The suit alleges that [Franco] Zeffirelli — who died in 2019 — assured both actors that there would be no nudity in the film, and that they would wear flesh-colored undergarments in the bedroom scene. But in the final days of filming, the director allegedly implored them to perform in the nude with body makeup, “or the Picture would fail.”
The actor who played Romeo, Leonard Whiting, was 16 at the time, the same age as Romeo is in the story. Olivia Hussey was 15, and the character she played, Juliet, was only 13. We who watched the movie at the time — I saw it on a school trip and no one said anything about the underaged sex depicted on screen — experienced it as a highly artistic film. Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet felt like the ideal of exalted romantic love — love that the adults in the story tragically failed to understand.
“What they were told and what went on were two different things,” said Tony Marinozzi, who is a business manager for both actors. “They trusted Franco. At 16, as actors, they took his lead that he would not violate that trust they had. Franco was their friend, and frankly, at 16, what do they do? There are no options. There was no #MeToo.”...
“Nude images of minors are unlawful and shouldn’t be exhibited,” said the actors’ attorney, Solomon Gresen, in an interview. “These were very young naive children in the ’60s who had no understanding of what was about to hit them. All of a sudden they were famous at a level they never expected, and in addition they were violated in a way they didn’t know how to deal with.”
The lawsuit relies in part on a California law that temporarily suspended the statute of limitations for older claims of child sexual abuse.....
They're not complaining about the display of a 13-year-old girl's sexuality, which is Shakespeare's story that has been so highly valued for centuries. They are complaining about the display of Whiting's naked buttocks, and Hussey's breasts — more than 50 years ago. They seek $500 million.
Posts
61 comments:
The world has gone nuts
John Henry
It would be a big deal today. Was it a big deal at the time? I doubt it. Over the top horror at childhood sexuality is a recent invention. 500 million is insane; especially considering there was likely no harm done to either actor.
Crocodile tears here. This was released back when people actually struggled and competed to produce the best final product (i.e., belief that nudity/body pain would be higher quality). This was produced with contemporary film/art industry ethical standards, and cannot be judged in any fashion 50 years later. This follows a long list of attempted cash-ins. The Nirvana album cover naked baby also sued and lost. Baby penises are so shocking!
Nirvana suit: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-59867369
Next up, everyone involved with "Lolita" sues because...payday...when the money runs out...
The alternative is drooling "get woke, go broke" non-art that no one watches or cares about.
Child abuse as a public problem was discovered in the 60s. Child sexual abuse as a public problem was discovered in the 70s. Before that they were both personal moral failings, not public problems.
Child sexual abuse is ratings gold, hence all the child day care fantasy prosecutions in the 90s. It's good for prosecutors. #MeToo thrives on it today.
Same for drunk driving, which was discovered as a public problem in the late 50s, where before that they were personal moral failings.
Every rebellious sex act of the 60s has now been avenged or is in process of lawsuit.
No pinch on the butt has gone unpunished. Every opportunity to bitch and moan has been seized. The ladies will be complaining in outraged novels for another hundred years.
Only the lawyers remain standing, collecting their fees and filing their documents.
When will the gays and perverts cease reveling in outraging the rubes and discover the greater glories of lawsuits and revenge?
Mrs Chiusano showed the movie to us in eighth grade English. She dialed it up on one of those ancient video on demand machines New York State blew to tons of money on. For two days she set it up and and went to grading papers. Do these attorneys want to help me sue New York State for $500 million for exposing minors to child porn?
I didn’t think so. Sigh…
If you were a big time movie maker is was okay to go fifth base with 12 year olds back then. Angelica Huston was a but unsettled but the rest of the left says a-okay!
Whiting and Hussey obviously have no shame (a shameless Hussey?) so what’s the point?
When I was growing up (mid-90s), it was a right of passage for 9th graders -you read R&J, then you watched the movie. And the movie included Juliette’s boobs! Right there in class, we couldn’t believe it. It was a balance between feeling amazed that this could be allowed, and also feeling artistic and sophisticated in the way Althouse described, that this was a way to convey the true meaning of the story and we were now cool enough to handle that. But also, boobs.
I wonder when (if) they stopped showing that movie in school. I knew a few people younger then me who watched the 90s era Claire Danes/Leo DiCaprio movie, but that’s a completely different experience (and, while I liked that movie, one better met by showing West Side Story to show the ability to interpret and re-imagine the story).
we saw it, AT SCHOOL (1978) and ALL that anyone talked about (including teach) was the nudity
We also watched that version of Romeo and Juliet in school. However, our teacher covered up the sex scene with a binder. Did the same thing with the Laurence Fishburn Othello.
Now do Fast Times at Ridgemont High!
Now do Pretty Baby!
Morgan and Morgan?
Morgan and Morgan?
"Lawsuits I hope fail" tag?
Half a billion for a couple of ass cheeks and a pair of tits? LOL!
From #metoo to #wetoo...they even got the disregard for statute of limitations right.
In the entire history of cinema there has been only one nude scene that was not gratuitous - “The Crying Game”.
This is a lawsuit I hope fails. I agree with the plaintiffs that the nudity was exploitative of children. I haven’t seen the movie to judge any artistic merit. There may not have been a #MeToo movement, but where were the parents? How much money did the parents make for agreeing to allow their children to be exploited?
John Henry is succinctly correct . . . about this and so many other current issues.
Surely this ridiculous lawsuit deserves the "lawsuits that I hope fail" tag! Don't go wobbly on us.
What are you going to do with that much money now that you are 70. You missed the best years to have been wildly rich.
Next up: Brooke Shields really was 12 when she did a nude scene while portraying a 12 year girl living in a New Orleans brothel in “Pretty Baby.”
Before I get too excited about the lawsuit, I want to know what the age of consent was in Italy in 1967, when the film was shot. The famous bedroom scene was shot in Siena if I am rightly interpreting what Wiki says about the production. Trying to apply today’s laws in the US to something that occurred 55 years ago in another country makes no sense to me.
I recall seeing that wonderful movie with my girlfriend when I was 22. I don’t recall that either of us took much note of the very brief nudity. Maybe in my case it was because my girlfriend, bring also in her twenties, was a bit better endowed than 15 year old Hussey was. But a gentleman says no more than that.
Hussey was so traumatized by what Zeffirelli did to her in 1968 when she was 15 that 9 years later (when she had been adult for several years ) she worked with him again in a miniseries called Jesus of Nazareth where she played Mary. And Zeffirelli is conveniently dead and unavailable to refute any accusations. Color me skeptical.
rhhardin @ 6:29: Agree with your take on this succession of “public problems” arising out of personal moral failings. It’s a powerful dynamic and has pretty well devoured our public lives. The grifters, hysterics, lawyers, media and politicians work synergistically to create and market the product —a new and urgent epidemic of some pathological behavior (often, as with the childcare center cases, largely or entirely imaginary)— and then stampede the public and the targeted institution into rich paydays, celebrity status and self-perpetuating Foundations For The Abolition of [Insert Cause Here].
I keep returning to Eric Hoffer’s remark: “Every cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and ends as a racket.” Do racketeers ever quit? No: when their cause is bankrupt, they find another.
The 1960's had more common good sense about mores and boundaries than the 2020's.
I never thought I'd type that sentence.
Yet these actors went all these years benefiting from the notoriety they received from the film and said not a word. Only now, over fifty years later, did they discover the horror done to them.
taking today's insane standards and applying them to the past should be illegal.
I seek 500 million for reading that.
Not that they'll ever answer this, but I can't help wondering about the conversation between them, since they're suing together. I wonder if they really think, "Yeah, looking back on it 50+ years later, that really messed me up"? Or more like, "Wow, there could really be some good money in this."
Thinking of a good scene in Justified. Raylan is testifying that a thug belongs back in prison. The only mechanism to send him back there is to portray himself as the thug's victim, and his heart isn't in it at all. "And that - which, caused me...great pain and suffering. [Sidelong, to judge:] All things considered, I'm fine."
AMDG: "In the entire history of cinema there has been only one nude scene that was not gratuitous". This reminds me of TVTropes' point that The Terminator features maybe the most plot-essential sex scene in movie history.
Everyone, especially the girls, mentioned the nude scene first off at my school, and I was waiting for it from the start and eying my date to see her reaction - hopefully excited. I can also still picture Olivia Hussey in that moment, and I don't think I have seen a still since, and I know I haven't seen the movie again. Who are they kidding that it was not especially noticed?
This is going to be one where it has always been "Eh, it's Hollywood, Jake," but now the defenses of it are going to be so shabby as to make us wonder if we were too forgiving then.
Who's left to sue?
Mr. Skin?
My date, both of us high schoolers, were turned on. I remember that the brief nudity was a topic of conversation, and, per Zeffirelli, a reason to go see it.
Apparently Dean Martin Jr. was turned on, too. He married Juliet.
How much did the actors get paid in '67? how much is the film now bringing those who own the copyright?
They want a piece of that action. OK with me.
As for the nudity, who cares? that boat sailed 50 years ago. We now have the Government pushing drag queen story hour.
I wasn't sure which way this would shakeout. Were the teenaged actors "snowflakes" or was the filmmaker a "groomer"?
And the winner is... snowflake!
The story about how Zeffirelli coerced two teenagers into being filmed naked on the last day of shooting after promising no nudity is disturbing. Long time ago. But pretty sick.
This makes me kind of sad. One of the few movies where the nudity involved made sense and was a positive addition. It wasn’t overly sexual or prurient. It added poignancy and, to me, an authentic romanticism. I think that scene added to the overall impact of the tragic ending. And I say that not being a huge Romeo and Juliet fan… I appreciate the poetic beauty of the language but don’t really like the story.
I get they were young. But, I wish they could look back on it and be proud rather than angry. And if they were that traumatized, maybe they should be suing their parents for allowing them to be on the set at all.
A new addition to the annals of On Second Thought.
I like to see attractive nude women as much as any other straight guy, but I long ago came to the conclusion that nudity should not be used in cinema...at least, not in commercial films released for the general public. For one, 99% of the time, it is gratuitous and not in the least necessary to tell the story being told, and second, it yanks us abruptly from the "fictional dream" of the story, as we are all immediately aware we are watching (famous actress) NEKKID!, rather than her character exposed naked before us to convey a necessary dramatic point.
(I grant there may be rare exceptions for unique artistic circumstances where nudity is necessary or significantly contributes to the dramatic intentions of the story being told such that we, the audience, enjoy a greater dramatic experience than if the nudity were excluded. But...can I name such an instance as I type these words? No.)
Hussey defended that scene in an interview with Variety in 2018.
"The film also had its share of controversy, because of Hussey and Whiting’s nude love scene. Though nudity was commonplace in European films, the scene was frowned upon by some in U.S. at the time.
“Nobody my age had done that before,” said Hussey, who turned 16 during filming. She added that Zeffirelli shot it tastefully. “It was needed for the film.”
Both were already working actors when they were cast.
“Everyone thinks they were so young they probably didn’t realize what they were doing,” said Hussey. “But we were very aware. We both came from drama schools and when you work, you take your work very seriously.”"
https://variety.com/2018/film/news/romeo-and-juliet-at-50-olivia-hussey-leonard-whiting-1202970939/
"The Piano" is a film where nudity added an important depth to the storytelling. I would say the same of R&J. Seeing these young people portraying young people who become intimate was shocking. They're too young for this scene in real life because they're too young in the story. It's artistically powerful.
However, I'm also sympathetic. I look back on some of the choices adults made for me and I envy the greater understanding of current times. Children shouldn't have been doing these things.
Looking for a nice payday when they no longer have any careers.
Thora Birch took off her top in American Beauty when she was 17, to some controversy. Her agent was her father, who apparently was seriously exploitative.
Too bad. Unlike the trash of today it was a great movie and the scene was tasteful.
The kids did a great job in the picture. Sorry if their careers were less than they had hoped, but 50 years later? Seriously?
“Everyone thinks they were so young they probably didn’t realize what they were doing,” said Hussey. “But we were very aware. We both came from drama schools and when you work, you take your work very seriously.”"
Pedophilic apology and entreaty.
“It was needed for the film.”
Leverage to gain a queer vote. Self-affirmation, perhaps. h/t Levine
Liberal license to excess and forward-looking regret.
Normalize, tolerate, or reject?
We had best take off from orbit and nuke Hollywood. That’s the only way to be sure we get all of the pedophiles.
This is one stupid lawsuit, just a cash grab. If I’m on the jury I acquit.
We had best take off from orbit and nuke Hollywood. That’s the only way to be sure we get all of the pedophiles.
This is one stupid lawsuit, just a cash grab. If I’m on the jury I acquit.
Doubt the lawsuit will go anywhere, and I don't even think it should. That said -- showing naked children in sexual situations in movies cannot be allowed, regardless of whether it is for "art" (hint: it's never just for the art) or the parents give consent. These days, if you want to do that, you need to cast 18+ actors. Is anyone arguing with that standard?
I watched the movie in 8th or 9th grade, in school -- as with others posting here, for me and for our class it was ALL about the nudity. At least we were underage, unlike the adult art aficionados who enjoyed it.
"Now do Fast Times at Ridgemont High!"
Phoebe Cates was around 19 at the time, so it wasn't an issue. Of course, most actors playing high school students these days are in their early or even late 20s -- which is why it seems so weirdly authentic when they hire real kids to portray kids.
The Criterion Collection is planning on releasing a blu-ray of this next month. I think the suit is connected to this timeline. Not sure when it was last released.
It seems to me Olivia Hussey hasn't a leg to stand on given she went out of her way to defend the scene, along with her continued association with Zeffirelli later on. Sounds to me like bandwagoning.
I watched the film in English class in the early 80s. I loved the film, but mainly for the scenery and costuming - less about the dialogue. By this time 'Fast Times at Ridgemont High' and 'Porky's' were both popular teen films. The nudity didn't seem like a big deal, in the context of the drama. I guess some of the boys in my class snickered about it, but I don't recall anyone getting really worked up.
What they should seek is to have the film confiscated and destroyed as the child pornography it is. That would be the best way to punish the director/producer and send a message to future violators. You do this, your "art" will be destroyed.
Apparently we can't see that long, winding road from exploiting teenage actors for the "sake of the film" (film's $$ and buzz, at least) and the eventual rise of #MeToo. Zefferelli's slimy move to coerce the kids into the nude scene displays the same ethos as the vile director who drugged and raped 13 year old girls, fled to Europe to avoide prosecution, and later was given a standing ovation for his "lifetime achievements".
By any rights, both of them should have been taken behind the production building and roughed up with a warning to stay away from the kids from now on. Or else.
That would have solved #MeToo before most of its 'victims' were born.
Wait a minute ... When was the film made? And when was the lawsuit filed? Am I missing something?
I did some research online to answer the question I posed at 8:00 am. In Italy, then and now, the age of consent was and still is 14. I also leaned that Olivia Hussey was 16 at the time the scene was shot. So she was two years over the age of consent. I think she will, and ought to, lose that suit.
Zefferelli's slimy move to coerce the kids into the nude scene displays the same ethos as the vile director who drugged and raped 13 year old girls, fled to Europe to avoide prosecution, and later was given a standing ovation for his "lifetime achievements".
Polanski certainly had empathetic appeal. That said, social progress celebrated with pride in parades by the cultural elite, fourth estate, and now our federal government, too.
that long, winding road from exploiting teenage actors for the "sake of the film" (film's $$ and buzz, at least) and the eventual rise of #MeToo
Come to the Sundance movie festival, stay for the liberal libation.
I didn't recall Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" actually having a sex scene, so I don't know how the Director is being true to the original by including one. They did spend the night together and perhaps they did have sex (very likely to consummate their marriage), but Shakespeare didn't have a sex scene.
Act III Scene 5. Of course, there's a sex scene.
That's all the movie shows -- them in bed together waking up and needing to separate.
In the director’s commentary for the film Name of the Rose, Jean-Jacques Annaud recalls how he closed the set, not permitting any parents/guardians, to film the love scene between 15 year old Christian Slater and Valentina Vargas in the hopes that they really did have sex as he was filming. “In the middle of the sex scene between Valentina Vargas and Christian Slater, the actress is seen putting a patch on her vagina, to avoid direct contact with actor's genitals. It proves that Jean-Jacques Annaud probably wanted real penetration in the scene, but that Vargas didn't agree. In an interview with Cosmopolitan, Slater said that during that scene he thought that "they were waiting for me to get an erection. They wanted to see the consummation. But there was no way. I couldn't perform while the camera was rolling."
Not only did the commentary ruin the movie for me but I always hoped it would form the basis of a lawsuit.
Post a Comment