Explicit Laure Massard in Passion 2016

[panda66]

Who are you to tell us what to do? I am putting forward a hypothesis, but I have no proof that what I am stating is the absolute truth, and we have the right to debate it among ourselves. I am actually surprised that no one has taken the time to read the credits of the short film to ensure that there were no clues.

@liamreddfield12223 I think I see which scar you are talking about, but if you turn the body 180 degrees, it is normal that we can no longer see the scar; it is the side of the body that the camera is not filming. And even when the camera angle is right, as soon as the camera moves away from the actress, the scar is no longer distinguishable. It is the same color as the skin, so as soon as we move away, there is nothing left on the screen.
---------------------
In summary, I am making a hypothesis, but I have no proof of the existence of the stand-in or whether she actually filmed in the movie. I just noticed, out of curiosity, while looking at the credits, and to my great surprise, it said "stand-in Laure Massard."

The real scoop would have been a behind-the-scenes video, for example.

In any case, the hotel is very beautiful, the cottage where they filmed the intimate scene, but the room that used to serve as a bedroom is now used as a living room; it is no longer a bedroom.

 

[WorthlessDave]

It's definitely not the boyfriend. I thought it was at one stage and suggested as such on reddit but I've looked more forensically and they're defo not the same person.

As for the potential body double, well that's up for debate. One thing I would say is that you have to look at it from her point of view. If you didn't want to be accused of having real sex in a film like this, the one thing you wouldn't agree to is having every mole and imperfection added to the body double for fear of not being able to prove that it wasn't you. If you take into account a lack of budget, I think it's unlikely they'd go to those lengths to make them indistinguishable. Some of the highest budget films have clear differences between body doubles and real actors so you really think a small time picture like this would have the skillset and time for that? I very much doubt it. Another reason why I don't think it is a double is because the directors and producers wouldn't for a second think that anyone would be forensically analysing moles (given they're small) and pausing and brightening up the scene in that way. They'd be more concerned with narrative, story, dialogue and actor performances. The fine detail of the sex scene, given how dark it is, couldn't have been further from their minds. We've all been analysing it like seasoned detectives and there's no way they'd have stopped and thought "oh, we'd better add moles and imperfections here because there's a bunch of lads on a forum that might see the difference".

The 'body double' in the credit could easily be a request from Laure herself, a pseudonym of sorts in order to create plausible deniability. Or, as is sometimes the case, a body double was on set but wasn't required - maybe because they wanted to commit to a certain level of authenticity but still added her into the credits to allow her to get paid. Happens all the time with stunt talent. Tom Cruise's stunt double basically sits in a chair doing fuck all for months.

 

[panda66]

I'm glad I stumbled upon this information.

And I'm glad to see that people took the time to share the information, thank you! I saw that on IMDb, it is indicated that in the end credits, there is a stunt double. I also saw that people on other sites have shared the information.

If this can help reestablish the truth about this scene, so much the better.

In addition, I recently noticed that the actress has moved away from social networks, that she put her Instagram account on private, and that there is not much left on her Facebook page! I imagine that she must have received messages from annoying guys who sent her obscenities in private. I can imagine the messages: that she is hot, that she is a slut, and other horrors of the kind.

I am glad if my modest discovery has helped to demystify this short film. I hope this will allow the actress to be at peace and no longer be wrongly associated with this scene.

In the absence of concrete evidence, I think it is safe to assume that it is not her who appears on screen. Everyone has formed false ideas. As they say, the devil is in the details! No one thought to check the end credits when it was right in front of us; we were blinded by sexuality.

And thank you to those who helped share the information

Have a great day everyone for new adventures!

 

[WorthlessDave]

I'm glad I stumbled upon this information.

And I'm glad to see that people took the time to share the information, thank you! I saw that on IMDb, it is indicated that in the end credits, there is a stunt double. I also saw that people on other sites have shared the information.

If this can help reestablish the truth about this scene, so much the better.

In addition, I recently noticed that the actress has moved away from social networks, that she put her Instagram account on private, and that there is not much left on her Facebook page! I imagine that she must have received messages from annoying guys who sent her obscenities in private. I can imagine the messages: that she is hot, that she is a slut, and other horrors of the kind.

I am glad if my modest discovery has helped to demystify this short film. I hope this will allow the actress to be at peace and no longer be wrongly associated with this scene.

In the absence of concrete evidence, I think it is safe to assume that it is not her who appears on screen. Everyone has formed false ideas. As they say, the devil is in the details! No one thought to check the end credits when it was right in front of us; we were blinded by sexuality.

And thank you to those who helped share the information

Have a great day everyone for new adventures!

You call it a "modest" discovery yet you can't help but absorb as much credit as you can with your tongue hanging out. It's the antithesis of modesty.

Anyway, I don't think you've discovered anything. I still think it's her based on probability given the evidence. Basically everything points to it being her apart from the credit at the end. It's by no means confirmation.

Oh, and spare me the virtue signalling about her being at peace. She made the film. She's probably very proud of the film. I doubt she gives two shits about us lot sparking rumours.

 

[panda66]

No need to be unpleasant! Why belittle others? I ask you to remain courteous. You have the right to think what you want; who is stopping you? You have the right to believe that it is Laure Massard on screen. That's okay, and your theory is just as valid as another member's who might think the opposite. Everyone is free to believe what they want.

I do not claim to have discovered any obvious proof that would overturn everything. I am submitting a small contribution to the forum, and I am simply surprised that no one thought earlier to look at the end credits. The film was released in 2016, but my small contribution does not change anything in my life. I am not boasting about my contribution, as you seem to believe. Why should I boast about it? I am just one person among others on this forum, an anonymous member. I write what I think, but that does not make it a truth.

I do not wish for this topic to turn sour. I have submitted my contribution; everyone can do what they want with it! I do not claim to hold the truth. ^^

want to clarify that I speak English quite poorly. I try my best to accurately express my thoughts, but it may sound strange. I am not sure if I am translating what I want to say faithfully, and sometimes I miss the mark in the way I express my ideas.

 

[Dragu777]

Also the prominent ribs and vertebrae!

Could there be someone out there with a matching 'backside' who would act as a body double? No, there is none.

The director/editing staff did a very bad job if the intention was to hide the actress' identity (even by 2016 video editing standards).

If I were the actress and this caused me a lot of trouble, I'd sue the production for being completely inefficient.

 

[kesonvena]

Also the prominent ribs and vertebrae!

Could there be someone out there with a matching 'backside' who would act as a body double? No, there is none.

The director/editing staff did a very bad job if the intention was to hide the actress' identity (even by 2016 video editing standards).

If I were the actress and this caused me a lot of trouble, I'd sue the production for being completely inefficient.

Yeah, that's the same back. Some ppl are trying too hard to disprove obvious things. You can bet, that half of these actresses will back out later, because extramile is very, VERY risky thing to do and can end their career really quickly. I bet that several of these "CGI, bla bla" are just excuses to cover up back downs and panic after reaction of public, family and friends. Some of these actresses are even married...

 

[pandora2]

Personally, I remain skeptical.

I spoke by email with the person who rented the place to the film crew and he gave me very little information, he has very few memories of their stay, he simply told me that he was paid a pittance, that they stayed for a day and that he had promised him the short film, but that he had never received it and that's it, for the rest, he knows nothing! he was just aware that there was a "guest star" actor and that's it. He didn't know the names of the actors.

I have the same opinion as the member "SomeGuy", namely that if we don't see the penetration + the face (and even in this case, it can be GGI if the film has a budget for that), the doubt is reasonable. It's common sense.

I always try not to confuse my fantasies with reality

And again, I agree with "SomeGuy" who wrote in one of his posts that in 98 percent of cases, actors who play in mainstream films are faking it.

Yes, it is risky to have real sex in a mainstream film, as I wrote in a thread. There is less risk in making a porno than in having explicit sex in a mainstream film or a short film. No one will talk about a porno, but in a mainstream film yes, because it is very rare and sought after.

It is true that with family and friends, it can be difficult to assume and it is understandable.

It is not a trivial decision to have sex in a mainstream film. Once the film is released, there is no going back. It's risky for your career, it's not always easy to take on and the example of the short film "passion" proves it, even trying to protect yourself, it may not be enough. And there is also the risk of regretting, of telling yourself that it was a youthful mistake.

Besides, the short film has completely disappeared from legal streaming platforms. It was broadcast on a French site, but this is no longer the case, it had fallen into the limbo of the internet.

Simulated or not, I really like the scene, it's hot, the actors are attractive, the actress is very beautiful and they seemed to have a good time together.

For my part, this is just my opinion! You have the right not to have the same, I remain skeptical in the absence of formal proof^^

 

[jasonraybould]

I don't why you guys keep obsessing over the scene as we're never going to get a concrete anwser to what really happened. I say just enjoy the scene and move on.

 

[Dragu777]

I'm sorry but it's beyond doubt. No chance, in those circumstances at least, that two women would have the same mole pattern, prominent rib cage and vertebrae...etc.

This isn't a courtroom, it doesn't matter and it doesn't concern anyone here that two actors most people have never heard of had sex on set. But I'm not going to deny what my eyes see and thankfully there seems to be a good enough consensus to maintain belief that not all human brains have turned into mush denying what's clear and obvious.

 

[WorthlessDave]

I'm sorry but it's beyond doubt. No chance, in those circumstances at least, that two women would have the same mole pattern, prominent rib cage and vertebrae...etc.

This isn't a courtroom, it doesn't matter and it doesn't concern anyone here that two actors most people have never heard of had sex on set. But I'm not going to deny what my eyes see and thankfully there seems to be a good enough consensus to maintain belief that not all human brains have turned into mush denying what's clear and obvious.

Yeah, I agree. The cast and crew rarely look at things like this as just another movie. It's art to them and as such the determination will be to not betray authenticity. It's more than possible that a discussion was had during filming with the consent of the two actors to go as far as they're comfortable taking it so as not to break the illusion. From there it's anyone's guess but looking at the back, don't you think it's a little bit too remarkable to find someone who not only shares the same mole mapping but also the vertebrae.

When it comes to showing the face, that may well have been a request from Laure herself. Almost like "yes, I'll do it but I don't want this to affect my career. I need plausible deniability so please don't show my face in those shots", hence the listing of the body double within the credits, that may very well be a nobody, a ghost, a sort of Jane Doe, if you will. It's a film short. Do you really think they have the budget to not only hire a body double but find one with the exact same structure to her back.

It's a little bit like Nymphomaniac which would have had a far bigger budget. The double penetration scene is definitely CGI on her face but I don't buy the Stacy Martin scenes. It's one thing adding a face on peering over a shoulder, but quite another to fake penetration in that way. They all deny it for their careers but we all know what really happened. It's art according to them, and when you've got someone as famous as Lars Von Trier asking you to take it as far as you can, actors tend to do it. There's no such thing as intimacy coordinators on low budget films.

 

[WorthlessDave]

Holy shit! I've just seen some evidence that confirms it (unless the make up person is really, really thorough).

It's not just the moles on her back. When she's riding him in side view, she has two mild bruises on her right thigh, towards the side, both next to each other, one larger than the other. When the camera pans around for the penetration shot, those bruises are still there.

Not sure if anyone has brought that up before but it's worth investigating. I'm watching the 1080p version so you'll need that to confirm.

 

[Dragu777]

Holy shit! I've just seen some evidence that confirms it (unless the make up person is really, really thorough).

It's not just the moles on her back. When she's riding him in side view, she has two mild bruises on her right thigh, towards the side, both next to each other, one larger than the other. When the camera pans around for the penetration shot, those bruises are still there.

Not sure if anyone has brought that up before but it's worth investigating. I'm watching the 1080p version so you'll need that to confirm.

Yes, you're right. Also, notice the little love handle and creases!

I think we've dissected the poor actress' back and side anatomy in way too much detail that has gone beyond the maximum dose of creepiness I can handle. My main gripe was those who kept denying what was obvious. I don't know if they're half-blind, trying to protect the actress or just plain simping; otherwise, this thread would've been much shorter and less detailed and less creepy.