JODIE COMER TOLD TO STOP COMFORTING CRYING NEWBORNS MAKING HER NEW FILM
By Celebretainment Jan 8, 2024
Jodie Comer was ordered to stop soothing crying babies during the making of her new film.
The 30-year-old ‘Killing Eve’ actress, who has no children, plays a petrified mum who flees her London home with her newborn amid an ecological flooding disaster in the upcoming survival movie The End We Start From.
She told The Sunday Times about the experience of handling different babies during its production: “It’s such a lesson. The smallest baby was eight weeks. At first my hands were visibly shaking. My younger cousins have grown up now, so I’m not around babies an awful lot.
“It felt like a huge responsibility. I thought, ‘Wow, they’re so fragile’.”
Jodie added she became more confident with the babies on set and would try to calm the children during shooting — but was told to let them cry.
She said: “I became more comfortable, sometimes to my detriment! There are scenes where we needed a baby to cry but I was soothing him instead.
“The crew would shout, ‘Stop!’ ….”
________
When an award nominee wins and accepts the prize at the podium, he/she typically thanks the various other participants in the relevant film’s creation. For me what’s always conspicuously lacking in the brief speech is any mention of the infant or toddler ‘actors’ used in filming negatively melodramatic scenes, let alone any potential resultant harm to their very malleable psyches, perhaps even PTSD trauma.
Long before reading Sigmund Freud’s theories or those of any other academic regarding very early life trauma, I began cringing at how producers and directors of negatively melodramatic scenes — let alone the willing parents of the undoubtedly extremely upset infants and toddlers used — can comfortably conclude that no psychological harm would come to their infant/toddler actors, regardless of their screaming in bewilderment.
Anyway, it’s doubtful many viewers are entertained by an infant or toddler being used in such film scenes and potentially traumatized. I certainly am repulsed by it. ...
Contemporary research reveals that, since it cannot fight or flight, a baby stuck in a crib on its back hearing parental discord in the next room can only “move into a third neurological state, known as a ‘freeze’ state … This freeze state is a trauma state” (Childhood Disrupted, pg.123).
If allowed to continue unhindered, it causes the brain to improperly develop. It can be the starting point towards a childhood, adolescence and adulthood in which the brain uncontrollably releases potentially damaging levels of inflammation-promoting stress hormones and chemicals, even in non-stressful daily routines.
Also known is that the unpredictability of a stressor, and not the intensity, does the most harm. When the stressor “is completely predictable, even if it is more traumatic — such as giving a [laboratory] rat a regularly scheduled foot shock accompanied by a sharp, loud sound — the stress does not create these exact same [negative] brain changes” (pg. 42).
Admittedly, I’d initially presumed there had to be a reliable educated consensus within the entertainment industry and psychology academia that there's little or no such risk, otherwise the practice would logically and compassionately have ceased. But I became increasingly doubtful of the factual accuracy of any such potential consensus.
Cannot one logically conclude by observing their turmoil-filled facial expressions that they’re perceiving, and likely cerebrally recording, the hyper-emotional scene activity around them at face value rather than as a fictitious occurrence?
Meantime, in his book The Interpretation of Dreams Dr. Freud states: “It is painful to me to think that many of the hypotheses upon which I base my psychological solution of the psychoneuroses will arouse skepticism and ridicule when they first become known.
“For instance, I shall have to assert that impressions of the second year of life, and even the first, leave an enduring trace upon the emotional life of subsequent neuropaths [i.e. neurotic persons], and that these impressions — although greatly distorted and exaggerated by the memory — may furnish the earliest and profoundest basis of a hysterical [i.e. neurotic] symptom …
“[I]t is my well-founded conviction that both doctrines [i.e. theories] are true. In confirmation of this I recall certain examples in which the death of the father occurred when the child was very young, and subsequent incidents, otherwise inexplicable, proved that the child had unconsciously preserved recollections of the person who had so early gone out of its life.”
I could understand the infant/toddler-actor usage commonly occurring during a more naïve entertainment industry of the 20th Century; however, one can still see it in contemporary small and big screen movie productions.
Yet, in January of 2017 a Vancouver dog-rescue organization cancelled a scheduled fundraiser preceding the big release of the then-new film A Dog’s Purpose, according to a Vancouver Sun story, after “the German shepherd star of the film was put under duress during one scene.”
The founder of Thank Dog I Am Out (Dog Rescue Society), Susan Paterson, was quoted as saying, “We are shocked and disappointed by what we have seen, and we cannot in good conscience continue with our pre-screening of the movie.”
This 'scandal' managed to stay in the news for the following week.
While animal cruelty by the industry shouldn’t be tolerated, there should be even less allowance for using infants and toddlers in negatively hyper-emotional drama — especially if contemporary alternatives can be utilized more often (for example, a mannequin infant and/or digital manipulation tech).
Comments (0)