i've been hearing from a few people on here that it was a body double during the nude scene at the end and that it wasn't really her? my friend also says this is this a proven fact because you can't see her face in the shot.
shareIf you can't see an actress' face in the shot, it's a body double.
sharehow are you certain though? it's not listed in the casting as a body double. plus her profile here says she was a model before.
shareIt was clearly a body double. The body types are quite different. It's obvious the body double is an older, more fully figured woman. Also, it would have been easy to show her nude (even just her breasts) in the previous close-up scenes where she disrobes, but it was deliberately avoided, which is further evidence.
shareThe credits in the end do have a section where stand-ins are listed.
shareIt seemed to me like it was probably a double.
The actress is about 20 now, so she would have been about 18 (or a little younger? I guess it depends on how much time passed between the filming and the movie's release, but isn't it usually about 1-2 years?) when they filmed. Given her age and the generally intense nature of some of the scenes, having a double for her nude scenes makes a lot of sense.
And maybe it's for the best you didn't see her naked. Caleb was always trying to get a look down her shirt and we know what happened to him . . .
Not seeing her face isn't necessarily a dead giveaway--these days there is pretty good CGI for imposing one person's face on another person's body (like what they did with Chris Evans in the first Captain America to show his smaller body pre-serum).
Why does this matter in any way? Seriously? She was probably too young or wasn't comfortable showing her body... Would you?
shareSome people get into really serious throwdowns on these boards (like for all different kinds of movies) about whether or not body doubles were used for certain scenes.
Unless the double used was different enough in body type to actually distract from the movie, the fixation on whether it was really the actress or not can come across pretty creepy. Actors (and especially younger actors) should be given a lot of discretion about how their bodies are used in film--especially with today's technology where even a microsecond of nudity can be screencapped and posted all over the internet.
The movie was in the can for over a year before a new distribution deal was made so she would have been 16 or 17 when it was filmed
shareI think it's a fair question and the self-righteous prigs saying "who cares/you're creepy" need to stop trying to be so right-on for a minute.
The obviously fuller, chunkier figure of the body-double WAS distracting. Plus the DVD cover features an approximation of the scene - a less representative cover would have been very difficult to find. It's pure exploitation, so don't be surprised if people have questions about it.
May be true but one could argue that the "fuller" version was done on purpose, reflecting the fact that Thomasin finally discovered her "full" femininity as opposed to the restricted, confined, puritan environment she was raised in. The other witches at the end were depicted like that as well...
share“May be true but one could argue that the "fuller" version was done on purpose, reflecting the fact that Thomasin finally discovered her "full" femininity as opposed to the restricted, confined, puritan environment she was raised in. The other witches at the end were depicted like that as well...”
Good point
Agree that it was distracting. So much so that I came to the board to see if it was as obvious to others as it was to me. I was actually confused at first thinking it must be another character.
shareNot that I've studied the scene closely or anything, but it certainly seemed like it was a body double. The woman at the end had a much fuller figure (I mostly mean her butt), whereas throughout the entire film Thomasin seemed very thin and small.
---------------------------------
Delicious - http://imgur.com/50eSH9o
That azz was too juicy for Taylor-Joy's bony character. My wiener moved.
I really don't think it matters, as for the people saying it's distracting, at least you can understand why it was done.
shareBody double with CG added in (if necessary). This was done on the kid girl in Jurassic Park when she was clinging on for life at the end - the stuntwoman was an adult and the kid girl's CG face was added over hers. Given the fact Anya Taylor-Joy was only 18 when the film actually first premiered at Sundance in 2015 and also the fact it takes at least 1-2 years (a film I helped with has taken 5 years) before the film is released, even though it was filmed in Canada, she would have been underage.
The same controversy came up with "Neon Demon" since Elle Fanning was both 16 and 17 during filming (she had a birthday in the middle). The difference between that film and this one is the director openly admitted the film was an erotic horror and that Elle was 16 in the audio commentary, nobody batted an eye. Yet MTV went under a lot of flack for some of its content on the show "Skinz," also filmed in Canada, and the America flipped out.
As for calling people out for being "creepy" for wondering an actresses' age when her character (whether or not it's her) appears in questionable scenes, just imagine how creepy it is to have actually been a part of the film or to pass it off as acceptable. Some people let their kids watch horror films and don't want their kids exposed to films where their performances are questionable.