I'm unsure it presents anything particularly different from a baby's experience in a high-paced family anyway. My children were certainly pillar-to-post when very young because my family is high-paced, extroverted and not too concerned with bubble wrap.

Happy to be told I'm an ethical monster here though :P

You start getting into dangerous territory when you start asserting and especially consciously performing actions or making decisions that decide what's best for another person's child. Not to say you're not 100% factually correct and can support your correctness with enough legal and scientific research to fill a library no sane person could discount or find room to argue against. Simply that, a legal parent or guardian has every right to ruin their kids future and turn it into something abominable if they so choose and there's nary a thing you or I can do about it.

Other than make sure the law is clear, strong, and absolute, the civilian patrol is omnipresent and resolute, and the correctional or institutional facilities are large, properly-run, and always have room. That's literally all anyone concerned with the future of society- children, men, women, and anyone in between- can do right now. Know there's going to be fuck ups galore, and do your best to mitigate degeneracy from creating even more of itself by impacting those who actually raise children in a decent, proper manner, as well as said children raised accordingly, as degeneracy always seeks to do.

Oh and I guess work to provide boundless opportunities for prosperity, fulfillment, education, and recovery easy accessible to all or whatever. Blah blah blah.

Freedom is not free. We all pay the price. Each and every day. Some with our joy, some with our time, some with our sanity, some with our lives, some with all of the above. And yet, the world goes on as it always has. The celestial heartbeat and cosmic dance skips nary a beat nor rhythm. Something to marvel at if nothing else. :confused:

Don't employ actors who don't know they're acting or don't want to.
Babies have no choice. Nobody under age 5 should be used - and I mean used - for the enrichment or entertainment of adults. Whether they cry or not, the lighting, the noise, the presence of strangers, the incomprehensibility of the situation and the irregularity of schedules has to be stressful. Does it create traumatic aftereffects? Who knows? If it's unpleasant for the baby at the time, that's bad enough to stop doing it. You must have a baby scene? Use a dummy or a robot or animation. Most cinematic 'newborns' are unconvincing anyway: they look three or four months old. So the scene doesn't work and the kid is stressed - no winners except the ambitious parents and their agents.

Animal acts are somewhat different. Many cats, dogs, parrots and horses enjoy performing and being admired, as well as the treats. Most dogs will do what they're trained to do. Guiding the blind requires dedication and constant attention; bomb-sniffing is a helluva lot more dangerous; and finding corpses in collapsed buildings is so stressful, search-and-rescue dogs burn out and become depressed. So do their handlers and the other humans on their team. It's less likely to happen to performing dogs. If it does, their stage career is over. But they were willing participants while it lasts.

Right, I'm not sure acting is necessarily any more traumatic than going to a big family gathering, a big digital art exhibit, a crowded city, flying on a plane, or daycare. If anything, if might be less of an issue than daycare because a child isn't going to a rotating cast of generally overstretched strangers for most of their waking hours. It really just depends on how it is done.

The Seventh Seal for example has two children who are probably 18-24 months old. But they're in a few short shots doing child things, playing with the actors outside. I don't see how that necessarily has to involve anything traumatic.

Problems with child actor seem to be more prominent when they become celebrities and act as a "career." In general though, I think drama programs are excellent for young children. It teaches public speaking and the ability to take on roles based on context.

I'm not sure acting is necessarily any more traumatic than going to a big family gathering, a big digital art exhibit, a crowded city, flying on a plane, — Count Timothy von Icarus

Those things happen one time, for a few hours, not long days of shooting. You don't know how many rehearsals, how many 'takes' and how much waiting around in between is behind a two-minute scene in which the audience actually sees the baby.
It's nothing like daycare, which is specifically designed around the needs of the child.

And the school play is nothing like professional cinematic acting. Infants are not taught public speaking when they appear on a television program. Small children - depending on how small - may enjoy the limelight, but they do tend to become damaged over time. https://www.medicalbag.com/home/specialties/pediatrics/the-life-of-a-child-star-why-some-go-crazy-and-others-dont/
If success creates mental health issues (in adults, too, incidentally) imagine what failure does to a little kid who was promised stardom.

the lighting, the noise, the presence of strangers, the incomprehensibility of the situation and the irregularity of schedules has to be stressful. — Vera Mont

Not accurate (and I've been on many film sets). Whenever infants are present there's a deep respect among the team members not to cause any stress and there are regulations and rules to follow for shoots involving children and animals. The experience for an infant is barely different from being with their parent's friends outside in public among people. So should we ban people in cities to walk outside with their children? That's far more stressful than a film set. And the time children are on set is usually very short, only for the shot and then they go home. If a child is in many scenes it usually involves twins in order to comply with the time rules and regulations for children and animals. And dummies are often used for any shot that isn't a close-up.

Those things happen one time, for a few hours, not long days of shooting. You don't know how many rehearsals, how many 'takes' and how much waiting around in between is behind a two-minute scene in which the audience actually sees the baby. — Vera Mont

Not accurate as I mentioned. There are no long days of shoots for infants, ever. Twins or triplings are utilized if the time exceeds the regulations which are strict. If someone breaks those rules, that's not an industry problem, that's a problem with those specific people, just like if some asshole treats a child bad in public you don't blame everyone on the street.

Small children - depending on how small - may enjoy the limelight, but they do tend to become damaged over time. — Vera Mont

If success creates mental health issues (in adults, too, incidentally) imagine what failure does to a little kid who was promised stardom. — Vera Mont

The reason why many child actors in Hollywood have gone down that route is because many parents and caretakers of these children are forcing their children into fame as an extension for themselves becoming famous. There's a culture around fame in Hollywood that is downright destructive to anyone's soul.

But that has nothing to do with film sets and set practices. And anecdotal cases from a small number of shoots with infants and children does not reflect the entire world of filmmaking. The problem has to do with the culture of fame, not film shoots.

Another problem as I see it is that there's an extreme obsession with protecting children today in a way that becomes destructive. Amateur psychologists or people who think they know child psychology make wild conclusions about what children can handle or not. What we've seen the last couple of years are Millennial parents who's so overprotective of their children that when they enter teenage years and later are unequipped to handle the complexity of adult life. The overprotection of children systematically makes the children, when later grown up, more susceptible to anxiety and depression because they've never been in enough situations to process difficulties of life. So facing challenges in childhood is not the problem, it's the lack of guidance and if the "guides" around children just push them into fame and that culture without such guidance on how to navigate such a sphere, that's what's causing these problems.

As someone who's been any many sets and actually knows that world it's frustrating to see people from the outside speak of something they clearly know very little about. Especially since the problems with child actors in Hollywood aren't seen in other film industries to the same extent and especially since the root cause of the problems often lie outside of the film sets. When it comes to children working as actors (not infants), more often than not it's the familiarity and "family" of the crew and cast that becomes their comfort and it's the cult culture around fame that's handled by their agents, parents and other people in Hollywood that's the destructive part, not sets or crews.

Pointing fingers at film crews like this is an extremely skewed situation that isn't fair to the people who actually functions as the best people around famous child actors. Anecdotal and situational accounts of bad practices on sets are no more common than having the children out in public or anywhere else. So please stop pointing fingers at film crews like this, it's not accurate.

Whenever infants are present there's a deep respect among the team members not to cause any stress and there are regulations and rules to follow for shoots involving children and animals. — Christoffer

I'm very glad to know that. Changes the whole perspective. Thanks. No need for ab asurdum comparisons.
Though I still cavil at lack of informed consent. I don't see that infants are necessary, and very small children tend to be unconvincing anyway: they don't make eye contact and rarely respond to the people who are supposed to matter to them in the scene itself - their caregiver is obviously somewhere off-stage. I also admit to a personal prejudice against child-centered story lines.

The reason why many child actors in Hollywood have gone down that route is because many parents and caretakers of these children are forcing their children into fame as an extension for themselves becoming famous. — Christoffer

Agreed. It happens to juvenile athletes, too, and precociously bright children.

Another problem as I see it is that there's an extreme obsession with protecting children today in a way that becomes destructive. — Christoffer

Yes, that is a hallmark of American society. The iconization of innocence. And keeping the young dependent, consuming on their parents' credit cards, out of the work-force, as long as possible.

The overprotection of children systematically makes the children, when later grown up, more susceptible to anxiety — Christoffer

It also keeps them somewhat infantile and self-indulgent well into adulthood, which is another boon to the debt-driven economy.
I found it very interesting to compare the visual images, as well as the biographical information of my European father's cohort (c. 1920-25) at age 18 or 20 to the modern North American men of my own generation. And, for that matter, my childhood to my grandchildren's. I think I was happier - certainly more free. But then, the social environment changed considerably.

Problems with child actor seem to be more prominent when they become celebrities and act as a "career." In general though, I think drama programs are excellent for young children. It teaches public speaking and the ability to take on roles based on context. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Agree with all the prior and just wanted to comment here - Yep, that seems to be when the parent's intentions become clear and get in the way.

I don't see that infants are necessary — Vera Mont

CGI isn't cheap. A digital baby that's supposed to be viewed in close ups can cost many millions of dollars to make, without any guarantee of it actually looking more convincing than a real infant. Children of Men is an example of it being very convincing, but that's a huge budget.

lack of informed consent — Vera Mont

But that's true for all situations an infant are in, and why it's the responsibility of the parent or caregiver. You can bring an infant out into a public place and that is also without consent. You can't get consent from an individual who does not have neither the communication capability or enough ability to understand the situation they are in. Usually, a film set is quieter and less stressful than a public street.

their caregiver is obviously somewhere off-stage. — Vera Mont

Parents are usually right next to the camera. They're right up close because that's part of the regulations, but even so, I've never even heard of any crew who would even think of separating the parent from the infant during a shoot and it's also crucial in order to even get a shot. When it comes to crying, there's been occasions when twins in which one of the infants usually cry a lot and the other not. So the crew simply stand by with the camera and quietly wait out until the child who cries a lot starts to naturally cry. Usually it only takes a few seconds of crying to get the shot needed and then the rest is just sound effects and a dummy. And when there's a need for calm, the other twin is filmed instead. Set's aren't mechanical brutal machineries, they're usually boring slow and a lot of waiting. It's often more of a problem that there's too much waiting rather than stress and when infants and children are involved, crews generally are super focused to quietly and quickly be ready before the infant is even brought on set. It's the same with animals, especially if they're not trained for filmmaking.

But there could definitely be shoots with malpractice of this. There's a lot of filmmaking taking place outside of regulated productions, so those should be criticized if they fail to comply. However, real productions are very careful, both because of all the regulations, but simply out of respect from the crew.

a lot of waiting — Christoffer

80% of my time on sets has been waiting lol.

A digital baby that's supposed to be viewed in close ups can cost many millions of dollars to make, without any guarantee of it actually looking more convincing than a real infant. — Christoffer

So what? They're not that much fun to look at in real life. Use a Cabbage Patch Kid and it won't bother me - cheaper and less waiting, too.

But that's true for all situations an infant are in, and why it's the responsibility of the parent or caregiver. — Christoffer

Yes. Except that this is a commercial situation, one in which the child's image will be recorded for some foreseeable future and available for commercial use to who knows what entities. Same with photographs. They can be a source of pleasure and nostalgia or shame or exploitation. The subject has no control over the product. The subject, and source of income, is treated as the property of the caregiver.

Parents are usually right next to the camera. — Christoffer

Yes. That's where the kid is looking - not at the actor who is supposed to be their parent in the movie. That's why they're unconvincing in the scene.

Set's aren't mechanical brutal machineries, they're usually boring slow and a lot of waiting. — Christoffer

Yes, I got that from your earlier post. I've already yielded on that score.
If you need them and the parents or guardians are on board, fine. If the kids' lives get ruined, well, that happens a lot more without any cinematic intervention, just through unfortunate circumstances.

So what? They're not that much fun to look at in real life. Use a Cabbage Patch Kid and it won't bother me — Vera Mont

That's not the point though? A realistic infant is needed to be able to tell a story. I don't understand this argument? It sounds more like you don't like seeing infants in movies? If so, no one's forcing you to watch movies.

in which the child's image will be recorded for some foreseeable future — Vera Mont

An infants likeness to their adult self or even child self is barely if at all recognizable. So why does this matter? The subject was about trauma due to on-set practices.

and available for commercial use to who knows what entities. — Vera Mont

For the specific movie or TV-series, yes, so I'm not sure what you are talking about? A production company doesn't own anything other than the filmed shots for the purpose of the movie, except for any trailers, posters and photos from that movie for marketing it. It barely even stretches into using shots from previous movies as "flashbacks" in sequels since it sometimes spawn lawsuits from the actor not getting paid for re-using those shots in a new project. Contracts are for the specific movie or TV-series specifically. A production company doesn't own any other type of use out of the images they shot. If some shots were edited out, they can edit them in with a director's cut without affecting anything, but that's about it. So I'm not sure what other "entities" you refer to it becoming available to?

Yes. That's where the kid is looking - not at the actor who is supposed to be their parent. That's why they're they're unconvincing in the scene. — Vera Mont

Depends on the shot and competence of how it's framed. Sometimes it's also possible to just digitally replace the head of a parent holding a child, to that of the actor. But most of the time, the parent, child and actor get to know each other before rolling (obviously also so that the infant feels comfortable in the arms of someone else), so that there's a more likely connection between the actor and the infant in the scene. I see no difference between that and a parent letting their friend hold their baby. And actually, a lot of times it is actually a friend of the actor who's the parent so there's even less issues. Of course, there's a lot of bad examples but nowadays I rarely see it. Mostly also because it's so easy to digitally change where someone is looking in a scene so productions do that if the child starts looking in another direction.

If the kids' lives get ruined, well, that happens a lot more without any cinematic intervention, just through unfortunate circumstances. — Vera Mont

I see the amount of incompetent parents as a bigger reason for traumatic childhoods. Domestic fights between parents, misbehavior due to alcohol etc. The common culprits of abuse are one thing, but even parents who aren't crossing such thresholds can cause traumas just by not being educated enough on child psychology. Like, in attachment theory, if a parent just leaves the apartment without signaling this to a child, even though the other parent is home; it can cause a traumatic feeling in the child as if the parent disappeared from their life. A continued behavior of this can cause long term trauma that could even form problems to handle social skills well as an adult.

Generally, modern life isn't adapted well to taking care of children. Parents today are forced away from the necessary time that should be given to the child and with the rise of neoliberal individualism as a societal ideal, parents are ill-equiped to move away from the self-centered lifestyle they have, and subsequent unintentionally harms their children psychologically.

As long as we have the forces of capitalism pressuring parents into living paycheck to paycheck, they will not ever find the time to parent for the sake of the child.

And that's ironic, since many modern parents are so overprotective of their children, they want to shield them from all the worlds harm to the point of wrapping them in bubble wrap; all while the harm might come from the parents themselves, without them even understanding or noticing it.

That's not the point though? A realistic infant is needed to be able to tell a story. I don't understand this argument? It sounds more like you don't like seeing infants in movies? — Christoffer

I have already said I don't like kiddie stories very much, let alone baby ones, and all the seemingly obligatory childbirth scenes are just sick-making.
There is no argument. What I meant by the cabbage patch remark was that I don't care whether there are realistic infants in a picture or not.
I conceded your point about their excellent kid-glove treatment - twice.

Sometimes it's also possible to just digitally replace the head of a parent holding a child, to that of the actor. — Christoffer

That's not what I usually see on the screen. I was talking about unconvincing small children. The actor is talking to the toddler, and the toddler is staring off into nowhere, utterly indifferent. Once in a while, you can tell that there is a connection; most of the time, little kids just look daft. After about four or five years old, they begin to act as if they were actually in the scene.

I see the amount of incompetent parents as a bigger reason for traumatic childhoods. — Christoffer

Sure - didn't I just say that? Plus lousy social services, poverty, ignorance, high levels of stress and anxiety, insufficient health care, poor nutrition... Or else too much affluence, overindulgence, sense of entitlement, pressure to excel, to be popular, etc., etc.