Who would allow their baby to be in a tv show where they have to be upset?

[UhtredRagnarson]

I’m watching a tv show where a baby is screeching in fear and it’s not dubbed over or pretend, the baby is clearly terrified and looking for its parent/carer. I’ve seen this on loads of different tv shows/films and I just don’t get it. I know they have strict rules about children in TV but you can’t escape the fact that those babies are genuinely scared and screeching for their parent. Goodness know how many times they had to be deliberate upset to get the take right.

Why/how would anyone do that to their child? I just don’t get it.

Our dc was filmed as a baby.

Dh colleague making a documentary and needed filler shots of a baby, some crying.. He asked dh as worked with him if he could film dc.

Came to house, dc was most placid baby ever but took a dislike to the very lovely lighting man, so for crying shots zi would get ighting man to say hello, dc started crying, filmed and done.

It was all with me and dh in room, dc settled as soon as lighting man sheepishly tiptoed away, no agency, no fees, just helping dh friend produce a documentary. We still gave copies with dc is mortified about in late teens

In future, I shall look carefully at the closing credits to see if 'baby scarer' is listed.

@theThreeofWeevils

In future, I shall look carefully at the closing credits to see if 'baby scarer' is listed.

I liked the baby in the Labyrinth who refused to cry on demand or at allso David Bowie did it for him.

🤦🏽‍♂️Strikeout fail

@Tablegs

It doesn't work like that. There are incredibly stringent rules around the use of babies and tots in filming, and in this case, the parent would have been literally a step away. Generally they normally use twins so infants take it in turns on set. If they need a scene with a crying baby, they wait until the baby cries of its own accord (which they all do anyway) and then film it. Clever film editing does the rest.

This. It is super strict.

I can't remember what film it was, but it was a scary one with a child and an evil murderer.

What stuck with me on it is, the child always said how lovely the actor who was the evil murderer was and it felt more like a game than anything else.

I would imagine that older films, probably didn't have the same rules they do now and its those kids who I wonder about

@Tablegs

It doesn't work like that. There are incredibly stringent rules around the use of babies and tots in filming, and in this case, the parent would have been literally a step away. Generally they normally use twins so infants take it in turns on set. If they need a scene with a crying baby, they wait until the baby cries of its own accord (which they all do anyway) and then film it. Clever film editing does the rest.

This.

You can be as outraged as you want and deliberately not understand how it works if you want to feel sorry for them but babies and children are extremely well protected in the film industry in this regard. They don’t suffer.

30+ years ago there was a horrible baby crying scene in Inspector Morse - screaming woman was clutching a real baby who was absolutely terrified. And yes, there’s a big difference between a normally crying baby and a terrified baby.

Lots of questions asked about it in the media at the time. After that things improved a lot. Because, actually, it is possible to notice good use of editing to protect babies. But in the last couple of years I’ve began to notice scenes that make me feel a little uncomfortable.

So many people have pointed out that even a short 30second clip can be made up of 10+ shots. It's very rarely the actual baby making the noise and good editing just convinces you it is. Would be a shit film if you could tell.
As for older actors they are usually older than you think and are only told about their scenes in isolation. Film sets aren't scary. No music, lots of crew and (depending on age) guardian near by. Lots of camera tricks. For example the girl from the exorcists older sister did some of the scenes they felt were too mature of the actress.

@HamFisted

There's a scene in The Secret Garden (the old one) where there's a toddler making its way to its mum and then the mum runs away and the toddler is left behind, crying, 'Mummy!' Always made me even watching it as a kid.

Even ds7 finds that scene hard to watch. He loves the movie though.

I realise that child actors aren't there when the whole film is filmed but surely they would want to see themselves in the finished product?

You're right, vert strict rules. They are only allowed to record for 20 mins at a time so they actually have 'back up' kids and use the best shot from the recordings.

I was once backstage at a West End production of Medea (for incredibly boring reasons). The two little boys who played the sons Medea kills (who had to be quite small as the actress had to be able to carry them onto the stage covered in blood together) were clearly having a ball playing board games with their chaperone and any actors with a break between scenes.

They were not actually on stage for the killing scene — blood was thrown onto a glass screen to suggest their stabbing — then were dabbed with fake blood, carried on dead (they took keeping still and limp very seriously and were clearly very fond of the actress playing Medea), then came straight off to take showers and into pyjamas and dressing gowns. Their favourite thing was being allowed to stay up to take a curtain call, as the director clearly felt the audience needed to see for themselves that no children were harmed in the production!

Which is a long way round of saying that a play about child murder that was incredibly disturbing to watch as an audience member was clearly an entirely benign experience for the children in it.

I think I would actually be more worried about older kids. The ones for whom playing dead isn't just a game because they have more understanding of what they are being asked to act out, and what must have happened for it to occur. Ditto to older kids playing an unpleasant character.

However, I hope that they get to talk it through, still get shielded as far as possible given the tv/film industry strictly regulated (as gets mentioned whenever there are discussions over influencers using their children to make money in a way theatres and film would never be allowed to).

As for the kids wanting to see what they are in, I've seen plenty of interviews with actors over the years who mention that their parents didn't let them watch the films they were in if they were younger than the release certificate. I'm sure some will have seen films they are too young for, but that could be true of any child who is allowed to watch films they are too young for.

The high welfare standards being cited by those in the business were not in place for the child actors of the early 20th century and it was down to the director to care to try to get the scene in as few takes and conceal the plot or not. The process of filming and editing was also very different. If you've ever listened to interviews with some of the greats you can hear their experience as kids doesn't always sound like the protected one being described here.

You can be as outraged as you want and deliberately not understand how it works if you want to feel sorry for them but babies and children are extremely well protected in the film industry in this regard. They don’t suffer.

emilyfrost What a strange response to someone saying they are concerned for a child. You know you can just explain it in a reasonable way as others have done, right?

Anyway. OP as others have said, the laws surrounding children in this field are super strict and the welfare of the child is paramount. I do understand how people can think otherwise though, but clever editing makes all the difference.

I always remember Downton Abbey when baby Sybie was crying. The butler Carson had been walking around the house and he went to see what was going on. As soon as he picked up the baby that played Sybie she stopped crying and grabbed his jacked with her little hand. It was so sweet. I alway remember thinking the actor must be so good with children. She immediately calmed down.

@Jobsharenightmare

The high welfare standards being cited by those in the business were not in place for the child actors of the early 20th century and it was down to the director to care to try to get the scene in as few takes and conceal the plot or not. The process of filming and editing was also very different. If you've ever listened to interviews with some of the greats you can hear their experience as kids doesn't always sound like the protected one being described here.

Well, no, but you wouldn’t expect that, surely — I mean, this was the era of studios putting Judy Garland on liquid diets and amphetamines so she could stay thin and film 72 hours at one stretch.

This is a sort of overview:
www.theguardian.com/film/2019/aug/30/drugs-exploitation-72-hour-shifts-can-hollywood-take-care-of-its-child-stars

@Postprandial a lot of those stories in the article are much more recent than Judy Garland though! I think there are still a lot of problems for Hollywood child stars (and maybe TV shows too but Hollywood is what you think of) but I don't think they stem from the filming conditions for babies/toddlers.

[quote terrywynne]@Postprandial a lot of those stories in the article are much more recent than Judy Garland though! I think there are still a lot of problems for Hollywood child stars (and maybe TV shows too but Hollywood is what you think of) but I don't think they stem from the filming conditions for babies/toddlers.[/quote]
Yes, they are, but I was referring back to a pp who was talking about child actors of the early 20thc. Drew Barrymore and others are horrifying, but some more of the more recent stories are more to do with the toxic effects of fame at a young age than actual mistreatment on sets.

Though I’ve always found the audition tape of the little boy who played Elliott in ET very hard to watch. He’s just been told to imagine his friend ET is being taken away and is really crying, even though he’s just sitting pretending in a room with his parents — and is immediately hired.

@Tiggles

I realise that child actors aren't there when the whole film is filmed but surely they would want to see themselves in the finished product?

It would depend on the film classification, and whether their age group would be allowed to see it, surely?

I know a little girl who played a zombie in a zombie film. There's one bit where they are appearing to eat one of the other characters.
What they did to do that was put the dummy of the "dead" person out and covered it with sweets. Then told the children they could to go and eat, as long as they crept up quietly because they didn't want the director to know they were being allowed sweets.
They children didn't even notice so when she was older and someone referred to the scene, she swore she hadn't been in that scene.

My husband works in TV and film and he has pointed out before when a baby is distressed and said how much he hates it and would never allow it.

When they filmed Kes didnt they tell the child actors that the Kestrel was actually dead when they filmed the bit where it dies - so that the main characters distress was believable?