Posted on 03/03/2021 8:21:18 AM PST by SeekAndFind
During her appearance on the Armchair Expert podcast, actress Salma Hayek opened up about a traumatic experience on the set of her breakout film, Desperado. After Hayek went through six auditions and a screen test, securing her role as the female lead, the studio added something that wasn’t included in the original script—a sex scene:
I had a really, really hard time with that. . . . I started to sob: “I don’t know that I can do it, I don’t know that I can do it. . . .” I was not letting go of the towel, and they would try to make me laugh and things, and take it off for two seconds, and then [making crying noise] I started crying again. But we got through it.
Hayek is not the first movie star to face sexual coercion. In the entertainment industry, the pressure placed on actors — and women in particular — to undress or sexually act out for the camera is tragically commonplace. In the wake of Harvey Weinstein’s downfall, actor abuse has come into sharper focus, but the problem is far from solved.
The blame game
When evaluating a situation like Salma Hayek’s, it’s easy to simplify matters so as to lay the blame at the actress’ feet: “Well, she shouldn’t have done that.” The reality, however, is more complex, and Scripture can help us better discern this complexity. Consider the following stories:
Each of these situations shows men abusing their positions of authority and using women as pawns. And in each situation, God, through Holy Scripture, refuses to simply point the finger of blame first — or solely — at the women involved.
Coming back to Salma Hayek’s situation in Desperado: ignoring the blatantly coercive actions of those in control gives the appearance, if not the reality, of victim blaming. We can fault actresses all day long for caving in to pressure. They are, after all, moral agents just like the rest of us, culpable for their actions. Nevertheless, we fail to mirror our Savior’s heart for undeserving sinners when we refuse to even acknowledge the amount of coercion some actresses receive.
The ugly, the bad, and the good
We could lay the blame at the feet of the film’s producers. The studio executives who threaten and bully and intimidate share a hefty portion of the guilt. It is their position of authority and influence, leveraged against those under them, that has created what TIME Magazine has called “a tradition of objectifying female characters.”
And yet, merely blaming studio executives is still simplistic. Megalomaniacs like Harvey Weinstein are easy targets, but the obvious bad guys aren’t the only ones playing the role of bad guy. Sometimes even the good guys wear black hats (so to speak).
In the case of Desperado, Hayek shares how director Robert Rodriguez and his then-wife, Elizabeth Avellán, “were amazing” and “so magnificent” in how they didn’t rush her during the bed scene. But as two of the four producers on the film, Rodriguez and Avellán could have used their positions with even greater efficacy, fighting against the inclusion of the sex scene in the first place (which they apparently did not).
Even Antonio Banderas, whom Hayek says “was an absolute gentleman and super nice,” contributed to the problem. He treated the gratuitous sex scene as no big deal, which only exacerbated Hayek’s anxiety: “[F]or him, it was like nothing, and that scared me…and I was so embarrassed that I was crying.”
Furthermore, says Hayek, Banderas “was like, ‘Oh, my God, you are making me feel terrible.’” So here is a woman distraught over the situation she’s been forced into, and her scene partner layers on the guilt (inadvertently, to be sure) by proclaiming how uncomfortable her discomfort is making him.
Suppliers and demanders
At this point, it might be tempting to proclaim a blanket condemnation on all “depraved entertainers” and leave it at that. But there’s one more guilty party whose involvement warrants examination. This participant, while less obvious, is no less culpable. It is the collective entity of the viewing audience. In other words, it’s moviegoers like you and me.
Films and shows with problematic content exist because of supply and demand. The entertainment industry is a money-making machine, and it gives us what we ask for. We demand and it supplies.
“Demand” may sound like an unfair description, especially for those of us who decry hypersexualized entertainment. But here’s the reality: when we financially support a piece of pop culture that objectifies its actors, we are perpetuating the very thing we say we deplore. We may fast forward through the sex scene, or close our eyes during the nudity, or use a filtering service to avoid the objectionable content, but we are failing to recognize our role as consumers. From an economic standpoint, there is no functional difference between begrudging patronage and willing patronage. Both actions communicate to Hollywood what we consider acceptable fare.
In the hard-hitting words of Christian film critic Steven D. Greydanus,
You can justify your lack of empathy, or even sympathy, for women working anywhere in the world by shrugging and saying “They shouldn’t be rolling around [in the mud] with pigs.” . . . Incidentally. If you watch movies or TV? You are creating the demand for “mud.” Yes, women have a choice, but so do you, and if you’re paying for it, and you are in one way or another, then you don’t get to shrug your shoulders about what goes on in that world as if it had nothing to do with you.
“More like this, please”
According to the parable of the Good Samaritan, actresses like Salma Hayek are our neighbors. Even if we don’t personally know them. Even if we simply pass by them on the other side of the movie screen. Even if we only pay them indirectly to entertain us.
But they are our neighbors. And we are called, not to condemn them like self-righteous Pharisees, but to love them in word, thought, and deed. And those deeds involve the tickets we buy, the media we purchase, and the shows we stream.
There’s a saying worth remembering: “Hit movies will only ever tell studios one thing: ‘More like this, please.’”
“More like this, please.” Is that what we want the creators of sexualized entertainment to hear from us?
Cap Stewart is the author of the curriculum Personal Purity Isn’t Enough: The Long-Forgotten Secret to Making Scriptural Entertainment Choices. As a cultural commentator, he has contributed to Cultural Engagement: A Crash Course in Contemporary Issues (Zondervan Acad
Quite right
Just Google Hayek nude in their images tab, she is already all out there.
In fact, anytime I watch movies now I google nude pics of all actresses, pretty much all have nude scenes on display, fun times! LOL
Phones are so smart, show us the nipple!
Try watching any movie from the 80s that’s wasn’t rated ‘G’ (general audiences) and they all had nudity and/or sex scenes.
Okay not all, but the exceptions were rare. I think the screen plays were all made ala carte and they almost always picked every items; sex scene, car chase, shoot out, fist fight, tearful confession, etc. etc. It was formulaic!
I think plots and screen plays got more sophisticated after the 90s, as long as they weren’t action movies driven by special effects. Then they were even more formulaic and predictable.
I think most Americans do not have puritanical views of the human body, although most think children should be sheltered from sexualized nutidty. The strange phenomenon that seems so ironic is that the feminist agenda on social issues are strangely cross sectional with the old social conservatives. Issues like nudity of film, or girls being pressured into sex, were once more in the social political mantle of the dan quayle ‘family values’ camp.
Consumers...I reckon Hyak was paid...
Nope somewhat disagree, outside my family it is my duty to uphold the dignity of women who are worth a damn.
What a nonsense article.
She’s lying.
It’s all fake and manipulative, everything these people do with their publicists and political allies.
Manipulative propaganda and CYA all at the same time. Pretend they have a semblance of a mural center.
I thought Seth was the best host they had in years, as liberal as he may be.
Go back to 1968! Up until then the Hays Code which gave guidelines for proper movie scenes.
Then the murder of Bobby Kennedy which brought about a revulsion of violence on TV, comics, movies, pulp fiction covers.
Adult TV shows, still safe for kids, dumbed down to kiddie shows. magazines changed their covers , movies on TV were butchered beyond recognition to remove “violence”.
But the movie industry got a pass when they said they would “police themselves” with a joke of a ratings system.
“Hot dog! The Hays Code is dead! If you got it film it!” and scenes were reshot adding more blood, guts, violence and rank sex scents to many movies, to get the now coveted “R” or “X” ratings.
In order to get people used to this they also began to slowly add vile cursing in more mild shows.
A movie rated “R” in 1969 would now be rated PG or PG-13.
I saw a “G” rated western in 1969. I saw it again not long back on a cable channel. This one would have been rated a heavy “R” if released in 1969. Same actors same show but more nudity.
Exactly. And they twist themselves into pretzels trying to describe how a man should respectfully work and socialize with female employees AND still condemn Mike Pence for following their advice.
Love (sex) scenes are placed in movies for WOMEN.
Men find them tedious and distracting, generally.
The story and/or action is far more important. Or simple, gratuitous nudity.
Don’t let this, or any other author/advocate tell you otherwise.
>>actress Salma Hayek opened up about a traumatic experience on the set of her breakout film, Desperado. After Hayek went through six auditions and a screen test, securing her role as the female lead, the studio added something that wasn’t included in the original script—a sex scene
Blame director Robert Rodriguez.
He used the casting couch and called Rose McGowan his “girlfriend” when he was promising her lead roles in movies, including Red Sonja which he never made.
Her reaction -- TOTALLY justified. Because, you know, women are important.
His reaction -- WHAT A PIG. Because, you know, men are pigs.
It's the 21st century. Let's stop with the double standards. It should be OK for me to say that HE handled it well, and SHE acted inappropriately.
And if I can't say that? Maybe she would be a housewife and give up this silly notion of having a job. Get me a sammich.
Executive Producer Harvey Weinstein
I will leave aside the line drawing question of how far to go on costuming and scenes in which sexual activity is implied or depicted. We would not have to retreat all the way to the Hays Code to develop decent and enforceable standards. It might be a first step to prohibit outright nudity; there are always other ways to shoot the scene, and the graphic sex scenes would largely disappear if nudity were prohibited. We can go on from there. The Selma Hayek situation raises another question; perhaps there should be an absolute ban on adding nudity and sex scenes AFTER actors (of both sexes) are signed and shooting has started. That's entrapment, and even if an actor draws the line and says no, she risks being labelled as difficult and being blackballed. Producers should have some flexibility to rewrite scripts as they get into production, but one could draw an absolute line on sex because of the inherently abusive situation in which it places actors.
The offscreen sexual predation is a different question. The issue there is the gross disparity of power between producers and directors on one hand, and actors on the other. This happens in other industries as well, where favors, jobs or promotions may be doled out in return for sex. I suspect the big difference in the film industry is that actors have always been operating in a gig economy. They move from project to project. They are always worried about the next job. And for young women trying to break in, they are competing in a saturated market in which talent is certainly important, but looks are too, and in which there are endless numbers of young women willing to sell out for the role. This is an open door for predators and there's no easy solution for it.
A final thought. A lot of excellent movies are being made but are often not highly promoted. Part of the problem is the Hollywood hype machine, which places outsized emphasis on edgy and sexualized content. The streamers do the same thing; all of them have enormous libraries of films, most of which are fine, but when you look at their landing pages and recommendations, they heavily over-feature highly sexualized trash aimed at teen and young adult markets. Good movies are available, but you have to look for them.
I will venture one very tentative observation: of the streaming services to which I have access, Amazon Prime seems to do the best job of generating "because you watched ..." recommendations that fit my viewing profile. Mostly I come to films via reviews, but Amazon does make some good recommendations. The others are a matter of looking for a needle in a haystack; the good stuff is there, somewhere, but you have to know what you're seeking. I also pay attention to the "most overlooked" and "most underrated" lists from reviewers I like. I generally know what movie I want and then figure out where to find it, as opposed to browsing the streamers looking for something to watch (which I think is what a lot of the viewership does ... and that's part of the problem). Many reviewers clearly dislike the endless franchise films, overhyped action films, and sexploitation trash; there is a market out there for good cinema, stripped of the abuses.
This statement isn't really the truth. I remember a little movie called "The Passion of Christ" that broke all records, and yet was fought tooth and nail to stop production and distribution and Gibson was finally destroyed in the business. He's supposedly has a "part 2" coming, but again no help from anybody. God's not Dead is another. There is a list of hits that everyone knows was a big hit, but because it came from the middle class patriot Christians pocketbooks, the left won't support more like it.
Satan is right in the big middle of this industry to change the population to look more like Bill Clinton and Weinstein. Epstein and Weinstein provided money for these "Hits". How many "Saw" movies do you need to counteract one "Passion" movie? Do you ever think a bigger budget might help movies like "War Room? When we get a factual movie like Noah, Hollywood sends us Noah where "rock people" build the Ark and there is a stow away on the Ark that meets a survivor on the open water. Or how about "Exodus: Gods and Kings" where God is a child or how about "The Shack" where God is a black woman and the writer doesn't even believe in Hell? The "Ten Commandments" has to be one of the best movies at the box office ever, but Hollywood sends a bunch of blasphemy and Independents gives us anything else with bad acting and bad special effects.
The Money People would rather make 20 horror movies with women murdered in their underwear than one blockbuster with every Christian in the world making a point to see it. They know what sells but continue with the lowest common denominator. How tough would it be to make another movie like "Old Yeller" with a modern twist? Every time Christians make a movie a blockbuster, Hollywood shrugs and produces more vomit and finances more filth.
They really don't want more like it.
“I started to sob”
I hope the waaaaambulance came to your rescue.
I think is a really important part of the story. There is a human tendency to try to hold tight to something we "worked" for and have grown attached to. and it's sadly natural to compromise when we feel it slipping away.
I don't know, but she seems to be implying that if they just told it to her up front she never would have auditioned.
And the studio probably got that reaction plenty of times which is why they probably planned this bait and switch from the beginning. The scene was probably in the first draft of the script and then left out temporarily during the auditions, rather than being added in as an afterthought.
The solution is to not become attached to things, lest they drag you down.
My favorite metaphor was a tightrope walker over niagara falls in the 70's. He broght a chair to sit on and then it slipped from his grasp before he used it. A journalist who was there said his hand naturally began to reach for the thing that was falling, but then his many years of practice and experience kicked in and he just let it go. The journalist said that if he had caught it (which any normal person would have done) the tug as he grabbed it would have pulled him right over into the falls.
Don't worry Selma, dear. Your life clock is about to expire for people wanting to see you nekkid.
Antonio's probably did, too at this point. I haven't seen a movie in years so no idea if he is still out there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.