ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

7 years, 9 months ago - Christopher Jolley

Wow... never clocked that actually. It's a good question, funnily enough this year I shot a feature, where there was a couple of scenes where the central couple are making love (under the covers, no nudity) with both actors I took the time to explain how the scene would be shot, but did not ask them to strip off for the purposes of the audition, despite them having to be semi-naked for the shoot. I just don't see what the purpose would be of having them strip in an audition, if the part involves nudity then that is just one aspect of it and you would obviously make sure that they suited the role as opposed to how they look naked. Makes me shudder to think of anyone being taken advantage of in auditions for that purpose.

7 years, 9 months ago - cath le couteur

Hi - Thanks for this. I just saw this post on /discuss and replied there so will post same answer here. That field was introduced a while back to allow people to opt out from any role with nudity or not. This field is never shown in ‘search’, it’s only shown on an individuals profile, and only then if they decide to select an option. But I agree it doesn’t feel appropriate and we’ve now removed that field from all the profiles. Thanks,
Cath
SP

7 years, 9 months ago - John Lubran

Gotta be careful of not falling into a catch-all subjective morality trap. Moral Mcarthyism is every bit as abhorrently Orwellian as is a righteous band wagon. Nudity in art and performance is and has been a legitamate element in culture for ever. As Oscar suggested "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" in this context moral judgmentalism can too often be the last redoubt of hypocrisy. There's no inherent corelation between nudity, wether in a context of sexuality or not, and the evils that some people do. I say restore the "perform nude option" and refrain from getting involved in policing thought. What next? Dressing table legs?

We already have laws against abuse even though it would seem that some have been criminality getting away with it for years. What's happening now is that justice is catching up with them. But let's not tar everyone with the same brush.

7 years, 9 months ago - Channel Mitchell

No moral judgement on nudity. Just improving, updating, safeguarding - to reflect more conscious times & working environment. SP have agreed & removed the field & need applauding for it.

7 years, 9 months ago - John Lubran

That argument is similar to the one that suggests that if one has nothing to hide then it's OK for the state to spy on people's privacy. We ought not regulate people on the basis that children and the naively ignorant might be offended. We already of a conciderable body of law and legislation for that. Transgressors ought to be prosecuted. Lawful and legitimate actions ought not be regulated by the prescriptive assertions of mob law. The reactive removing of the option is absolutely not applaudable. If its occurrence was within a really important context, such as parliamentary legislation, it would be deemed sinister.

7 years, 9 months ago - cath le couteur

John hi,
Yes, agree with much of what you say. And yes, there is of course a role for nudity in film and art/culture generally. Directors/Producers will continue to post job roles as they already do, (with distinct, full details if nudity is involved), so that actors have detailed information on projects they may wish/not to consider.

What I also want to do is get more resources up on SP that link to best practice docs regarding nudity, including key advice from Casting Directors for both Directors/Producers and Actors.

Chrs
Cath
SP

7 years, 9 months ago - John Lubran

Thanks Cath. Navigating a policy that suits such a diverse membership can be a tricky undertaking. Courage mon braves

7 years, 9 months ago - Thiago Vono

I believe that usually actor who are willing to do nudity doesn't see nudity such as a big deal. It's just acting.