Wednesday, February 07, 2018

Blind Item #2

It looks like this former A list tweener actress turned B+ list mostly television actress on a decent cable show is not above hitting the casting couch for a role. She wanted the lead of a movie and everyone said no. The next thing you know, the no turned to a yes. What changed? Her willingness to sleep with the producer. I wonder if she told her boyfriend.

49 comments:

Tricia13 said...

Hillary Duff

filmfanb said...

Duff and that Manson movie.

Winston Smith said...

Is the casting couch a negative if both parties are consenting and you are talented enough for the part?

Kay said...

The presence of a casting couch is less defensible than the actresses who take advantage of it.

Joel Theriot said...

She's not the right person for that role. Sharon Tate was sexy. Duff is Jail-baity.

-B said...

but but but....I thought the time was up?

Newbomb said...

The producer must feel so used.

Brayson87 said...

+1 Tricia
If that was the requirement for the role then if she didn't it would have gone to someone else who did. Stay classy Hollywood.

Eowyn said...

Winston Smith said "Is the casting couch a negative if both parties are consenting and you are talented enough for the part?"

By consenting and participating in the casting couch, actresses like the one in this blind (Hillary Duff?) are fostering the practice and, in so doing, at least indirectly responsible for the victimization of women (and men) who refuse to whore themselves for a role.

Boldblonde said...

If both parties are willing and give their consent to a casting couch who are we to judge? If it's not Hillary, it'll be another actress who will be willing to do anything for that role.

Samantha Willow said...

Well look on the bright side: at least it isn't JLaw for once.

cebii said...

@Boldblonde - that attitude is why the casting couch exists and why women have so little power in the industry. Why is it up to women to fix the problem? Why can't men make the change and become decent human beings and give jobs to women who deserve them rather than those that demean themselves? It's a misogynistic power thing that our society has embraced forever.

Barbara RiceHand said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Glue said...

+1 @-B

Best Comment of the Day!

Anne T. said...

Sorry for what happened to you, Barbara. That guy sounds like a real jerk.

I still don’t understand how these actresses who CONSENTED to sleep with somebody for a role are victims. They do the deed, get the role, make tons of money and get tons of fame. Then they report it, after they have received the spoils. Isn’t that like having your cake and eating it too? Just my thoughts on the whole matter.

What would be BEST is if these actresses and actors all said NO like you did.

J said...

Hillary Duff as Sharon Tate? ??

Wasn't Eve Plumb available?

CocoWildacre said...

I will never understand the use of a casting couch for lead roles.....when tens or 100's of millions of dollars on the line, getting laid is the criteria for casting? Supporting and minor roles sure, I could see creeps going there. But this is a business and I can't understand the hubris of putting someone in an important role because they'll sleep with you. That has got to be the most expensive form of prostitution. Where are all the girls who will do a guy for a nice dinner or a weekend trip or some designer shoes?

cc423 said...

If you have to sleep with someone to get work, that is not consent, it is coercion.

fustian said...

There is a huge assumption here that the director told the actress: "Do me or you won't get the role."

But the way the blind is worded, it sounds to me like the director might have told the actress: "You're not right for the part."

Then our "actress" upped her offer.

AFTER THAT, the director decided, well, I guess I owe her the role.

I'm sure that many powerful men (and women) in Hollywood demand sex for the favors they can grant. It is, of course, awful.

But let's not pretend that there aren't a lot of very aggressive women (and men) throwing themselves at powerful people in exchange for things that they want.

Hollywood has been desperate to create the narrative "Men bad" to explain the pervnado, when I think the real narrative should actually be "Hollywood bad".

And: The only thing worse than a man is a woman and vice versa.

Or put another way, men and women can both be pretty awful and largely deserve each other.

J said...

cc423, "work" does not equal, nor does it imply, "starring role in major motion picture."

This is an important concept.

Ernie McCracken said...

+1 @fustian

hothotheat said...

Under the circumstances, her having to do something like this to get a job is sexual harassment.

I agree if this is Duff, she's not right for that part.

DDonna Tarttty said...

I actually find Duff an appealing actress but she is SO WRONG for this part, if she is indeed playing Sharon Tate. Sharon Tate was almost other-worldly beautiful. Hillary Duff is....cute.

plot said...

"If both parties are willing and give their consent to a casting couch who are we to judge? "

We can judge their shitty casting decisions based on the bias of their dicks, however.

Sara, Making It Work said...

How many damn movies are they making about this? This is the third I've heard about in the past week. And technically the first being made.

Carolina Prado said...

oh God No! Duff will not be able to pull it off as Sharon Tate. Sharon was tall and lean, Duff is short and stumpy.

Barbara RiceHand said...

@J...lol

SteveD said...

I always wonder how producers can put millions at risk by casting the wrong person in the lead for the sake of busting a nut. It's not like giving some hopeful starlet a background role.

Shawn McGuire said...

Jeez, instead of that warning, no animals were hurt in the making of this film, we need one that states, no one was raped or forced into sex for roles in this film. The government needs to slap a sticker on their movie posters and plaster it on the front of all trailers.

Jeweled Skye said...

UGH! If you're willing to 'pay to play' in the current climate, there is no downside. So, if Hillary Duff was willing to 'up the anty' in order to get the role, and the deed was done, they pretty much had to give her the role. Even if it were her doing the offering - and I don't know many men who would turn down a piece of ass if it were being offered (sans disease/non-rosie o'donnel appearance) - sorry guys... but if the deed is done and she doesn't get the part, then she gets a large write up in a legit paper and worldwide media exposure as a member of #MeToo naming names. Sex has always been a commodity that is willingly traded by some for preference by kings, money by johns, actors for parts. If it is willing and consensual and includes no minors / inebriation (by any substance) / or the forcible taking against one's will and weapons, the 'changed minds' / changes of heart / change of casting is and should be a moot point.

Muckduck said...

There is a difference between willingly hitting the couch and being forced and/or underage. If a person wants to offer themselves to further their career that is their business.

BayAreaGirl said...

I think the folks defending this transaction as "consensual" are missing the point about sexual harassment that this blind illustrates. When you cast or hire people based on who's willing to "play," you make objectively poor business decisions. You end up with someone who is not right for the role/job, while another more qualified candidate misses an opportunity based on actual merit.

Priviliged White Girl said...

Bingo!

Priviliged White Girl said...

Exactly!

Don Kieballs said...

If it was consensual, then she's helping support the casting couch.
If not, even if they're showing up for a private meeting and being assaulted, it is not on the actress/actor. It's assault. Not consensual = not consensual. If your career depends on it and you fear backlash or being blacklisted, I don't consider it consent. They could simply leave and say F an acting career, but that's a bullshit response. You shouldn't have to risk a career you love because pervs are in power.

Kno Won Uno said...

I can’t plus this enough. Great comment!

Kno Won Uno said...

Sure helps explain all the big-budget films that totally suck.
You’d think economics would kick in an someone would catch on that it’s really, really not worth a $100M box office flop.

La-Juice said...

What about the Emma Roberts girl?

Shawn McGuire said...

There’s no other industry where that would be acceptable. SAG needs to step in then and implement some controls on the sex for roles deals that are made. Neither party should be able to offer, accept, or deal in sex. Should be completely off the table. SAG needs to protect their employees and all other entertainment unions. As a guy, the urgency of sex is something that drives us men to do shit, but it needs to be kept in check. Testosterone is a real driver of all of this, combined with easy access and sex addiction. SAG should start training male celebs/producers and so forth onhow to control their urges. A few years of compulsory seminars/workshops/therapy sessions we’d probably see an uptick in the quality of entertainment coming out. Yeah, I’m an idealist.

Kay said...

Amen.

fustian said...

I think this notion that powerful people shouldn't use power to get sex and attractive people shouldn't use sex to get stuff is silly.

It's the point of both of those things.

I also think that women that put all of this on men are selling women short. If it's true that men are just bad and that women cannot be expected to defend themselves or turn away, then we really have to reshape society so they can be protected. Chaperones. Not being alone with men not in your family ever. We may find that the workplace is really not for women in the end.

But I think this is nonsense.

In Hollywood, you have good roles which are relatively few and you have actors and actresses that can play them (which are relatively many). So what has developed is a market. People with power on one side willing to buy and people with attractiveness on the other willing to sell.

It takes BOTH sides to make this work, and frankly I find them equally guilty.


Trevor said...

Is it ok if both parties are willing? No its called bribery and its a Federal offense. It creates an unfair playing field.

Violet said...

Cheats the audience. What little sense can be made of the Manson murders involves their poisonous envy of the rich and the beautiful. Tate's extraordinary beauty was just one more reminder that they were a bunch of rejects.

MattDaddy said...

Yes, because of the power differential. Imagine someone wanting to get hired at a factory but having to sleep with the boss to get the job. It’s exploitation.

boredatwork boredatwork said...

-B , Anne & faustian +1

She's no victim.

Citizen S said...

Hasn't this writer heard of the MeToo movement? This kind of sexual abuse is NOT about women being slutty as this written is obviously insinuating. There is a power dynamic in Hollywood and men control nearly everything and obviously women are sexual victims.. I'm not sure about this particular situation, but obviously the man had power over her and took advantage, (which makes him a potential criminal) and for that alone she is a victim.
This blog needs to update its sensibilities. It's 2018, not 1970.

MovieBuff said...

Selena Gomez and Dr. Doolittle reboot

MovieBuff said...

Just being different I know it’s not her.

tinydancer61 said...

I cannot believe that Hilary Duff still has to play that casting couch game. Geezus! It's not like she's some ingenue just starting out in the business.

Advertisement

Popular Posts from the last 30 days