November 25 2005
Keeping it On: SMG does not and will not do nude scenes.
Brief article in NY Post; apparently she's been offered significant money and has turned it down (reg req).
This thread has been closed for new comments.
You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.
2. Reg required
3. *further expletives*
:P
[wcip]Angel | November 25, 13:56 CET
IMMORTAL | November 25, 14:02 CET
Calledon | November 25, 14:15 CET
I'm not casting stones here, but it seems we here this far too often from actresses eager for some sort of credibility/respectability, only to abndon that if they think they can get something out of it - especially if it involves that Oscar guy, or some kind of career jumpstart. It would be nice if SMG stayed true to her word... but I guess we'll only see if that's the case in about a decade from now.
Outsider | November 25, 14:22 CET
Thanks, IMMORTAL, for posting the full text of the brief item (which appeared in the paper's Page Six gossip column.)
Chris inVirginia | November 25, 14:28 CET
Simon | November 25, 14:53 CET
ChosenOne5376 | November 25, 15:00 CET
electricspacegirl | November 25, 15:09 CET
I think ,since I haven't heard of her doing any new interview where this might have come from, that this just the tabloid press trying to keep the story going in another form.
garda39 | November 25, 15:18 CET
Chris inVirginia | November 25, 15:22 CET
Impossible | November 25, 15:28 CET
Fox announces Bones/Kitchen Confidential crossover. Fans go 'eh'?.
'Parker' - straight to DVD Buffyverse movie rumoured.
Universal promises 3 hour version of Serenity to be released on DVD in every part of the world bar America.
James and Charisma to swap roles on Smallville and Veronica Mars.
Simon | November 25, 15:31 CET
Lioness | November 25, 15:34 CET
A British tabloid reported Sarah was going nude for Southland Tales a few months ago. However, they made the story up. Surprising, I know, get the heart pills.
In unrelated news, I see The Grudge 2 has entered production..
gossi | November 25, 15:53 CET
With regard to this story: it just kinda tires me, really, the whole nudity issue. Who honestly cares if she does or doesn't do it? Is SMG a good-looking woman? Yes. Do I respect and like her as an actress? Yes. Is any of that going to change if she does or doesn't do a nude scene? Nope. So, honestly, for me it's just a non-issue.
GVH | November 25, 16:26 CET
gossi | November 25, 16:33 CET
I always like this question: Would "Casablanca" have been better if it had contained an explicit sex scene between Rick and Ilsa?
One man's opinion, obviously.
Chris inVirginia | November 25, 17:02 CET
gossi | November 25, 17:06 CET
rua1412 | November 25, 17:56 CET
[ edited by jam2 on 2005-11-26 01:08 ]
jam2 | November 25, 18:06 CET
Gellar has stated on several occasions that she's not interested in taking on roles requiring her to go naked. That's it, basically. Is it important? For myself, I wouldn't think so. It doesn't seem to me to be something that either requires her to be commended or criticised for her actions. It's simply her choice to make.
Gossi, you mentioned that 'The Grudge 2' has gone into production. Are you sure? There is no indication of this at the Ghost House Pictures website and I've not read anything elsewhere to suggest this is the case.
alien lanes | November 25, 18:17 CET
Just for information, I think nudity (and also sex) used in the right place - as in, as part of the story, is fine. River emerging from the box, naked and vulnerable - literally - worked. There wasn't anything sexual in that moment. There wasn't meant to be, I suspect. You don't see lots of wallpapers and fans obsessing over that moment. But that was Summer Glau - who is, by the way, beautiful - naked. Naked naked naked(ish). And nobody tends to mention it. Which, to me, says it was for the project. So if SMG chose to do something like that, all power to the girl. If not, all power to the girl equally.
gossi | November 25, 18:34 CET
[ edited by Impossible on 2005-11-26 02:27 ]
Impossible | November 25, 19:15 CET
jaynelovesvera | November 25, 19:15 CET
BAFfler | November 25, 19:36 CET
jam2 | November 25, 21:01 CET
eddy | November 25, 22:37 CET
Kind of like with the Janet Jackson thing. I'm not impressed at whatever they were trying to accomplish with the 'wardrobe malfunction', but again, it was just a boob, and I didn't have a meltdown over it. Personally, I was more disappointed over the fact that it was made obvious that it's perfectly okay to show our kids adult men smashing and bashing each other, but a bit of nipplage is an outrage. Makes me wonder about American values sometimes...
But back on topic, if nudity isn't SMG's thing, that's her choice. I don't think we should expect just because someone is an actress that we should get to see her goodies. I'm pretty sure I'll never see James Marsters' lil' Spike, and I'm pretty sure it's not expected of him to show it. (Though I know he's shown it in a play, I assume he decided it made sense in that context.) I'm also certain we'll never have discussions about how shocking it is that James isn't willing to show his willie.
"Sarah doesn't do nudity, period. It has never been her thing."
All I gotta say is, poor Freddie! :~P
[ edited by Rogue Slayer on 2005-11-26 05:57 ]
Rogue Slayer | November 25, 22:54 CET
As my wife pointed out, if nudity is functional and not exploitative, I don't have a problem with it, and certainly not with the actress that does it. If people deliberately hold sheets up to hide themselves from no other character than the one they've been naked with all night, then it looks ridiclous so I'd prefer some realism then.
But also, you can enter the 'gratuitous' or 'exploitative' areas easily without showing your bits. As I said, I don't know why Sarah doesn't want to do it and it's none of my business, but her sex scenes in Harvard Man were certainly graphic and gratuitous (And may I say I loved the hell out of them) without her showing boobs. This tells me that A: absence of naked doesn't have to mean absence of sexy, so naked is certainly not always necessary even to spice up sex scenes. And B: If gratuious sexual content IS her problem (Which it may not) why is showing a nipple a big no-no for her, but gyrating her butt extensively on a guys crotch in the woods is no problem at all?
Again no judgement either way because I don't care either way, but it's interesting. And may I say again how much my pervy self enjoyed those scenes! Seriously, Sarah does great sex scenes without nudity, both in HM and BtVS S6 and I certainly didn't need her to get naked in there for it to be sexy so more power to her. But I can't really get a bead on why she has trouble with certain things, and not with others.
(I'd love to ask her but if I ever came face to face with her I'd probably rather die a thousand deaths than actually do that! I think I'd rather just drool, hem, haw and ask for her autograph like the rest of us....;-)
EdDantes | November 25, 23:32 CET
eddy | November 25, 23:35 CET
I seem to recall James saying something about wearing a 'little sock' to cover himself! :~P
But I guess I need to do a bit more crotch watching before I can make an educated assumption.
*off to watch da Marsters' crotch*
Rogue Slayer | November 25, 23:40 CET
OK. Maybe just this once...
smog | November 26, 02:04 CET
FWIW, SMG has also commented before about not necessarily being all that confident when it comes to her body. Remember Buffy vs. Dracula where she talked about making sure she could wear a sarong and being amazed that others (presumably meaning Emma) were confident enough to wear nothing but a bikini? It seems that she is perhaps more confident these days, but if someone has any issues with their own bodies (no matter how minor), again it's understandable that they wouldn't want to be shown in all their glory on a cinema screen. Not to mention all of your friends and family possibly seeing you naked since they'd presumably see the film at some stage. I think the issue is more about her just not wanting to do it, but it's still a consideration.
Lastly, no matter how "in character" the nudity is, the fact remains that there would be people in different parts of the world screencapping those scenes and wearing out their pause buttons. There's already an insane amount of fake SMG porn out there (as she herself has joked about during an interview with Leno). So if she was to actually do any real nudity, I don't think it would help. I can't imagine finding that thought anything other than creepy.
I don't think SMG herself is judging others for either doing or not doing nude scenes. It seems to me that it's a very personal decision that each actor or actress has to make for themselves. She has clearly decided that she'd prefer not to do them. Fair enough.
[ edited by Impossible on 2005-11-26 13:16 ]
Impossible | November 26, 06:13 CET
alien lanes | November 26, 06:26 CET
But personally I respect her decision not to do nude scenes, if in fact that is her current position. I think there's so many young "actresses" who are only famous for their "assets" and how much they are willing to show. Yes, nudity where appropriate can be part of a good performance, but mostly these days it's completely gratuitous just for titillation and doesn't add anything to the story.
I think Sarah is a phenomenal actress and doesn't need to get naked to show us how great she is, so more power to her. But I do respect actresses who do it for the right reasons.
Razor | November 26, 09:42 CET
Impossible | November 26, 10:05 CET
Since we are mentioning Carpenter, let's not forget the "other Buffy" photoshoot for Swanson.
Ocular | November 26, 10:53 CET
palehorse | November 26, 11:19 CET
Simon just deleted an article that appeared briefly as a Whedonesque headlined item. The title of the article was:
"Afghan Editor who put Buffy on cover of Women's Mag jailed. Mohaqeq Nasab, who started Women's Rights magazine in Afghanistan, has been sentenced to two years in prison for blashphemy." ( http://xrl.us/iyfy )
Simon's comment was: "Not exactly front page news for Whedonesque." And then he deleted the post.
I disagree, I think the article is interesting and very relevant. Much of Joss's writings are about female empowerment and the injustices that sometimes surround it. It's rather eerie when the real world come crashing in and drives that point home. Epecially when the editor used Joss's writing and characters as an example of women's rights. (Presumably, since I haven't read the article that got the editor jailed.) It think that's worthy of front page news on Whedonesque.
So, I'm kindly requesting that Simon change is mind and repost the article.
JeremyN | November 26, 13:00 CET
newcj | November 26, 13:36 CET
IMForeman | November 26, 13:38 CET
I saw that production of The Tempest that James was in at the Goodman years ago...and not only was he nakitidy a la nude--he was spreadeagle on a wheel and rolled on stage like the third dimension extention of Da Vinci's perfect man. Now, James is beautiful and the image was perfect, it worked, he looked like that anatomy drawing, perfect man bod and long Da Vinci curly hair hanging from the head like dread locks; but I gotta say that image was burned onto my brain so well I can remember it even now and so yeah, every decision an actor makes stays with them FOREVER.
So I guess it can work for you or against, depending on context. If I remember correctly, I think Bob Falls was directing and I think James has said that no one can say no to the Goodman--which is true. If you are naked at The Goodman--that's kudos to you. It's like earning the right to be naked VS selling yourself at a peep show.
So I have no problems with nudity--I've even done a semi nude scene myself in context to a larger concept. But when nudity is combined with slash, then the sensual reaction from one image is being intermingled with another and yeah, I think that's socially irresonsible. We've got enough problems in our culture without stimulating that kind of confusion ON PURPOSE.
So maybe Sarah is just saying a blanket 'No' to all--because of the loss of control an actor can have in the overall process.
To do nudity or the semi even--requires a great deal of faith in the producer and director, because it has a huge emotional impact on the actor and the audience and...it is a very, very long term commitment.
BforBeth | November 26, 13:45 CET
The Parker DVD I'd buy. I'm that desperate.
OTT: That Afghan article does sound very interesting and indeed relevant. In my humble opinion, anyway. Damn the registration, bugmenot aside.
phlebotinin | November 26, 13:58 CET
I guess I'm not understanding what this means. Are you implying that if we'd seen Tara's nipple in Seeing Red, there would be more lesbians than there are now? Or maybe I'm way off base about what you're saying, but it seems like you mean we should only have nudity in context of 'straight' love scenes and not homosexual? I'm probably missing something here, so apologies if I'm totally off.
For those of you trying to get to the Afghan article, use this:
login: je_suis_un_punk_rocker@yahoo.com
password: bugmenot
Rogue Slayer | November 26, 14:10 CET
MySerenity | November 26, 14:13 CET
That was one of my options. Shows no matter how beautiful people are, they can be just as insecure about their looks as the rest of us. And when your looks are so linked to your job... It's understandable.
Uhm, no offense, but.....so? How is that any worse than staring at a picture of an actress in a sexy outfit in Cosmo?? If actors don't want that, don't ever be filmed or photographed because someone will find you attractive and that someone might get off on even the most innocent of pictures of you.
Or are we just worried about the state of pause buttons? Just wondering;-)
Again; so? How does that harm anyone? And as you say yourself, they're already doing it, without any real nudity of her around, so it doesn't matter. And if she can joke about it what's the problem? Frankly, if I was an actor and people were NOT making fake porn out of me, I'd be depressed and worried about my career;-)
I disagree, I think the article is interesting and very relevant. Much of Joss's writings are about female empowerment and the injustices that sometimes surround it. It's rather eerie when the real world come crashing in and drives that point home. Epecially when the editor used Joss's writing and characters as an example of women's rights. That Afghan article does sound very interesting and indeed relevant.
I have to say I would agree with that.
Yeah how did this go from talking about Sarah's decision to not do nudity in her work to preaching against homosexuality?? Reaally curious about that one.
EdDantes | November 26, 14:48 CET
The humour to one side, am I the only one who thinks this state of affairs is a little sad?
Returning to the specific topic, there have been many interesting opinions expressed here, but in the end surely Gellar is simply making a personal decision about what she wishes to do. I don't think it is intended to be a profound statement of intent.
Regarding the post by BforBeth, I might be completely wrong and obviously I need to allow her to respond, but I think her comment may have been misinterpreted.
(Edit to slightly amend the second paragraph to make it clearer.)
[ edited by dashboardprophet on 2005-11-27 02:43 ]
alien lanes | November 26, 15:03 CET
I agree with Ed--it doesn't really matter. After all, people can just photoshop her head on a nude woman's body and have a party that way too. The only thing that offends me about it is the double standard. It's okay for women to do nude scene but men don't do it nearly as much. And if a woman's morals aren't on the line for this type of thing, then why does it pay so good? This opinion varies from person to person, of course. But in many cases I find it gratuitous. But hey, if Sarah wants to take it off, atleast we know she'll walk away with an Oscar.
Yay Hollywood.
Also, "Yeah how did this go from talking about Sarah's decision to not do nudity in her work to preaching against homosexuality??"
^^Still not sure. But I wouldn't mind going back to talking about James' full-frontal :)
MySerenity | November 26, 15:03 CET
I had to think for a moment as to how you made that conection--and I went back and re-read and then 'bing.' It was the word: 'slash.'
When I said slash--I didn't mean the fanfic phrase--but slash as in the old school context; (maybe some of my grey hairs are showing here; and this is a generation gap thing.) I was thinking of slash flics, as in destroy the flesh, ripping women in two while they run screamming in scant clothing. The combination of violence with nudity stimulating two different emotional centers and then combining them into one confused sensation.
I can't see how films that do that are helpful in this world--unless it's a movie like American Psycho--that is talking specificly about that issue as one of it's themes. Using the trick of mix and match sensual combo platter but commenting on it at the same time. That is brilliant. I guess the distinction would be--how do I respond to this? What is this making me feel? Can I endorse this movie? Would I want my kids to see it and at what age? That simple guide tells all about what is a slash (meaning violent) flic Vs a social commentary.
In my opinion, the sexual orientaion of people and what they do in common consent is all good. Love is love and if two people regardless of sex can find a way to love each other in this world; then I'm all for it.
I'm talking about how some films use nudity to stimulate a physical reaction and then take this sensual reaction and lace it with violent images with an end toward creating an all together different response in the viewer.
The naked body is very stimulating to the eye and senses and is a powerful medium in any storytelling. It is a powerful catalyst that can be used to hotwire directly into our human vitals and so I think should be recognized as such and respected as such.
Most actors understand about the power of storytelling and prefer to be responsible for what they contribute their energies to; at least the actors I know, feel that way. And so when actors make decisions about nudity, they understand that they are making a decision that will effect a lot of people and something that will be out there for a long time.
Hope that helps.
BforBeth | November 26, 15:33 CET
Thanks so much for the clarification, and my apologies for jumping to conclusions!!
As for what you actually meant, I agree. Besides the totally unnecessary 'bouncing boobs of doom' in those horror movies, I 'love' how it ties sex with a gruesome punishment!
Rogue Slayer | November 26, 15:43 CET
Ooooohhhhhh okay. Gotcha, gotcha. Man, I was so wondering where you were coming from with that stuff! Serial killer horror films. Not gay sex. Okay. I think those are usually called 'slasher films' rather than 'slash films' though. Aren't they? Man, talk about a slight miscommunication there, hehe. Words do change meaning don't they? Of course, even the word 'gay' itself just used to mean 'happy'.... ;-)
Anyway, yeah I would agree with you there, BforBeth. I never liked the idea that we should be turned on by naked girls, and then get a kick out of watching them get nakedly butchered. That's indeed a weird combo that can't be doing the teenage mind a lot of good.
Funny thing though is that the guy who kind of started the genre, John Carpenter with Halloween, never intended a lot of the perceived elements in that film. That whole idea of the 'naughty' teenagers getting killed while the 'good virginal' teenager survives became a cliche of sexual activites being 'punished' in those films. Carpenter said in interviews that was about the opposite of what he intended. To him, those teenagers were just engaging in normal teenage behaviour. His idea was that Jamie Lee Curtis' character was a little different, more of a loner with a tougher, dark side and that that is what helps her survive the killer. And he actually hardly showed any nudity or blood ironically enough. So it's always difficult putting out something because people can misinterpret the hell out of things ;)
EdDantes | November 26, 15:55 CET
MySerenity | November 26, 17:45 CET
Simon | November 26, 18:29 CET
garda39 | November 26, 18:51 CET
Madhatter | November 26, 19:11 CET
eddy | November 26, 19:37 CET
Edit: Mrs Gossi agrees if I ran my own site like this it would be called BringingYouJosssPainAndSuffering.com. Which is why I don't run a site like this :o)
[ edited by gossi on 2005-11-27 03:04 ]
gossi | November 26, 19:52 CET
Anyhoo, I dislike gratuitous nudity as it tends to be a lame cover for a lack of imagination on the whole. It's fine if it's in context etc, no problem there. But I wont condemn any actor or actress for either doing those scenes or refusing to do them. It is their right to do what they feel is best for them.
lynnie | November 26, 20:01 CET
herb | November 26, 20:11 CET
also, this is quite a slow day for us :)
MySerenity | November 26, 22:11 CET
Of course it doesn't harm anyone, but that's certainly not the approach I was taking to this topic anyway. I was suggesting a few reasons why SMG might not be keen to appear nude in a film, and I think it's a fair point that some people may not be comfortable with lots of people around the world getting off while looking at them naked. I wasn't suggesting that SMG was hugely offended by the fake porn out there, so whether or not she can joke about it isn't really relevant (although just because you're able to joke about something doesn't mean you're not offended by it). I would be tempted to suggest that she can joke about the fake porn because it's just that; completely fake. Trying to place myself in her position for a minute or two, I'd feel there was a huge difference between pictures with my head photoshopped onto another body being available on the internet, versus real pictures of me naked. Maybe others wouldn't and that's fine. Again, I was simply speculating with regards to her feelings on this issue.
[ edited by Impossible on 2005-11-27 06:11 ]
Impossible | November 26, 22:50 CET
ShotgunWes | November 27, 00:41 CET
Sure I understand what you mean, and you may be right. I guess I just personally doubt it's a big thing for her. I could of course be completely wrong, but Sarah seems to have a very level head about being a famous actress and the stuff that comes with it. And if she did do nude scenes, she would not have a problem with her real naked body being seen on screen, so I doubt it would matter much if those shots were used in the fake porn.
And as you say from what I've seen, most of it is SO fake it's more funny than anything else. What I found more disturbing in a strange way is that on Ebay you can actually buy prints of Sarah and Eliza and other actresses photoshopped onto other women's bodies. It's not porn, (mostly FHM style cheese cake shots but just a little more raunchy than the actresses have done themselves) and they're called 'Fantasies'. At least he's not pretending they're real, but he's still just making money off of actors and I'm not sure how you can do that on a prolific site like Ebay without getting slapped down.
Oh and I once came across an auction there of a 'picture of Sarah Michelle Gellar'. It wasn't fake. It simply wasn't her. Even slightly. Just some 'girls gone wild'-type blonde in a wet tshirt that didn't even remotely resembled Sarah. But people were bidding....The net's a funny thing.
EdDantes | November 27, 01:15 CET
ShotgunWes | November 27, 02:10 CET
I think paying for something that is fake is the backbone of the movie/tv/book industries! :~P
Rogue Slayer | November 27, 03:10 CET
gossi | November 27, 03:21 CET
ShotgunWes | November 27, 06:06 CET
Palehorse, Ewan Mcgregor. Now there's a fella who has no problem getting his old fella out for the ladies! ;)
'Velvet Goldmine', funny, silly , Iggy Pop style. Yay...Free Willy!
'About Adam', almost porn...? Well, no, but enough to make my eyes bug out!
Oh and the pause button may have gotten a little damaged that night. ;)
Not sayin anything! (heh heh)
nixygirl | November 27, 09:30 CET
That wasn't the point I was trying to make. I just wanted the room to respect our MODs. I wish to apolgize if this was a problem.
Now, on this topic of SMG in the nude. Hmmm, as a straight human male still breathing, I would climb several theater seats to get a closer look. However, in all honestly, I really don't care on her choice of the matter. It also doesn't change how I feel about her acting abilities. She's a wonderful actress, whether I see her boobs or not, 'hello' still listening.
I'm sorry, knew I shouldn't have plugged into this topic.
Madhatter | November 27, 10:33 CET
"I saw that production of The Tempest that James was in at the Goodman years ago...and not only was he nakitidy a la nude--he was spreadeagle on a wheel and rolled on stage like the third dimension extention of Da Vinci's perfect man. Now, James is beautiful and the image was perfect, it worked, he looked like that anatomy drawing, perfect man bod and long Da Vinci curly hair hanging from the head like dread locks; but I gotta say that image was burned onto my brain so well I can remember it even now and so yeah, every decision an actor makes stays with them FOREVER."
BforBeth? Is there anyway we could do some kind of a quick Mind meld kind of thing? Draw me a picture? Oh well.
Xane | November 28, 03:03 CET