Jessica Alba Exposed: Machete Nude Scene was Computer Generated

Posted by on October 20th, 2010   Filed under: Action, Technology
Source: /Film

In an age when we can create entire worlds out of nothing more than 1s and 0s, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to tell whether what we’re seeing in movies is real or artificial. CG has allowed us to see all kinds of things that were not possible even 10 years ago, but it has also become a crutch for filmmakers looking for the easiest way to accomplish a task. With all this power, somehow it’s not surprising that the technology would eventually be used to digitally remove an actor’s clothes. That’s right, as painful as the truth may be, Jessica Alba’s nude shower scene in Machete was accomplished with the help of CG. Apparently it’s not such a brave new world after all.

The Daily Mail explains that Jessica Alba has vowed never to go in front of a camera nude, and so in order to get around this limitation, Robert Rodriguez had her wear white underwear and then swapped it out in post. On the one hand, it’s no different than the myriad of digital alterations we’ve seen applied to actors on screen, but on the other hand, nudity was promised as part of the package with a movie like Machete and this does feel like a bit of a cheat. Still, is it any different than employing a body double, which Lindsay Lohan clearly used for her own nude scenes?

In the end, Jessica Alba remains partially covered in the scene, which makes it seem even more ridiculous that they would take such measures to accomplish it. Either way, I wouldn’t be surprised if digital nudity starts becoming more commonplace, especially with the need for 3-D breasts in movies like Piranha! Does this set a bad precedent? Should we, as viewers, demand to see only real nudity in our movies?



  • Maopheus

    That’s why Alba doesn’t get a lot of respect from the Mr. Skin crowd. Nor does Natalie Portman. Just seems funny that if she refuses to do nude scenes (and the scene in Machete wasn’t really a nude scene, we didn’t see anything really) why Rodriguez would have even bothered. It seemed like an unnecessary shot. I’d of course want to see real nudity. I mean if it’s like a long-distance shot or something static, I suppose you can’t really tell, but real nudity all the time damn it!
    And with regard to Lindsay Lohan’s body double. Ugh, who’s watching this movie to see her brilliant acting anyway? I suppose the scene where she awakes in the church you can kind of see her nipples behind her strategically placed hair. Some people have claimed this to count as nudity.

  • Werner

    Since CGI gets cheaper and cheaper even the body doubles are loosing their jobs.

  • rjdelight

    I don’t even remember Machete having an Alba nude scene. Guess that film really left an impression on me. ;)

  • Gil

    Great! Now I have doubts about the prologue in Antichrist.

  • I don’t know if you’re joking or not, but if you’re talking about Willem Dafoe, I’m pretty sure it was a body double.

  • Henrik

    The Antichrist opening is performed with body doubles. It goes well with the advertisement-aesthetic, but I found it a little distracting that they all of a sudden cut to a porncock.

  • GfC

    To me showing nudity just for showoff, and not really being there as part of story (which i feel almost every Hollywood movies and series does/overdoes. Nudity should be there if actually needed. Other than that, i don’t go the the cinema to watch nudity, for that i will see a porno.