MovieChat Forums > April Pearson Discussion > Once fired from a film for refusing to b...

Once fired from a film for refusing to be nude

posted 2 days ago by jk90us (7272)
31 replies | jump to latest

Pearson said on TikTok: “I’ve never talked publicly about this, but I was once fired on the spot during a sex scene from a feature film because I wouldn’t renege on my nudity clause, which was that I wouldn’t get my breasts out, for the scene. And the director decided that the scene needed that level of nudity.”

She added that they then gave her part to a supporting artist who was there on the day and was happy to be completely nude for the scene.

https://www.nme.com/news/film/skins-april-pearson-fired-refusing-nude-scene-3027501

Let that be a lesson to you, actresses.

Refuse to get naked and get fired.

Agree to get naked and get hired.

It’s the director’s film and vision.

Not yours.

Though I suspect Pearson may be making this up for attention since she won’t name the film or director.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56856) 2 days ago

Let that be a lesson to you, actresses.

Refuse to get naked and get fired.

Agree to get naked and get hired.

It’s the director’s film and vision.

Not yours.

You do realize nudity riders exist, right? If she didn't sign it on the contract, then the director can't complain.

reply

[–] jk90us (7272) 2 days ago

But he can fire her if his vision changes and she no longer fits the role.

But he gave her the opportunity first.

She refused.

He replaced her.

Simple business and creative decision.

He didn’t try and pressure or force her into being naked.

She’s trying to make it into something more.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56856) 2 days ago

But he can fire her if his vision changes and she no longer fits the role.

Only if they no longer fit the role, not because they didn't want to do nudity.

reply

[–] jk90us (7272) 2 days ago

Her not wanting to perform nude meant she no longer fit the role.

But I blame the director for casting anyone with a nudity clause just in case he does decide to change direction.

There are hundreds of actresses out there willing to perform nude.

Why waste time with those who aren’t?

It isn’t worth the hassle or potential unwarranted backlash.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56856) 2 days ago

The SAG-AFTRA union provides specific protections for actors for nudity and sex scenes. What You Should Know About Nudity Riders:

If your performance in a film will include nudity, partial nudity or simulated sex acts, be sure that you or your representatives have negotiated a nudity rider with production. The nudity rider should include a detailed description of the scene(s), the type of nudity or physical contact required, limitations on use of the footage and production stills (if any), and any other conditions that you and a producer have agreed upon. Remember, even if you have signed a nudity rider, you have the right to withdraw consent at any time prior to filming of the scene. As always, contractual minimums may not be waived by a performer.

https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/104235/are-actors-contractually-obligated-to-certain-things-like-going-nude-sensual-sc

reply

[–] jk90us (7272) 2 days ago

That’s the opposite of what she had.

She had a no-nudity clause.

But if an actress agreed to be nude and later changed their mind during production like that SAG contract states, that’s even worse because it’s basically fraud.

They said they’d do something — which is why they were hired — and then refused to do it.

It’s like lying to get the job.

And that will follow them and potentially harm their career because they’ve proven they can’t be trusted even if it’s in their contract.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56856) a day ago

It can't be fraud if the SAG union agreed to it. The people hiring know it's possible to back out.

reply

[–] jk90us (7272) 19 hours ago

Studios need to fight to have that part taken out of the contract now that the metoo mafia is losing power in the industry.

It’s like hiring someone to do a job but they have the right to not do that job and still get paid.

No other industry would allow that.

reply

[–] Boromir (10024) 18 hours ago

It's really easy to use a body double unless it's something that also needs to be approved by the actress according to SAG. For instance, viewers will ultimately think that the naked body is hers. And part of the reasons for opposition to nude scenes is the image in the eyes of family and friends. I believe that even in body double, the actor must approve this choice but I don't know for sure.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56856) 12 hours ago

I would assume that replacing it with a body double would still require the original actor's permission. At least that's what I hope.

reply

[–] sslssg (34247) 2 days ago

Would you feel the same way if an actor was fired who had a nudity clause in his contract? If he wasn't willing to have his penis shown?

reply

[–] jk90us (7272) 2 days ago

Yes.

Though that’s not as big an issue because a hell of a lot of people would rather see nude women than men.

Also, women on average have no issue seeing naked women where a majority of woman and especially men don’t want to see naked men.

I, for one, never want to see naked guys but the director still has the right to replace them.

reply

[–] sslssg (34247) 2 days ago

👍🏼👍🏼

reply

[–] MovieShootTurd (7) 2 days ago

Complacent people like you are excellent for big business.

We're going to sign a legal document that states x-effort for work. Then unilaterally I'm going to change the conditions of that contract to XL-effort, and you'll happily neglect your own personal principles and wishes because of my "creative liberties." You wouldn't even think of payment or trust or agreements as stated in the legal document.

You wouldn't complain about it, right? You don't care that I made your working conditions worse. Because you don't consider the threat of firing someone as "pressure".

Seriously, come work for me in big business.

reply

[–] jk90us (7272) 2 days ago

And that’s what filmmaking is.

Big business.

If a lawyer was hired to handle corporate cases but later the firm realized it’s better for business if they handle criminal cases as well, they have the right to replace that lawyer if the lawyer refuses to take on criminal work too.

reply

[–] Mustang (5432) 2 days ago

I find it hard to believe a director can just decide at the last second that a role requires nudity and if he was thinking it might require nudity why choose an actress who has a no nudity clause? Never heard of her anyway.

reply

[–] jk90us (7272) 2 days ago

He probably wasn’t planning on having nudity initially but realized later it was important for the scene.

Creative directions change all the time during production.

That’s why I said above they should never cast anyone with a no-nudity clause.

It limits creativity.

reply

[–] Mustang (5432) 2 days ago

That is what I was getting at too, he knew in advance she had limits. I was also thinking of the possibility that the story is made up. A lot of these stories came out after #metoo, even Molly Ringwald had to gripe about The Breakfast Club and Laura Dern complained about how much older Sam Neill was in Jurassic Park, no one cared when those films were made and in Laura's case she always looked older than she was anyway.

reply

[–] jk90us (7272) 2 days ago

Yep.

A bunch of has-been actresses waving their arms going “Look at me! Look at me!”

reply

[–] Mustang (5432) 2 days ago

Yep. I’ve just looked it up and April has done topless in the Skins tv show. She was 18.

I get that just because she’s done it before doesn’t mean she has to keep doing it but it might explain the director asking for nudity?

reply

[–] Zarkoff (1882) 2 days ago

If the director's vision includes nudity, that needs to be established and put into the actresses's contract going into the movie.

I find it a little odd that this wasn't done. I remember a similar story from the director of Friday the 13th Part Six. It was a producer who wanted a particular actress to take her clothes off, not the director. The director didn't really feel like it was necessary and it wasn't part of the actresses's contract.

She ended up wearing her bra and an unbuttoned shirt for the scene, I believe. Good on the director for not pushing her to do it.

reply

[–] jk90us (7272) 2 days ago

That happened a lot in the past.

I’m against forcing or pressuring actresses to be nude against their will.

But I have no problem with the actresses being replaced because actors and actresses get replaced all the time for several reasons.

BTW that’s why directors tend to film nude and sex scenes first so they don’t have to lose time and money reshooting scenes if an actress backs out and has to be replaced.

reply

[–] JaqenHgar (730) 2 days ago

That sounds similar to the Freddy vs. Jason debacle with Katharine Isabelle.

reply

[–] JoWilli (20097) 2 days ago

no one wants to see April naked anyways.

reply

[–] wrlord (1146) 2 days ago

More power to her. Nice to hear there are some upright people out there.

reply

[–] chumbawampa (738) a day ago

Too bad there's barely any nudity in modern films compared to the 70s or 90s. Theres barely sex scenes anymore. So all this nonsense from the OP about one actress not doing nudity is irrelevant. Most movies don't even have the main characters kissing anymore. They'd need an INTIMACY COORDINATOR for that.

That's because Gen Z who never have sex anymore dont' want to see it on screen or think about sex or nudity at all. Because Gen Z are insecure little twats. But that's the young people, the future generation .

So buckle in because things are only going to get SHITTIER. And Shittier. And shittier.

There's barely any nudity in any movies anymore. Or sex. Certainly not compared to the 70s-90s. Does the OP even WATCH current movies?

reply

[–] jk90us (7272) 19 hours ago

>There's barely any nudity in any movies anymore. Or sex. Certainly not compared to the 70s-90s. Does the OP even WATCH current movies?

Why do you think I’m bringing this to light?

It’s BS that they rarely do.

When they do have nudity it’s usually some guy’s ass shoved in the camera during a sex scene while the woman wears her bra (who the hell does that in real life?) or is covered by a sheet. 🤨

There is a huge audience out there wanting sex and female nudity in mainstream films and shows.

But the few who have twisted metoo into a power grab are hellbent on suppressing it because they claim it “demeans women.” 🙄

Yet there are several actresses out there — including A listers and rising stars like Sydney Sweeney (bless her) — willing to do it for the right roles.

reply

[–] Boromir (10024) 18 hours ago

Kudos to her. A director should inform the actors in advance about nude scenes. You don't have to give up your principles if you're an actress. Film actors are subject to labor rights just like any other employee. She is not a puppet on a string of the director.

reply

[–] jk90us (7272) 17 hours ago

> Kudos to her. A director should inform the actors in advance about nude scenes.

It was a new creative addition which happens all the time — for various reasons — during production.

What’s the director going to say, “Sorry, studio execs. We can’t improve the story and scenes which could possibly increase ticket sales and possibility of earning awards because we told the actress something else”?

Of course not.

>You don't have to give up your principles if you're an actress.

She didn’t.

So they replaced her with someone whose principals matched the adjusted role.

>Film actors are subject to labor rights just like any other employee.

Do you know how many employees are laid off at other businesses if they can’t fulfill adjusting demands for positions?

All of them.

>She is not a puppet on a string of the director.

A puppet is someone forced to do something against their will.

Again, she wasn’t.

She’s an employee hired to fill a role that may change during the creative process.

If she refuses to adjust — which is her right — the studio has a right to replace her.

Period.

reply

[–] Boromir (10024) 16 hours ago

You know that adding the word "period" to the end of your message doesn’t make me agree with you, right? :)

In every workplace, there is—or should be—room for change and adaptation to new demands, provided these remain within the bounds of reasonableness. However, certain rights must never be violated, chief among them being an individual’s right to personal and intimate space. An employee has the right not to be subjected to sexual contact or exposure that was not explicitly agreed upon prior to accepting the role. In situations where a director decides to alter the terms and demand that an actress undress, it can be argued that this is not outright coercion. Yet, by doing so, the director effectively threatens the employee’s livelihood, creating a pressure that undermines their autonomy. There are limits even to the so-called "creative process".

reply

[–] jk90us (7272) 15 hours ago

> You know that adding the word "period" to the end of your message doesn’t make me agree with you, right? :)

Well it should! 😊

>In every workplace, there is—or should be—room for change and adaptation to new demands, provided these remain within the bounds of reasonableness.

There was nothing unreasonable about his request.

It only would have been if he tried to force her to do it.

He didn’t.

>However, certain rights must never be violated, chief among them being an individual’s right to personal and intimate space.

Again, that right wasn’t violated.

>An employee has the right not to be subjected to sexual contact or exposure that was not explicitly agreed upon prior to accepting the role.

Exactly.

That didn’t happen.

>In situations where a director decides to alter the terms and demand that an actress undress, it can be argued that this is not outright coercion. Yet, by doing so, the director effectively threatens the employee’s livelihood, creating a pressure that undermines their autonomy. There are limits even to the so-called "creative process".

Again.

Actors are replaced all the time for several reasons.

They work at the discretion of the director and producers.

And if they’re worried about their livelihood being threatened, they’re in the wrong business.

Nothing is guaranteed in the entertainment industry.

Especially having a livelihood.

And if they’re worried about their livelihood being threatened, they should be more open to adjusting to creative changes.

Or find another line of work.

reply