Nudity?!

Does anyone else think that this thread is hilarious?

I have to say that although I was a pro nudist on this one I do still sympathise with those girls who don't want to do it (although I really doubt that Emily Pankhurst is doing cartwheels in her grave because one actress won't get her kit off- after all wasn't empowerment of women about choice?), However I do think that doubts about going in the buff are more to do with doubts about whether you can justify doing it for a particular film. I do agree with Chris that everyone has there price that we would shed for though not a price for ANYTHING (outside of animal cruelty and murder) and that's probably what people find disturbing. Then again I'm thinking that you don't entirely want us to take you seriously on that one.

I do think that if you believe in the project you're involved in and the character that you're playing then you should do whatever is that that character would do within the course of the film or play. But this is a personal belief and I won't bore you with an essay on the ins and outs of it.

Anyway lots of luck the film Steph and Chris I hope you shall be ecstatically happy on your desert island xxxx

• 17 years ago
• 21

It's got nothing to do with self pitying, or archaic views on women and nudity. The point is, it's about your own personal choice, one that'd you'd have to justify and live with. As I've said previously, I personally have no issues with nudity, but for me my decision would be based on the standard of the production, the future plans for it and the relevance of the nude scene. The fact is a hell of a lot of nude scenes are completely gratuitous and nothing else. Not all, but a lot. In that context I wouldn't be happy supplying that titilation for the sake of it. Why should I?
The actors you mentioned that regularly get their kit off are all fine actors and have established careers, no problem there. But you have to understand that from a young actress starting out's point of view, it IS a decision not to be taken lightly and very much depends on your own values and preferences. It's not fair to state that all women should basically get over it and go leaping, nakedly into the 21st Century, cos it's not about that.
Anyway we're going round in circles here. The bottom line is that it is a personal choice and that's to be respected.
Lx

• 17 years ago
• 22

Stephanie you say this film is going strait for DVD release. On hearing that I have big alarm bells ringing.

As some one said in another thread any one can get a camera and computer editing equipment these days and call themselves a film maker.

Again I would ask - Is this film offering a proper Pact/Equity contract? Also who is funding it? And are there any "names" involved in the project?

It sounds to me like this is a small film with no backing or "names" involved being edited at home in the hope of selling it to some one when its made.

Recently a good film called "Confetti" was made which involved two actors having to act nude This film was co-financed by BBC Films, Wasted Talent and Screen West Midlands, and produced by Ian Benson and Ian Flooks. If you were being asked to do a nude project with the backing of "Confetti" I would say go for it.

However your film sounds a bit …..?!? Also it worries me that no casting director seems to be involved in the casting process of the film you are auditioning for.

Just my thoughts.

Cheers
Sovay

PS: For more info on "Confetti" go to:
http://www.screenwm.co.uk/production-and-development/production-investment/confetti.asp

• 17 years ago
• 23

Exactly Lucy - got it in one!

Remember - "if in doubt - don't". Sound advice!

• 17 years ago
• 24

It should be said that just because this film is almost certainly an indie production doesn't automatically make its creators amateurs, perverts, or rip-off artists.

Neither does 'Confetti''s pedigree mean that its footage won't be appropriated for salacious purposes, especially if the stars become better-known.

Nudity for a company like the BBC is in no way grander than nudity for an indie film, providing the indie's production values are up-to-scratch and its contract properly drafted.

Finally, to imply that the amount one is being paid should make the difference between whether or not you show your naked body is to reduce acting to the level of prostitution.

• 17 years ago
• 25

I completely agree with the last comment. I have no problem with nudity personally and wouldn't judge the need for it on the amount of money being offered.

Out of interest, what do you lot think of Michael Winterbottom's "9 Songs". Would you do that?!

I'm sure there will be alot of heated opinions about that one!

• 17 years ago
• 26

Apologies for offending anyoneone. I'm just lucky that i'm very liberated in that sense I guess.

• 17 years ago
• 27

Sounds like we're the lucky ones Luke..!

• 17 years ago
• 28

Don't really see why this thread has lasted as long as it has, and though I sympathise with why it was first brought up, I find this highly amusing.
I had the chance of a lead role in a high profile short, hitting festivals this year and next, called Beauty's Ruin. I knew there would be nudity in it from the start, but the part and storyline was too good to be true, so I audition and am short listed, then chuffed to bits that I get the role. I don't then think ooooo but it's got nudity, should I do it or not? At least not after the first audition anyway. Any audition, like any contract, should be ventured with eyes and ears open, and when asked any questions? That's when you ask full well what is involved, and that's a good thing. Most directors ask that question and most people just say, 'um, how long is the shooting schedule? How much do I get? Is there expenses covered with this?', they never ask about the part/parts and what's involved. You'd be surprised how much more of an impression you make for doing that. Yes the money thing is good to ask, but surely you'd do that when you're offered the part, and then you can turn it down if it doesn't suit, though most companies let you know before hand whether it's low/no or standard/high budget in their brief!
The only question on nudity I would have to ask myself is, is it worth doing? Does the scene really need it or are they just wnating to show off some flesh for no reason?
The role I landed we (myself and Bethany James) had to do a love scene, completely naked, I'd never done one so was very nervous, she'd done glamour work so was completely at ease (well as at ease you can be with a room full of crew). On the easier for boys than girls side? Most girls in this business (glamour side) are more than comfortable about getting undressed infront of men and women, on the boys side? Come on lads, how comfortable would you be getting stripped off infront of another 6 lads? Bottom Line? We did it, it was used as stills in a very arty scene with hardly any bits actually showing, mainly legs and top half. But then full frontal doesn't mean you'd actually see anything on camera, so again, is the part worth it? is the part a good career move? Most important, do you want the role?
It's a choice (like everyone else has said) you and you alone can make, noone can say it was a good or bad move unless they were in that position. I was fine with what I did, and it's a great flick. Hope that helps hun and best of luck with it. But don't audition for these roles if you're gonna get butterflies about them afterwards.
luv' n' hugs

Kenny

• 17 years ago
• 29

Re #26

You say:

"Neither does 'Confetti''s pedigree mean that its footage won't be appropriated for salacious purposes, especially if the stars become better-known."

It's not the pedigree that protects the actors on proper productions, it's the contract. The contract *does* 'mean that its footage won't be appropriated for salacious purposes'. The fact that this doesn't have a pedigree, gives a clue that it probably doesn't have a contract either.

You say:

"Nudity for a company like the BBC is in no way grander than nudity for an indie film, providing the indie's production values are up-to-scratch and its contract properly drafted."

But the BBC don't make porn, and some independents do, and in cases like this, it's not at all clear that your caveats are being met, whereas with the BBC you could take it as read. So actually there *is* more of a risk of dodgy nudity in a fly-by-night independant than the BBC.

You say:

"Finally, to imply that the amount one is being paid should make the difference between whether or not you show your naked body is to reduce acting to the level of prostitution."

It's a common strategy on the part of producers to enlist the artistic side of people in the cause of paying them less. "Oh, but if you don't agree to the paycut, the world will never see this masterpiece, etc etc". Any performer is entitled to be remunerated for any difficult aspect of work, whether it's long hours, harsh working environment, danger, or nudity. Wanting money does not make you a prostitute, and taking your clothes off for free is not proof of high moral standing and committment to Art.

• 17 years ago
• 30

Re: #30

Forgive me, Sovay, I've just had an epiphany and realised you're right after all: when you get paid everything is bound to be wonderful and artistic and when you don't it's bound to be iniquitous and probably pornographic.

Whew! How much better I feel.

• 17 years ago
• 31

Wow!!
This thread is really getting out of hand, its become more than a simple request from a lovely lady who is morally unsure whether to ensue this role or not.
It is the contract, it has always been the contract. Unfortunately, most actors are too naive to read one properly, to interpret the information therein and indeed to understand the art of negotiating one with the producer, director, casting dir...etc...
Eyes open all times, know your rights, and if there's something in the script, contract or production that you just won't or even cannot do, bring it up BEFORE signing anything.
This thread was about nudity and whether or not Steph should do it, well Steph hun, don't do anything you're not happy with, and note for future reference to enquire more about the role before auditioning sweetheart. It's a hard choice whether to go nude for a role, I mean on the Hollywood front, we probably wouldn't bat an eyelid, but at the same time, look at those leading ladies that wish they could have gone back and not done those roles (Liz Taylor, Sally Field, Barbra Striesand). Where as others are quite happy to do them, (such as Sharon Stone, Jennifer Aniston, Jamie Lee Curtis).
It's what you're happy doing, how comfortable you are and how you'll feel in a few years time.
I, like I said 3 posts earlier, prefer to see the storyline and see if it's relevent to the script, and then puzzle over whether my naked body isn't gonna make a ton of people wet themselves but rather believe in the character I am playing, if you see my meaning?
Hugs

Kenny

• 17 years ago
• 32

For goodness sake ...... Just because you are happy to h=get your kit off doesn;t mean you are more liberated than anyone else!

Also You are right just because it is an indie film it doesn't mean that it is less worthy, I mean channel four is showing the a programme called w*ankathon about a mrathon masturbation session..


Although this is repeated continuoysly on this site so it has become a cliche but it IS true, you should only do something that you will be happy with!

If there were two projects that both wanted me to get the "girls" out both very good scripts but one was really well paid and also may want a bit of arse shown then sorry, but my rear would be making its stage or film debut!

If something required me to lay spread eagle on the floor then no amount of money would make me do that. for one I don;t think I could ever look my parents in the eye again!

There have been a few snide comments and taht is up to those individuals but really it is down to personnal choice and I don't think anyone can condemn someone for making that choice.

I only hope that the lady (sorry forgotten your name as I can;t see it when I'm inputting this) has gained something from this debate and akes an informed decision about what she wants to do.

ta
x

• 17 years ago
• 33

apologies for the typo's!

• 17 years ago
• 34

Rebecca?

I hope you weren't referring to me with the nudity thing? I was very uncomfortable taking my kit off infront of the camera, but the role and the story required it, I wanted the role, it's something you do. I wouldn't say I did the right thing, nor the wrong thing, I just did my job, and let's face it, that's what this is a job!
If you wish to limit your abilities (speaking generally here) then there will be so many future roles that you won't be eligable for. Just be very careeful what you're walking into. I auditioned for a part down in Camden, the address made it sound very impressive with studio, when I got there it was an old apartment building, a bedsit and a filthy matress, hence to say I didn't audition and wasted a trip.
I aren't particularly happy with nudity, but if a role requires it, and you don't want to do it, why audition for it?
This was the orignal question format afterall, these continued threads are offered by people trying to force their will upon others. As far as low budget films with nudity are often linked with porno's (an overview not a quote), I've never heard so much rubbish in my life. Hollywood exploits more nudity in unsolicited formats than any other coporation. Some people should really wise up to this business, as that is what it is a business, a job, if you have the skills for it great but you need a professional mind to go with the talent guys, not preaching at all so don't hate me for that, if you disagree so firmly then send a private message and not openly put them down in the forum, there's no need for it, debate is fine but to publicly pick apart someones views is wrong. Just write your own views with the knowledge that there are others who will agree.
Here endeth the lesson

Hugs

rev Kenny

• 17 years ago
• 35

Hey Guys
Thank you very much for all your views and I've really had a good think and decided not to take the process with the film any further. As alot of people have said it is down to personal choice at the end of the day and I just know that I an not comfortable with that sort of thing.

I appreciate what you said Kenny about not auditioning for something if you wouldn't go through with it if you got the part and I very much agree with that, but I didn't actually know and I was only shown parts of the script before the audition.
I was aware that some nudity was involved(which I'm happy with) but wasn't aware of just how much - and also the amount of sex scenes that were involved. I think if I'd have read the whole script in the 1st plave I wouldn't have gone.

Anyway, just wanted to let you all know that I've decided to turn it down. And quite honestly, I am happy with that decision because I think the main reson why I was thinking about doing the film was because of where it might lead career-wise and not because I really wanted to do it.
Anyway, I'm babbleing on now so just wanted to say thanks guys
Steph x x

• 17 years ago
• 36