Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

She would have a much stronger case if she made a sexual harassment claim during filming. By not doing that she seemingly was OK about all of those other than saying she wanted things changed on set. Even the document that she had him sign, it appears after January 4 with the meeting where Blake blew up at him about fat shaming, everyone moved on. There’s just not a case for sexual harassment here, but that is why they’re not actually suing for sexual harassment. They are suing for retaliation and trying to backtrack into claims that she made turning those into harassment. I think people are greatly underestimating how difficult that is going to be.

There are protocols here for a reason. And if she had made a formal complaint, or any of the other women had made formal complaints, this would be much much easier. But not doing that really weakens their case. We can debate back-and-forth about Justin, his social awkwardness, unprofessionalism on set, and so on, but there is a standard for sexual harassment, and they really really botched any claims to that by not making any complaints at all.

You can really see in the Sony text with Wayfair, they were clearly just trying to please Blake and do what they could to make her more comfortable. Sony saying OK let’s let her have a producer of her choosing on set. OK, we can agree to this OK, we do agree to that. OK we can let her see the dailies. OK we can let her have a crack at editing. But I’m not seen anyone produce text about safety onset, or stemming, sexual harassment, or again SAG would be getting involved.

There’s no doubt that she wanted things changed on that set. Things were not going like she wanted. But that does not mean you can months later claim sexual harassment and retaliation.

I think it’s going to be very easy for Justin to show that he was just trying to protect his reputation from her spearheading having everyone Unfollow him, her putting forth that really awkward premiere, where he was in the basement and separate from the cast, and her not letting anyone do interviews with him. He has a really strong case that he had every right to hire a PR crisis firm.

I don't understand how any of this has anything to do with what I wrote in the previous post. I'm talking about whether their handling of the birth scene could constitute harassment. My point is that based on industry standards and what Baldoni acknowledge himself happened, I do think it could. Regardless of whether Lively ever used the words "sexual harassment" or contacted her union or whatever, the fact pattern here could definitely constitute harassment. That's all I'm saying.

It could just as easily constitute creative differences. I think some of this comes with making a movie that includes intimate scenes. So a director can’t advocate for their vision without being accused of harassment? If there was a power imbalance in Justin’s favor perhaps this would be a bigger concern, but the power imbalance was in Lively’s favor on that set and at no point was she at any real risk of having to do something she didn’t want. She was the a-lister. The highest paid by far. They accommodated everything she asked for.

Again, your comment doesn't seem related to mine. You can't have "creative differences" over whether or not an actor is nude in a scene. It's a contractual issue. Either the scene is scripted as a nude scene and you follow certain protocols for it (including plenty of notice to the actor and efforts to protect their privacy on set, plus having a valid nudity rider in place in advance of filming) or you don't.

It is unclear to me why they woudn't have just scripted the scene as a nude scene and made it clear to Lively well in advance that this is what they were going for. Even rookie directors generally know that you need actors to be on board with any nude and intimate scenes from the start because they don't have to agree to it on set. So it strikes me as sloppy and lazy at a minimum that they would think they could just spring the nudity on her the day of. That's not creative differences, that's mismanagement.

That’s a fair point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

She was trying to set these men up and baiting them. She was hoping Justin would text her back a smoking gun, he never did. The Health man didn’t put anything in writing or say anything inappropriate, so she pivots to an alleged creepy GAZE. It’s comical how desperate and fake this all is. This is so obviously a compulsive lying con artist. She and her husband are low lives with zero integrity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is interesting to me having seen the movie is that there were two much more intimate scenes that Blake must’ve felt comfortable with because after all those months, I’ve not seen a word written or spoken about it.

There was one scene where Justin’s character basically almost attempts rape and she talks him down. It was probably a tough scene to film, and she didn’t seem to have a problem with that. I imagine because it was such a tough scene that protocol was followed to the letter and she couldn’t really say anything about it. I’m sure the intimacy coordinator was on set, even though they were clothed, as his character does overpower her, even though it doesn’t get very sexual and is stopped.

There is one other scene where he undresses her a little bit. She’s in high waisted fishnet stockings, and a bra, so not nude, and I think they kiss and he kind of tucked her in bed and leaves.

Those two seemed much more intimate, harder to film scenes, and she didn’t have a problem with that. Clearly, the IC must’ve been there and protocol followed.

But given all the rest that I’ve seen, it just seems like maybe she took advantage of the scenes where there wouldn’t be an IC and there would be more left to people to interpret. For example an IC has come out and said the dancing scene would not typically require an IC, because they were fully clothed, and there was no simulating sex. I mean, they were clearly in public in a bar. So it just seems like she took advantage of that to talk about how she didn’t feel comfortable in intimate scenes.

Same with the birthing scene. I’m not sure that there would’ve been a ic there because she wasn’t nude. I know there’s back-and-forth and whether they wanted her nude, but given the fact that there was no IC there it leads me to believe, well, she’s lying. She was covered and there was clearly no sex being simulated. I’ve watched the scene again and I just don’t get it. The guy playing the doctor was pretty far away from her. There were just lots of close-up shots of her face. And one of her legs.

I feel like she just took whatever scenes might be somewhat ambiguous and made them sound worse than they were.

All scripted sex scenes and nudity were filmed after the hiatus. The scenes you are referencing were filmed after they came back from hiatus and after Baldoni and Wayfarer had agreed to her demands. Her amended complaint even references how a major reason she felt she needed to voice her concerns and get an agreement regarding having an IC with her at all times was because she was dreading going back to set and having to film these scenes with him.

This is in Baldoni's complaint as well, btw. His timeline specifically talks about how all the scripted sex scenes were filmed post-hiatus. You can control+F it if you don't believe me.

So she was comfortable with those scenes because they were handled professionally thanks to her intervention to ensure that an IC would be present and they would be choreographed and that all elements of the scenes would have consent of all parties. And also that the *scripted* nudity in these scenes would be covered by a valid nudity rider. Whereas the nudity in the birth scene was unscripted and they didn't even have a nudity rider in place when it happened (because Lively's team was not expecting it to be a nude scene so they didn't realize this was potentially why Wayfarer was trying to push them to sign the nudity rider with very little time to review and before an IC had reviewed and approved it).

But isn’t this how the courts want these claims to be handled? There were complaints made, she was given a platform to address her concerns, they heard her concerns, changes were made.

I guess I don’t understand why there would be retaliation if things didn’t escalate to the point of an investigation. She had issues, they were addressed. What is to retaliate against?

And if the scenes that were shot did not require an IC, why did she sort of turn it act like they didn’t have an IC on set? You just said that the scenes I mentioned that would require an IC, were shot after the complaints were made, and there was an IC in set. So she was sort of preemptively complaining that there wouldn’t be an IC onset? I don’t understand. The scene that she was complaining about weren’t standard for an IC.

Certainly when she pulled in Sony those emails seem to be very cordial to wayfarer, even sort of agreeing with them, gosh she is pretty demanding, but sigh, sure we can add another producer on set. Obviously, I’m paraphrasing, but the emails were certainly not wow we need to address safety issues. Or yikes there’s harassment going on in this set. They were like isn’t there a producer for this? Yes but she wants another? OK I guess we can do that. We will send Angie on set or whoever that woman was to make her more comfortable. Things like that. It just seemed very mundane and by the book and certainly there didn’t seem to be among executives any escalation of anything near harassment.

That’s why it just all seems to be coming out of left field. And then to say that others complained months after production and just seems very odd to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blake is not a good actor. She’s certainly not method actor material as she lacks any raw talent. She is letting her personal feelings interfere with the character way too much. She’s way too self involved to be a believable character.

Talentless nepo baby frazzled about her advancing age and future career, tries to pivot to production and director credits by hook or by crook. With a maniac husband coddling and indulging the schemes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

She was trying to set these men up and baiting them. She was hoping Justin would text her back a smoking gun, he never did. The Health man didn’t put anything in writing or say anything inappropriate, so she pivots to an alleged creepy GAZE. It’s comical how desperate and fake this all is. This is so obviously a compulsive lying con artist. She and her husband are low lives with zero integrity.

I am really glad that justins team posted the timeline as it cleared a lot of these things up. Her complaint initially to the New York Times was deliberately muddying things. It is now clear she complained about a lack of an intimacy coordinator, or demanded one be on set, before any scene requiring one were even shot. That is really something Blake.

People acted as if it was fine to miss the preproduction meetings with an IC. Of course, that her right, but it shows he was going actually above and beyond what was necessary o required to to help her feel comfortable and she was like no I’m good. Only to come back later and complain.

It is absolutely crazy how badly they twisted things, and the only reason is because they just had no idea the billionaire backer was going to come with guns blazing with Freedman. The way they skewed the timeline in the New York Times, the times really should be taken to task.

[Anonymous]

The way some of you see all these people as heros, from Baldoni to Freedman to billionaire Sarowitz, is crazy to me. We truly are living in two different realities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is interesting to me having seen the movie is that there were two much more intimate scenes that Blake must’ve felt comfortable with because after all those months, I’ve not seen a word written or spoken about it.

There was one scene where Justin’s character basically almost attempts rape and she talks him down. It was probably a tough scene to film, and she didn’t seem to have a problem with that. I imagine because it was such a tough scene that protocol was followed to the letter and she couldn’t really say anything about it. I’m sure the intimacy coordinator was on set, even though they were clothed, as his character does overpower her, even though it doesn’t get very sexual and is stopped.

There is one other scene where he undresses her a little bit. She’s in high waisted fishnet stockings, and a bra, so not nude, and I think they kiss and he kind of tucked her in bed and leaves.

Those two seemed much more intimate, harder to film scenes, and she didn’t have a problem with that. Clearly, the IC must’ve been there and protocol followed.

But given all the rest that I’ve seen, it just seems like maybe she took advantage of the scenes where there wouldn’t be an IC and there would be more left to people to interpret. For example an IC has come out and said the dancing scene would not typically require an IC, because they were fully clothed, and there was no simulating sex. I mean, they were clearly in public in a bar. So it just seems like she took advantage of that to talk about how she didn’t feel comfortable in intimate scenes.

Same with the birthing scene. I’m not sure that there would’ve been a ic there because she wasn’t nude. I know there’s back-and-forth and whether they wanted her nude, but given the fact that there was no IC there it leads me to believe, well, she’s lying. She was covered and there was clearly no sex being simulated. I’ve watched the scene again and I just don’t get it. The guy playing the doctor was pretty far away from her. There were just lots of close-up shots of her face. And one of her legs.

I feel like she just took whatever scenes might be somewhat ambiguous and made them sound worse than they were.

All scripted sex scenes and nudity were filmed after the hiatus. The scenes you are referencing were filmed after they came back from hiatus and after Baldoni and Wayfarer had agreed to her demands. Her amended complaint even references how a major reason she felt she needed to voice her concerns and get an agreement regarding having an IC with her at all times was because she was dreading going back to set and having to film these scenes with him.

This is in Baldoni's complaint as well, btw. His timeline specifically talks about how all the scripted sex scenes were filmed post-hiatus. You can control+F it if you don't believe me.

So she was comfortable with those scenes because they were handled professionally thanks to her intervention to ensure that an IC would be present and they would be choreographed and that all elements of the scenes would have consent of all parties. And also that the *scripted* nudity in these scenes would be covered by a valid nudity rider. Whereas the nudity in the birth scene was unscripted and they didn't even have a nudity rider in place when it happened (because Lively's team was not expecting it to be a nude scene so they didn't realize this was potentially why Wayfarer was trying to push them to sign the nudity rider with very little time to review and before an IC had reviewed and approved it).

But isn’t this how the courts want these claims to be handled? There were complaints made, she was given a platform to address her concerns, they heard her concerns, changes were made.

I guess I don’t understand why there would be retaliation if things didn’t escalate to the point of an investigation. She had issues, they were addressed. What is to retaliate against?

And if the scenes that were shot did not require an IC, why did she sort of turn it act like they didn’t have an IC on set? You just said that the scenes I mentioned that would require an IC, were shot after the complaints were made, and there was an IC in set. So she was sort of preemptively complaining that there wouldn’t be an IC onset? I don’t understand. The scene that she was complaining about weren’t standard for an IC.

Certainly when she pulled in Sony those emails seem to be very cordial to wayfarer, even sort of agreeing with them, gosh she is pretty demanding, but sigh, sure we can add another producer on set. Obviously, I’m paraphrasing, but the emails were certainly not wow we need to address safety issues. Or yikes there’s harassment going on in this set. They were like isn’t there a producer for this? Yes but she wants another? OK I guess we can do that. We will send Angie on set or whoever that woman was to make her more comfortable. Things like that. It just seemed very mundane and by the book and certainly there didn’t seem to be among executives any escalation of anything near harassment.

That’s why it just all seems to be coming out of left field. And then to say that others complained months after production and just seems very odd to me.

Nude scenes are always supposed to have an IC. Even if it's partial nudity. There was actually a profile of a birth scene in another movie (recent movie with Andrew Garfield and Florence Pugh) in the NYT last fall that mentioned that they had an IC for the scene because Pugh was nude below the waist for the scene. So if they expected Lively to be nude in that birth scene, they should have let her know in advance and had an IC.

I think also that while the issues were handled during the hiatus and there are no reports of problems after they came back from hiatus, it's not clear that Wayfarer handled the issues prior to the hiatus well at all. If there were complaints from multiple actresses and some of these problems happened multiple times even after Lively or others had complained, that's a real sign of a problem on set. Lively is getting dragged for the "17 point list" and criticized for making demands at that Jan. 4 meeting, but it sounds like her actions actually solved the problem in a way that nothing Wayfarer had done did. It should not be on an actress to address it in that way -- Wayfarer should have taken a stronger stance and proactively made some of the adjustments Lively ultimately had to demand under threat of not returning. If only to protect their own interest in the film. So no, I don't think courts want it to be handled "this way." I think the expectation is that employers should proactively seek to address problems and that you shouldn't have to rely on an employee willing to stick their neck out the way Lively did -- she was only able to do that because she does have market power and as star of the movie had sway with the studio. If she'd been an actress with a smaller role or less sway, she probably wouldn't have felt she could stand up for herself in that way and it's possible the problems from the first few weeks of filming would have persisted. That's a problem.

And given that not every employee is going to be empowered the way Lively was, it's all the more reason for courts to protect employees from retaliation for coming forth with harassment allegations. Because if someone with Lively's fame and power can be effectively trashed in the media in retaliation for making valid complaints about SH on set, then what message does that send to other employees with far less power? It tells them they better shut up or they, too, can be "buried."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The way some of you see all these people as heros, from Baldoni to Freedman to billionaire Sarowitz, is crazy to me. We truly are living in two different realities.

They aren’t seen as heroes. If someone could just post some credible proof that Justin was wrong that may sway some opinions. All that’s been proven so far is that a double standard existed and Blake appeared to be permitted do and say whatever she pleased. Justin was the producer of the film, as well as playing character Ryle. Justin was trying to produce a perfect film presumably. Producing a perfect film may look different from various perspectives, this was Justin’s perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is interesting to me having seen the movie is that there were two much more intimate scenes that Blake must’ve felt comfortable with because after all those months, I’ve not seen a word written or spoken about it.

There was one scene where Justin’s character basically almost attempts rape and she talks him down. It was probably a tough scene to film, and she didn’t seem to have a problem with that. I imagine because it was such a tough scene that protocol was followed to the letter and she couldn’t really say anything about it. I’m sure the intimacy coordinator was on set, even though they were clothed, as his character does overpower her, even though it doesn’t get very sexual and is stopped.

There is one other scene where he undresses her a little bit. She’s in high waisted fishnet stockings, and a bra, so not nude, and I think they kiss and he kind of tucked her in bed and leaves.

Those two seemed much more intimate, harder to film scenes, and she didn’t have a problem with that. Clearly, the IC must’ve been there and protocol followed.

But given all the rest that I’ve seen, it just seems like maybe she took advantage of the scenes where there wouldn’t be an IC and there would be more left to people to interpret. For example an IC has come out and said the dancing scene would not typically require an IC, because they were fully clothed, and there was no simulating sex. I mean, they were clearly in public in a bar. So it just seems like she took advantage of that to talk about how she didn’t feel comfortable in intimate scenes.

Same with the birthing scene. I’m not sure that there would’ve been a ic there because she wasn’t nude. I know there’s back-and-forth and whether they wanted her nude, but given the fact that there was no IC there it leads me to believe, well, she’s lying. She was covered and there was clearly no sex being simulated. I’ve watched the scene again and I just don’t get it. The guy playing the doctor was pretty far away from her. There were just lots of close-up shots of her face. And one of her legs.

I feel like she just took whatever scenes might be somewhat ambiguous and made them sound worse than they were.

All scripted sex scenes and nudity were filmed after the hiatus. The scenes you are referencing were filmed after they came back from hiatus and after Baldoni and Wayfarer had agreed to her demands. Her amended complaint even references how a major reason she felt she needed to voice her concerns and get an agreement regarding having an IC with her at all times was because she was dreading going back to set and having to film these scenes with him.

This is in Baldoni's complaint as well, btw. His timeline specifically talks about how all the scripted sex scenes were filmed post-hiatus. You can control+F it if you don't believe me.

So she was comfortable with those scenes because they were handled professionally thanks to her intervention to ensure that an IC would be present and they would be choreographed and that all elements of the scenes would have consent of all parties. And also that the *scripted* nudity in these scenes would be covered by a valid nudity rider. Whereas the nudity in the birth scene was unscripted and they didn't even have a nudity rider in place when it happened (because Lively's team was not expecting it to be a nude scene so they didn't realize this was potentially why Wayfarer was trying to push them to sign the nudity rider with very little time to review and before an IC had reviewed and approved it).

But isn’t this how the courts want these claims to be handled? There were complaints made, she was given a platform to address her concerns, they heard her concerns, changes were made.

I guess I don’t understand why there would be retaliation if things didn’t escalate to the point of an investigation. She had issues, they were addressed. What is to retaliate against?

And if the scenes that were shot did not require an IC, why did she sort of turn it act like they didn’t have an IC on set? You just said that the scenes I mentioned that would require an IC, were shot after the complaints were made, and there was an IC in set. So she was sort of preemptively complaining that there wouldn’t be an IC onset? I don’t understand. The scene that she was complaining about weren’t standard for an IC.

Certainly when she pulled in Sony those emails seem to be very cordial to wayfarer, even sort of agreeing with them, gosh she is pretty demanding, but sigh, sure we can add another producer on set. Obviously, I’m paraphrasing, but the emails were certainly not wow we need to address safety issues. Or yikes there’s harassment going on in this set. They were like isn’t there a producer for this? Yes but she wants another? OK I guess we can do that. We will send Angie on set or whoever that woman was to make her more comfortable. Things like that. It just seemed very mundane and by the book and certainly there didn’t seem to be among executives any escalation of anything near harassment.

That’s why it just all seems to be coming out of left field. And then to say that others complained months after production and just seems very odd to me.

Nude scenes are always supposed to have an IC. Even if it's partial nudity. There was actually a profile of a birth scene in another movie (recent movie with Andrew Garfield and Florence Pugh) in the NYT last fall that mentioned that they had an IC for the scene because Pugh was nude below the waist for the scene. So if they expected Lively to be nude in that birth scene, they should have let her know in advance and had an IC.

I think also that while the issues were handled during the hiatus and there are no reports of problems after they came back from hiatus, it's not clear that Wayfarer handled the issues prior to the hiatus well at all. If there were complaints from multiple actresses and some of these problems happened multiple times even after Lively or others had complained, that's a real sign of a problem on set. Lively is getting dragged for the "17 point list" and criticized for making demands at that Jan. 4 meeting, but it sounds like her actions actually solved the problem in a way that nothing Wayfarer had done did. It should not be on an actress to address it in that way -- Wayfarer should have taken a stronger stance and proactively made some of the adjustments Lively ultimately had to demand under threat of not returning. If only to protect their own interest in the film. So no, I don't think courts want it to be handled "this way." I think the expectation is that employers should proactively seek to address problems and that you shouldn't have to rely on an employee willing to stick their neck out the way Lively did -- she was only able to do that because she does have market power and as star of the movie had sway with the studio. If she'd been an actress with a smaller role or less sway, she probably wouldn't have felt she could stand up for herself in that way and it's possible the problems from the first few weeks of filming would have persisted. That's a problem.

And given that not every employee is going to be empowered the way Lively was, it's all the more reason for courts to protect employees from retaliation for coming forth with harassment allegations. Because if someone with Lively's fame and power can be effectively trashed in the media in retaliation for making valid complaints about SH on set, then what message does that send to other employees with far less power? It tells them they better shut up or they, too, can be "buried."

This conveniently leaves out all the “retaliation” done to him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is interesting to me having seen the movie is that there were two much more intimate scenes that Blake must’ve felt comfortable with because after all those months, I’ve not seen a word written or spoken about it.

There was one scene where Justin’s character basically almost attempts rape and she talks him down. It was probably a tough scene to film, and she didn’t seem to have a problem with that. I imagine because it was such a tough scene that protocol was followed to the letter and she couldn’t really say anything about it. I’m sure the intimacy coordinator was on set, even though they were clothed, as his character does overpower her, even though it doesn’t get very sexual and is stopped.

There is one other scene where he undresses her a little bit. She’s in high waisted fishnet stockings, and a bra, so not nude, and I think they kiss and he kind of tucked her in bed and leaves.

Those two seemed much more intimate, harder to film scenes, and she didn’t have a problem with that. Clearly, the IC must’ve been there and protocol followed.

But given all the rest that I’ve seen, it just seems like maybe she took advantage of the scenes where there wouldn’t be an IC and there would be more left to people to interpret. For example an IC has come out and said the dancing scene would not typically require an IC, because they were fully clothed, and there was no simulating sex. I mean, they were clearly in public in a bar. So it just seems like she took advantage of that to talk about how she didn’t feel comfortable in intimate scenes.

Same with the birthing scene. I’m not sure that there would’ve been a ic there because she wasn’t nude. I know there’s back-and-forth and whether they wanted her nude, but given the fact that there was no IC there it leads me to believe, well, she’s lying. She was covered and there was clearly no sex being simulated. I’ve watched the scene again and I just don’t get it. The guy playing the doctor was pretty far away from her. There were just lots of close-up shots of her face. And one of her legs.

I feel like she just took whatever scenes might be somewhat ambiguous and made them sound worse than they were.

All scripted sex scenes and nudity were filmed after the hiatus. The scenes you are referencing were filmed after they came back from hiatus and after Baldoni and Wayfarer had agreed to her demands. Her amended complaint even references how a major reason she felt she needed to voice her concerns and get an agreement regarding having an IC with her at all times was because she was dreading going back to set and having to film these scenes with him.

This is in Baldoni's complaint as well, btw. His timeline specifically talks about how all the scripted sex scenes were filmed post-hiatus. You can control+F it if you don't believe me.

So she was comfortable with those scenes because they were handled professionally thanks to her intervention to ensure that an IC would be present and they would be choreographed and that all elements of the scenes would have consent of all parties. And also that the *scripted* nudity in these scenes would be covered by a valid nudity rider. Whereas the nudity in the birth scene was unscripted and they didn't even have a nudity rider in place when it happened (because Lively's team was not expecting it to be a nude scene so they didn't realize this was potentially why Wayfarer was trying to push them to sign the nudity rider with very little time to review and before an IC had reviewed and approved it).

But isn’t this how the courts want these claims to be handled? There were complaints made, she was given a platform to address her concerns, they heard her concerns, changes were made.

I guess I don’t understand why there would be retaliation if things didn’t escalate to the point of an investigation. She had issues, they were addressed. What is to retaliate against?

And if the scenes that were shot did not require an IC, why did she sort of turn it act like they didn’t have an IC on set? You just said that the scenes I mentioned that would require an IC, were shot after the complaints were made, and there was an IC in set. So she was sort of preemptively complaining that there wouldn’t be an IC onset? I don’t understand. The scene that she was complaining about weren’t standard for an IC.

Certainly when she pulled in Sony those emails seem to be very cordial to wayfarer, even sort of agreeing with them, gosh she is pretty demanding, but sigh, sure we can add another producer on set. Obviously, I’m paraphrasing, but the emails were certainly not wow we need to address safety issues. Or yikes there’s harassment going on in this set. They were like isn’t there a producer for this? Yes but she wants another? OK I guess we can do that. We will send Angie on set or whoever that woman was to make her more comfortable. Things like that. It just seemed very mundane and by the book and certainly there didn’t seem to be among executives any escalation of anything near harassment.

That’s why it just all seems to be coming out of left field. And then to say that others complained months after production and just seems very odd to me.

Nude scenes are always supposed to have an IC. Even if it's partial nudity. There was actually a profile of a birth scene in another movie (recent movie with Andrew Garfield and Florence Pugh) in the NYT last fall that mentioned that they had an IC for the scene because Pugh was nude below the waist for the scene. So if they expected Lively to be nude in that birth scene, they should have let her know in advance and had an IC.

I think also that while the issues were handled during the hiatus and there are no reports of problems after they came back from hiatus, it's not clear that Wayfarer handled the issues prior to the hiatus well at all. If there were complaints from multiple actresses and some of these problems happened multiple times even after Lively or others had complained, that's a real sign of a problem on set. Lively is getting dragged for the "17 point list" and criticized for making demands at that Jan. 4 meeting, but it sounds like her actions actually solved the problem in a way that nothing Wayfarer had done did. It should not be on an actress to address it in that way -- Wayfarer should have taken a stronger stance and proactively made some of the adjustments Lively ultimately had to demand under threat of not returning. If only to protect their own interest in the film. So no, I don't think courts want it to be handled "this way." I think the expectation is that employers should proactively seek to address problems and that you shouldn't have to rely on an employee willing to stick their neck out the way Lively did -- she was only able to do that because she does have market power and as star of the movie had sway with the studio. If she'd been an actress with a smaller role or less sway, she probably wouldn't have felt she could stand up for herself in that way and it's possible the problems from the first few weeks of filming would have persisted. That's a problem.

And given that not every employee is going to be empowered the way Lively was, it's all the more reason for courts to protect employees from retaliation for coming forth with harassment allegations. Because if someone with Lively's fame and power can be effectively trashed in the media in retaliation for making valid complaints about SH on set, then what message does that send to other employees with far less power? It tells them they better shut up or they, too, can be "buried."

I guess my point is no one else seemed alarmed by her issues. My theory is that she way over contextualized when she wanted to fight back. So she took a list of things like creative differences, things like unprofessional behavior that wouldn’t qualify as harassment, and twisted them. Well, I guess theory is a stupid word. She clearly and obviously did that with at least a few instances. It’s in front of our faces. The question is how many instances did she do that too.

One thing that really bothers me is the nudity rider. Somebody said they tried to rush it through. No, that is not how that works. Blake is not responsible for reviewing the rider, it’s not like she’s trying to read the nudity rider and juggle a toddler and a baby on one hip. She has a freaking huge team for that. Their job is to get that done. When Wayfair gave them the rider, why did it take days and days for them to get back? This is something for her legal team to review and sign off on. Blake never even needed to see it. She’s done tons of movies. this is not their first rodeo with such a rider. They’re pretty standard clauses there. It’s very concerning to me that they didn’t rush to get that out and I feel like they were trying to cook up something from the start.

Also, I feel like the birth scene is being way misrepresented in the last few pages. It’s my understanding that it was a casual conversation where Jamie Heath tried to show the birth video. As others said, it was not supposed to be part of the scene, it sounded like they were having a casual conversation. Blake was eating lunch. And Blake said that she’d like to see the video later. She certainly didn’t voice discomfort at that time. Which fine, maybe it was awkward or something. But people keep trying to act as if they were trying to pitch her to do the scene the scene the same way. It seemed like that’s how she tried to frame it in her original complaint, but we have more context now, and that does not seem to be the full story.

I think part of the problem is that Blake laid out the universe of what happened in the New York Times complaint, and a lot of that has been debunked, but not everyone has caught up. She deliberately misled people to believe that they were trying to get her to do the scene that way when that’s not how it happened at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is interesting to me having seen the movie is that there were two much more intimate scenes that Blake must’ve felt comfortable with because after all those months, I’ve not seen a word written or spoken about it.

There was one scene where Justin’s character basically almost attempts rape and she talks him down. It was probably a tough scene to film, and she didn’t seem to have a problem with that. I imagine because it was such a tough scene that protocol was followed to the letter and she couldn’t really say anything about it. I’m sure the intimacy coordinator was on set, even though they were clothed, as his character does overpower her, even though it doesn’t get very sexual and is stopped.

There is one other scene where he undresses her a little bit. She’s in high waisted fishnet stockings, and a bra, so not nude, and I think they kiss and he kind of tucked her in bed and leaves.

Those two seemed much more intimate, harder to film scenes, and she didn’t have a problem with that. Clearly, the IC must’ve been there and protocol followed.

But given all the rest that I’ve seen, it just seems like maybe she took advantage of the scenes where there wouldn’t be an IC and there would be more left to people to interpret. For example an IC has come out and said the dancing scene would not typically require an IC, because they were fully clothed, and there was no simulating sex. I mean, they were clearly in public in a bar. So it just seems like she took advantage of that to talk about how she didn’t feel comfortable in intimate scenes.

Same with the birthing scene. I’m not sure that there would’ve been a ic there because she wasn’t nude. I know there’s back-and-forth and whether they wanted her nude, but given the fact that there was no IC there it leads me to believe, well, she’s lying. She was covered and there was clearly no sex being simulated. I’ve watched the scene again and I just don’t get it. The guy playing the doctor was pretty far away from her. There were just lots of close-up shots of her face. And one of her legs.

I feel like she just took whatever scenes might be somewhat ambiguous and made them sound worse than they were.

All scripted sex scenes and nudity were filmed after the hiatus. The scenes you are referencing were filmed after they came back from hiatus and after Baldoni and Wayfarer had agreed to her demands. Her amended complaint even references how a major reason she felt she needed to voice her concerns and get an agreement regarding having an IC with her at all times was because she was dreading going back to set and having to film these scenes with him.

This is in Baldoni's complaint as well, btw. His timeline specifically talks about how all the scripted sex scenes were filmed post-hiatus. You can control+F it if you don't believe me.

So she was comfortable with those scenes because they were handled professionally thanks to her intervention to ensure that an IC would be present and they would be choreographed and that all elements of the scenes would have consent of all parties. And also that the *scripted* nudity in these scenes would be covered by a valid nudity rider. Whereas the nudity in the birth scene was unscripted and they didn't even have a nudity rider in place when it happened (because Lively's team was not expecting it to be a nude scene so they didn't realize this was potentially why Wayfarer was trying to push them to sign the nudity rider with very little time to review and before an IC had reviewed and approved it).

But isn’t this how the courts want these claims to be handled? There were complaints made, she was given a platform to address her concerns, they heard her concerns, changes were made.

I guess I don’t understand why there would be retaliation if things didn’t escalate to the point of an investigation. She had issues, they were addressed. What is to retaliate against?

And if the scenes that were shot did not require an IC, why did she sort of turn it act like they didn’t have an IC on set? You just said that the scenes I mentioned that would require an IC, were shot after the complaints were made, and there was an IC in set. So she was sort of preemptively complaining that there wouldn’t be an IC onset? I don’t understand. The scene that she was complaining about weren’t standard for an IC.

Certainly when she pulled in Sony those emails seem to be very cordial to wayfarer, even sort of agreeing with them, gosh she is pretty demanding, but sigh, sure we can add another producer on set. Obviously, I’m paraphrasing, but the emails were certainly not wow we need to address safety issues. Or yikes there’s harassment going on in this set. They were like isn’t there a producer for this? Yes but she wants another? OK I guess we can do that. We will send Angie on set or whoever that woman was to make her more comfortable. Things like that. It just seemed very mundane and by the book and certainly there didn’t seem to be among executives any escalation of anything near harassment.

That’s why it just all seems to be coming out of left field. And then to say that others complained months after production and just seems very odd to me.

Nude scenes are always supposed to have an IC. Even if it's partial nudity. There was actually a profile of a birth scene in another movie (recent movie with Andrew Garfield and Florence Pugh) in the NYT last fall that mentioned that they had an IC for the scene because Pugh was nude below the waist for the scene. So if they expected Lively to be nude in that birth scene, they should have let her know in advance and had an IC.

I think also that while the issues were handled during the hiatus and there are no reports of problems after they came back from hiatus, it's not clear that Wayfarer handled the issues prior to the hiatus well at all. If there were complaints from multiple actresses and some of these problems happened multiple times even after Lively or others had complained, that's a real sign of a problem on set. Lively is getting dragged for the "17 point list" and criticized for making demands at that Jan. 4 meeting, but it sounds like her actions actually solved the problem in a way that nothing Wayfarer had done did. It should not be on an actress to address it in that way -- Wayfarer should have taken a stronger stance and proactively made some of the adjustments Lively ultimately had to demand under threat of not returning. If only to protect their own interest in the film. So no, I don't think courts want it to be handled "this way." I think the expectation is that employers should proactively seek to address problems and that you shouldn't have to rely on an employee willing to stick their neck out the way Lively did -- she was only able to do that because she does have market power and as star of the movie had sway with the studio. If she'd been an actress with a smaller role or less sway, she probably wouldn't have felt she could stand up for herself in that way and it's possible the problems from the first few weeks of filming would have persisted. That's a problem.

And given that not every employee is going to be empowered the way Lively was, it's all the more reason for courts to protect employees from retaliation for coming forth with harassment allegations. Because if someone with Lively's fame and power can be effectively trashed in the media in retaliation for making valid complaints about SH on set, then what message does that send to other employees with far less power? It tells them they better shut up or they, too, can be "buried."

Lively failed to initially meet with the IC, why? So what if it was prior to filming, she knew she was playing this role and still neglected meeting with the IC. This is an uncooperative employee. I don’t care if she thinks she is better than everyone else on set, she has to follow the same protocol. That is her mistake. And what issues are you referring to in which Blake addressed and resolved?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way some of you see all these people as heros, from Baldoni to Freedman to billionaire Sarowitz, is crazy to me. We truly are living in two different realities.

They aren’t seen as heroes. If someone could just post some credible proof that Justin was wrong that may sway some opinions. All that’s been proven so far is that a double standard existed and Blake appeared to be permitted do and say whatever she pleased. Justin was the producer of the film, as well as playing character Ryle. Justin was trying to produce a perfect film presumably. Producing a perfect film may look different from various perspectives, this was Justin’s perspective.

Nah, about 5 pages ago we had a pretty good consensus going that both sides here had overreached a bit and thereby assured relatively mutual destruction, and that Baldoni was no saint. But now someone is posting like "the billionaire backer [came in] with guns blazing with Freedman" as though they are truly saving the day for the righteous, when Baldoni is no princess in need of rescue here. He caused much of this all by himself. And plenty of "credible proof" has been shown to you throughout here, you hate Lively too much to see it that way, so I guess Baldoni's PR firm did their job really well. A+ for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The way some of you see all these people as heros, from Baldoni to Freedman to billionaire Sarowitz, is crazy to me. We truly are living in two different realities.

I really don’t even know the three names you just dropped, I just know Ryan and Blake are scammers. That SNL “joke” about his wife’s allegedly horrific sexual harassment and retaliation claims is a smoking gun that this is all 100% fake. This was a Hollywood scheme and they’re busted red-handed because the victim fought back with receipts. Instead of admitting guilt they are trying to muddy the waters and laugh it off. They are sick puppies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way some of you see all these people as heros, from Baldoni to Freedman to billionaire Sarowitz, is crazy to me. We truly are living in two different realities.

They aren’t seen as heroes. If someone could just post some credible proof that Justin was wrong that may sway some opinions. All that’s been proven so far is that a double standard existed and Blake appeared to be permitted do and say whatever she pleased. Justin was the producer of the film, as well as playing character Ryle. Justin was trying to produce a perfect film presumably. Producing a perfect film may look different from various perspectives, this was Justin’s perspective.

Nah, about 5 pages ago we had a pretty good consensus going that both sides here had overreached a bit and thereby assured relatively mutual destruction, and that Baldoni was no saint. But now someone is posting like "the billionaire backer [came in] with guns blazing with Freedman" as though they are truly saving the day for the righteous, when Baldoni is no princess in need of rescue here. He caused much of this all by himself. And plenty of "credible proof" has been shown to you throughout here, you hate Lively too much to see it that way, so I guess Baldoni's PR firm did their job really well. A+ for them.

Nope, don’t really care about Baldoni, I’m not familiar with him at all. He is no saint, who is? Certainly neither Blake nor Ryan. Objectively speaking, Justin looks less malicious here. He may be a pervert, he may cross boundaries, but he didn’t try to maliciously slander someone. He is now defending himself, and rightfully so. Both Blake and Ryan are coming across very badly here, maybe I am missing something? Some of the claims seem to be very exaggerated, if not outright lies. I don’t personally care about any of these people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way some of you see all these people as heros, from Baldoni to Freedman to billionaire Sarowitz, is crazy to me. We truly are living in two different realities.

They aren’t seen as heroes. If someone could just post some credible proof that Justin was wrong that may sway some opinions. All that’s been proven so far is that a double standard existed and Blake appeared to be permitted do and say whatever she pleased. Justin was the producer of the film, as well as playing character Ryle. Justin was trying to produce a perfect film presumably. Producing a perfect film may look different from various perspectives, this was Justin’s perspective.

Nah, about 5 pages ago we had a pretty good consensus going that both sides here had overreached a bit and thereby assured relatively mutual destruction, and that Baldoni was no saint. But now someone is posting like "the billionaire backer [came in] with guns blazing with Freedman" as though they are truly saving the day for the righteous, when Baldoni is no princess in need of rescue here. He caused much of this all by himself. And plenty of "credible proof" has been shown to you throughout here, you hate Lively too much to see it that way, so I guess Baldoni's PR firm did their job really well. A+ for them.

Nope, don’t really care about Baldoni, I’m not familiar with him at all. He is no saint, who is? Certainly neither Blake nor Ryan. Objectively speaking, Justin looks less malicious here. He may be a pervert, he may cross boundaries, but he didn’t try to maliciously slander someone. He is now defending himself, and rightfully so. Both Blake and Ryan are coming across very badly here, maybe I am missing something? Some of the claims seem to be very exaggerated, if not outright lies. I don’t personally care about any of these people.

Again, we are just living in two realities if you think Baldoni hired Johnny Depo’s PR firm and questioned whether they were going hard enough for him for some purpose *other* than to destroy her in the public opinion.