Intimacy Coordinators went from almost nowhere to mainstream in a few years. I crunch the numbers of the number of films which hire them, the genres, and the arguments for and against the role.
Love to have numbers to back the arguments now. I equate the acceptance of the IC job along the lines of stunt coordinator in its early days. If you read any of the quotes against an intimacy coordinator as if talking against using a stunt coordinator, you’ll quickly see how fallacious the arguments are. Building respect and trust are key to any scene done well. Those should be the goals. And using ICs even with those who think they don’t need them, sets a precedent for the occasions when the parties really do in other film situations. It’s the new and welcomed norm.
Some actors don't want a stunt coordinator to teach them what to do, like Jackie Chan and Donnie Yen. When Jackie Chan made the first Rush Hour, he was very upset that the director told him how to fight, because he knew he knew better. It's the same as an Intimacy Coordinator. Why would an actor want an none actor to teach them how to act? They have the right to refuse. If both sides don't want it, then we shouldn't enforce it, but if both sides or just one side want it, then they should hire one. I'm afraid the industry will impose a law that requires it, despite both sides don't want it.
It's not just the actor whose interests are at stake here. And just because an actor says they know what they're doing, doesn't make it so - and can lead to some serious consequences (even death, in the case of stunts or guns.) I'm sure that the production insurance for a production that goes without a stunt coordinator goes up drastically, if you can find someone to ensure such a risky venture. With the state of sexual harrassment issues in the industry going up, the same will likely be the case when a production choses to go without an intimacy coordinator. Of course you can have different levels of professionalism and experience with any chosen person filling a role on set. When that kind of tension happens, replacing them, not doing without is the go to. (And that Jackie Chan example is a special case - he worked with stunt and fight coordinators all the time, usually in collaboration.)
Sexual harassment between actors doing sex scenes is the least concern in the entire industry. Most sexual harassment is behind closed doors, like that of Harvey Weinstein. When actors are doing sex scenes, there are cameras and people there! Hiring a cop at the safest spot is unrealistic; they can put more focus on other levels of the production, like casting. Ever heard of a casting couch? Oh, and the Jackie Chan example is a COMMON case, most actors work out sex scenes with other actors and directors.
Fascinating! I’ve been curious about this role for some time. Appreciate the thoughtful research. Also love the note on the average age of the quoted actors; vets are not typically the most vulnerable!
Stunt co-ordinators v. Intimacy Coordinators is a false equivalency. Their rise is also a marker of why Hollywood is still a largely broken and bean counter-led business, with little to no respect for actors or talent, and has failed to do the real work required to clean house from the top.
A stunt coordinator is on set for very real potential dangers when it comes to fights, squibs, zirconium hits, muzzle effects and so on. One missed sightline, one bad angle, one reflective surface, one gun you didn’t clock, and an actor or crew member gets killed.
Filmmaking is also an art form and craft based primarily on performance. By their very nature, intimacy coordinators break the intimate relationship between actors, and confuse the trust any serious actor requires from their director. In other words, if a predatory actor, producer, crew member or director is on set to begin with, that problem should have been resolved long before cameras started rolling.
Infantilising actors by further denying their psychological and professional agency was never a constructive or useful alternative to take, nor will it ever resolve the fundamental issue of solving predatory or abusive behaviour on set from the top. It will also never lead Hollywood back on the road to producing great cinema.
‘Having an intermediary makes everything and everyone feel safer’ said no great artist, ever.
Brilliant data breakdown here. The observation about the average age of actors pushing back being 60+ is spot-on and kinda reveals the whole tension in one stat. Ive worked on sets where older talent treated intimacy scenes like any other blocking, but younger performers wanted protocols spelled out upfront, and neither group was wrong exactly. That age gap probably explains way more about this debate than any single arguemnt for or against.
Love to have numbers to back the arguments now. I equate the acceptance of the IC job along the lines of stunt coordinator in its early days. If you read any of the quotes against an intimacy coordinator as if talking against using a stunt coordinator, you’ll quickly see how fallacious the arguments are. Building respect and trust are key to any scene done well. Those should be the goals. And using ICs even with those who think they don’t need them, sets a precedent for the occasions when the parties really do in other film situations. It’s the new and welcomed norm.
Some actors don't want a stunt coordinator to teach them what to do, like Jackie Chan and Donnie Yen. When Jackie Chan made the first Rush Hour, he was very upset that the director told him how to fight, because he knew he knew better. It's the same as an Intimacy Coordinator. Why would an actor want an none actor to teach them how to act? They have the right to refuse. If both sides don't want it, then we shouldn't enforce it, but if both sides or just one side want it, then they should hire one. I'm afraid the industry will impose a law that requires it, despite both sides don't want it.
It's not just the actor whose interests are at stake here. And just because an actor says they know what they're doing, doesn't make it so - and can lead to some serious consequences (even death, in the case of stunts or guns.) I'm sure that the production insurance for a production that goes without a stunt coordinator goes up drastically, if you can find someone to ensure such a risky venture. With the state of sexual harrassment issues in the industry going up, the same will likely be the case when a production choses to go without an intimacy coordinator. Of course you can have different levels of professionalism and experience with any chosen person filling a role on set. When that kind of tension happens, replacing them, not doing without is the go to. (And that Jackie Chan example is a special case - he worked with stunt and fight coordinators all the time, usually in collaboration.)
Sexual harassment between actors doing sex scenes is the least concern in the entire industry. Most sexual harassment is behind closed doors, like that of Harvey Weinstein. When actors are doing sex scenes, there are cameras and people there! Hiring a cop at the safest spot is unrealistic; they can put more focus on other levels of the production, like casting. Ever heard of a casting couch? Oh, and the Jackie Chan example is a COMMON case, most actors work out sex scenes with other actors and directors.
Fascinating! I’ve been curious about this role for some time. Appreciate the thoughtful research. Also love the note on the average age of the quoted actors; vets are not typically the most vulnerable!
Stunt co-ordinators v. Intimacy Coordinators is a false equivalency. Their rise is also a marker of why Hollywood is still a largely broken and bean counter-led business, with little to no respect for actors or talent, and has failed to do the real work required to clean house from the top.
A stunt coordinator is on set for very real potential dangers when it comes to fights, squibs, zirconium hits, muzzle effects and so on. One missed sightline, one bad angle, one reflective surface, one gun you didn’t clock, and an actor or crew member gets killed.
Filmmaking is also an art form and craft based primarily on performance. By their very nature, intimacy coordinators break the intimate relationship between actors, and confuse the trust any serious actor requires from their director. In other words, if a predatory actor, producer, crew member or director is on set to begin with, that problem should have been resolved long before cameras started rolling.
Infantilising actors by further denying their psychological and professional agency was never a constructive or useful alternative to take, nor will it ever resolve the fundamental issue of solving predatory or abusive behaviour on set from the top. It will also never lead Hollywood back on the road to producing great cinema.
‘Having an intermediary makes everything and everyone feel safer’ said no great artist, ever.
Brilliant data breakdown here. The observation about the average age of actors pushing back being 60+ is spot-on and kinda reveals the whole tension in one stat. Ive worked on sets where older talent treated intimacy scenes like any other blocking, but younger performers wanted protocols spelled out upfront, and neither group was wrong exactly. That age gap probably explains way more about this debate than any single arguemnt for or against.