Explicit Laure Massard in Passion 2016

P

panda66

Active Member
Sorry to bring this up again, but I love this scene! It's one of my favorite scenes.

I'd even say it's hotter than the scene between Adeline Rebeillard and Mathias Melloul in the film ''chronique sexuelle d'une famille d'aujourd'hui''.

I didn't understand why some people said the actor was hiding his sex - he wasn't! It's just that he doesn't have an erection when he undresses. What's more, the actor looks stressed to me. Laure looks more relaxed and excited, but the actor did eventually relax, since he then managed to penetrate her.

You can see that the scene has been largely cut...

As for the fact that we can't see each faces, I'm thinking that this was probably a wish of both actors, perhaps even a condition, in that we agree to have real sex, but on condition that we don't see each other's faces.

For me, there's no doubt that these are the two main actors in the short film, and they seem to have had a good time, too bad a director cut never came out.

I'm not surprised that the director included an explicit sex scene. He loves movies with explicit scenes. I'm even surprised he hasn't released more short films!

For the record, the director has an erotic cabaret in Paris.
 
M

memberof3x

New Member
I've followed this thread and kept hoping for a full video of her (~15 mins). Although it's a short one, it features a really good extramile scene. Wondering if someone has ever downloaded the full short movie.
 
P

panda66

Active Member
I’m going to disappoint some people, but apparently, there is a strong likelihood that it is indeed not Laure Massard! But a body double. No one thought to mention it, but at the very end of the film, it is written in full and in French: "body double Laure Massard" and "body double motorcycle."

So this means that two of the scenes in the short film must have used a body double: the scene where the actor is riding a motorcycle, it’s not him on the motorcycle, and the scene where Laure is supposed to be penetrated, it’s not her, but her double. They must have cast a girl with a similar build to that of the actress Laure Massard.

I, too, was mistaken! I also thought, like many here, that there might be a chance it was indeed Laure Massard, but evidently, that is not the case, and it explains why we don’t see the face.

I suppose they filmed two scenes: one soft with Laure Massard and another scene with explicit sex, but from behind.

What about the actor... nothing is indicated about him... Did he also have a male double for the sex scene, or did he participate in both scenes? Who knows...

This doesn’t change the fact that the actress is beautiful and has a stunning body. And I completely understand why they decided to use a body double. She was in a relationship, and, let’s face it, making love on screen is complicated; it can quickly be stigmatizing for actors. It’s a huge risk to take for the future of one’s career, especially for women.

I admit I’m disappointed too, but I fully understand the decision to use a body double.

And what about moles?

when a body double is used in a film, it is possible to replicate details such as a mole or other physical characteristics. Production teams can use makeup, prosthetics, or special effects to ensure that the double closely resembles the main actor. This helps maintain visual continuity in scenes where the actor is not present. Specific details, like the placement of a mole, can be carefully recreated to ensure a seamless transition

To me, one of the best pieces of evidence, to this day, is seeing both the actors' faces and the sexual act itself. For example, in the film 'Sexual Chronicle of a Family Today,' the directors clearly made the choice not to leave any doubt about the authenticity of the sexual act. In the scene of the first time, we can see both the actors' faces and the sexual act in action. Moreover, the scene lasts a total of ten good minutes, the time it takes for them to kiss, undress, masturbate, and have sex together. And still, this is not the raw version. This is the edited version.

It just goes to show that one must always distinguish between fantasies and reality. The moral of the story is that it is very unlikely to be her who is at work when on her back.
 

Attachments

  • vlcsnap-2024-11-15-22h45m28s773.png
    vlcsnap-2024-11-15-22h45m28s773.png
    102.9 KB · Views: 98
R

Raskolnikov

Active Member
panda66 said:
I’m going to disappoint some people, but apparently, there is a strong likelihood that it is indeed not Laure Massard! But a body double. No one thought to mention it, but at the very end of the film, it is written in full and in French: "body double Laure Massard" and "body double motorcycle."

So this means that two of the scenes in the short film must have used a body double: the scene where the actor is riding a motorcycle, it’s not him on the motorcycle, and the scene where Laure is supposed to be penetrated, it’s not her, but her double. They must have cast a girl with a similar build to that of the actress Laure Massard.

I, too, was mistaken! I also thought, like many here, that there might be a chance it was indeed Laure Massard, but evidently, that is not the case, and it explains why we don’t see the face.

I suppose they filmed two scenes: one soft with Laure Massard and another scene with explicit sex, but from behind.

What about the actor... nothing is indicated about him... Did he also have a male double for the sex scene, or did he participate in both scenes? Who knows...

This doesn’t change the fact that the actress is beautiful and has a stunning body. And I completely understand why they decided to use a body double. She was in a relationship, and, let’s face it, making love on screen is complicated; it can quickly be stigmatizing for actors. It’s a huge risk to take for the future of one’s career, especially for women.

I admit I’m disappointed too, but I fully understand the decision to use a body double.

And what about moles?

when a body double is used in a film, it is possible to replicate details such as a mole or other physical characteristics. Production teams can use makeup, prosthetics, or special effects to ensure that the double closely resembles the main actor. This helps maintain visual continuity in scenes where the actor is not present. Specific details, like the placement of a mole, can be carefully recreated to ensure a seamless transition

To me, one of the best pieces of evidence, to this day, is seeing both the actors' faces and the sexual act itself. For example, in the film 'Sexual Chronicle of a Family Today,' the directors clearly made the choice not to leave any doubt about the authenticity of the sexual act. In the scene of the first time, we can see both the actors' faces and the sexual act in action. Moreover, the scene lasts a total of ten good minutes, the time it takes for them to kiss, undress, masturbate, and have sex together. And still, this is not the raw version. This is the edited version.

It just goes to show that one must always distinguish between fantasies and reality. The moral of the story is that it is very unlikely to be her who is at work when on her back.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but I don't think it is true. Not only is the look exactly the same, but all of the beauty spots as well, on the back, shoulder, legs... And not just a few of them but there are several.

Since it's a 15 minute short film with relatively unknown actors. I don't think they had the budget nor time to find a body double that was such a perfect match and on top of that willing to fuck on camera.

It can happen, but I just think it's very unlikely.

I guess the only way of knowing for sure is to politely ask the director. But I don't he would be willing to answer, or answer truthfully to a person from a forum like this....
 
P

panda66

Active Member
I want to clarify that I was just pointing out a detail. I see that on the internet, no one has mentioned this little detail at the end of the short film in the credits.

I enjoy playing devil's advocate; I like to think against the grain of my own patterns. have never really liked to rely on rumors, so when it is possible to find tangible facts, like here in the end credits, I find it interesting to share it. Anyone can invent rumors on the internet, and that without any proof.

A stand-in can also be an actress X; a stand-in doesn't necessarily mean an actress in the conventional sense. It just requires that the actress is physically similar enough to the lead actress, and for the rest, there's the magic of makeup to recreate details like moles.

I agree that from a logistical standpoint, it's not very practical. It would mean that part was filmed with Laure and another part with the stand-in, which would require more shooting time and other considerations. It's true that from a logistical point of view, it's simpler if it were directly the actress doing all the work.

And it would be the same principle if it were her boyfriend. It would mean they filmed part of it with Marco, the actor in the short film, and that he also filmed the more explicit parts (from behind) with his boyfriend. And here too, what about the body dimension? The actor Marco is muscular; if Laure's boyfriend doesn't have a similar build, the transition won't be smooth, and the difference might show on screen.

As for casting, it must also be very difficult to find an actress who isn't from the adult industry and who would agree to have sex on screen. In this case, it seems less complex to make an announcement to find a stand-in from the adult industry.

But I agree with you, the only ones who know the truth are the actors and the production team of the short film.

The director has social media, but he seems to visit it very rarely. I can always try to contact him and ask him indirectly (I speak French), but I strongly doubt he reads private messages and would take the time to respond to me.

In any case, I found it interesting to point out this detail regarding the end credits of the film. I tried to look for information about the stand-in, but I found nothing. Who knows, it might be the pseudonym of an actress for adult. Another hypothesis that came to my mind is that there may have never been a stand-in, but to avoid embarrassing the actress, they pretended to indicate that there was indeed a body double at the end of the credits. This is just a hypothesis! Don't take it too seriously.

But I find it interesting as a detail considering the fact that it is indicated that there would apparently be a stand-in, is it true or not? It's impossible to know for sure; we were not present on the set that day.

Personally, this genetics story makes me doubt the authenticity of the scene. I'm not so sure that it's Laure on screen from behind. I would like it to be the case; I find it more interesting when we know that it's an actress who doesn't come from the X-rated world and who would still accept such an intimate scene, but the fact that she is listed as a "double" in the credits makes me doubt. The hypothesis of a possible double by an actress from the X-rated world, for example, doesn't seem so far-fetched to me now.

The hypothesis of a body double takes away a bit of the charm from the scene. For example, in the scene of the first time in the film "Chronique sexuelle d'une famille aujourd'hui", it is precisely the fact that the actors don't come from the X-rated world that gives all its charm to the scene. These are rare moments on screen, especially in a film that is not intended to be labeled as "porn".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top