← Fame Under Fire
Fame Under Fire
Blake V Justin: Sex allegations and talking to the dead
00:38:00
Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni’s legal saga plus secrets from an intimacy coordinator
Loading summary
Transcript93 lines
- [00:01]
Intimacy Coordinator (Eta O'Brien)
BBC Sounds Music Radio podcasts.
- [00:06]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
Hello, and welcome to Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds. With me, Anushka Mutanda Doughty. In this episode, we're tackling one of the most talked about civil lawsuits. That's Blake Lively versus Justin Baldoni. Wayfarer Studios, its CEO Jamie Heath, and many others involved in the production of the movie. It ends with us. Now, when it comes to misinformation, clickbait, rage bait, and keyboard warriors generally talking crap, this case has it all. What you're getting today is a factual breakdown of what's actually alleged.
- [00:37]
Sean Kent
The public legal battle between it ends.
- [00:39]
Justin Baldoni (quoted)
With us co stars Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni is headed to a courtroom.
- [00:44]
Sean Kent
They essentially want this case to happen just in the courtroom, not in the court of public opinion. This is a very serious legal matter, not Barnum and Bailey's Circus.
- [00:54]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
Then all the questions you have for an intimacy coordinator but are too embarrassed to ask. It's okay, I'll it do it. We are talking to the woman who wrote the rulebook on how to have safe fake sex. And she's brought props.
- [01:05]
Intimacy Coordinator (Eta O'Brien)
If there's simulated sex. You know, it really helps to not necessarily have genitalia touching. So we start with cushions like this. It's a lap cushion in the shape of a banana.
- [01:15]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
Just a warning, there'll be graphic sex references throughout this episode. As always, if you've got questions, send them to me on social media or on WhatsApp at 03306-78114. That's 03306-78114. And don't forget to subscribe and turn on your push notifications. So you joining me now is our resident criminal defence attorney from South Carolina, whose birthday it is tomorrow. Welcome, Sean Kent.
- [01:38]
Sean Kent
Thank you so much. Happy birthday to me.
- [01:40]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
Yeah, happy birthday to you. How old are you turning? 30?
- [01:43]
Sean Kent
51.
- [01:44]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
Today we're gonna age a few years. Cause we're going through the Blake Lively Justin Baldoni lawsuit, which is like 139 pages long because why would it be any shorter? I wanna get into this. We got this requested while we were doing Diddy so many times. It's one of the most talked about civil lawsuits at the moment. The docket is longer than the Diddy trial, even though he was up against the federal government there. They file. But, Sean, I just want to get this key question out of the way for our new listeners. What is the difference between a civil lawsuit and a criminal lawsuit?
- [02:12]
Sean Kent
There's a bunch of complicated differences, but the simplest way to put it is in the civil lawsuit, you're looking at losing your money. In the criminal lawsuits, you're looking. And they're not lawsuits. In the criminal complaints, you're looking at losing your freedom. And then the other big difference is the burden of proof. When we say burden of proof, the person who is accusing you. So in Diddy's case, it was the United States of America accusing him. So to win their case, they had to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. So there was just no doubt. So when you're trying to put somebody in jail, you need a higher burden of proof. On a civil lawsuit, Blake must prove her lawsuit by a preponderance of the evidence, which basically means did this stuff. Was it more likely or not that it actually happened? So she has a lower burden than if she was trying to put Justin in jail. So those are the two big differences.
- [03:06]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
Okay, so Blake filed this lawsuit, this complaint, this civil complaint in December 2024, and then an amended version in February 2025. It's against Justin Baldoni, Jamie Heath, and Wayfarer Studios and others who worked on the film. Her allegations include sexual harassment, retaliation, defamation, and others. Now, we've reached out to Justin Baldoni and his lawyers, who are also the lawyer for Jamie Heath, for a statement, and they referred us to Baldoni's legal documents, where all the claims denied. Their lawyer, attorney Brian Friedman, called these claims false, outrageous, and intentionally salacious, and said Lively sought to control the film and her public image. Now, Sean, before I jump into the factual allegations of this lawsuit, I want to talk a little bit about how they started. They kick it off with a quote from Justin Baldoni, who's being sued. His TED Talk that he gave.
- [03:54]
Justin Baldoni (quoted)
Are you confident enough to listen to the women in your life, to hear their ideas and their solutions, to hold their anguish and actually believe them, even if what they're saying is against you? And will you be man enough to stand up to other men? When you hear locker room talk, when you hear stories of sexual harassment, when you hear your boys talking about grabbing ass or getting her drunk, will you actually stand up and do something so that one day we don't have to live in a world where a woman has to risk everything and come forward to say the words, me too.
- [04:33]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
Now, the reason I brought that up is because last week we spoke about the Drake lawsuit, where he's suing Universal Music Group. And they kick that lawsuit off, Drake's lawyers do with a quote from Lucian Grange, who is the CEO of Universal Music Group. You work on civil lawsuits as well, you're in a broad attorney, so you do criminal defense, civil lawsuits. Are you now writing things knowing that they're going to be read by the public? And do you think that's why these quotes are being included? Like, what's the purpose of that?
- [05:00]
Sean Kent
Absolutely. And that quote, you know, with everything we do, whether it's a trial, whether it's a lawsuit, almost always want to have a theme. I can promise you during his depositions, during his trial, they'll be bringing that quote back up to say, you said this, this is what you believe and these are the things that went against it. This is the public face you put on. But you did this, this, this, this, this, this and this.
- [05:23]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
The first allegation here is one of sexual harassment. We have included allegations of calling female cast members sexy, touching and hu. Becoming quote, cold if they pull away, improvising intimacy that has not been coordinated and adding in graphic sex scenes. They specifically talk about this adding in of an orgasm on camera. And it says, quote, Mr. Baldoni insisted he had added them this orgasm on camera for Blake to do because he was making the film, quote, through the female gaze. He made a last ditch attempt after she said she didn't want to do it, to keep one in where the couple orgasm together on their wedding night, which he said was important to him because he and his partner climax simultaneously during intercourse. Mr. Baldoni then intrusively asked Ms. Lively whether she and her husband climax simultaneously during intercourse. Now the allegation is of sexual harassment. Baldoni's lawyers have previously told the BBC that the allegations made by Lively are categorically false. Does what I just read out Meet the Bar for sexual harassment?
- [06:24]
Sean Kent
What a great question. And here's the easiest way, so indulge me if I try to explain this. There's something called hostile work environment that is the umbrella. So when you're dealing with hostile work environment, you're trying to say the environment in itself is hostile. Now, to prove hostile work environment, you have to come into two subcategories. Either it's severe or something called pervasive pattern. First, you start with what's called pervasive pattern. If somebody has a protected characteristic, what that means is race, sex, age, disability, something like that. And they are saying that at work the pattern at this workplace was so pervasively hostile that they kept doing little things. The examples you get is at the water cooler, everybody are saying offensive jokes all the time. Everybody are saying racist jokes all the time. That the pattern at this workplace was so pervasively awful. We couldn't deal with it anymore. It created a hostile work. Now, it could be sexual, which is what she is saying. It could be racial. It could be all these other things. And so what she is saying and what you have just described is a situation that she said was so pervasive that you could not have a tolerable work environment. So something needed to be done. The other one is something called severe. Severe is you just got to prove one situation so you can say it was not pervasive pattern. It was so awful that this one situation was of such a connotation that it makes it awful. What you may not realize that back in 1991, one of our current Supreme Court justices, Clarence Thomas, was trying to be confirmed to be on our Supreme Court. A young lady by the name of Anita Hill, who worked at the EEOC came out and said he had sexually harassed me for years. As a matter of fact, one day he put a coke can on my counter, and there was one of his pubic hairs on the coke can. And he talked to me about it. And exactly the look you just gave is why I said that example, because that is a severe situation in which she could say it was so severe that anybody would have opened their eyes the same way you just did, Anushka. And it created such a hostile situation. And those are the two categories in which we tried to determine if the workforce is so hostile that it could answer your question, whether or not it could be sexual harassment.
- [08:43]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
What about intent? Does that play into it?
- [08:46]
Sean Kent
Absolutely. I love this topic. So first, the next thing they talk about with the elements that you have to prove that it is an unfortunate, unwelcomed sexual advance. Okay. Of course, as you just said, and of course, when we determine the unwelcome sexual advance, it is an objective and a subjective standard. Subjective is what would a reasonable person in a similar situation have thought about what was happening between Justin and Blake? And then you go to the objective standard of what did Blake think personally, what did she think as a person in the situation? Because there is a disparity in power. Let's say, for example, a boss says, we were all joking. This was fun. Well, she works for him, an employee. She can say, it wasn't fun. For me, you may have thought it was a joke, but for me, it was an awful situation. And so that becomes the hard part of these lawsuits, is he will be saying, everybody was in on it, everybody was dealing it. And that's usually what happens. Everybody was joking. She was joking with us. Here are the Text messages back and forth where we were joking, and then the other person on the other side says, I wasn't joking. I was uncomfortable, but I didn't want to lose my job. It's a very complicated legal issue that seems simple, but it's more complicated.
- [09:57]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
And they do go a long way in setting up what the power dynamics were and outlining that she was technically working for Justin Baldoni at the time. He was her boss. Just going back to that Clarence Thomas example, mostly because I'm traumatized, but also I want to know what happened. Did this set a precedent for these severe acts of sexual harassment? Why is that something you specifically brought up?
- [10:16]
Sean Kent
This is when he was trying to become a Supreme Court justice. And by the way. And these were the confirmation hearings back in 1991. She was at the confirmation hearing. She talked about the fact that he would talk about his sexual prowess at the work environment. He asked her out on multiple occasions. He described his anatomy. All of this came out in the hearings. What ended up happening is it created a much bigger light on the disparity and sexual harassment in the workforce. People started talking about that. So these public hearings became very public. People ended up watching it. He got confirmed. People were not believing Anita Hill. Some people were believing Anita Hill. But as a result, in our political spectrum, a lot more women got elected and more people started paying attention to sexual harassment in the workforce. And that's why we have these laws that we have now that really go out of their way to determine what happens at work.
- [11:05]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
I'm assuming he denied the allegations? No. Did he deny them?
- [11:08]
Sean Kent
Absolutely. He completely denied the allegations. He said these were vehemently false. Then he's still a justice to this day. A lot of people don't understand know that story, or they should.
- [11:18]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
You're such a law nerd.
- [11:19]
Sean Kent
I am such a dork.
- [11:20]
Intimacy Coordinator (Eta O'Brien)
I love it.
- [11:21]
Sean Kent
I'm such a.
- [11:21]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
You press a button and it just comes out. It's amazing.
- [11:24]
Sean Kent
I'm such a dork.
- [11:26]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
But talking about the bar there. Well, when this lawsuit came out, a lot of people picked up on the allegations around what was a birthing scene in the movie. It says, quote, Baldoni insisted to Ms. Lively that women give birth naked. So it was not pre. Agreed. She says in the script that she would be naked or simulating nudity in this scene. He says that his wife had, quote, ripped her clothes off during labor. He claimed it was not normal for women to remain in their hospital gowns while giving birth. Ms. Lively disagreed, but she felt forced into a compromise that she would be naked from below the chest down. So it then goes on to flesh out that during this scene, it was an open set. An open set means that people can walk in and out. There are a lot of people on a movie set. It was also broadcast on the monitors. There was no nudity rider and no intimacy coordinator. It says, quote, Ms. Lively was partially nude from below the chest down, with her legs spread wide in stirrups and only a small piece of. Of fabric covering her genitalia. She became even more alarmed when Mr. Baldoni introduced his, quote, best friend to play the role of the obgyn who would be delivering the baby. Ms. Lively felt that the selection of Mr. Baldoni's friend for this intimate role, in which the actor's face and hands were in close proximity to her nearly new genitalia for a birth scene, was invasive and humiliating. Once again, Justin Baldoni denies all of this, but a lot of people picked up on this when the lawsuit came out, and they said, that is terrible. How could this be allowed to happen? She's in such a vulnerable situation. But my question to you is, in the lawsuit, they keep saying, this goes against industry standards and industry practices, where you'd have a closed set, it wouldn't be broadcast on the monitors. Well, when you bring a civil claim, how much should we care about industry standards and industry practices? Are they legally binding or is it just a guideline?
- [13:11]
Sean Kent
It's a guideline. It may not be legally binding, but it shows the practices and policies on how things should happen. Industry standards can become the norm. We file a lot of lawsuits saying, basically, you have violated your own policies. You have set these policies up for a reason, and now that you are violating them, you should be liable for everything that ends up happening in this situation. She can remember, we talk about the pervasive pattern. And this becomes interesting because this is on a shoot. She can say, this was my understanding on how things should be. This is what I signed up for. Because remember our. One of the things you asked the question about that I thought was brilliant was the unwelcome sexual advance. How does she prove that she did not invite this? She signed on for movie. We all saw the movie. She was in the movie. So how is this unwelcome? Well, it's unwelcome because I didn't sign on for the stuff. You just added flippantly. I did not sign on for the things that you just decided we should do. This creates the pervasive pattern. I was expecting this. I am a Hollywood actress. These are how things are happening. There should be an intimacy coordinator. There should be this person. We wear certain outbits. So I'm not looked at as a sexual piece of meat, if you will. This is not a porn suit. This is a regular. But you just changed it to put your prurient interest in. And that's what has affected me and that's what has become a pervasive pattern because it goes along with everything else that I've been claiming about. It's not just one act, it's so many. But she could almost make a claim, as you know now that it was so severe that it traumatized me. It is the pubic hair on the coke can. It makes people go, huh, I can't believe that happened.
- [14:49]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
So only on this podcast do we have the pubic hair on the coke.
- [14:52]
Intimacy Coordinator (Eta O'Brien)
Can as a saying.
- [14:53]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
That's going to become a thing now. Thanks, Sean. But I want to talk about some other accusations in the lawsuit. If we remember, we're looking at sexual harassment, retaliation, breach of contract. We've got two things here that I'll just read out to you. Quote, Mr. Baldoni engaged in other behaviors that were shocking. On several occasions, he told Ms. Lively that he had spoken to her recently, recently deceased father. It goes on to outline that he said that he found $40 in his pocket. And this was because Blake had said that her father owned her money. So he was taking it even further, saying basically he communed with her dead dad, who he never met. Another accusation is, quote, Ms. Lively was not given proper lactation breaks by Wayfarer during filming. That's a production company she's suing. Which sometimes stretched into six hours without a break. The lack of accommodation for her need to express milk caused her to develop painful mastitis. To me they sound more like endangerment. Or you said hostile environment before, maybe forced labor. Why is that not one of the things they've officially put on the lawsuit? But these are included.
- [15:50]
Sean Kent
Remember, we talk about the protected characteristic that you have. Sex, race, so forth. And so if she's being treated to a hostile work environment based upon her sex, she's a woman. A man would not be treated in the same situation. That goes under the pervasive pattern.
- [16:06]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
Now, like you say, there are these accusations peppered throughout. And then there are the much larger instances that we went over, like the birthing scene. All of these. Once again, Justin Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios. Jamie Heath. They deny all of this. Then we have the production strikes, the massive ones that Hollywood had for the writers and the actors. That happens in June 2023, and it goes on for many, many months. Then in January 2024, they're coming back to set. It's over. But Blake says, I will only agree to come back to this workplace if there are a list of demands that are met. And this includes things like no inappropriate touching, not entering her personal space, her trailer, without asking her, et cetera. There's a whole host of them. Now, in the lawsuit, it says that she sat down with Justin Baldoni and Jamie Heath and Wayfarer Studios and went through this, and they didn't object, and they didn't question the veracity of her claims. That's what's alleged in the lawsuit. So they're back on set. She's got this agreement. The film is professional. It says that in the lawsuit. It wraps up. They're done. They're promoting it. She's out there doing the press rounds, doing her thing.
- [17:02]
Blake Lively (quoted)
This movie is such an opportunity, such a responsibility, when you're servicing a group of people who care so much about the source material. And I really feel like we delivered a story that's emotional and it's fun and it's funny and it's painful and it's scary and it's tragic and it's inspiring. And that's what life is. It's every single color.
- [17:22]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
Now, then we get into the second chunk of this lawsuit, which is really about retaliation, defamation of character, and what is referred to as astroturfing, where they basically, she alleges that Justin Baldoni, Jamie Heath and Wayfarer Studios systematically tried to destroy her reputation. So we have Wayfarer engaging Melissa Nathan Tag, which is an Agency, TAJ, Mr. Wallace and Street Relations on behalf of Mr. Baldoni to launch a retaliation campaign against Ms. Lively. That's what they allege in the lawsuit. We know that they did start working together. That is a fact. Then in the lawsuit, it says that they are worried that the HR complaints that Blake had made would she go public after the release of the film. And she'd get a lot of press. And this would end up destroying Justin Baldoni's reputation. Now through discovery. Sean, can you just explain what discovery is really quickly?
- [18:12]
Sean Kent
Okay. When you file a lawsuit of any kind, If I were to sue the BBC, if I was to sue you, Once you file a lawsuit, everything is fair game. There are no secrets. There are no surprises. So in a discovery, you could ask me for everything. You can say, well, Sean, you have filed a lawsuit against us. We want your text messages. We want your Cell phone calls, we want your emails. We want to interview people who work with you. We want to talk to anybody who have ever made a thought about the BBC. And it goes the same way also towards you guys. So a discovery is the process where there are no secrets, where we know everything. And that's why people are always reticent to bring lawsuits, because we always advise them, when you break a lawsuit, be ready, because nothing's offline. They can find out everything they want, and they don't need private investigators that get to ask you about it.
- [19:04]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
So why can't you just delete everything? I know I've got a bunch of incriminating emails, so I just delete them.
- [19:09]
Sean Kent
It's 2025. Is anything ever deleted? There are things in the cloud. There are things. And that ends up hurting. Don't forget, there's always a paper trace.
- [19:17]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
And so throughout the other large chunk of this lawsuit, we see a lot of text messages between people working on Justin Baldoni's PR crisis management team. We see what's called a scenario planning doc that was circulated by tag the agency. And in this, they refer to key messaging points. This is in the event that Blake decides to go public about what she alleges she suffered on the set. One of the messaging points, it says that Justin Baldoni has a, quote, stellar reputation and he's a women's advocate. So to push that message, to push the message that production members lost their job to Blake Lively's takeover of the film and insisted upon involvement, including loss of budget due to rescheduling shoot days when Blake Lively refused to show up. And then it says, explore planting stories about the weaponization of feminism and how people in Blake Lively's circle, like Taylor Swift, shout out to you, Taylor. Have been accused of utilizing these tactics to, quote, bully people into getting what they want. Now we're looking at an accusation of defamation and retaliation. Is the act of planting stories defamation or retaliation? If those stories could potentially be true, is the planting the issue or would it be making up false claims a.
- [20:28]
Sean Kent
Lot some pack of what you just said. And so let's get the first answer. Could it possibly defamation? Yes, but don't remember, the absolute defense to defamation is truth. And so just because it could be defamation, if someone says, well, it's true, it doesn't really matter, then that's the defense that canceled defamation out. So whatever. So you can say defamatory conduct, but if it's true, then by definition it's not defamation to begin with. And they're going to have a bigger issue is I, you know, now we've gone through defamation. We're like three weeks in a row, don't forget, because she is a public figure. So she has to be proven that this was done with actual malice to destroy her. Which given her claims and given what she's saying, is what she is saying and true in the document you're talking about, this is actually done with actual malice. And they'll say. Justin will say it's not what actual malice, it's to defend us because she's trying to ruin us. And it's going back and forth.
- [21:17]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
And there's also false light is one of the things she's alleging. What does that actually mean?
- [21:23]
Sean Kent
False light means? And it actually worked if you think about it. Because if you've been watching this back and forth, she went from being everybody thought she was wonderful to, ooh, I can't believe she did this. And so their concerted effort to make her look worse in the public eye is what she is claiming. They are putting me in a false light. They were talking about my famous friends. They're talking about me. They're saying that I'm a mean girl. They're saying I'm a Hollywood bully. They're making a concerted effort to make me look awful. They're creating a false narrative about me that's just not true. And that is hurting my character, my career, my monetary opportunities. And this is defamatory impact.
- [22:02]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
Okay? But one of the things that they're going to come back and say, and we know this because it's referenced in this document, is that she already had a bad reputation, they allege. And there were already pieces of media out there that didn't potentially portray her in the best light. Interviews that she'd done where she didn't come across very well if those already exist. So they didn't create them. It's not AI but if they artificially bolstered them, reintroduced them back into the social algorithm and got them in front of everybody's faces again, could that be false light?
- [22:31]
Sean Kent
And that's basically what they're going to say. We can republish. It's the same way. You can't stop me from going and searching stuff on the Internet. You know, you can't stop somebody from reposting stuff about you. We did not create this narrative. It was already. There is going to be the claim, and so that's going to be the going back and forth. And believe it or not, you actually hire experts who could do an Internet Dive and look at that and see how you were actually looked at. I think they talk about things when you talk about famous people, of their Q scores, what is their score before this, what was their score after this? Did it go up? Did it go down? What did this do to their reputation?
- [23:08]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
Now, I want to talk about just two more things that are in there through the discovery, right? One of them is an allegation of somebody overhearing something, and another is directly from discovery of text messages. We have Melissa Nathan, who works on the PR crisis team. She's talking to Jennifer Abel, who was also on that team, about this document. So they allege Justin Baldoni saw this PR crisis management document and he wasn't best pleased with it. He didn't feel that he was being very protected. And he communicated that in a text. Melissa Nathan, it says from the messages they got through discovery says, quote, when we send over docs, we can't send over the work we would do or could do because that would get us in a lot of trouble. Quote, we can't write, we will destroy her.
- [23:48]
Sean Kent
It's so bad because it takes away the nuance. That little sentence like that is. We talk about discovery, and that's why discovery is so important, is because you have that one quote and now you can run with it, you can exaggerate it. You're just like, well, so ladies and gentlemen, the jury, it may not say this, but they have already shown that everything that they've done, they will not put in writing because they know that you will get it. They're going out of their way to make sure you don't know everything you need to know. We know their intent. We know they were going to destroy her. So these are the things we know. Imagine what we don't know. That's what's going to end up happening. It's going to be bad.
- [24:23]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
I mean, Justin Baldoni denies all of these allegations. So does Jamie Heath. They're not in that text chain. They could say, we didn't know about this. And then it becomes, you know, a different story. But we also get another comment about you talking about power dynamics there. And they go a long way in fleshing this out. Justin Baldoni is her boss. She's working with this production company. They own the rights. Well, then we hear about monetary resources, because these things don't happen for free. These alleged astroturfing or the destruction of someone's reputation on social media. They say, quote, baldoni was backed by virtually unlimited resources. Wayfarer's co founder Co chairman and leading financier is multi billionaire Steve Sarovitz, who divulged to a witness at the film's New York premiere that he was prepared to spend, quote, $100 million to ruin the lives of Ms. Lively and her family. Sean, hearing that, how strong of a case do you think this actually is?
- [25:13]
Sean Kent
Here is all I will say about that. It does sound strong in writing it down, sounds strong in allegations, and it sounds like it is unfathomable and unbeatable. And I'm. I'm kind of not glad. But given the society we live in, don't forget where we were a year ago, reading the allegations against Sean Combs before the lawsuit. And then we saw what was presented, and, like, that ain't what you said. And that's what ends up happening. Remember, a lawsuit is just a lawyer writing his perception. He's going to write it on a slant. Like, he's going to write it on a slant from his side. And things are always different when they're presented in front of a jury. They always are.
- [25:48]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
Now, you know, I've been telling you this whole time, Justin Baldoni, Jamie Heath, the CEO of Wayfarer, Wayfarer Studios, they deny. And the others who are defendants in this lawsuit, they deny all of the allegations. But in January 2025, Baldoni actually sued Blake for civil extortion, defamation, and invasion of privacy. His attorney, Brian Friedman, said the actress and her partners had dissented, disseminated, grossly edited, unsubstantiated new and doctored information to the media. This was then thrown out by the judge who said, well, actually, everything you're alleging that Blake is saying that's defaming you is stuff she said in her lawsuit, and that's privilege. Can you just explain that a little bit, Sean?
- [26:25]
Sean Kent
You cannot sue somebody because that would take away the right. You cannot sue somebody for stuff that they put inside of a lawsuit, okay? Because what it would do is it would have chilling effects on individuals bringing lawsuits. So think about this. Let's say a true victim of molestation rape, something of that nature, sues her accuser. And then the accuser said, well, I'm suing you back, and I want multi millions. And they say, I have $100 million back if that person would shirk away from their lawsuit. And that's what the judge said. We want people to be able to bring lawsuits. But the judge did open the window. He's like, if you find something else, bring it back. But this, on its face, is not defamation.
- [27:04]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
Now, we reached out to both Lively and Baldoni for comment. Baldoni's legal team, who also represent the other defendants, referred us to the legal documents where all the allegations have been denied. Previously, their attorney, Brian Friedman, called the claims false, outrageous, and intentionally salacious, and said Lively sought to control the film and her public image. We've not yet had a response back from Lively's team, but after a judge dismissed most of Baldoni's countersuit, her team called it a complete vindication. Sean, thank you so much for breaking this down. Now, this isn't the end of this case. We're following this one very, very closely. Guys, I want your questions on this. I know you have them. This was really an in depth introduction to what has been alleged by Blake Lively, because I've seen too much crap out there on social media. You are just chatting. You're chatting and you're chatting, and it's not right. It's not right. If I see one more AI generated video, I'm gonna lose my mind. But please keep sending. Keep sending your questions in and keep sending in your happy birthday messages to Sean, because it's his bir. It's his birthday. Shawn, thank you so much.
- [28:03]
Sean Kent
Old Man Day. Thank you so much for having me. Much appreciated.
- [28:07]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
That was our resident attorney, Shawn Kent, joining us from South Carolina. Now I'm talking to the woman who wrote the first formal set of intimacy guidelines in 2015. She's going to answer your questions about how to have safe fake sex. Hi, eta.
- [28:24]
Intimacy Coordinator (Eta O'Brien)
Hi, Anoushka, how are you?
- [28:26]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
I'm good, thank you. Now, we've just been talking about the Blake Lively, Justin Baldoni Wayfarer Studios lawsuit, and others. And the term intimacy coordinator comes up a fair few times in that document. And it's certainly become more of a mainstream term after we had the MeToo movement. But for those, the uninitiated, what exactly is an intimacy coordinator?
- [28:45]
Intimacy Coordinator (Eta O'Brien)
An intimacy coordinator is a practitioner who puts in place professional process and procedures when working with intimate content. If you think about a stunt coordinator speaks to the director, trains the cast with good stunt techniques, and then choreographs the fight through to a really brilliant scene. We do exactly the same, but for the intimate content.
- [29:08]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
How coordinated are things? Because they've still got to look natural and steamy in some cases. Is it like my tongue goes left, your tongue goes right? What are we working with?
- [29:18]
Intimacy Coordinator (Eta O'Brien)
So we absolutely don't want to be that prescriptive. So we make sure that we serve the director's vision for what that writing is. And then as Practitioners, then we invite that actor, director, conversation about the script, reading the script, understanding character, character storytelling. Why is that scene there? How does it push the storytelling forward? And once you've journeyed through that interrogation of the script and that rehearsal, then everybody is making sure that they're serving character and telling the right physical story with whatever physicality they choose. And then we're checking out personally what people are comfortable with. So it might be a kiss, and the director might want tongues, but somebody might say, actually, I've got a cold sore today, so it's not suitable to kiss because you've got cold sore. As I say, not suitable to spread the herpes virus in your workplace. So say that.
- [30:11]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
Safe advice.
- [30:11]
Intimacy Coordinator (Eta O'Brien)
Yes, that's pretty much. So there you might go. Okay. The core principle of this moment is that they come together in this way. What else can we use? What else can we do? What other body parts can we use that tell us? The same physical storytelling of them coming together in that beautiful moment of kiss while using other body parts.
- [30:29]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
And so, I mean, it's so layered. People might not really understand how many thought processes have gone into that, from the top to the bottom and then back up again. I don't want this to sound. I've got this question, but I don't want it to sound immature. But if there's. If there's two actors you've never met before and they're gonna do one of these scenes together, are you like, all right, you two need to go off and have a first kiss, or you need to have a first kiss in front of how do you. How do you do? I feel like I'm a child, but I want to know.
- [30:56]
Sean Kent
No.
- [30:56]
Intimacy Coordinator (Eta O'Brien)
It's such a good question because those are all the questions that were there and that were hanging in the air before the role of the intimacy coordinator. And now we deal with that. So actually, you know, sort of very often when you do an intimate scene that includes kissing, then actually I will say, do you want to kiss in this agreement and consent of touch, or do you want to wait until you get in front of the camera? Because do you want to save that? But knowing that both of you personally have agreed and consented to that lip to lip touch, or sometimes people say yes, I actually want to get over that lip to lip touch and the idea of consent. I always say your yes is your yes, yes, your no is your no, and a place of maybe is a no. Because as soon as your place of maybe, you're not free and open as an artist to really give your best as a character. So that's where we only work really freely with what people are absolutely comfortable with. And then the idea of a kiss, like I say, what people's choices are as to what they do in rehearsals. But you know that everything that has happens in front of camera has been agreed and consented to. And then they can absolutely, again, just serve character, serve storytelling. Making a beautiful piece of art, a beautiful piece of storytelling that serves the production.
- [32:06]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
This question came up the most from my followers. I mean, you're probably gonna know exactly what it is, but there's a sliding scale of intimacy that we see in different works of art. Some of it is like a peck, and some of it, I mean, is simulated sex that looks. Looks almost real. I guess that's the. The goal is to make it look as real as possible. There are two people there with blood throwing through their veins. What happens if a male performer gets an erection? How do you deal with that?
- [32:34]
Intimacy Coordinator (Eta O'Brien)
So, again, really lovely that you asked that question, because it used to be, again, that unspoken thing. So it's natural, it's normal. Our physiology and our physiognomy is that, you know, if two people are moving together in a sexual manner, that someone might become aroused. It's just how the body responds. However, it's not suitable to have an erection in the workplace. And when we're on set or on stage, it's our place of work. So first of all, we now talk about it openly, saying, you know, this might happen. But if it does, this is what we do. And what we do is we put in place a timeout. So we invite the cast to think of a word that they agree to together. It might be burgers. If someone's, you know, desperate for a burger at the end of filming, it might be Wakanda. Whatever it is, they're so sorry.
- [33:21]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
Sorry. I'm so sorry. What film have you been working on?
- [33:26]
Intimacy Coordinator (Eta O'Brien)
That was the actors. It wasn't me. They chose not just the word, but the action. Wakanda.
- [33:31]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
Okay, sure, why not? And the other one that came up a lot was around menstruation and periods. What do you do? I mean, do you time it around an actress's cycle or how does it work?
- [33:43]
Intimacy Coordinator (Eta O'Brien)
So, you know, we're on a production. I'll say to producers, find out your actor's menstrual cycle and see if we can. Can then. Particularly if it's full on simulated sex scenes, choreography, intimate content. When they're not menstruating, however, schedules shift and change all the time and people's menstrual cycles shift and change in their timings. And then I might also say, and we will need more breaks so the actress can freshen up. And again, it's just wonderful because it means that actor can win a time, that they might feel a bit more anxious about filming an intimate scene. They can take a breath, feel personally taken care of. So again, we can support them to have a really good day on set.
- [34:25]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
And you mentioned that before intimacy coordinators were an accepted practice, it was kind of no man's land. People didn't know what to bring up, what to say. Now there are a set of practices you can expect on a film set. I know you've got some visual aids, I know you've got some props with you. Can you talk me through those props and how they help keep it a safe environment?
- [34:44]
Intimacy Coordinator (Eta O'Brien)
So first of all, you know, especially if there's simulated sex, you don't, you know, it really helps to not necessarily have genitalia touching. So we start with cushions like this. This is a triangular shaped cushion that we would put that down your tracksuit bottom so it gives a barrier. So again, you're feeling more comfortable. Perhaps if one character sat across someone. We've got this one that's a banana shape. And again, we make them in different colors of skin tones so that everybody's honored with, with what their skin tone is.
- [35:07]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
It's a big banana.
- [35:08]
Intimacy Coordinator (Eta O'Brien)
That's a big banana. Amen. If you think of it, it's a lap cushion in the shape of a banana. So those are those things. And then of course, we have modesty garments. So it's not suitable for naked genitalia ever to touch again in the workplace. So if there's a simulator sex scene that has a version of, you know, a degree of nakedness, you start with the least is wearing what's, you know, called shibu, which is that. Which is basically like a G string but with, with the, with the sides cut out. And it sticks just above the pubic line. And then it sticks into, in between the buttocks or into the small of the back. And then you have one that's for the man, it's called the hebu. And then the intimacy cushions that I always say, I think of them like the stunt coordinator's crash mats.
- [35:51]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
Final question. This is so fascinating, but you're obviously working with actors now, actors and actresses. Like I said, this is an industry standard.
- [35:59]
Intimacy Coordinator (Eta O'Brien)
Now.
- [35:59]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
Have they spoken to you about what it was like before and perhaps the difficulties?
- [36:04]
Intimacy Coordinator (Eta O'Brien)
Oh, I mean, whenever I do a workshop. I've actually just ran a weekend workshop. This weekend just gone. And I always start, start with asking my participants, when have you worked with intimacy? When it's been done well. When has it not been done well? This, this lady was saying that she'd worked with a director and they were saying, we haven't got the, the money for a intimacy practitioner. And they were doing a theater piece. So it got to the kids then saying, stop, stop, stop. Don't do it, don't do it. You'll just do it in the, in the run. And, and that's old school, you know. So again, more education is needed to go. It's about the intention. The intimacy onset guidelines are printed. They're up on the intimacy onset website. Intentionally, they're there for anybody to go to. Please go to them, read them, and then put it in place. So that you work with that intention of not missing out the intimate moment, to interrogate it, to talk about it, and no longer leaving it as this unspoken thing and this elephant in the room that leaves an act of vulnerable ita.
- [37:02]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
Thank you so much for breaking that down for us today and bringing your amazing props.
- [37:05]
Intimacy Coordinator (Eta O'Brien)
It's my pleasure. Thank you so much for asking me.
- [37:08]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
That was ETA o', Brien, intimacy coordinator. Now, don't forget, you can get in touch with us on WhatsApp at 03306-78114. That's 03306-78114. Let us know your questions or thoughts on who we should be talking about. That's it for this episode of Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds with Me Anushka Matandadowty Watch on iPlayer. Listen on BB.
- [37:31]
Intimacy Coordinator (Eta O'Brien)
Hey, I'm Laura Whitmore.
- [37:32]
Sean Kent
And I'm Ian Sterling.
- [37:34]
Intimacy Coordinator (Eta O'Brien)
Anyone who knows us knows we love.
- [37:36]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
Talking all things true crime.
- [37:37]
Sean Kent
Each week we revisit cases that you won't actually believe.
- [37:41]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
Murder, fraud, catfishing, heist, blackmail, brainwashing, betrayal, and even a case solved by chewing gum.
- [37:49]
Sean Kent
It's less whodunit and more they did what? Murder they Wrote with Flora Whitmorny and Stirling.
- [37:56]
Anushka Mutanda Doughty
Listen now on BBC Science.