Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Most women try to find a private space to breastfeed. I wouldn’t feel comfortable breastfeeding in front of my boss, male or female. It takes a special type of person to breastfeed in public. It’s a brazen act.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it looks like it was Freedman's plan all along to *require* personal service during the LA wildfires rather than just agree to waive personal service and receive service through a third party. That way Freedman could go on tv and complain about Lively serving Baldoni etc during the wildfires, while meanwhile Freedman was chasing people down dark roads etc. Lively agreed to waive service and didn't go on tv about it or anything, so missed opportunity I guess:

"This filing [of voluntary waivers of service for Lively] was necessitated by Plaintiffs’ curious decision to insist upon personally hand-serving Defendants notwithstanding prior correspondence in which counsel for Ms. Lively informed Plaintiffs of their preference to work with opposing counsel to effectuate service in a collegial and efficient manner. See Ex. A at 5. Despite this history, Plaintiffs’ process servers made attempts at service on the evening of January 18, 2025, which resulted in one of Defendants’ employees (who is not a party to this action) being followed to the residence in which she was staying by an unknown vehicle down a dark road late at night; this conduct was sufficiently alarming as to cause that employee to file a police report. See Ex. A at 1. Accordingly, undersigned counsel reached out to Mr. Freedman on the evening of January 18, 2025 to express serious safety and privacy concerns that Plaintiffs’ attempts at service were creating, and advised Plaintiffs’ counsel of the requirement under Rule 4(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that any “individual, corporation, or association that is subject to service under Rule 4(e), (f), or (h) has a duty … avoid unnecessary expenses of serving the summons.” Undersigned counsel therefore told Mr. Freedman that Ms. Lively and Mr. Reynolds would waive service, and that this firm was authorized to accept service on their behalf. See Ex. A at 2. Earlier today, I provided Mr. Freedman and his colleagues with copies of the waivers and requested confirmation of receipt, Ex. A at 1, but as of the time of this filing, I have received no reply."

Really classy, Mr. Freedman. All for show. Great guy.

Yes, how dare Freedman be unavailable as his house was burning down. I wouldn’t put it past him to have started the wildfire.

If you look at the papers filed with the doc, though, it shows Freeman being completely unresponsive to Wilkie Farr's requests to waive service between DECEMBER 31 THROUGH JANUARY 19. That's nearly a three week period that began well before the LA fires started, during which Freedman completely failed to respond to four different emails and multiple phone calls. So, I'm sure he wants to posture it that way and seems like some people are completely falling for that, but that is not reality.

Waiving service isn’t an urgent situation. He of course wouldn’t be responding on NYE for example and couldn’t have predicted that wildfires would have develop when they did. Blake’s counsel should have been more understanding of the unusual circumstances. Arguing this makes you looks like a crazy partisan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most women try to find a private space to breastfeed. I wouldn’t feel comfortable breastfeeding in front of my boss, male or female. It takes a special type of person to breastfeed in public. It’s a brazen act.

Stop with this. I support Baldoni on the legal arguments but you sound unhinged. If a woman is comfortable react feeding publicly, there is nothing wrong with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on a read of the EEOC pages on sexual harrassment, I don't think the bar is as high as many think it is. Sexual harrassment can include offensive comments about women in general and can be when verbal or physical harassment (in person or otherwise) of a sexual nature creates a hostile or offensive work environment for someone.

So yes, it can be multiple incidents that lead to someone feeling they are in an offensive work environment.

I have some experience sexual harassment cases and I agree. I think she could get a harassment finding based just on the way the birth scene was handled, if she can show they pressured her to do nudity not in the script, that her requests for a cover were ignored, that the monitors were turned back on while the scene was being shot, and that Heath showed her that video of his wife AFTER the birth scene had been filmed. That sequence of events is actually a pretty strong showing of sexual harassment under the law because it's persistent and unwanted, over two consecutive days. That would have been enough in a lot of the cases I was involved in.

Generally with sexual harassment cases, the issue is in showing harm. Perhaps you can show harassment occurred but if the company can put a stop to it and the victim's career is unimpeded (not fired, not denied promotions, etc.), the payout can be relatively small. This is why retaliation is so often a feature of sexual harassment cases because that's when you get into real harm that can result in meaningful restitution. Usually the retaliation takes the form of someone losing their job, being demoted or denied a promotion they were expected to get, or being "iced out" in a workplace in an effort to get them to quit. You also see retaliation in the form of refusing to give references or spreading rumors about the victim within the industry.

Without retaliation, it can often not be particularly useful to bring an SH claim, especially if there are internal ways of addressing the problem that are satisfactory to the victim. Often EEOC complaints don't go to the litigation phase because once the company is alerted to the seriousness of the matter via an EEOC complaint, they make efforts to remediate and avoid litigation.

It’s actually fairly hard to show sexual harassment - it has to be “severe or pervasive.” A handful of incidents don’t do it. It also cannot be totally subjective or unreasonable, and I think there’s a very strong case to show she was being unreasonable in finding offense doing what her actual job was (acting out romance and childbirth scenes). The whole IC thing is very muddled but it seems like her decision not to meet with the IC at one point also is a strike against her.

Th whole reason nudity riders, closed sets, intimacy coordinators etc came into being was because when there are vulnerabilities like nudity, simulated sex, and physical intimacy in the workplace environment, there needs to be strict controls and oversight to ensure a safe and professional work environment. There are a multitude of stories online from women (and maybe men) who had very negative and even traumatic experiences on set related to the nudity, sex, and intimate scenes. It isn't a free for all. Just because acting in those scenes is part of your job, it doesn't mean boundaries can be crossed, consent doesn't matter, exploitation is fine, or that the director can do whatever they want. It isnt unreasonable to expect those aspects of your job to happen in a professional and safe manner. It should be a very controlled environment to protect people in the workplace from harm. So the fact that a birth scene was part of her acting role doesn't mean she has to be naked on set in front of everyone or else she is unreasonable. There are many stories you can read about how awful actors have felt after sex and romance scenes over the years. You might feel they are all unreasonable but the industry doesn't and has put more parameters in place to create safer work environments.

Isn't part of the issue that she herself didn't meet with the intimacy person?

DP but no, I don't think that's going to play a role in whether or not the birth scene was handled appropriately. The reason why is that the birth scene was not scripted as a nude scene, at any point. So even of Lively declined to meet with the IC to discuss the scripted intimate scenes (the sex scenes, none of which were filmed until after the hiatus) it would not really have any bearing on how this scene was handled. They should have scripted this as a nude scene if that's what they wanted, and given Lively enough time to either consent to that (before the day of shooting) or to negotiate a different approach if that's what she wanted. At that point Lively could also have insisted on the involvement of an IC. But if nudity is only added to the scene right before it's shot, there is no time to get an IC involved, no time to address issues with the nudity rider, etc.

Springing nudity on an actor right before shooting a scene where the script gives no indication whatsoever that the actor will be nude is very poor form, independent of the involvement of an IC.

All the IC stuff falls flat with me after seeing the Nicepool sketch Ryan created based off of Baldoni where Nicepool asks for an IC and is made to look like a stick-in-the-mud, whiny little beeyotch for doing so. That plus Blake blowing off the initial meeting does not tell me these people adhere or care about the strictest levels of professionalism.

Also, we have on film, Blake improvising an unscripted kissing scene with baldoni. She got caught in an interview with someone saying I love how you directed that scene where you were showing Justin how you wanted to be kissed. And she got really nervous and was like where did you see that? I think a fan captured it and put it on Instagram but it’s all over for all of us to see.

She addresses this issue in her amended complaint, have you read it? The kissing in the scene you’re referencing was expected as it was specifically written in the script. The kissing on the dance floor was not written in the script. Starting to kiss Lively in the dance floor scene turned it into a scene that normally would have required the IC, whereas it would not have been required based on what was just written in the script.

Come on now. No one brings in an IC for clothed scenes involving kissing. ICs are brought in for highly sexual or compromising scenes. So, "your going to be naked and getting gang banged" yes. "You're sitting on this park bench and he leans in to kiss you" no friggin' way.

First, I just want to note the language you are using here is unnecessarily inflammatory. If you are trying to argue that you have nuanced and expert perspective on what is and is not sexual harassment, using a term like "gang bang" doesn't really back that up.

But ignoring that, the whole point is that the neither the kissing in the dance scene nor the nudity the birth scene were in the script, so there was no "you are going to be dancing and he's going to start to kiss your neck and you will lean in and almost kiss multiple times." They just started the scene and he did that. So even the example you give doesn't match what happened on the set because her whole objection was that the kissing wasn't scripted or choreographed, just improvised by Baldoni right before or in the middle of the scene, with no discussion with Lively about what she was comfortable with or whether that worked for her.

Had it been scripted, she'd have no argument here. But it wasn't.

As for whether an IC should be present, I agree it's not typical for an IC to be present for a scene involving fully clothed kissing. However I think Lively's point was that Baldoni's habit of adding unscripted kissing and nudity was such a problem that an IC was needed in this particular case just to protect Lively's interests should Baldoni start inserting unscripted intimacy. This was why she asked that when they came back from hiatus, she would have an IC with her on set whenever Justin was there (which, since he was the director, was presumably all the time). Not because that's normal or should always be the case, but because Baldoni had demonstrated repeatedly that he could not be trusted to follow the script when it came to intimacy and nudity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most women try to find a private space to breastfeed. I wouldn’t feel comfortable breastfeeding in front of my boss, male or female. It takes a special type of person to breastfeed in public. It’s a brazen act.

Stop with this. I support Baldoni on the legal arguments but you sound unhinged. If a woman is comfortable react feeding publicly, there is nothing wrong with it.

Apparently Blake was completely comfortable breastfeeding in front of the entire cast. Why was Justin not allowed to discuss naked childbirth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on a read of the EEOC pages on sexual harrassment, I don't think the bar is as high as many think it is. Sexual harrassment can include offensive comments about women in general and can be when verbal or physical harassment (in person or otherwise) of a sexual nature creates a hostile or offensive work environment for someone.

So yes, it can be multiple incidents that lead to someone feeling they are in an offensive work environment.

I have some experience sexual harassment cases and I agree. I think she could get a harassment finding based just on the way the birth scene was handled, if she can show they pressured her to do nudity not in the script, that her requests for a cover were ignored, that the monitors were turned back on while the scene was being shot, and that Heath showed her that video of his wife AFTER the birth scene had been filmed. That sequence of events is actually a pretty strong showing of sexual harassment under the law because it's persistent and unwanted, over two consecutive days. That would have been enough in a lot of the cases I was involved in.

Generally with sexual harassment cases, the issue is in showing harm. Perhaps you can show harassment occurred but if the company can put a stop to it and the victim's career is unimpeded (not fired, not denied promotions, etc.), the payout can be relatively small. This is why retaliation is so often a feature of sexual harassment cases because that's when you get into real harm that can result in meaningful restitution. Usually the retaliation takes the form of someone losing their job, being demoted or denied a promotion they were expected to get, or being "iced out" in a workplace in an effort to get them to quit. You also see retaliation in the form of refusing to give references or spreading rumors about the victim within the industry.

Without retaliation, it can often not be particularly useful to bring an SH claim, especially if there are internal ways of addressing the problem that are satisfactory to the victim. Often EEOC complaints don't go to the litigation phase because once the company is alerted to the seriousness of the matter via an EEOC complaint, they make efforts to remediate and avoid litigation.

It’s actually fairly hard to show sexual harassment - it has to be “severe or pervasive.” A handful of incidents don’t do it. It also cannot be totally subjective or unreasonable, and I think there’s a very strong case to show she was being unreasonable in finding offense doing what her actual job was (acting out romance and childbirth scenes). The whole IC thing is very muddled but it seems like her decision not to meet with the IC at one point also is a strike against her.

Th whole reason nudity riders, closed sets, intimacy coordinators etc came into being was because when there are vulnerabilities like nudity, simulated sex, and physical intimacy in the workplace environment, there needs to be strict controls and oversight to ensure a safe and professional work environment. There are a multitude of stories online from women (and maybe men) who had very negative and even traumatic experiences on set related to the nudity, sex, and intimate scenes. It isn't a free for all. Just because acting in those scenes is part of your job, it doesn't mean boundaries can be crossed, consent doesn't matter, exploitation is fine, or that the director can do whatever they want. It isnt unreasonable to expect those aspects of your job to happen in a professional and safe manner. It should be a very controlled environment to protect people in the workplace from harm. So the fact that a birth scene was part of her acting role doesn't mean she has to be naked on set in front of everyone or else she is unreasonable. There are many stories you can read about how awful actors have felt after sex and romance scenes over the years. You might feel they are all unreasonable but the industry doesn't and has put more parameters in place to create safer work environments.

Isn't part of the issue that she herself didn't meet with the intimacy person?

DP but no, I don't think that's going to play a role in whether or not the birth scene was handled appropriately. The reason why is that the birth scene was not scripted as a nude scene, at any point. So even of Lively declined to meet with the IC to discuss the scripted intimate scenes (the sex scenes, none of which were filmed until after the hiatus) it would not really have any bearing on how this scene was handled. They should have scripted this as a nude scene if that's what they wanted, and given Lively enough time to either consent to that (before the day of shooting) or to negotiate a different approach if that's what she wanted. At that point Lively could also have insisted on the involvement of an IC. But if nudity is only added to the scene right before it's shot, there is no time to get an IC involved, no time to address issues with the nudity rider, etc.

Springing nudity on an actor right before shooting a scene where the script gives no indication whatsoever that the actor will be nude is very poor form, independent of the involvement of an IC.

All the IC stuff falls flat with me after seeing the Nicepool sketch Ryan created based off of Baldoni where Nicepool asks for an IC and is made to look like a stick-in-the-mud, whiny little beeyotch for doing so. That plus Blake blowing off the initial meeting does not tell me these people adhere or care about the strictest levels of professionalism.

Also, we have on film, Blake improvising an unscripted kissing scene with baldoni. She got caught in an interview with someone saying I love how you directed that scene where you were showing Justin how you wanted to be kissed. And she got really nervous and was like where did you see that? I think a fan captured it and put it on Instagram but it’s all over for all of us to see.

She addresses this issue in her amended complaint, have you read it? The kissing in the scene you’re referencing was expected as it was specifically written in the script. The kissing on the dance floor was not written in the script. Starting to kiss Lively in the dance floor scene turned it into a scene that normally would have required the IC, whereas it would not have been required based on what was just written in the script.

Oh, I must’ve gotten two different instances confused. So yes, maybe the kissing was scripted, but she was clearly directing him, and she aggressively pulled him toward her. I remember fans commented, look at Blake showing him what she wants, like she was bad ass, Director girl. It was framed in a positive light, but now seeing all this laid out, she was fine kind of manhandling him around, but Was not OK when he kissed her neck when they were in a scene where they were depicting them falling in love without talking. I mean, how else were they supposed to convey that? It didn’t seem crazy to me. I’m sorry if she felt uncomfortable and I’m glad they addressed it, but that is not sexual harassment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on a read of the EEOC pages on sexual harrassment, I don't think the bar is as high as many think it is. Sexual harrassment can include offensive comments about women in general and can be when verbal or physical harassment (in person or otherwise) of a sexual nature creates a hostile or offensive work environment for someone.

So yes, it can be multiple incidents that lead to someone feeling they are in an offensive work environment.

I have some experience sexual harassment cases and I agree. I think she could get a harassment finding based just on the way the birth scene was handled, if she can show they pressured her to do nudity not in the script, that her requests for a cover were ignored, that the monitors were turned back on while the scene was being shot, and that Heath showed her that video of his wife AFTER the birth scene had been filmed. That sequence of events is actually a pretty strong showing of sexual harassment under the law because it's persistent and unwanted, over two consecutive days. That would have been enough in a lot of the cases I was involved in.

Generally with sexual harassment cases, the issue is in showing harm. Perhaps you can show harassment occurred but if the company can put a stop to it and the victim's career is unimpeded (not fired, not denied promotions, etc.), the payout can be relatively small. This is why retaliation is so often a feature of sexual harassment cases because that's when you get into real harm that can result in meaningful restitution. Usually the retaliation takes the form of someone losing their job, being demoted or denied a promotion they were expected to get, or being "iced out" in a workplace in an effort to get them to quit. You also see retaliation in the form of refusing to give references or spreading rumors about the victim within the industry.

Without retaliation, it can often not be particularly useful to bring an SH claim, especially if there are internal ways of addressing the problem that are satisfactory to the victim. Often EEOC complaints don't go to the litigation phase because once the company is alerted to the seriousness of the matter via an EEOC complaint, they make efforts to remediate and avoid litigation.

It’s actually fairly hard to show sexual harassment - it has to be “severe or pervasive.” A handful of incidents don’t do it. It also cannot be totally subjective or unreasonable, and I think there’s a very strong case to show she was being unreasonable in finding offense doing what her actual job was (acting out romance and childbirth scenes). The whole IC thing is very muddled but it seems like her decision not to meet with the IC at one point also is a strike against her.

Th whole reason nudity riders, closed sets, intimacy coordinators etc came into being was because when there are vulnerabilities like nudity, simulated sex, and physical intimacy in the workplace environment, there needs to be strict controls and oversight to ensure a safe and professional work environment. There are a multitude of stories online from women (and maybe men) who had very negative and even traumatic experiences on set related to the nudity, sex, and intimate scenes. It isn't a free for all. Just because acting in those scenes is part of your job, it doesn't mean boundaries can be crossed, consent doesn't matter, exploitation is fine, or that the director can do whatever they want. It isnt unreasonable to expect those aspects of your job to happen in a professional and safe manner. It should be a very controlled environment to protect people in the workplace from harm. So the fact that a birth scene was part of her acting role doesn't mean she has to be naked on set in front of everyone or else she is unreasonable. There are many stories you can read about how awful actors have felt after sex and romance scenes over the years. You might feel they are all unreasonable but the industry doesn't and has put more parameters in place to create safer work environments.

Isn't part of the issue that she herself didn't meet with the intimacy person?

DP but no, I don't think that's going to play a role in whether or not the birth scene was handled appropriately. The reason why is that the birth scene was not scripted as a nude scene, at any point. So even of Lively declined to meet with the IC to discuss the scripted intimate scenes (the sex scenes, none of which were filmed until after the hiatus) it would not really have any bearing on how this scene was handled. They should have scripted this as a nude scene if that's what they wanted, and given Lively enough time to either consent to that (before the day of shooting) or to negotiate a different approach if that's what she wanted. At that point Lively could also have insisted on the involvement of an IC. But if nudity is only added to the scene right before it's shot, there is no time to get an IC involved, no time to address issues with the nudity rider, etc.

Springing nudity on an actor right before shooting a scene where the script gives no indication whatsoever that the actor will be nude is very poor form, independent of the involvement of an IC.

All the IC stuff falls flat with me after seeing the Nicepool sketch Ryan created based off of Baldoni where Nicepool asks for an IC and is made to look like a stick-in-the-mud, whiny little beeyotch for doing so. That plus Blake blowing off the initial meeting does not tell me these people adhere or care about the strictest levels of professionalism.

Agree, there was a clear double standard here. Blake and Ryan were allowed to use sexually themed language, Blake was openly breastfeeding in front of people, Blake initially declined meeting with the IC, unsure if she ever met with one during this film. While Baldoni was on fact the director here, and seemingly as soon as something didn’t go Blake and Ryan’s way they pounced.

When and where was Blake openly breastfeeding in front of people? I don't recall that in any of the 4 complaints.

She invited Justin to come up while she was breastfeeding, to run through their lines.

She says in her complaint that on that occasion, she was covered before she invited them in (and she was pumping, not breastfeeding). So she consented on that occasion to them being present after taking whatever measures she felt comfortable taking to cover herself.

Leslie Sloane also addresses this issue in footnote 2 of her newly filed motion to dismiss: “as Baldoni has preached, consent is specific and reversible, and an invitation to enter Miss Lively‘s trailer on one occasion is not an open invitation to enter her trailer whenever he pleased. Further, a true ‘advocate for postpartum mothers’ would know there is a radical difference between pumping and breast-feeding.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The texts between Abel and Nathan (I think) talk about their work to suppress "HR complaints" with the "four majors" -- who are the four majors in that context? Are those actors making the complaints or the publications they would have been revealed in?

Ugh what idiots

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on a read of the EEOC pages on sexual harrassment, I don't think the bar is as high as many think it is. Sexual harrassment can include offensive comments about women in general and can be when verbal or physical harassment (in person or otherwise) of a sexual nature creates a hostile or offensive work environment for someone.

So yes, it can be multiple incidents that lead to someone feeling they are in an offensive work environment.

I have some experience sexual harassment cases and I agree. I think she could get a harassment finding based just on the way the birth scene was handled, if she can show they pressured her to do nudity not in the script, that her requests for a cover were ignored, that the monitors were turned back on while the scene was being shot, and that Heath showed her that video of his wife AFTER the birth scene had been filmed. That sequence of events is actually a pretty strong showing of sexual harassment under the law because it's persistent and unwanted, over two consecutive days. That would have been enough in a lot of the cases I was involved in.

Generally with sexual harassment cases, the issue is in showing harm. Perhaps you can show harassment occurred but if the company can put a stop to it and the victim's career is unimpeded (not fired, not denied promotions, etc.), the payout can be relatively small. This is why retaliation is so often a feature of sexual harassment cases because that's when you get into real harm that can result in meaningful restitution. Usually the retaliation takes the form of someone losing their job, being demoted or denied a promotion they were expected to get, or being "iced out" in a workplace in an effort to get them to quit. You also see retaliation in the form of refusing to give references or spreading rumors about the victim within the industry.

Without retaliation, it can often not be particularly useful to bring an SH claim, especially if there are internal ways of addressing the problem that are satisfactory to the victim. Often EEOC complaints don't go to the litigation phase because once the company is alerted to the seriousness of the matter via an EEOC complaint, they make efforts to remediate and avoid litigation.

It’s actually fairly hard to show sexual harassment - it has to be “severe or pervasive.” A handful of incidents don’t do it. It also cannot be totally subjective or unreasonable, and I think there’s a very strong case to show she was being unreasonable in finding offense doing what her actual job was (acting out romance and childbirth scenes). The whole IC thing is very muddled but it seems like her decision not to meet with the IC at one point also is a strike against her.

Th whole reason nudity riders, closed sets, intimacy coordinators etc came into being was because when there are vulnerabilities like nudity, simulated sex, and physical intimacy in the workplace environment, there needs to be strict controls and oversight to ensure a safe and professional work environment. There are a multitude of stories online from women (and maybe men) who had very negative and even traumatic experiences on set related to the nudity, sex, and intimate scenes. It isn't a free for all. Just because acting in those scenes is part of your job, it doesn't mean boundaries can be crossed, consent doesn't matter, exploitation is fine, or that the director can do whatever they want. It isnt unreasonable to expect those aspects of your job to happen in a professional and safe manner. It should be a very controlled environment to protect people in the workplace from harm. So the fact that a birth scene was part of her acting role doesn't mean she has to be naked on set in front of everyone or else she is unreasonable. There are many stories you can read about how awful actors have felt after sex and romance scenes over the years. You might feel they are all unreasonable but the industry doesn't and has put more parameters in place to create safer work environments.

Isn't part of the issue that she herself didn't meet with the intimacy person?

DP but no, I don't think that's going to play a role in whether or not the birth scene was handled appropriately. The reason why is that the birth scene was not scripted as a nude scene, at any point. So even of Lively declined to meet with the IC to discuss the scripted intimate scenes (the sex scenes, none of which were filmed until after the hiatus) it would not really have any bearing on how this scene was handled. They should have scripted this as a nude scene if that's what they wanted, and given Lively enough time to either consent to that (before the day of shooting) or to negotiate a different approach if that's what she wanted. At that point Lively could also have insisted on the involvement of an IC. But if nudity is only added to the scene right before it's shot, there is no time to get an IC involved, no time to address issues with the nudity rider, etc.

Springing nudity on an actor right before shooting a scene where the script gives no indication whatsoever that the actor will be nude is very poor form, independent of the involvement of an IC.

All the IC stuff falls flat with me after seeing the Nicepool sketch Ryan created based off of Baldoni where Nicepool asks for an IC and is made to look like a stick-in-the-mud, whiny little beeyotch for doing so. That plus Blake blowing off the initial meeting does not tell me these people adhere or care about the strictest levels of professionalism.

Also, we have on film, Blake improvising an unscripted kissing scene with baldoni. She got caught in an interview with someone saying I love how you directed that scene where you were showing Justin how you wanted to be kissed. And she got really nervous and was like where did you see that? I think a fan captured it and put it on Instagram but it’s all over for all of us to see.

She addresses this issue in her amended complaint, have you read it? The kissing in the scene you’re referencing was expected as it was specifically written in the script. The kissing on the dance floor was not written in the script. Starting to kiss Lively in the dance floor scene turned it into a scene that normally would have required the IC, whereas it would not have been required based on what was just written in the script.

Come on now. No one brings in an IC for clothed scenes involving kissing. ICs are brought in for highly sexual or compromising scenes. So, "your going to be naked and getting gang banged" yes. "You're sitting on this park bench and he leans in to kiss you" no friggin' way.

First, I just want to note the language you are using here is unnecessarily inflammatory. If you are trying to argue that you have nuanced and expert perspective on what is and is not sexual harassment, using a term like "gang bang" doesn't really back that up.

But ignoring that, the whole point is that the neither the kissing in the dance scene nor the nudity the birth scene were in the script, so there was no "you are going to be dancing and he's going to start to kiss your neck and you will lean in and almost kiss multiple times." They just started the scene and he did that. So even the example you give doesn't match what happened on the set because her whole objection was that the kissing wasn't scripted or choreographed, just improvised by Baldoni right before or in the middle of the scene, with no discussion with Lively about what she was comfortable with or whether that worked for her.

Had it been scripted, she'd have no argument here. But it wasn't.

As for whether an IC should be present, I agree it's not typical for an IC to be present for a scene involving fully clothed kissing. However I think Lively's point was that Baldoni's habit of adding unscripted kissing and nudity was such a problem that an IC was needed in this particular case just to protect Lively's interests should Baldoni start inserting unscripted intimacy. This was why she asked that when they came back from hiatus, she would have an IC with her on set whenever Justin was there (which, since he was the director, was presumably all the time). Not because that's normal or should always be the case, but because Baldoni had demonstrated repeatedly that he could not be trusted to follow the script when it came to intimacy and nudity.

Blake was comfortable breastfeeding and pumping in front of the cast, texting Baldoni about suppositories and being spicy with no teeth, etc. but for some reason was uncomfortable telling him she didn’t agree with the way he was playing his part?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on a read of the EEOC pages on sexual harrassment, I don't think the bar is as high as many think it is. Sexual harrassment can include offensive comments about women in general and can be when verbal or physical harassment (in person or otherwise) of a sexual nature creates a hostile or offensive work environment for someone.

So yes, it can be multiple incidents that lead to someone feeling they are in an offensive work environment.

I have some experience sexual harassment cases and I agree. I think she could get a harassment finding based just on the way the birth scene was handled, if she can show they pressured her to do nudity not in the script, that her requests for a cover were ignored, that the monitors were turned back on while the scene was being shot, and that Heath showed her that video of his wife AFTER the birth scene had been filmed. That sequence of events is actually a pretty strong showing of sexual harassment under the law because it's persistent and unwanted, over two consecutive days. That would have been enough in a lot of the cases I was involved in.

Generally with sexual harassment cases, the issue is in showing harm. Perhaps you can show harassment occurred but if the company can put a stop to it and the victim's career is unimpeded (not fired, not denied promotions, etc.), the payout can be relatively small. This is why retaliation is so often a feature of sexual harassment cases because that's when you get into real harm that can result in meaningful restitution. Usually the retaliation takes the form of someone losing their job, being demoted or denied a promotion they were expected to get, or being "iced out" in a workplace in an effort to get them to quit. You also see retaliation in the form of refusing to give references or spreading rumors about the victim within the industry.

Without retaliation, it can often not be particularly useful to bring an SH claim, especially if there are internal ways of addressing the problem that are satisfactory to the victim. Often EEOC complaints don't go to the litigation phase because once the company is alerted to the seriousness of the matter via an EEOC complaint, they make efforts to remediate and avoid litigation.

It’s actually fairly hard to show sexual harassment - it has to be “severe or pervasive.” A handful of incidents don’t do it. It also cannot be totally subjective or unreasonable, and I think there’s a very strong case to show she was being unreasonable in finding offense doing what her actual job was (acting out romance and childbirth scenes). The whole IC thing is very muddled but it seems like her decision not to meet with the IC at one point also is a strike against her.

Th whole reason nudity riders, closed sets, intimacy coordinators etc came into being was because when there are vulnerabilities like nudity, simulated sex, and physical intimacy in the workplace environment, there needs to be strict controls and oversight to ensure a safe and professional work environment. There are a multitude of stories online from women (and maybe men) who had very negative and even traumatic experiences on set related to the nudity, sex, and intimate scenes. It isn't a free for all. Just because acting in those scenes is part of your job, it doesn't mean boundaries can be crossed, consent doesn't matter, exploitation is fine, or that the director can do whatever they want. It isnt unreasonable to expect those aspects of your job to happen in a professional and safe manner. It should be a very controlled environment to protect people in the workplace from harm. So the fact that a birth scene was part of her acting role doesn't mean she has to be naked on set in front of everyone or else she is unreasonable. There are many stories you can read about how awful actors have felt after sex and romance scenes over the years. You might feel they are all unreasonable but the industry doesn't and has put more parameters in place to create safer work environments.

Isn't part of the issue that she herself didn't meet with the intimacy person?

DP but no, I don't think that's going to play a role in whether or not the birth scene was handled appropriately. The reason why is that the birth scene was not scripted as a nude scene, at any point. So even of Lively declined to meet with the IC to discuss the scripted intimate scenes (the sex scenes, none of which were filmed until after the hiatus) it would not really have any bearing on how this scene was handled. They should have scripted this as a nude scene if that's what they wanted, and given Lively enough time to either consent to that (before the day of shooting) or to negotiate a different approach if that's what she wanted. At that point Lively could also have insisted on the involvement of an IC. But if nudity is only added to the scene right before it's shot, there is no time to get an IC involved, no time to address issues with the nudity rider, etc.

Springing nudity on an actor right before shooting a scene where the script gives no indication whatsoever that the actor will be nude is very poor form, independent of the involvement of an IC.

All the IC stuff falls flat with me after seeing the Nicepool sketch Ryan created based off of Baldoni where Nicepool asks for an IC and is made to look like a stick-in-the-mud, whiny little beeyotch for doing so. That plus Blake blowing off the initial meeting does not tell me these people adhere or care about the strictest levels of professionalism.

Agree, there was a clear double standard here. Blake and Ryan were allowed to use sexually themed language, Blake was openly breastfeeding in front of people, Blake initially declined meeting with the IC, unsure if she ever met with one during this film. While Baldoni was on fact the director here, and seemingly as soon as something didn’t go Blake and Ryan’s way they pounced.

When and where was Blake openly breastfeeding in front of people? I don't recall that in any of the 4 complaints.

She invited Justin to come up while she was breastfeeding, to run through their lines.

She says in her complaint that on that occasion, she was covered before she invited them in (and she was pumping, not breastfeeding). So she consented on that occasion to them being present after taking whatever measures she felt comfortable taking to cover herself.

Leslie Sloane also addresses this issue in footnote 2 of her newly filed motion to dismiss: “as Baldoni has preached, consent is specific and reversible, and an invitation to enter Miss Lively‘s trailer on one occasion is not an open invitation to enter her trailer whenever he pleased. Further, a true ‘advocate for postpartum mothers’ would know there is a radical difference between pumping and breast-feeding.”

I read that she breastfed openly in front of cast members, is that false?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on a read of the EEOC pages on sexual harrassment, I don't think the bar is as high as many think it is. Sexual harrassment can include offensive comments about women in general and can be when verbal or physical harassment (in person or otherwise) of a sexual nature creates a hostile or offensive work environment for someone.

So yes, it can be multiple incidents that lead to someone feeling they are in an offensive work environment.

I have some experience sexual harassment cases and I agree. I think she could get a harassment finding based just on the way the birth scene was handled, if she can show they pressured her to do nudity not in the script, that her requests for a cover were ignored, that the monitors were turned back on while the scene was being shot, and that Heath showed her that video of his wife AFTER the birth scene had been filmed. That sequence of events is actually a pretty strong showing of sexual harassment under the law because it's persistent and unwanted, over two consecutive days. That would have been enough in a lot of the cases I was involved in.

Generally with sexual harassment cases, the issue is in showing harm. Perhaps you can show harassment occurred but if the company can put a stop to it and the victim's career is unimpeded (not fired, not denied promotions, etc.), the payout can be relatively small. This is why retaliation is so often a feature of sexual harassment cases because that's when you get into real harm that can result in meaningful restitution. Usually the retaliation takes the form of someone losing their job, being demoted or denied a promotion they were expected to get, or being "iced out" in a workplace in an effort to get them to quit. You also see retaliation in the form of refusing to give references or spreading rumors about the victim within the industry.

Without retaliation, it can often not be particularly useful to bring an SH claim, especially if there are internal ways of addressing the problem that are satisfactory to the victim. Often EEOC complaints don't go to the litigation phase because once the company is alerted to the seriousness of the matter via an EEOC complaint, they make efforts to remediate and avoid litigation.

It’s actually fairly hard to show sexual harassment - it has to be “severe or pervasive.” A handful of incidents don’t do it. It also cannot be totally subjective or unreasonable, and I think there’s a very strong case to show she was being unreasonable in finding offense doing what her actual job was (acting out romance and childbirth scenes). The whole IC thing is very muddled but it seems like her decision not to meet with the IC at one point also is a strike against her.

This is a strange take not really grounded in the law. Actors have a lot of protections on set linked to filming nude and intimate scenes, and that are memorialized in union guidelines and reinforced by industry standards and commitments by studios. So it would actually be *easier* for an actor to show harassment linked to a nude or intimate scene because the industry has so many standards surrounding these scenes and there's an extensive history of this kind of scene being used as a mechanism for harassment.

The reason I cite the birth scene is because it was clearly not scripted as a nude scene. Industry standards are pretty explicit about the need for actors to have advance warning of nudity and for certain precautions to be taken on a set to protect their privacy and agency in those scenes. So if Lively can show she was pressured to do the scene nude or partially nude the day of the shoot, even though the script says nothing about nudity for this scene, this creates a strong presumption of malfeasance. Right off the bat, Baldoni and Wayfarer are deviating from industry standards on an issue that is known to pose a consent/harassment issue. This is a major problem for Wayfarer and goes to the "severity" of the problem -- springing unscripted nudity on an actress right before filming a scene is likely to be considered a severe problem, not a minor one, due to industry guidelines.

And bookending this issue is the fact that according to Baldoni's own timeline, Heath showed Lively the video of his wife the day AFTER the birth scene was filmed. Note Wayfarer does not contend that they planned to reshoot the birth scene. This choice to re-engage on the issue of nudity even after the scene has been filmed speaks to pervasiveness. Had they proposed nudity in the scene, had it rejected but agreed to simulating semi-nudity, and then moved on. Perhaps this would not be enough. But the fact that the scene was filmed and Lively believed the issue to be settled, and then Heath is approaching her (at Baldoni's insistence) to show her a personal video of a nude birth without her express consent? This is very, very problematic for them. She'd already not only registered her objection to nudity in the scene but also expressed her disagreement over nudity in birth generally. So why are Heath and Baldoni persisting in this debate? There is no justifiable work-related reason for showing her that video at that point. It points strongly to harassment.

And that is just the sequence of events around the birth scene. If she can also show other incidents, this strengthens her claim considerably. If on top of that, she can show that other actresses on set experienced boundary-violating behavior from Baldoni and/or Heath? This looks very bad for them, I'm sorry. This is kind of textbook hostile work environment.

NP. I’m confused why you keep saying she was nude in the birth scene? Justin has already countered that. Like many things, Blake seems to be lying or manipulating the facts.

PP here and I didn't say she was nude. I say that she was pressured to be nude. And she has produced evidence this was the case, and Justin has not disputed it.

The scene was not scripted to be a nude scene. Justin/Heath proposed nudity to her the day of filming. She objected but reluctantly agreed to partial simulated nudity (which would still generally be the kind of nudity that needs to be scripted in advance and actors need to have advanced warning). There is a dispute over how they simulated partial nudity in the scene -- whether it was a modesty strip or a pair of "briefs". But there is not a dispute over whether she simulated partial nudity in the scene. If you watch the scene, you can see that she does. And Baldoni and Heath wanted her to simulate *full* nudity in the scene, and in fact felt so strongly about it that even after the scene had been filmed, they approached her to show her a video of a nude birth to prove some kind of point to her.

and I am saying it’s a BIG lift to portray this discussion about the birth scene as “severe or pervasive” even based on Lively’s description. Context matters. It’s not like she was an accountant and her coworkers were trying to convince her to take her pants off.

[Anonymous]

One thing that I really wanted to see in her amended complaint that I didn’t see, was proof that Heath forced the meeting in her trailer. This is the he said/she said where Blake said she wasn’t able to meet, and Heath insisted on meeting in her trailer. That struck me as very odd since Heath is a pretty powerful guy, CEO of the production company, and he was OK having a meeting in a make up trailer with a nanny, assistant, and makeup artist and Blake‘s baby?

It seemed to me that she was the lead actress flexing her power. Like I’m busy you need to come in my trailer.

So I wanted to see proof that he either canceled the meeting or purposely scheduled it when she wasn’t around, so he had an excuse to go into the trailer. But she didn’t show that so I am assuming it’s what I first thought, she called him into the trailer, and then when there was an awkward eye catch, she used that against him.

I think it is important to note when we’re arguing about whether sexual harassment was claimed before, and I said I don’t think it was because there would be a formal investigation launched. I made the mistaken saying production would have been shut down, I guess someone corrected me and that is not the case, but it is my understanding the investigation would have been done and no investigation was done.

Justin has said that the list that she put in the New York Times was very very different than the list they agreed to on the January 4 meeting. So I do think that he could’ve thought that it was more framed like creative differences and unprofessional, sloppy behavior onset, and then she was later, twisting it as sexual harassment.

This speaks to the bread crumbs strategy that she and Taylor have discussed. Where you leave fans with just enough clues and let them decide. It seemed like she was setting up breadcrumbs. Creative differences, some inappropriate behavior, but no one actually thought it was sexual harassment, or they would follow protocol. It was framed very differently during production. Then it was only after production that they completely made up a list that sounded a lot worse with the whole no more doing this, no more doing that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most women try to find a private space to breastfeed. I wouldn’t feel comfortable breastfeeding in front of my boss, male or female. It takes a special type of person to breastfeed in public. It’s a brazen act.

Is it? I disagree. I nursed for a year with my kid and while my preference was always to nurse in private if at all possible, there were situations where it was not really possible and I had to just deal with it. Again, not my preference, but if your baby is hungry and you are stuck in a public location or there are people around and you can't justifiably ask them all to leave or you can't leave, sometimes you just have to do it. What is the alternative, let the baby go hungry? You get mastitis because you waited to nurse when your boobs were really full? That doesn't make sense.

When I was forced to nurse in public, I'd generally make an effort to cover myself up and turn away or give myself as much privacy as I could. But there are limits to this (babies don't really love nursing with their faces covered) and I viewed it as the job of other people to avert their eyes and be adults about it. Again, I wasn't whipping my boobs out "brazenly" to offend people -- my baby was hungry and I needed to nurse and I was in situations where I could not access a private location quickly enough to resolve that issue.

The idea that women only nurse in public because they are exhibitionists is so weird. I'm the opposite of an exhibitionist. But when I was nursing I had to get used to sometimes exposing my breasts in public for the purposes of feeding my baby. I'd remind myself that what I was doing was natural and normal and force myself to get over my natural shyness because ultimately it wasn't about me but my baby's needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most women try to find a private space to breastfeed. I wouldn’t feel comfortable breastfeeding in front of my boss, male or female. It takes a special type of person to breastfeed in public. It’s a brazen act.

Is it? I disagree. I nursed for a year with my kid and while my preference was always to nurse in private if at all possible, there were situations where it was not really possible and I had to just deal with it. Again, not my preference, but if your baby is hungry and you are stuck in a public location or there are people around and you can't justifiably ask them all to leave or you can't leave, sometimes you just have to do it. What is the alternative, let the baby go hungry? You get mastitis because you waited to nurse when your boobs were really full? That doesn't make sense.

When I was forced to nurse in public, I'd generally make an effort to cover myself up and turn away or give myself as much privacy as I could. But there are limits to this (babies don't really love nursing with their faces covered) and I viewed it as the job of other people to avert their eyes and be adults about it. Again, I wasn't whipping my boobs out "brazenly" to offend people -- my baby was hungry and I needed to nurse and I was in situations where I could not access a private location quickly enough to resolve that issue.

The idea that women only nurse in public because they are exhibitionists is so weird. I'm the opposite of an exhibitionist. But when I was nursing I had to get used to sometimes exposing my breasts in public for the purposes of feeding my baby. I'd remind myself that what I was doing was natural and normal and force myself to get over my natural shyness because ultimately it wasn't about me but my baby's needs.

I get it, sometimes you have to nurse in public. I never had to but I was an exception I guess. I would never pump in front of a coworker. I just doubt that Blake is this modest delicate flower afraid to stand up for herself. I think she didn’t care if Juston saw her boobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on a read of the EEOC pages on sexual harrassment, I don't think the bar is as high as many think it is. Sexual harrassment can include offensive comments about women in general and can be when verbal or physical harassment (in person or otherwise) of a sexual nature creates a hostile or offensive work environment for someone.

So yes, it can be multiple incidents that lead to someone feeling they are in an offensive work environment.

I have some experience sexual harassment cases and I agree. I think she could get a harassment finding based just on the way the birth scene was handled, if she can show they pressured her to do nudity not in the script, that her requests for a cover were ignored, that the monitors were turned back on while the scene was being shot, and that Heath showed her that video of his wife AFTER the birth scene had been filmed. That sequence of events is actually a pretty strong showing of sexual harassment under the law because it's persistent and unwanted, over two consecutive days. That would have been enough in a lot of the cases I was involved in.

Generally with sexual harassment cases, the issue is in showing harm. Perhaps you can show harassment occurred but if the company can put a stop to it and the victim's career is unimpeded (not fired, not denied promotions, etc.), the payout can be relatively small. This is why retaliation is so often a feature of sexual harassment cases because that's when you get into real harm that can result in meaningful restitution. Usually the retaliation takes the form of someone losing their job, being demoted or denied a promotion they were expected to get, or being "iced out" in a workplace in an effort to get them to quit. You also see retaliation in the form of refusing to give references or spreading rumors about the victim within the industry.

Without retaliation, it can often not be particularly useful to bring an SH claim, especially if there are internal ways of addressing the problem that are satisfactory to the victim. Often EEOC complaints don't go to the litigation phase because once the company is alerted to the seriousness of the matter via an EEOC complaint, they make efforts to remediate and avoid litigation.

It’s actually fairly hard to show sexual harassment - it has to be “severe or pervasive.” A handful of incidents don’t do it. It also cannot be totally subjective or unreasonable, and I think there’s a very strong case to show she was being unreasonable in finding offense doing what her actual job was (acting out romance and childbirth scenes). The whole IC thing is very muddled but it seems like her decision not to meet with the IC at one point also is a strike against her.

Th whole reason nudity riders, closed sets, intimacy coordinators etc came into being was because when there are vulnerabilities like nudity, simulated sex, and physical intimacy in the workplace environment, there needs to be strict controls and oversight to ensure a safe and professional work environment. There are a multitude of stories online from women (and maybe men) who had very negative and even traumatic experiences on set related to the nudity, sex, and intimate scenes. It isn't a free for all. Just because acting in those scenes is part of your job, it doesn't mean boundaries can be crossed, consent doesn't matter, exploitation is fine, or that the director can do whatever they want. It isnt unreasonable to expect those aspects of your job to happen in a professional and safe manner. It should be a very controlled environment to protect people in the workplace from harm. So the fact that a birth scene was part of her acting role doesn't mean she has to be naked on set in front of everyone or else she is unreasonable. There are many stories you can read about how awful actors have felt after sex and romance scenes over the years. You might feel they are all unreasonable but the industry doesn't and has put more parameters in place to create safer work environments.

Isn't part of the issue that she herself didn't meet with the intimacy person?

DP but no, I don't think that's going to play a role in whether or not the birth scene was handled appropriately. The reason why is that the birth scene was not scripted as a nude scene, at any point. So even of Lively declined to meet with the IC to discuss the scripted intimate scenes (the sex scenes, none of which were filmed until after the hiatus) it would not really have any bearing on how this scene was handled. They should have scripted this as a nude scene if that's what they wanted, and given Lively enough time to either consent to that (before the day of shooting) or to negotiate a different approach if that's what she wanted. At that point Lively could also have insisted on the involvement of an IC. But if nudity is only added to the scene right before it's shot, there is no time to get an IC involved, no time to address issues with the nudity rider, etc.

Springing nudity on an actor right before shooting a scene where the script gives no indication whatsoever that the actor will be nude is very poor form, independent of the involvement of an IC.

All the IC stuff falls flat with me after seeing the Nicepool sketch Ryan created based off of Baldoni where Nicepool asks for an IC and is made to look like a stick-in-the-mud, whiny little beeyotch for doing so. That plus Blake blowing off the initial meeting does not tell me these people adhere or care about the strictest levels of professionalism.

Also, we have on film, Blake improvising an unscripted kissing scene with baldoni. She got caught in an interview with someone saying I love how you directed that scene where you were showing Justin how you wanted to be kissed. And she got really nervous and was like where did you see that? I think a fan captured it and put it on Instagram but it’s all over for all of us to see.

She addresses this issue in her amended complaint, have you read it? The kissing in the scene you’re referencing was expected as it was specifically written in the script. The kissing on the dance floor was not written in the script. Starting to kiss Lively in the dance floor scene turned it into a scene that normally would have required the IC, whereas it would not have been required based on what was just written in the script.

Oh, I must’ve gotten two different instances confused. So yes, maybe the kissing was scripted, but she was clearly directing him, and she aggressively pulled him toward her. I remember fans commented, look at Blake showing him what she wants, like she was bad ass, Director girl. It was framed in a positive light, but now seeing all this laid out, she was fine kind of manhandling him around, but Was not OK when he kissed her neck when they were in a scene where they were depicting them falling in love without talking. I mean, how else were they supposed to convey that? It didn’t seem crazy to me. I’m sorry if she felt uncomfortable and I’m glad they addressed it, but that is not sexual harassment.

But if the kissing in that scene was scripted and specifies that one of them pulls the other toward them for the kiss, this isn't her "manhandling" him, but instead following the choreography of the script or demonstrating for him one option for what the script said they should do in that moment. So it's not her "directing" him but an example of an actor participating in filming a scripted kissing scene with the prescribed choreography and where everyone involved is consenting.

Whereas in the dancing scene, there is no kissing at all specified and apparently he didn't think it was necessary to discuss it beforehand and ensure everyone was on board with that aspect of what he planned to do. It's a totally different situation where he's just initiating all this intimacy without warning or consent and she just has to go with it because the cameras are rolling. And you see her basically trying to negotiate it in the moment by suggesting other things they can do that would show "falling in love" (like talking) or initiating dance spins or putting her hand on his chest to physically keep his face away from her. Whereas in the footage of her pulling him in to her, you don't see any indication from him that he's uncomfortable or that what she's doing is a surprise or crossing a boundary with her.

Also, regarding how you show "falling in love": it's subjective but I actually agree with her that seeing characters deeply engaged in conversation would convey that more to me than seeing them making out. If the direction in the script was "they are expressing sexual interest" or "they are totally hot for each other," then I'd agree that you'd expect to see a lot of physical contact and the stuff Baldoni does here. But "falling in love" indicates something that is more than a physical connection, and I think seeing two people deep in conversation, listening intently to each other and responding positively to each other, is what that looks like to me. I do think this is a bit of a "female gaze" thing -- I think for men, love is a more physical thing and is more closely connected to lust but that for women it's more intellectual and emotional. When I think of how I fell in love with my DH, it's much more about the conversations we had and how we got to know each other than it's about the physical aspect. That on its own would not have been sufficient. And before I married him, I dated men who I was very physically attracted to but didn't love at all.