Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a lawyer:

It seems she wanted all the employee protections of making a formal HR complaint, but at the same time expected the employer (Wayfarer) to forgo all the protections the formal HR process would afford them.

Having her cake and eating it too, so to speak.

How so?

It makes sense in my brain but I’m not sure I can explain it well. There was a lot of discussion earlier about HR existing not to protect the employee but to protect the employer. So, in foregoing the HR process, he gave up Wayfarer’s right to conduct an independent HR investigation; to determine whether her claims had merit; to show how it all was handled; and to put all of that in writing.

But she gave up nothing. In fact, she only gained from the “compromise.” (Which seemed to be framed as a good faith effort to get people back to work.) She still gets to allege that she filed a HR complaint; she was able to lord the accusations over his head to get more and more control of the movie; and she and Ryan were able to bully him for eternity, apparently. When were they going to stop picking on him? Ever?

I do hope that skipping the HR process backfires on her and Ryan—that they say, no, you needed to make a formal complaint, not create an extortion situation. But it probably won’t, because they’ve always had the power all along. And we all know how that goes.

I agree. A formal HR process would’ve protected wayfarer but I’m guessing the time horizon was a big part of the decision. From what I understand it was only a 6 week shoot and they were already over budget because of many of Blake’s demands.

This is all wrong. They may have only filmed for 6 weeks, but they were on hiatus in the middle of those six weeks of six months due to the WGA and SAG strikes -- so plenty of time to conduct a thorough HR investigation. And while it is debatable how over budget the movie was and the reason for those budget issues, Wayfarer already employs HR staff. Why would an HR investigation have been costly? And why would those costs accrue to this specific production as opposed to the company itself as normal overhead of being an employer. It's not a specific expense of the production but just kind of the cost of being in business at all.

But why would they do an investigation If no HR complaints were filed? We have not seen evidence that HR complaints were filed. Little hard to do an investigation of there have been no complaints.

It seemed to me that the complaints weren’t registered in any kind of formal manner until the January 4 meeting. That’s when they presented the 17 point list, and they did not share it with anyone in advance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a lawyer:

It seems she wanted all the employee protections of making a formal HR complaint, but at the same time expected the employer (Wayfarer) to forgo all the protections the formal HR process would afford them.

Having her cake and eating it too, so to speak.

How so?

It makes sense in my brain but I’m not sure I can explain it well. There was a lot of discussion earlier about HR existing not to protect the employee but to protect the employer. So, in foregoing the HR process, he gave up Wayfarer’s right to conduct an independent HR investigation; to determine whether her claims had merit; to show how it all was handled; and to put all of that in writing.

But she gave up nothing. In fact, she only gained from the “compromise.” (Which seemed to be framed as a good faith effort to get people back to work.) She still gets to allege that she filed a HR complaint; she was able to lord the accusations over his head to get more and more control of the movie; and she and Ryan were able to bully him for eternity, apparently. When were they going to stop picking on him? Ever?

I do hope that skipping the HR process backfires on her and Ryan—that they say, no, you needed to make a formal complaint, not create an extortion situation. But it probably won’t, because they’ve always had the power all along. And we all know how that goes.

I agree. A formal HR process would’ve protected wayfarer but I’m guessing the time horizon was a big part of the decision. From what I understand it was only a 6 week shoot and they were already over budget because of many of Blake’s demands.

This is all wrong. They may have only filmed for 6 weeks, but they were on hiatus in the middle of those six weeks of six months due to the WGA and SAG strikes -- so plenty of time to conduct a thorough HR investigation. And while it is debatable how over budget the movie was and the reason for those budget issues, Wayfarer already employs HR staff. Why would an HR investigation have been costly? And why would those costs accrue to this specific production as opposed to the company itself as normal overhead of being an employer. It's not a specific expense of the production but just kind of the cost of being in business at all.

But she didn’t make her complaints until after the strike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a lawyer:

It seems she wanted all the employee protections of making a formal HR complaint, but at the same time expected the employer (Wayfarer) to forgo all the protections the formal HR process would afford them.

Having her cake and eating it too, so to speak.

This just seems like more evidence that they never ever intended it for to go this far. She was never thinking about a legal case, she just wanted to hold things over his head and threaten him. From the very first few weeks they interacted she started swing the fat shaming thing, she tested it out and it worked. He fell in line and gave in to a demand. Then later, she was adding more things, and he continued to fall in line. So then I think when she got pushed to the brink with all of the bad press in August, she just figured he would continue to fall in line to stop the bleeding as he had before. Throw in the complaint so we have an excuse for a NYT me too article and let’s put the mail in the coffin.

Now that he hasn’t, and he has a bulldog in Freedman and a backer willing to pay the bills, it just seems like they are scrambling to piece together this case, but formal documentation and formal processes really would’ve helped.

The way that you all continue to gloss over the fact that your boy hired a PR firm for the express purpose of burying Lively in the public opinion, and that there is (unusually, even at this stage of the process) actual text message etc evidence to prove this, which also shows he was aware of the process (and whose main response was "not sure they are going hard enough for me" and "but wait not the bots they're too obvious!") and that despite this you still continue posting that she has no case continues to be bananas to me. Why would she settle, when at the end of the day, she has that? Good luck.

Your boy? WTH is wrong with you?

Wait, after all the invective hurled at Lively across these 350 pages (fat, big boned, speculation over various mental illness, beard for her husband, stupid yet power hungry -- all sorts of crazy and preposterous stuff!), the place where you draw the line is a familiar reference to "your boy." Oh noes I'm throwing up in my mouth a little again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a lawyer:

It seems she wanted all the employee protections of making a formal HR complaint, but at the same time expected the employer (Wayfarer) to forgo all the protections the formal HR process would afford them.

Having her cake and eating it too, so to speak.

How so?

It makes sense in my brain but I’m not sure I can explain it well. There was a lot of discussion earlier about HR existing not to protect the employee but to protect the employer. So, in foregoing the HR process, he gave up Wayfarer’s right to conduct an independent HR investigation; to determine whether her claims had merit; to show how it all was handled; and to put all of that in writing.

But she gave up nothing. In fact, she only gained from the “compromise.” (Which seemed to be framed as a good faith effort to get people back to work.) She still gets to allege that she filed a HR complaint; she was able to lord the accusations over his head to get more and more control of the movie; and she and Ryan were able to bully him for eternity, apparently. When were they going to stop picking on him? Ever?

I do hope that skipping the HR process backfires on her and Ryan—that they say, no, you needed to make a formal complaint, not create an extortion situation. But it probably won’t, because they’ve always had the power all along. And we all know how that goes.

I'm confused though. They could have conducted an HR process whether she assented to it or not? What prevented them from engaging HR?

I know her 17-point list said that she would agree to forgo a formal HR process if they signed, but the way that is phrased is like she would have liked to have a formal process but would let it go if they agreed to her demands. Perhaps that is misleading, but I am struggling to see where Wayfarer was prevented from conducting their own HR process and investigation. It seems obvious to me that they should have done so and certainly they had a right to.

So many questions, and so many possible answers. I could make guesses (they wanted to bury it? they thought her skipping the process benefited them in some way? they were busy and overwhelmed? they were inexperienced? they thought, hey I’m a good guy—what could possibly go wrong?) Yeah, I’m going to need a trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Blake may have suffered from postpartum depression/psychosis especially so soon after giving birth. Delusions are a symptom of this and can last for years after giving birth.

I wonder if this is how they’re going to eventually get out of this. There’s no way they can have this going to trial.

It seems like no one here even wants to consider any type of mental illness. She was what? Two months postpartum… with three other kids at home? This could definitely be postpartum related mental illness, imo. Why are so many resistant to considering this?

hmm. I think people are reluctant to consider this because she has the resources to deal with this in ways that people don't. Also, it does not excuse her behaviour:There's been a clear intent on her part to humiliate the man and, from what it seems, it has backfired in ways she and her douchey husband didn't anticipate.
Let's all remember that, her behavior( the indifferent attitude towards the subject of domestic violence, the emphasis on her wardrobe, the alcoholic product placement etc) during the press tour of the movie brought her enormous bad press. Afflicted by the princess syndrome, she failed to express regret or remorse at some of her problematic behavior and instead retreated in this weird silent space.Weeks later, she wants us to believe she had been to hell and back on the set of that movie? sure,Karen.

[Anonymous]

On the topic of intimacy coordinators, I found this article about a sex scene in the recent episode of White Lotus interesting: https://www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/a63872307/aimee-lou-wood-the-white-lotus-sex-scene-intimacy-coordinator/

It's about how involved the actors were in working with the IC on their sex scene, and how the IC even got permission from the series creator/writer to give the actress in the scene (Aimee Lou Wood) the right to approve the sex scene after it had been shot. Here are a few relevant quotes:

“I love intimacy coordinators, and I think they’re absolutely essential,” Wood told ELLE.com before the season 3 premiere. She said Lucia didn’t weigh down the process by making it feel “formal” or “heavy,” but instead followed the actors’ lead. “She’s so informed by us. She’s like, ‘You tell me your vision for this scene, and I will make sure that we can execute that in a safe way where everyone’s happy,’” Wood recalled.

...

“[She said,] ‘I just want you to watch it. And I want you to know that if you are not happy, we can change it.’ That was the first time that had ever happened, that someone had straight away been like, ‘Come in this room and watch it.’ She’s like, ‘Obviously it’s your body.’ It’s still a big deal. Nudity is still a weird thing,” Wood explained.

...

“Sex Ed taught me a lot, and I had to do so much stuff in season 1 that, after that, I was like, ‘Right. Now, we’re going to be more discerning,’” Wood told us. “Because I was young and I was so looked after, but I think I was very much just like, ‘Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah!’ And now, I’m more like, ‘Do we need this? Is there a way to tell this story with just a look or just a kiss?’ I think it’s always about asking, What is the scene saying? Because if we can say it without doing a full-blown nude sex scene, then let’s try that. I’m definitely more aware of that now.”

Obviously none of this impacts the Lively/Baldoni case, but I thought it was interesting that they promoted a story about an actress working closely with an IC and even having approval over the scene. I can't help but think that the Lively lawsuit might already be forcing productions to be extra careful about this issue and perhaps work harder to ensure that consent is prioritized in the filming of nude and intimate scenes. I also think the bit about Wood getting approval makes me think a bit of Lively's push to be able to see dailies and be involved in editing of the movie, and I wonder how much of that had to do with wanting control over how scenes where she was intimate with Baldoni, or exposing parts of her body, were ultimately presented to audiences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a lawyer:

It seems she wanted all the employee protections of making a formal HR complaint, but at the same time expected the employer (Wayfarer) to forgo all the protections the formal HR process would afford them.

Having her cake and eating it too, so to speak.

How so?

It makes sense in my brain but I’m not sure I can explain it well. There was a lot of discussion earlier about HR existing not to protect the employee but to protect the employer. So, in foregoing the HR process, he gave up Wayfarer’s right to conduct an independent HR investigation; to determine whether her claims had merit; to show how it all was handled; and to put all of that in writing.

But she gave up nothing. In fact, she only gained from the “compromise.” (Which seemed to be framed as a good faith effort to get people back to work.) She still gets to allege that she filed a HR complaint; she was able to lord the accusations over his head to get more and more control of the movie; and she and Ryan were able to bully him for eternity, apparently. When were they going to stop picking on him? Ever?

I do hope that skipping the HR process backfires on her and Ryan—that they say, no, you needed to make a formal complaint, not create an extortion situation. But it probably won’t, because they’ve always had the power all along. And we all know how that goes.

I agree. A formal HR process would’ve protected wayfarer but I’m guessing the time horizon was a big part of the decision. From what I understand it was only a 6 week shoot and they were already over budget because of many of Blake’s demands.

This is all wrong. They may have only filmed for 6 weeks, but they were on hiatus in the middle of those six weeks of six months due to the WGA and SAG strikes -- so plenty of time to conduct a thorough HR investigation. And while it is debatable how over budget the movie was and the reason for those budget issues, Wayfarer already employs HR staff. Why would an HR investigation have been costly? And why would those costs accrue to this specific production as opposed to the company itself as normal overhead of being an employer. It's not a specific expense of the production but just kind of the cost of being in business at all.

But she didn’t make her complaints until after the strike.

This is not true. She clearly complained prior to the strike -- both complaints detail conversations and exchanges regarding complaints Livley had made. Heck, the meeting with Heath where he allegedly looked at her topless was a meeting to discuss Baldoni behaving, allegedly, inappropriately the day before in the meeting about paparazzi photos and Lively's appearance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On the topic of intimacy coordinators, I found this article about a sex scene in the recent episode of White Lotus interesting: https://www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/a63872307/aimee-lou-wood-the-white-lotus-sex-scene-intimacy-coordinator/

It's about how involved the actors were in working with the IC on their sex scene, and how the IC even got permission from the series creator/writer to give the actress in the scene (Aimee Lou Wood) the right to approve the sex scene after it had been shot. Here are a few relevant quotes:

“I love intimacy coordinators, and I think they’re absolutely essential,” Wood told ELLE.com before the season 3 premiere. She said Lucia didn’t weigh down the process by making it feel “formal” or “heavy,” but instead followed the actors’ lead. “She’s so informed by us. She’s like, ‘You tell me your vision for this scene, and I will make sure that we can execute that in a safe way where everyone’s happy,’” Wood recalled.

...

“[She said,] ‘I just want you to watch it. And I want you to know that if you are not happy, we can change it.’ That was the first time that had ever happened, that someone had straight away been like, ‘Come in this room and watch it.’ She’s like, ‘Obviously it’s your body.’ It’s still a big deal. Nudity is still a weird thing,” Wood explained.

...

“Sex Ed taught me a lot, and I had to do so much stuff in season 1 that, after that, I was like, ‘Right. Now, we’re going to be more discerning,’” Wood told us. “Because I was young and I was so looked after, but I think I was very much just like, ‘Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah!’ And now, I’m more like, ‘Do we need this? Is there a way to tell this story with just a look or just a kiss?’ I think it’s always about asking, What is the scene saying? Because if we can say it without doing a full-blown nude sex scene, then let’s try that. I’m definitely more aware of that now.”

Obviously none of this impacts the Lively/Baldoni case, but I thought it was interesting that they promoted a story about an actress working closely with an IC and even having approval over the scene. I can't help but think that the Lively lawsuit might already be forcing productions to be extra careful about this issue and perhaps work harder to ensure that consent is prioritized in the filming of nude and intimate scenes. I also think the bit about Wood getting approval makes me think a bit of Lively's push to be able to see dailies and be involved in editing of the movie, and I wonder how much of that had to do with wanting control over how scenes where she was intimate with Baldoni, or exposing parts of her body, were ultimately presented to audiences.

Intimacy coordinators are brand new. They’ve only been around about 5 years.

I’m just pointing that out that for decades people made do without and they weren’t standard. This is a great thing that they are normalized now, but this is an evolving landscape even if this case had never gone forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the topic of intimacy coordinators, I found this article about a sex scene in the recent episode of White Lotus interesting: https://www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/a63872307/aimee-lou-wood-the-white-lotus-sex-scene-intimacy-coordinator/

It's about how involved the actors were in working with the IC on their sex scene, and how the IC even got permission from the series creator/writer to give the actress in the scene (Aimee Lou Wood) the right to approve the sex scene after it had been shot. Here are a few relevant quotes:

“I love intimacy coordinators, and I think they’re absolutely essential,” Wood told ELLE.com before the season 3 premiere. She said Lucia didn’t weigh down the process by making it feel “formal” or “heavy,” but instead followed the actors’ lead. “She’s so informed by us. She’s like, ‘You tell me your vision for this scene, and I will make sure that we can execute that in a safe way where everyone’s happy,’” Wood recalled.

...

“[She said,] ‘I just want you to watch it. And I want you to know that if you are not happy, we can change it.’ That was the first time that had ever happened, that someone had straight away been like, ‘Come in this room and watch it.’ She’s like, ‘Obviously it’s your body.’ It’s still a big deal. Nudity is still a weird thing,” Wood explained.

...

“Sex Ed taught me a lot, and I had to do so much stuff in season 1 that, after that, I was like, ‘Right. Now, we’re going to be more discerning,’” Wood told us. “Because I was young and I was so looked after, but I think I was very much just like, ‘Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah!’ And now, I’m more like, ‘Do we need this? Is there a way to tell this story with just a look or just a kiss?’ I think it’s always about asking, What is the scene saying? Because if we can say it without doing a full-blown nude sex scene, then let’s try that. I’m definitely more aware of that now.”

Obviously none of this impacts the Lively/Baldoni case, but I thought it was interesting that they promoted a story about an actress working closely with an IC and even having approval over the scene. I can't help but think that the Lively lawsuit might already be forcing productions to be extra careful about this issue and perhaps work harder to ensure that consent is prioritized in the filming of nude and intimate scenes. I also think the bit about Wood getting approval makes me think a bit of Lively's push to be able to see dailies and be involved in editing of the movie, and I wonder how much of that had to do with wanting control over how scenes where she was intimate with Baldoni, or exposing parts of her body, were ultimately presented to audiences.

Intimacy coordinators are brand new. They’ve only been around about 5 years.

I’m just pointing that out that for decades people made do without and they weren’t standard. This is a great thing that they are normalized now, but this is an evolving landscape even if this case had never gone forward.

The first production known to use them was in 2017 (the TV series "The Deuce"). Then as #metoo grew larger, there was increasing calls to normalize their use.

I do think the Lively/Baldoni conflict will contribute to more use of them even in non-sex scenes, both to protect actors and productions. As actors feel more comfortable speaking out about things that happen on set that feel coercive or inappropriate, it increases the importance for directors and producers to get real buy in from actors in this aspect of their work.

[Anonymous]

I feel like the whole idea of an actress making an HR complaint is new. How many times have actresses been invited to "private meetings" in the producer's hotel room? How many times were they asked to take off their clothes or be sexier in an audition? How many times did actors insist on extra rehearsal time for kissing scenes, in their trailers? How many times did directors tell actresses how sexy they were, out of character? How many times has last minute nudity been spring on an actress?

And that's tame stuff. Obviously way worse has happened.

It doesn't surprise me that there aren't clear cut concepts of an actress in a romantic film "going to HR" and how she files a complaint and what HR does with her complaint. In fact, many of the mentions of HR in the Lively filing are references to males sarcastically mentioning "HR reports" when an actress pushes back on something. And I think that's probably endemic in Hollywood.

I can see where she didn't know exactly how and where to bring the issues and I can see how Baldoni et al thought they were actually being progressive and feminist and the HR-type complaints were diva behavior.

I'm glad this conversation is happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like the whole idea of an actress making an HR complaint is new. How many times have actresses been invited to "private meetings" in the producer's hotel room? How many times were they asked to take off their clothes or be sexier in an audition? How many times did actors insist on extra rehearsal time for kissing scenes, in their trailers? How many times did directors tell actresses how sexy they were, out of character? How many times has last minute nudity been spring on an actress?

And that's tame stuff. Obviously way worse has happened.

It doesn't surprise me that there aren't clear cut concepts of an actress in a romantic film "going to HR" and how she files a complaint and what HR does with her complaint. In fact, many of the mentions of HR in the Lively filing are references to males sarcastically mentioning "HR reports" when an actress pushes back on something. And I think that's probably endemic in Hollywood.

I can see where she didn't know exactly how and where to bring the issues and I can see how Baldoni et al thought they were actually being progressive and feminist and the HR-type complaints were diva behavior.

I'm glad this conversation is happening.

+1 to all of this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a lawyer:

It seems she wanted all the employee protections of making a formal HR complaint, but at the same time expected the employer (Wayfarer) to forgo all the protections the formal HR process would afford them.

Having her cake and eating it too, so to speak.

This just seems like more evidence that they never ever intended it for to go this far. She was never thinking about a legal case, she just wanted to hold things over his head and threaten him. From the very first few weeks they interacted she started swing the fat shaming thing, she tested it out and it worked. He fell in line and gave in to a demand. Then later, she was adding more things, and he continued to fall in line. So then I think when she got pushed to the brink with all of the bad press in August, she just figured he would continue to fall in line to stop the bleeding as he had before. Throw in the complaint so we have an excuse for a NYT me too article and let’s put the mail in the coffin.

Now that he hasn’t, and he has a bulldog in Freedman and a backer willing to pay the bills, it just seems like they are scrambling to piece together this case, but formal documentation and formal processes really would’ve helped.

The way that you all continue to gloss over the fact that your boy hired a PR firm for the express purpose of burying Lively in the public opinion, and that there is (unusually, even at this stage of the process) actual text message etc evidence to prove this, which also shows he was aware of the process (and whose main response was "not sure they are going hard enough for me" and "but wait not the bots they're too obvious!") and that despite this you still continue posting that she has no case continues to be bananas to me. Why would she settle, when at the end of the day, she has that? Good luck.

Your boy? WTH is wrong with you?

Wait, after all the invective hurled at Lively across these 350 pages (fat, big boned, speculation over various mental illness, beard for her husband, stupid yet power hungry -- all sorts of crazy and preposterous stuff!), the place where you draw the line is a familiar reference to "your boy." Oh noes I'm throwing up in my mouth a little again.

There are many of us who have a lot of doubts about the merit of the case that have not been bashing Blake’s looks or sexual history or questioning Ryan’s sexuality though.

Justin is not my boy. I think everyone I’ve read about on all sides of this case are hard to take and I’m so thankful I never had the acting or performing bug because working around these people sounds like a terrible life. But I don’t believe Justin should be labeled a sexual predator for life and never work on another film.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like the whole idea of an actress making an HR complaint is new. How many times have actresses been invited to "private meetings" in the producer's hotel room? How many times were they asked to take off their clothes or be sexier in an audition? How many times did actors insist on extra rehearsal time for kissing scenes, in their trailers? How many times did directors tell actresses how sexy they were, out of character? How many times has last minute nudity been spring on an actress?

And that's tame stuff. Obviously way worse has happened.

It doesn't surprise me that there aren't clear cut concepts of an actress in a romantic film "going to HR" and how she files a complaint and what HR does with her complaint. In fact, many of the mentions of HR in the Lively filing are references to males sarcastically mentioning "HR reports" when an actress pushes back on something. And I think that's probably endemic in Hollywood.

I can see where she didn't know exactly how and where to bring the issues and I can see how Baldoni et al thought they were actually being progressive and feminist and the HR-type complaints were diva behavior.

I'm glad this conversation is happening.

.

It’s good conversation to have but there shouldn’t be collateral damage of ruining peoples lives to have it.

There are two sides to the coin. Women and victims should have better ways of coming forward to report and navigate harassment, but being uncomfortable or postpartum or insecure or wanting to direct the sequel should not be grounds for claiming sexual harassment. I’m not saying necessarily that is what is happening here are, but we certainly didn’t get to 350 or however many pages of discussion because this case is cut and dry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the topic of intimacy coordinators, I found this article about a sex scene in the recent episode of White Lotus interesting: https://www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/a63872307/aimee-lou-wood-the-white-lotus-sex-scene-intimacy-coordinator/

It's about how involved the actors were in working with the IC on their sex scene, and how the IC even got permission from the series creator/writer to give the actress in the scene (Aimee Lou Wood) the right to approve the sex scene after it had been shot. Here are a few relevant quotes:

“I love intimacy coordinators, and I think they’re absolutely essential,” Wood told ELLE.com before the season 3 premiere. She said Lucia didn’t weigh down the process by making it feel “formal” or “heavy,” but instead followed the actors’ lead. “She’s so informed by us. She’s like, ‘You tell me your vision for this scene, and I will make sure that we can execute that in a safe way where everyone’s happy,’” Wood recalled.

...

“[She said,] ‘I just want you to watch it. And I want you to know that if you are not happy, we can change it.’ That was the first time that had ever happened, that someone had straight away been like, ‘Come in this room and watch it.’ She’s like, ‘Obviously it’s your body.’ It’s still a big deal. Nudity is still a weird thing,” Wood explained.

...

“Sex Ed taught me a lot, and I had to do so much stuff in season 1 that, after that, I was like, ‘Right. Now, we’re going to be more discerning,’” Wood told us. “Because I was young and I was so looked after, but I think I was very much just like, ‘Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah!’ And now, I’m more like, ‘Do we need this? Is there a way to tell this story with just a look or just a kiss?’ I think it’s always about asking, What is the scene saying? Because if we can say it without doing a full-blown nude sex scene, then let’s try that. I’m definitely more aware of that now.”

Obviously none of this impacts the Lively/Baldoni case, but I thought it was interesting that they promoted a story about an actress working closely with an IC and even having approval over the scene. I can't help but think that the Lively lawsuit might already be forcing productions to be extra careful about this issue and perhaps work harder to ensure that consent is prioritized in the filming of nude and intimate scenes. I also think the bit about Wood getting approval makes me think a bit of Lively's push to be able to see dailies and be involved in editing of the movie, and I wonder how much of that had to do with wanting control over how scenes where she was intimate with Baldoni, or exposing parts of her body, were ultimately presented to audiences.

Intimacy coordinators are brand new. They’ve only been around about 5 years.

I’m just pointing that out that for decades people made do without and they weren’t standard. This is a great thing that they are normalized now, but this is an evolving landscape even if this case had never gone forward.

The first production known to use them was in 2017 (the TV series "The Deuce"). Then as #metoo grew larger, there was increasing calls to normalize their use.

I do think the Lively/Baldoni conflict will contribute to more use of them even in non-sex scenes, both to protect actors and productions. As actors feel more comfortable speaking out about things that happen on set that feel coercive or inappropriate, it increases the importance for directors and producers to get real buy in from actors in this aspect of their work.

OK, I feel like you just proved my point. 2017 was really not that long ago, when TV and movies have been around in the mainstream for what, 70 years now. My point was that this is a new landscape and just because a television production had an intimacy coordinator in 2017 does not mean it was common - people are still figuring out standards and how to utilize them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the topic of intimacy coordinators, I found this article about a sex scene in the recent episode of White Lotus interesting: https://www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/a63872307/aimee-lou-wood-the-white-lotus-sex-scene-intimacy-coordinator/

It's about how involved the actors were in working with the IC on their sex scene, and how the IC even got permission from the series creator/writer to give the actress in the scene (Aimee Lou Wood) the right to approve the sex scene after it had been shot. Here are a few relevant quotes:

“I love intimacy coordinators, and I think they’re absolutely essential,” Wood told ELLE.com before the season 3 premiere. She said Lucia didn’t weigh down the process by making it feel “formal” or “heavy,” but instead followed the actors’ lead. “She’s so informed by us. She’s like, ‘You tell me your vision for this scene, and I will make sure that we can execute that in a safe way where everyone’s happy,’” Wood recalled.

...

“[She said,] ‘I just want you to watch it. And I want you to know that if you are not happy, we can change it.’ That was the first time that had ever happened, that someone had straight away been like, ‘Come in this room and watch it.’ She’s like, ‘Obviously it’s your body.’ It’s still a big deal. Nudity is still a weird thing,” Wood explained.

...

“Sex Ed taught me a lot, and I had to do so much stuff in season 1 that, after that, I was like, ‘Right. Now, we’re going to be more discerning,’” Wood told us. “Because I was young and I was so looked after, but I think I was very much just like, ‘Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah!’ And now, I’m more like, ‘Do we need this? Is there a way to tell this story with just a look or just a kiss?’ I think it’s always about asking, What is the scene saying? Because if we can say it without doing a full-blown nude sex scene, then let’s try that. I’m definitely more aware of that now.”

Obviously none of this impacts the Lively/Baldoni case, but I thought it was interesting that they promoted a story about an actress working closely with an IC and even having approval over the scene. I can't help but think that the Lively lawsuit might already be forcing productions to be extra careful about this issue and perhaps work harder to ensure that consent is prioritized in the filming of nude and intimate scenes. I also think the bit about Wood getting approval makes me think a bit of Lively's push to be able to see dailies and be involved in editing of the movie, and I wonder how much of that had to do with wanting control over how scenes where she was intimate with Baldoni, or exposing parts of her body, were ultimately presented to audiences.

Intimacy coordinators are brand new. They’ve only been around about 5 years.

I’m just pointing that out that for decades people made do without and they weren’t standard. This is a great thing that they are normalized now, but this is an evolving landscape even if this case had never gone forward.

The first production known to use them was in 2017 (the TV series "The Deuce"). Then as #metoo grew larger, there was increasing calls to normalize their use.

I do think the Lively/Baldoni conflict will contribute to more use of them even in non-sex scenes, both to protect actors and productions. As actors feel more comfortable speaking out about things that happen on set that feel coercive or inappropriate, it increases the importance for directors and producers to get real buy in from actors in this aspect of their work.

OK, I feel like you just proved my point. 2017 was really not that long ago, when TV and movies have been around in the mainstream for what, 70 years now. My point was that this is a new landscape and just because a television production had an intimacy coordinator in 2017 does not mean it was common - people are still figuring out standards and how to utilize them.

I don't view what I said as contradictory, was just providing more info. And my whole point was that because use of ICs is still relatively new, I do think the Lively/Baldoni conflict will be informative for the rest of the industry and perhaps encourage more comprehensive use of ICs as a way to protect all parties. I think the reason we are seeing an article detailing how this sex scene was filmed and how proactive they were about the IC and how much power the actress involved had is precisely because Lively/Baldoni has demonstrated how bad it can be for all involved if you don't have the kind of buy in and participation with intimacy/nudity on set.