The emotional and developmental demands of professional performance — the requirement to access and sustain specific emotional states on demand, to repeat them across multiple takes, to submit to the authority of adult directors and producers and to relate to adult colleagues as professional peers while still being, chronologically and developmentally, children — are demands that the law has been slower to address. The set tutor requirement, the limitations on working hours, the various protections that have evolved over the decades: these are better than nothing, but they do not resolve the fundamental tension between a child’s developmental needs and the requirements of professional performance.
Drew Barrymore’s particular situation was complicated by the fact that her family structure, rather than being protective against the industry’s demands, was itself a source of additional pressure. The industry was not primarily responsible for her exposure to Studio 54 or to substances at nine years old. Her family was. But the industry had created and sustained the conditions in which a nine-year-old was treated as a professional commodity — conditions that shaped how her family related to her and what pressures they experienced in relation to her.
The conversation about institutional responsibility for child performers has continued in the years since Drew Barrymore’s childhood, driven partly by the visible difficulties that she and others from her cohort experienced. Former child stars who have spoken publicly about their experiences have contributed to a gradually expanding understanding of what early professional performance costs, and what kinds of protections might mitigate those costs. The industry has responded, slowly and often inadequately, with improved protections and greater awareness of the specific vulnerabilities involved.