|
Post by topbilled on Oct 9, 2023 1:37:31 GMT
I was watching an episode of Hunter tonight on freevee. It was a season four episode called 'Naked Justice' which is a two-parter. The plot hinges on the fact that an actress with considerable box office clout is murdered, but why?
As Hunter (Fred Dryer) and McCall (Stepfanie Kramer) dig deep, they learn that the actress was killed because she refused to do nude scenes after signing for the film which was expected to be a blockbuster. The top producer decided to hire a hitman to kill her off, so they would still turn a profit because they were insured against her untimely death. Supposedly if they had done the film without nude scenes, it wouldn't have turned a profit.
But my question, or rather thought, is this...even if she had a clause not to perform nude scenes and wouldn't be talked around to performing them, couldn't they have still used a body double with an unknown who physically resembled her to do the nude shots? Or would that also have violated her contract with the producers?
If I am not mistaken, some of Janet Leigh's naked shower scenes in PSYCHO were done by a double. So it's not like this was not a standard practice on Hollywood motion pictures.
Anyone know anything about nude scene clauses in contracts? I bet plenty of popular actresses today (maybe even male actors) still have things written into their contracts about nudity. I just don't know the specifics and cannot really decide if the plot of this Hunter episode was totally believable or not.
|
|
|
Post by kims on Oct 9, 2023 2:39:38 GMT
I don't have a definitive answer. I have read many books about films, actors, etc and watched many interviews. There does not seem to be a standardized clause. Some actresses require a body double, and Gina Lolobrigida said she wore a body stocking. Lucille Ball told her daughter and other young actresses not to do nude scenes-producers, directors were using them cheaply to entice audiences. Well, maybe. Lucy has a point. How many young actresses develop a career? Is one factor that they had a good figure and no other talent?
The premise I find hard to accept in your episode is that anyone would know if a film would turn a profit with or without nudity-unless, of course, it's a porno flick.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 9, 2023 2:54:58 GMT
I don't have a definitive answer. I have read many books about films, actors, etc and watched many interviews. There does not seem to be a standardized clause. Some actresses require a body double, and Gina Lolobrigida said she wore a body stocking. Lucille Ball told her daughter and other young actresses not to do nude scenes-producers, directors were using them cheaply to entice audiences. Well, maybe. Lucy has a point. How many young actresses develop a career? Is one factor that they had a good figure and no other talent? The premise I find hard to accept in your episode is that anyone would know if a film would turn a profit with or without nudity-unless, of course, it's a porno flick. Well the episode was broadcast in February 1988...so probably the actress in the story was meant to be someone as big or important as Michelle Pfeiffer or Daryl Hannah was at that time. An actress whose participation, even if the script was bad, would still bring in x-number of dollars because her career was hot and she'd sell tickets no matter what. But if she did a nude scene, then it might increase the box office with repeat business.
There is dialogue in the episode where the producers tell Hunter and McCall that the film was sure to be a hit, making anywhere from $50 million to $100 million on a budget of $34 million. Again, I don't know how realistic it all was...but it made wonder about nudity clauses and I am sure with a body double and careful editing, the producers and director could still create the illusion that the actress was naked in the movie even if she really wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by kims on Oct 9, 2023 12:54:33 GMT
I think producers and studio execs may be optimistic about their box office. I don't think any star can guarantee x-number of dollars, but the premise of the story may be their confidence that their star could do so. I have one example, not of film with nudity, but of producers' confidence misplaced: THE WIZ-Diana Ross, Michael Jackson, Lena Horne, Richard Pryor, directed by Sidney Lumet, and at the time an expensive project. I loved the sets, the songs like "Ease on Down the Road". I did think Ross was too old to be Dorothy, but how could THE WIZ lose? Well, it didn't even make back half its cost during theatrical release.
You are right producers, backers think they can predict box office.
|
|
|
Post by intrepid37 on Oct 9, 2023 13:04:43 GMT
Easy - I certainly wasn't the least bit surprised that it lost money. The Wizard of Oz was one of the most beloved movies of the entire 20th century - a cultural icon that had a once per year showing on TV that was an event we kids would talk about for weeks leading up to the broadcasting of it. Trust me - none of us wanted or needed a "black" version. We gave its box office better than it deserved as far as I'm concerned. Most of us still have no desire to see it.
|
|
|
Post by I Love Melvin on Oct 9, 2023 13:33:30 GMT
I'm assuming that even if lawyers were negotiating nudity on a case-by-case basis for their clients there would have been at least some kind of boilerplate language they could all adopt. But on the other hand, it may have been more a matter of actors and actresses signing some kind of release, a studio document which may or may not have been negotiable. Of course, in the era you're talking about, the 1980's, it wouldn't necessarily involve studios; it would involve a contract with the producer, as in the case you mentioned. I hope someone can answer this because it's an interesting question.
I think by the 1980's there wasn't as much notoriety about celebrity nudity, but there was still a high level of public interest. The ice had been broken by appearances of actresses and actors in publications like Playboy, Penthouse and Playgirl., so the shock was lessened as it became more accepted, encouraging more people to do it. Especially for celebrities trying to maintain visibility, it became almost a rite of passage, sort of the way Dancing with the Stars is today. And films which had nudity to promote often did tie-ins with those publications, which meant an additional revenue stream and added publicity.
There's also the question of how much nudity. In the 1960's Liz Taylor lying nude under a skimpy towel in Cleopatra or Carroll Baker sitting naked at her dressing table (from the rear) in The Carpetbaggers was considered nudity. By the 1980's, not so much, so it became more a question of how nude, back or front, etc.? So for nudity clauses in contracts it may have become a question of degree by that point, so it could be tailored with some specificity for individuals. Again, I hope someone has the answers.
|
|
|
Post by intrepid37 on Oct 9, 2023 14:11:11 GMT
There's also the question of how much nudity. Level 1 nudity: bum Level 2 nudity: side boob Level 3 nudity: nipple Level 4 nudity: both nipples Level 5 nudity: pubic hair Level 6 nudity: full frontal complete body Level 7 nudity: multiple scenes of complete body and nipples
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 9, 2023 15:23:17 GMT
I'm assuming that even if lawyers were negotiating nudity on a case-by-case basis for their clients there would have been at least some kind of boilerplate language they could all adopt. But on the other hand, it may have been more a matter of actors and actresses signing some kind of release, a studio document which may or may not have been negotiable. Of course, in the era you're talking about, the 1980's, it wouldn't necessarily involve studios; it would involve a contract with the producer, as in the case you mentioned. I hope someone can answer this because it's an interesting question. I think by the 1980's there wasn't as much notoriety about celebrity nudity, but there was still a high level of public interest. The ice had been broken by appearances of actresses and actors in publications like Playboy, Penthouse and Playgirl., so the shock was lessened as it became more accepted, encouraging more people to do it. Especially for celebrities trying to maintain visibility, it became almost a rite of passage, sort of the way Dancing with the Stars is today. And films which had nudity to promote often did tie-ins with those publications, which meant an additional revenue stream and added publicity. There's also the question of how much nudity. In the 1960's Liz Taylor lying nude under a skimpy towel in Cleopatra or Carroll Baker sitting naked at her dressing table (from the rear) in The Carpetbaggers was considered nudity. By the 1980's, not so much, so it became more a question of how nude, back or front, etc.? So for nudity clauses in contracts it may have become a question of degree by that point, so it could be tailored with some specificity for individuals. Again, I hope someone has the answers. Yes, the episode of Hunter doesn't go into detail about the degree of nudity. It's mainly a plot device (her refusal to do the nude scenes provides a motive for the producer to have her killed). There is dialogue where an associate producer tells Hunter and McCall that the script had seven nude scenes, which seems like a lot. But I actually think that studios did have formulas, even in the 1980s, because they needed to be able to guess how much profanity, how much violence and how much nudity would nudge them up from PG-13 to R, especially after the PG-13 rating was introduced in the middle of the decade.
Also I remember reading something in the early 90s that said Mel Gibson exposing his backside in the period piece FOREVER YOUNG ensured the film would gross $100 million (which it did)...because he was peaking as a star after those Lethal Weapon pictures and any nudity involving him would boost ticket sales. This was probably all part of a star's negotiation process in discussing the particulars of the contract before signing on for a film. I think that is what this story of Hunter is alluding to, but in this case, the actress backs out of the deal and refuses to do the nudity so they have a problem.
As you say, there were tie-ins with adult magazines and sometimes also tie-ins with provocative ads for colognes and blue jeans, to cash in on a star's status as a sex symbol.
Interestingly, this episode of Hunter does not feature any lawyers...just the top producer, an associate producer, the director and the star's agent/manager. They are the key suspects in the murder, along with the star's sister who stands to inherit her estate.
|
|
|
Post by kims on Oct 9, 2023 22:09:01 GMT
Easy - I certainly wasn't the least bit surprised that it lost money. The Wizard of Oz was one of the most beloved movies of the entire 20th century - a cultural icon that had a once per year showing on TV that was an event we kids would talk about for weeks leading up to the broadcasting of it. Trust me - none of us wanted or needed a "black" version. We gave its box office better than it deserved as far as I'm concerned. Most of us still have no desire to see it. I remember Richard Boone and family hosting THE WIZARD OF OZ telecast. I still wanted to see THE WIZ-it would be so different as the title suggested. I was glad to watch it, not a member of those who consider THE WIZ a cult classic. You can't touch Judy as Dorothy and I admire the creativity of THE WIZ.
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Oct 9, 2023 23:12:23 GMT
Easy - I certainly wasn't the least bit surprised that it lost money. The Wizard of Oz was one of the most beloved movies of the entire 20th century - a cultural icon that had a once per year showing on TV that was an event we kids would talk about for weeks leading up to the broadcasting of it. Trust me - none of us wanted or needed a "black" version. We gave its box office better than it deserved as far as I'm concerned. Most of us still have no desire to see it. Who is this "us" you're claiming to represent?
|
|
|
Post by intrepid37 on Oct 10, 2023 0:34:49 GMT
Easy - I certainly wasn't the least bit surprised that it lost money. The Wizard of Oz was one of the most beloved movies of the entire 20th century - a cultural icon that had a once per year showing on TV that was an event we kids would talk about for weeks leading up to the broadcasting of it. Trust me - none of us wanted or needed a "black" version. We gave its box office better than it deserved as far as I'm concerned. Most of us still have no desire to see it. Who is this "us" you're claiming to represent? Us who don't give a shit about seeing Diana Ross move on down, move on down the road.
|
|