I think there's 4 nude trajectories for actresses:
1) Agree to appear nude early in their career. Probably gets them a part that they wouldn't get if they said no. If they gain some non-nude traction as actresses, they can refuse nude scenes indefinitely until their star fades.
2) Stars who gain fame early on, often in TV, can basically never need to do nude scenes if they don't want to. They have enough fame/bargaining power that it's not really necessary.
3) The artsy and/or desperate late career nude. Often used by actresses whose sell-by date is past looking for a career bump. They were either never-nudes or early-only nudes. Often the nudity is extensive full-frontal or involves an especially salacious scene. It's debatable how valuable it is, maybe it's a single paycheck, maybe they wind up doing a few more nudes, but I doubt many get a huge career boost without doing more nude scenes.
4) Always nudes -- actresses who have consistently done nude scenes throughout their careers. Strangely this is a weird mix of both highly regarded talent (think Kate Winslet) and low-talent exploitation.
I'm kind of always puzzled what the conversation would be like between someone like Winslet, who has done a lot of nude work and received a lot of awards, and someone like McElhone (or similar) who says "I won't do nudity". I can't decide if the "no nude" crowd is totally driven by their feelings about being nude or how much if it is just business, like they'd do it, but they're just not getting the price they want. Maybe it's a question of how much influence/star power they carry on the project, with the big stars getting benefits like cleared sets during there scenes, influence over how their scene is staged, etc, and the "medium" stars basically being told to show their tits.
reply
share