"Emilia Clarke reveals Hollywood's other #MeToo problem"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe that I’m responsible for my own sin since I have free will. The devil, the world and the flesh are sources of temptation that I am supposed to resist. Do these people not have free will because the devil is dangling money and fame in front of them?

Do you know why the punishment is so great for causing (tempting) the little ones to sin? Because they may well go to hell for their sins, that they chose to commit of their own free will.

Not thinking that the woman who gave in to temptation is a hero for speaking out about the devil who tempted her doesn’t mean that I think the devil isn’t evil.
 
Last edited:
Lea101 said:
I think this is a lack of understanding about the industry. Actors do not have as much power as you think, especially for her case where she wasn’t as known as she is now.
Click to expand...
However, GOT was not the first HBO show to feature nekkid people, so it’s a bit disingenuous for her to pretend like she didn’t expect it.
 
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
However, GOT was not the first HBO show to feature nekkid people, so it’s a bit disingenuous for her to pretend like she didn’t expect it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and let’s not kid ourselves. GoT was Gothic/ Ren Faire fantasy soft core porn in large part.
Everybody knew it and that’s pretty much why they were watching it.
 
Pai_Nosso said:
Standing up to what? You make it sound like she was forced to do it.
Click to expand...
I never said or implied that.

She got in over head, realized she was doing something wrong that made her feel uncomfortable, and finally gathered the courage to speak out.

I’ve made some stupid choices in my youth because I felt under pressure and didn’t have the moxie to stand up for myself. That didn’t make those choices right. But if we can pull the plank out of our self-righteous eyes, I think a lot of us who’ve lived long enough can admit we’ve been in a situation where we struggled to keep healthy boundaries and do the right thing.

We’re Catholic, for crying out loud. This is how sin and reconciliation work! She’s probably not Catholic, but good grief, she has a conscience.

This is an article about empowerment, not victimhood.

Or would you rather see her continue to strip for the camera?
 
Last edited:
Another thought: Did you know that it’s a sin to ask somebody to perform erotic acts for a film? But by all means, let’s focus solely on the actress, not the people who asked her to do it.
 
Edit: @Tis_Bearself, sorry for the misattribution. Corrected. Post was from @LilyM
Ever hear the saying “women control men”?). Women have long used sex as a form of power
Click to expand...
Often because all other forms of power were denied them.
Sometimes because they were forced to ‘offer’ sex.
Prostitution is not a form of power for the prostitute, especially when the other choice is starvation.
 
Last edited:
MiserereMeiDei said:
None of this will stop nude scenes. That takes the courage of people willing to not get the job, not of those who did it and don’t have to anymore.
Click to expand...
It would take the courage of every woman to be willing to not get the job. It won’t make a difference if 100 women turn down a role on principle and we never hear about them because there is always a woman who will take the role.

I didn’t read the article, and I don’t know anything about what this actress knew and when she knew it. But I think as Catholics we should be supportive of famous celebrities speaking out against a Hollywood culture that objectifies women and pressures young actresses into doing nude sex scenes on camera. If women like her don’t speak out against it, things are not going to improve.

Whether we have personal sympathy for her specific situation or not, we should all be able to agree that her speaking out against it is a positive thing.
 
Last edited:
@Zaccheus, please fix your post so that the quote you give is NOT attributed to me. I did not post that here; it’s from a previous poster, I believe LilyM.

I posted a comment about Scripture in response.

Please edit to attribute the quote to the right poster. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Pattylt said:
I remember reading that the actress that played Arya was able to dictate her single sex scene. It was shot at angles that didn’t show what she didn’t want to show. Of course, this was by season 5, I think. It’s not like they could dismiss her at that point. She was quite young in the first season and there weren’t any sex scenes for the Stark children. I read what Emilia wrote about the first season. It was her first major role and the first season had nudity and sex all over the place which dropped off significantly after that.
Click to expand...
Yes, they were all bigger names by then and not replaceable. I believe Clarke put her foot down in season four and refused to do any more nude shots even though her contract didn’t have any clauses excluding them, and the studio just had to accept it because Clarke went from a no-name to an iconic character in the series.
 
jack63 said:
I would be sincerely curious if she was simply unable to find a part in another one of the ~85% of shows and movies where actors and actresses keep their clothing on. No doubt playing Daenerys is a massive career changing role, but was this really the only good opportunity she had?
Click to expand...
Probably. She wasn’t well known before, and many actors who are not A listers will tell you that it’s incredibly hard to land a good TV series. For every character, producers will usually see 50+ actors, especially if the show is a big deal.

I also doubt that she auditioned knowing of these scenes. Most of the time, contracts are signed even before the full script is written. It’s very likely that she found herself in a pickle. Even if she knew she was going to be nude, she may have felt that it was fine until she actually had to do it. That’s fine. People change.

Either way you want to look at it, there was a point where she had to do a nude scene and she was forced to do it. I used forced because it’s obvious that there’s a point where she didn’t want to do it, and she had to. Not forced as in to imply she was told on the day of filming to bare it all.

Like what I said earlier, she’s not Catholic. She’s probably not religious at all. People here are injecting their own views into the situation. She probably didn’t want to be nude not because it’s immoral, but because she’s scared to be seen naked. If you’re against it for the former, it’s easier to walk off and face the backlash. If it’s the latter, you would most likely force yourself to go through ‘something unpleasant’ and feel like crap later.
 
Last edited:
2010: She signed contract to get naked and cash in

2019: She pretends she didn’t know she agreed to get naked to further cash in, under #metoo

At least she’s consistent - she always does whatever it takes to cash in.
 
I would think movies like Schindler’s List require the use of nudity not only for historical accuracy, but for people to grasp the gravity of the situation these people suffered in. I don’t know if subjecting yourself to a movie with graphic content like this is acceptable when alternative options like books are available. Definitely no pleasure is being derived from a movie of this kind, so I assume it’s morally acceptable and yes, determined by context.
 
Yes Pawnbroker (1964) was first movie in US that permitted nude scenes and included Holocaust scenes. I understand the argument that the subject matter makes the nude scenes necessary for historical purposes. Solid argument. The issue isn’t that but that once you permit nudity in one movie, the floodgates are now open. Pandora’s box cannot be shut. And that’s precisely what happened. It seems that permitting nudity in film is an all or nothing thing. There is no nuance, when it comes to practical application.
 
Last edited:
Lea101 said:
there was a point where she had to do a nude scene and she was forced to do it.
Click to expand...
I respectfully and strongly disagree with this. She signed on to HBO, and she was at least talented enough to get a role in a soap opera where many young actresses and actors start. She would not have needed to bare all in a soap opera.
 
twf said:
People on this thread are coming across as very judgmental and harsh.
Click to expand...
The article and her attitude that she was a victim and had no choice in this matter bother me far far more than her nudity in GoT.

Catholics are taught humility and taught to accept that they are sinners in confession. That is what is missing from this article.
 
Last edited:
Aquinas11 said:
once you permit nudity in one movie, the floodgates are now open. Pandora’s box cannot be shut .
Click to expand...
To get a better understanding of your viewpoint, do you believe that of all art forms?
Aquinas11 said:
There is no nuance
Click to expand...
Overall, I don’t think we’re far off from each other, but this quote gives me pause. No nuance seems puritanical to me. Of course, the human condition being what it is will eventually steer to vulgarity. But to say there is no nuance is a leap I’m not sure is correct. I recommend wisdom, conscience, knowledge, prudence, etc before I advise complete renouncement.
 
Last edited:
Aquinas11 said:
2010: She signed contract to get naked and cash in

2019: She pretends she didn’t know she agreed to get naked to further cash in, under #metoo

At least she’s consistent - she always does whatever it takes to cash in.
Click to expand...
Or:
2010: She signed a contract to work as an actress (which she is) and make a living.
2019: Now she’s got enough clout that she doesn’t have to choose between nudity on (producer’s) demand and having an income.

And it’s not wrong to want to have a paying job.
 
Aquinas11 said:
that’s not the quote, that’s a quote fragment.
Click to expand...
😏 Thank you for clarifying that.
Aquinas11 said:
There is no nuance, when it comes to practical application.
Click to expand...
aper1 said:
Overall, I don’t think we’re far off from each other, but this quote gives me pause. No nuance seems puritanical to me. Of course, the human condition being what it is will eventually steer to vulgarity. But to say there is no nuance is a leap I’m not sure is correct. I recommend wisdom, conscience, knowledge, prudence, etc before I advise complete renouncement.
Click to expand...
To be clear, my response is in the context of no nuance in a practical application as mentioned. 🙂
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top