‘Anora’: Mikey Madison Says She Chose Not To Have An Intimacy Coordinator On Set To Preserve Film’s “Authenticity”

The online world has gone wild after comments “Anora” star Mikey Madison made about not using an intimacy coordinator on the set of Sean Baker‘s Palme d’Or winner. But is the outrage against the awards season favorite justified?  Let’s unpack the ongoing debate.

Madison’s comments come from a recent chat with “The Last Showgirl” star Pamela Anderson on Variety’s “Actors on Actors” series. After Anderson asked the 25-year-old if she and the rest of the cast worked with an intimacy coordinator while filming the sex scenes in “Anora,” stressing that it’s “the big thing these days,” Madison hesitated, then responded.  

READ MORE: ‘Anora’ Named Best Picture By LA Film Critics

“For our film, we didn’t,” confirmed Madison, “it was a choice that I made, that the filmmakers offered me if I wanted to bring in an intimacy coordinator or not. And at the time Mark Eydelshteyn, who plays Ivan in the film, we decided it would be best just to keep it small, with us, [and] then Sean Baker, the director, and Sammy Quan, his producing partner and his wife.  So I think that we were able to really streamline it, shoot it super quickly.  They were less sex scenes, and more sex shots, that’s what Sean likes to say.  And I think there’s a lot of humor involved in them as well.  It was a very positive experience for me.”

That’s not what many on the internet want to hear from Madison, however, and clips up the Variety convo have received loads of backlash, particularly on TikTok.  Many users of the social media network have made replies criticizing Madison and Baker’s choice not to use intimacy coordinators, mainly because ICs have become ubiquitous with safe sets and a guarantee that sexual harassment and related coercions and manipulations will not happen on set.  According to these users, it doesn’t matter if Madison says it was her choice to not use an IC on “Anora,” as it should be the standard on any and all film and TV sets.

Here’s a sample from various TikToks in response to Madison and Anderson’s convesation. “The reason why intimacy coordinators exist is because we’ve seen how directors and producers can manipulate people to do things that they later on regret,” said one user.  Another user, who claims to be a film producer, said, “not having an intimacy coordinator for the scenes that she’s in in this film is scary,” and called Baker giving his actress the choice not to suspicious.  The same user also stressed that IC roles exist “to ensure everyone is being safe” and “to protect the actors,” and claimed that they even improve the quality of sex scenes being filmed.

Of course, there are harsher user videos too, labeling Baker a pervert for even making a film like “Anora” in the first place.  But “Anora” has received that kind of criticism since its world premiere at Cannes in May, and especially since it hit theaters this Fall, so that’s old news at this point.  But it’s telling that Madison’s comments irks a certain section of the online community so much (just as it’s also telling that not everyone in Hollywood agrees with the use of ICs in the first place, but that’s another story entirely). In the wake of the #MeToo movement and the rise of intimacy coordinators as an industry norm, it should be an expected response, albeit one not as vociferous as this.

But the backlash drowns out the rest of Madison’s explanation about using an intimacy coordinator, which comes down to approaching the character she plays with authenticity. “So, to me, I had seen Sean’s films, I know his dedication to authenticity, and I wanted to immerse myself in that.  I was ready for it,” said of her role as the Brooklyn sex worker. “It requires a lot of her body and her skin, and as I’ve said it before, I think she wears her nudity more like a costume in a way. She presents herself in this kind of hypersexualized way because it’s how she makes a living, and it’s just what she has to do.  And so I think also as an actor, I approached it in the way of it like being a job; so I was very comfortable.”

That all makes perfect sense: not using an IC on “Anora” helped Madison get more immersed in her character, and her trust in her director, producer, and co-stars helped with that as well. Would an IC have helped or harmed that immersion process?  It’s entirely up for debate. Given the nature of Anora’s profession, maybe Madison needed to trust in herself and the team around her without an IC to get the best performance she could.  And maybe the nature of the film’s story, and Baker’s filmmaking style, negated the need for an IC.  After all, an IC on set for sex scenes still isn’t standardized industry practice, and not all sex-related scenes are equal. And if “Anora” had very brief “sex shots” and not prolonged “sex scenes” like Madison described, then this may more be a matter of artistic choice than a moral quandary.

Or maybe ICs should be standardized throughout the filmmaking world, because the guarantee of the worst not happening is more important than anything else.  It’s a tricky debate to have, and the internet has said its piece on it.  Let’s hope the backlash doesn’t diminish Madison’s chances for a Best Actress Oscar.