JODIE COMER TOLD TO STOP COMFORTING CRYING NEWBORNS
MAKING HER NEW FILMBy Celebretainment Jan 8, 2024Jodie 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!’ …”________ In his
book The Interpretation of Dreams, Dr. Sigmund 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.”Contemporary
research tells us 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: How Your Biography Becomes Your
Biology and How You Can Heal, pg.123). This
causes its brain to improperly develop; and if allowed to continue, it’s the
helpless infant’s starting point towards a childhood, adolescence and (in
particular) adulthood in which its brain uncontrollably releases potentially
damaging levels of inflammation-promoting stress hormones and chemicals, even
in non-stressful daily routines. We
also now know that it’s the unpredictability of a stressor, and not the
intensity, that 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). Decades
before reading Freud’s theories or any others 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. (And they’re not really actors since they are not cognizant of
their fictional environment.) Initially
I’d presumed there was an educated general consensus within the entertainment
industry on this matter, perhaps even on the advice of mental health and/or
psychology academia, otherwise the practice would logically compassionately
cease. 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? I
could understand the practice commonly occurring within a naïve entertainment
industry of the 20th Century, but I’m still seeing it in contemporary small and
big screen movie productions. [FYI: Over the last five years or so, I’ve
unsuccessfully tried contacting various actor unions on this matter.] Meanwhile,
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 incident managed to create a controversy for the ensuing
news week. While
animal cruelty by the industry shouldn’t be tolerated, there should be even
less allowance for using unaware infants and toddlers in negatively hyper-emotional
drama — especially when contemporary alternatives can readily be utilized (e.g.
a mannequin infant or digital manipulation tech).
I don’t see how their involvement in filming negatively melodramatic
scenes wouldn’t have some effect after a while on infant/toddler and even
older-child actors. …In
his book The Interpretation of Dreams,
Dr. Sigmund 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.”Contemporary
research tells us 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: How Your Biography
Becomes Your Biology and How You Can Heal, pg.123).This
causes its brain to improperly develop; and if allowed to continue, it’s the
helpless infant’s starting point towards a childhood, adolescence and (in
particular) adulthood in which its brain uncontrollably releases potentially
damaging levels of inflammation-promoting stress hormones and chemicals, even
in non-stressful daily routines.We
also now know that it’s the unpredictability of a stressor, and not the
intensity, that 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).Decades
before reading Freud’s theories or any others 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.Initially
I’d presumed there was an educated general consensus within the entertainment
industry on this matter, perhaps even on the advice of mental health and/or
psychology academia, otherwise the practice would logically compassionately
cease. 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?I
could understand the practice commonly occurring within a naïve entertainment
industry of the 20th Century, but I’m still seeing it in contemporary small and
big screen movie productions.
I don’t see how their involvement in filming negatively melodramatic
scenes wouldn’t have some effect after a while on infant/toddler and even
older-child actors. … Contemporary
research tells us 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: How Your Biography
Becomes Your Biology and How You Can Heal, pg.123).This
causes its brain to improperly develop; and if allowed to continue, it’s the
helpless infant’s starting point towards a childhood, adolescence and (in
particular) adulthood in which its brain uncontrollably releases potentially
damaging levels of inflammation-promoting stress hormones and chemicals, even
in non-stressful daily routines.We
also now know that it’s the unpredictability of a stressor, and not the
intensity, that 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).Decades
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.Initially
I’d presumed there was an educated general consensus within the entertainment
industry on this matter, perhaps even on the advice of mental health and/or
psychology academia, otherwise the practice would logically compassionately
cease. 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?I
could understand the practice commonly occurring within a naïve entertainment
industry of the 20th Century, but I’m still seeing it in contemporary small and
big screen movie productions.
It’s hard to see how their
involvement in filming negatively melodramatic scenes wouldn’t have some lingering effect after a while on infant/toddler and even
older-child actors.Contemporary research
tells us 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: How Your Biography Becomes Your Biology and
How You Can Heal, pg.123).This causes its brain to
improperly develop; and if allowed to continue, it’s the helpless infant’s
starting point towards a childhood, adolescence and (in particular) adulthood
in which its brain uncontrollably releases potentially damaging levels of
inflammation-promoting stress hormones and chemicals, even in non-stressful
daily routines.We also now know that it’s
the unpredictability of a stressor, and not the intensity, that 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).Decades 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.Initially I’d presumed
there was an educated general consensus within the entertainment industry on
this matter, perhaps even on the advice of mental health and/or psychology
academia, otherwise the practice would logically compassionately cease. 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?I could understand the
practice commonly occurring within a naïve entertainment industry of the 20th
Century, but I’m still seeing it in contemporary small and big screen movie
productions.
Decades
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.Initially I’d presumed there was an educated general
consensus within the entertainment industry on this matter, perhaps even on the
advice of mental health and/or psychology academia, otherwise the practice
would logically compassionately cease. 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?I could understand the practice commonly occurring
within a naïve entertainment industry of the 20th Century, but I’m still seeing
it in contemporary small and big screen movie productions.… It’s hard to see how their involvement in filming negatively
melodramatic scenes wouldn’t have some lingering effect after a while on
infant/toddler and even older-child actors.
5 Comments
JODIE COMER TOLD TO STOP COMFORTING CRYING NEWBORNS
MAKING HER NEW FILMBy Celebretainment Jan 8, 2024Jodie 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!’ …”________ In his
book The Interpretation of Dreams, Dr. Sigmund 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.”Contemporary
research tells us 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: How Your Biography Becomes Your
Biology and How You Can Heal, pg.123).
This
causes its brain to improperly develop; and if allowed to continue, it’s the
helpless infant’s starting point towards a childhood, adolescence and (in
particular) adulthood in which its brain uncontrollably releases potentially
damaging levels of inflammation-promoting stress hormones and chemicals, even
in non-stressful daily routines.
We
also now know that it’s the unpredictability of a stressor, and not the
intensity, that 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).
Decades
before reading Freud’s theories or any others 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. (And they’re not really actors since they are not cognizant of
their fictional environment.)
Initially
I’d presumed there was an educated general consensus within the entertainment
industry on this matter, perhaps even on the advice of mental health and/or
psychology academia, otherwise the practice would logically compassionately
cease. 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? I
could understand the practice commonly occurring within a naïve entertainment
industry of the 20th Century, but I’m still seeing it in contemporary small and
big screen movie productions. [FYI: Over the last five years or so, I’ve
unsuccessfully tried contacting various actor unions on this matter.] Meanwhile,
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 incident managed to create a controversy for the ensuing
news week. While
animal cruelty by the industry shouldn’t be tolerated, there should be even
less allowance for using unaware infants and toddlers in negatively hyper-emotional
drama — especially when contemporary alternatives can readily be utilized (e.g.
a mannequin infant or digital manipulation tech).
I don’t see how their involvement in filming negatively melodramatic
scenes wouldn’t have some effect after a while on infant/toddler and even
older-child actors. …In
his book The Interpretation of Dreams,
Dr. Sigmund 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.”Contemporary
research tells us 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: How Your Biography
Becomes Your Biology and How You Can Heal, pg.123).This
causes its brain to improperly develop; and if allowed to continue, it’s the
helpless infant’s starting point towards a childhood, adolescence and (in
particular) adulthood in which its brain uncontrollably releases potentially
damaging levels of inflammation-promoting stress hormones and chemicals, even
in non-stressful daily routines.We
also now know that it’s the unpredictability of a stressor, and not the
intensity, that 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).Decades
before reading Freud’s theories or any others 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.Initially
I’d presumed there was an educated general consensus within the entertainment
industry on this matter, perhaps even on the advice of mental health and/or
psychology academia, otherwise the practice would logically compassionately
cease. 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?I
could understand the practice commonly occurring within a naïve entertainment
industry of the 20th Century, but I’m still seeing it in contemporary small and
big screen movie productions.
I don’t see how their involvement in filming negatively melodramatic
scenes wouldn’t have some effect after a while on infant/toddler and even
older-child actors. …
Contemporary
research tells us 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: How Your Biography
Becomes Your Biology and How You Can Heal, pg.123).This
causes its brain to improperly develop; and if allowed to continue, it’s the
helpless infant’s starting point towards a childhood, adolescence and (in
particular) adulthood in which its brain uncontrollably releases potentially
damaging levels of inflammation-promoting stress hormones and chemicals, even
in non-stressful daily routines.We
also now know that it’s the unpredictability of a stressor, and not the
intensity, that 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).Decades
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.Initially
I’d presumed there was an educated general consensus within the entertainment
industry on this matter, perhaps even on the advice of mental health and/or
psychology academia, otherwise the practice would logically compassionately
cease. 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?I
could understand the practice commonly occurring within a naïve entertainment
industry of the 20th Century, but I’m still seeing it in contemporary small and
big screen movie productions.
It’s hard to see how their
involvement in filming negatively melodramatic scenes wouldn’t have some lingering effect after a while on infant/toddler and even
older-child actors.Contemporary research
tells us 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: How Your Biography Becomes Your Biology and
How You Can Heal, pg.123).This causes its brain to
improperly develop; and if allowed to continue, it’s the helpless infant’s
starting point towards a childhood, adolescence and (in particular) adulthood
in which its brain uncontrollably releases potentially damaging levels of
inflammation-promoting stress hormones and chemicals, even in non-stressful
daily routines.We also now know that it’s
the unpredictability of a stressor, and not the intensity, that 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).Decades 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.Initially I’d presumed
there was an educated general consensus within the entertainment industry on
this matter, perhaps even on the advice of mental health and/or psychology
academia, otherwise the practice would logically compassionately cease. 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?I could understand the
practice commonly occurring within a naïve entertainment industry of the 20th
Century, but I’m still seeing it in contemporary small and big screen movie
productions.
Decades
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.Initially I’d presumed there was an educated general
consensus within the entertainment industry on this matter, perhaps even on the
advice of mental health and/or psychology academia, otherwise the practice
would logically compassionately cease. 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?I could understand the practice commonly occurring
within a naïve entertainment industry of the 20th Century, but I’m still seeing
it in contemporary small and big screen movie productions.… It’s hard to see how their involvement in filming negatively
melodramatic scenes wouldn’t have some lingering effect after a while on
infant/toddler and even older-child actors.