie, the scene didn’t have to be 100 percent authentic to be believable, and she is right to want to negotiate that. But that doesn't knock the effort by the director. That’s just how babies are born.

And my baby was born at a top hospital, from a top ob practice. Nothing seems weird or off to me so far about how this delivery scene in context was scripted.

Baldoni wanted to film Lively in the birth scene, and tried hard to coerce Lively to agree to film the scene, with Lively topless, nearly naked except for the bump and some panties. You talk about being naked from the waist down, but if Baldini had gotten his way, you would have seen her breasts. That wasn’t your experience, and it wasn’t my experience, and that amount of nudity for a delivery scene would be unusual given the other scenes PP noted. Baldoni said being mostly covered with a hospital gown, as you and I were, was “not normal.”

Lawsuits are not about what if’s. I personally was not mostly covered in a hospital gown, nor was I wearing briefs or a pregnancy suit. Moreover, you continue to mix up Heath and Baldoni. They are two separate people.

It is unusual to give birth in a hospital setting completely naked. Home births are different but in hospital usually gowns and sheets are used. Or some women wear a sports bra or a t shirt. I have seen quite a few hospital births and have never seen one where there were no gowns or sheets or any covering involved. Obviously a woman could want to be naked but for the doctor or health team to want her naked and not provide any gowns or sheets would be very unusual.

DP and I totally agree. And actually the way the scene is ultimately shot, even with the gown, was still weird to me because of the way the gown is pulled up so it's just covering her breasts -- in the scene the character is nude except for the gown over her boobs. Her full belly is exposed and her legs are completely exposed and there are even lots of close up shots of Lively's midsection/hips and it's clearly all intended to be fully exposed.

It's way more nudity than I was expecting based on how Baldoni's countersuit described the scene and I agree that even though she was wearing a fake belly and had some kind of covering over her privates, that looks like "partial nudity" by any sensible definition.

I almost feel weird posting this because it's so intimate but you can see clips from the birth scene in this video, starting around the 3:50 mark: https://youtu.be/BdEW5ddIhhg?si=gEsdFs109r0yVHs7

It’s not her midsection, it’s a pregnancy prosthetic.

the belly is but the rest is not. A pregnancy prosthetic is just a belt with a belly attached. It's not a donkey suit -- you can still see her body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp here. Last time I will comment on this thread. It’s weird for me to see how the delivery scene is being made a big deal by the fanatical poster, and here is why.

When I had my first kid, I took all of those prenatal classes that hospitals offer. One of the main takeaways from those classes is the bond that you want to form with your baby in those first few hours after birth. They emphasize connecting with your baby because birthing can be a very traumatic experience for the baby.

I remember both me and my husband with thin tshirts on, because we were told that skin to skin was the best bonding experience with the newborn baby those first few hours. And we followed the guidance given (along with breastfeeding, swaddling, ferbering, etc). No one in the delivery room viewed our actions as abnormal or uncomfortable or sexual. Moreover, our kids (we have more than one) were delivered by both male and female doctors.

I remember clearly that when I gave birth to one of my kids that there were at least 3 male doctors/assistants in the room, along with my female doctor and husband. [The female doctor was delivering for us because my main doctor (a male) was not on duty when I went into labor].

Nothing about me being unclothed from the waist down was viewed as weird, etc. because everyone was there for a purpose—to deliver that baby. There is always more than one doctor/assistant/nurse in the delivery room. And they all see your body as is because they are there to deliver that baby safely and whisk that baby away soon thereafter for testing, etc.

This is why it’s hard for me to wrap my head around discomfort for the delivery scene by BL. Maybe for a movie, the scene didn’t have to be 100 percent authentic to be believable, and she is right to want to negotiate that. But that doesn't knock the effort by the director. That’s just how babies are born.

And my baby was born at a top hospital, from a top ob practice. Nothing seems weird or off to me so far about how this delivery scene in context was scripted.

Baldoni wanted to film Lively in the birth scene, and tried hard to coerce Lively to agree to film the scene, with Lively topless, nearly naked except for the bump and some panties. You talk about being naked from the waist down, but if Baldini had gotten his way, you would have seen her breasts. That wasn’t your experience, and it wasn’t my experience, and that amount of nudity for a delivery scene would be unusual given the other scenes PP noted. Baldoni said being mostly covered with a hospital gown, as you and I were, was “not normal.”

Lawsuits are not about what if’s. I personally was not mostly covered in a hospital gown, nor was I wearing briefs or a pregnancy suit. Moreover, you continue to mix up Heath and Baldoni. They are two separate people.

DP but asking an actor to do nudity that is not in the script without an IC present on the day the scene is filmed could be considered harassment, even if the actor manages to convince the director that they should be able to wear more than what has been asked. It's coercive. If the actor refuses, the scene could be postponed and the actor will be blamed for costing the production money.

That's why nudity is always supposed to be in the script and flagged ahead of time, no surprises. Because otherwise there's a ton of pressure on actors to just do what is being asked of them so they can get the shot and keep to schedule. It is a very unprofessional for a director to spring nudity on an actor right before a scene.

Unprofessional is not sexual harassment.

Trying to coerce an actor into doing nudity they didn't sign on for is kind of textbook harassment on a film set though, isn't it? Even if the actor fights back and winds up wearing more clothes. The whole reason they started using ICs and requiring nudity riders was because directors and producers used to abuse their positions to get actresses to do things they weren't comfortable with.

It's a major red flag to me that they suggested the nudity all of a sudden not the day they filmed the scene, and that they didn't involve the IC. They had an IC on the movie, why wouldn't they flag this scene and involve her? The fact that they didn't is a sign that either (1) they are stupid or (2) they were trying to get away with something.

What it isn’t is sexual harassment.

You keep saying this like it's a fact but unless you can provide some textbook definition that will make that clear, people will continue to argue with you.

Lively's SH claim is that Baldoni and Heath created a hostile or abusvie work environment by misconduct that is "severe and pervasive." Her claims of misconduct will thus not be considered individually but cumulatively. So you can't say that as a discrete act, pressuring Lively to do the birth scene nude is not SH. It is supposed to be considered as part of a pattern of behavior, most of which we don't have enough evidence on either way at this point.

So the truth is, you don't know if it was SH or not. It certainly could be.

You’re back again, and you are reaching. But for her feeling discomfort in filming this scene, just not seeing the SH. Again, didn’t she reject the IC that was offered?

No, she worked with the IC but she declined the first preproduction meeting with the IC (she was on unofficial ‘mat’ leave) and said she would talk to her once they were on set.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The allegations in Blake’s complaint are old news at this point. Everyone that is going to have paid attention already has made a decision. It’s wild how Justin had the foresight to keep receipts. He’s winning public opinion sentiment by mile.

+1. We can rehash this birth scene a million times over, but she'll never work again in anything she and her husband don't fully fund and produce. It's done. Even a victory in court (unlikely) is not going to change that. As a super high maintenance, mind-bogglingly entitled, combative, and difficult person with limited talent, she had a decent run, but no one will hire her. The men will be afraid of frivolous lawsuits and the older actresses/producers/directors producing their own content will blame her for weaponizing MeToo. She's putting herself in the bucket with the 2% of rapes that are found to be false accusations. This is a wildly, wildly unpopular group to join. Unless she has something mind-blowing that somehow never entered into her complaint, she's toast. This isn't a story of SH, this is a David and Goliath powerplay by her and her husband. It's ludicrous they're not settling.

I actually think she's definitely work again and don't understand why you (or others) keep asserting this. Whatever happens with the SH claims, the movie was a success and Lively's marketing for it drove that success. Paul Feig, who directed her on a movie after this one, is backing her up publicly and that movie is getting a fairly showy premiere at SXSW (even though it's just a streaming feature without a theater release). They announced the SXSW premiere after all Baldoni's evidence came out.

I guess if that movie is a big flop that could impact whether she works again, but I actually bet all the interest in this conflict will drive more interest in that movie, just like it drove more interest in IEWU. Actors don't always have to be likable to be bankable -- Tom Cruise is a great example of an actor with a weird, often unpleasant public persona but it doesn't stop people from going to his movies. A lot of people dislike JLo but she still works a ton. I think sometimes being a controversial person actually helps attract attention to their projects.

And I don't think people will worry about Lively accusing them of SH either, even if they think her claims here are overblown. Badoni is not some well-respected or well-known director and a lot of the details of his set indicate that even if he didn't commit SH, it was an unprofessional, disorganized production. I think if a director thought Lively would be a good addition to a project, they wouldn't care that much about this because they don't run their sets like that. Sometimes there are disagreements on set and people wind up hating each other, that's what happened here.

No. No interest at all at seeing her movies. This was more than just a disagreement. She took out an ad in the Times to take him down.

And now you’re saying that it may not have been sh after all.

That’s the whole point. It never was sh, yet she cried it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a pretty modest birth scene. Nothing odd about it at all.

Her issues are with the requests for nudity that were made of her, the lack of following protocol, the pressure on her to do things not in the script that she wasn’t comfortable with in this specific context, the sharing of personal experiences by Baldoni and Heath to pressure her, and Baldoni’s friend being in between her legs.

She has done far less clothed scenes in her life…with her consent and within the proper protocols.

Yes, and not a single one of those is sexual haesssment. Further much of it didn’t actually happen in the way she claims, but even if it had, not sexual harassment.

The court will decide if the pattern of behavior was sexual harassment. Your personal view that none of it was isn’t all that relevant. The court will see all the evidence and hear the testimonies and make that decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp here. Last time I will comment on this thread. It’s weird for me to see how the delivery scene is being made a big deal by the fanatical poster, and here is why.

When I had my first kid, I took all of those prenatal classes that hospitals offer. One of the main takeaways from those classes is the bond that you want to form with your baby in those first few hours after birth. They emphasize connecting with your baby because birthing can be a very traumatic experience for the baby.

I remember both me and my husband with thin tshirts on, because we were told that skin to skin was the best bonding experience with the newborn baby those first few hours. And we followed the guidance given (along with breastfeeding, swaddling, ferbering, etc). No one in the delivery room viewed our actions as abnormal or uncomfortable or sexual. Moreover, our kids (we have more than one) were delivered by both male and female doctors.

I remember clearly that when I gave birth to one of my kids that there were at least 3 male doctors/assistants in the room, along with my female doctor and husband. [The female doctor was delivering for us because my main doctor (a male) was not on duty when I went into labor].

Nothing about me being unclothed from the waist down was viewed as weird, etc. because everyone was there for a purpose—to deliver that baby. There is always more than one doctor/assistant/nurse in the delivery room. And they all see your body as is because they are there to deliver that baby safely and whisk that baby away soon thereafter for testing, etc.

This is why it’s hard for me to wrap my head around discomfort for the delivery scene by BL. Maybe for a movie, the scene didn’t have to be 100 percent authentic to be believable, and she is right to want to negotiate that. But that doesn't knock the effort by the director. That’s just how babies are born.

And my baby was born at a top hospital, from a top ob practice. Nothing seems weird or off to me so far about how this delivery scene in context was scripted.

Baldoni wanted to film Lively in the birth scene, and tried hard to coerce Lively to agree to film the scene, with Lively topless, nearly naked except for the bump and some panties. You talk about being naked from the waist down, but if Baldini had gotten his way, you would have seen her breasts. That wasn’t your experience, and it wasn’t my experience, and that amount of nudity for a delivery scene would be unusual given the other scenes PP noted. Baldoni said being mostly covered with a hospital gown, as you and I were, was “not normal.”

Lawsuits are not about what if’s. I personally was not mostly covered in a hospital gown, nor was I wearing briefs or a pregnancy suit. Moreover, you continue to mix up Heath and Baldoni. They are two separate people.

DP but asking an actor to do nudity that is not in the script without an IC present on the day the scene is filmed could be considered harassment, even if the actor manages to convince the director that they should be able to wear more than what has been asked. It's coercive. If the actor refuses, the scene could be postponed and the actor will be blamed for costing the production money.

That's why nudity is always supposed to be in the script and flagged ahead of time, no surprises. Because otherwise there's a ton of pressure on actors to just do what is being asked of them so they can get the shot and keep to schedule. It is a very unprofessional for a director to spring nudity on an actor right before a scene.

Unprofessional is not sexual harassment.

Trying to coerce an actor into doing nudity they didn't sign on for is kind of textbook harassment on a film set though, isn't it? Even if the actor fights back and winds up wearing more clothes. The whole reason they started using ICs and requiring nudity riders was because directors and producers used to abuse their positions to get actresses to do things they weren't comfortable with.

It's a major red flag to me that they suggested the nudity all of a sudden not the day they filmed the scene, and that they didn't involve the IC. They had an IC on the movie, why wouldn't they flag this scene and involve her? The fact that they didn't is a sign that either (1) they are stupid or (2) they were trying to get away with something.

What it isn’t is sexual harassment.

You keep saying this like it's a fact but unless you can provide some textbook definition that will make that clear, people will continue to argue with you.

Lively's SH claim is that Baldoni and Heath created a hostile or abusvie work environment by misconduct that is "severe and pervasive." Her claims of misconduct will thus not be considered individually but cumulatively. So you can't say that as a discrete act, pressuring Lively to do the birth scene nude is not SH. It is supposed to be considered as part of a pattern of behavior, most of which we don't have enough evidence on either way at this point.

So the truth is, you don't know if it was SH or not. It certainly could be.

You’re back again, and you are reaching. But for her feeling discomfort in filming this scene, just not seeing the SH. Again, didn’t she reject the IC that was offered?

Yes, I'm "back again" because like you, I am participating in the conversation in this thread. Where would I go? Why are you allowed to post multiple times but apparently if I do, it's wrong?

But anyway, no she did not "reject the IC that was offered." She declined to attend a pre-production meeting with the IC to discuss scripted intimate scenes, saying that she "felt comfortable." She didn't say "no no please fire the IC, I don't want one!" She just declined to go to one meeting with the IC prior to filming. I don't know why. Maybe on prior projects she's worked on, they've just gone through the choreography with the IC on the day of the scene and she didn't see the point in getting into those details so long before filming those scenes. Maybe she just at the time trusted Baldoni to handle it on his end. Maybe she was playing hardball with a contract provision at the time and was declining meetings as a negotiating tactic. No one knows! But there's no indication she rejected the IC altogether, only that she declined to attend one meeting with the IC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a pretty modest birth scene. Nothing odd about it at all.

Her issues are with the requests for nudity that were made of her, the lack of following protocol, the pressure on her to do things not in the script that she wasn’t comfortable with in this specific context, the sharing of personal experiences by Baldoni and Heath to pressure her, and Baldoni’s friend being in between her legs.

She has done far less clothed scenes in her life…with her consent and within the proper protocols.

Yes, and not a single one of those is sexual haesssment. Further much of it didn’t actually happen in the way she claims, but even if it had, not sexual harassment.

The court will decide if the pattern of behavior was sexual harassment. Your personal view that none of it was isn’t all that relevant. The court will see all the evidence and hear the testimonies and make that decision.

I didn’t say it was my personal view, there is a whole bunch of case law that establishes what sexual harassment is and isn’t. Blake Lively was not sexually harassed.