1171 Romeo and Juliet

Discuss releases by Criterion and the films on them. Threads may contain spoilers!
Message
Author
User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#51 Post by MichaelB » Fri Jan 06, 2023 11:24 am

The 1978 Protection of Children Act in the UK and the Traci Lords scandal in the US a few years later have meant that production companies have been far more assiduous about checking people's ages upfront, if there's even the tiniest chance of them being involved in material that might be deemed to be sexually explicit - it's no longer good enough just to go by the performer's word any more, as this could be a very expensive mistake. (There's a hilarious chapter about the immediate financial, logistical and massive legal fall-out from the Lords scandal in Robert Rosen's porn-industry memoir Beaver Street.)

But of course "sexually explicit" can be defined in quite a few ways, some more prudish than others. The BBFC one reflects the legal position, which is that mere nudity itself (even full-frontal nudity) isn't censorable, regardless of the performer's age - it has to be in an explicitly sexual context that is apparent from the content of the individual shot. Which is why I don't believe they've ever had a problem with To the Devil a Daughter on the multiple occasions that it's been submitted (four between 1976 and 2006) as it doesn't cross that line. (Same with Romeo and Juliet, of course - a PG or equivalent every single time.)

I haven't seen The Hole, but on the face of it there's nothing legally problematic about an underage Keira Knightley being topless in an autopsy scene per se, unless the corpse was actually shown being sexually interfered with (and explicitly so, not merely implied by clever cutting). At which point, from a legal perspective, it ceases to be footage from a fiction film and becomes a recording of an actual crime being committed - which is the crucial distinction.

User avatar
ellipsis7
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#52 Post by ellipsis7 » Fri Jan 06, 2023 12:15 pm

Kracker wrote:
Fri Jan 06, 2023 7:33 am
ellipsis7 wrote:
Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:15 am
The word from Italy is that in both Hussey & Whiting's contracts there was a clause clearly stating they would not do nudity, so Paramount are basically 'incastrato'...
Now that just sounds like gross speculation. If there was such a thing, not only does it change things completely, but they wouldn't have had to wait for a lapse in statue of limitations to sue, because they straight up violated a contract.
It was mentioned on Thursday's edition of 'Hollywood Party', the daily cinema programme on RAI Radio 3, so is not random speculation... And I can see there is a file for the film in the Archivio Centrale dello Stato in Rome, Ministero del turismo e dello spettacolo, Direzione generale spettacolo, Archivio cinema, which would contain details of the production & coproduction, with relevant documentation & approvals, including budget, script, schedule, personnel, cast, contract & censorship issues... Interestingly it seems to have also involved Riccardo Freda, the director of the 1964 Italian language version of Romeo e Giulietta, it looks like he was then initially attached as director to the 1968 English language version before being replaced by Zeffirelli, but remained as one of the three writers contributing to the screenplay...

User avatar
FrauBlucher
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Greenwich Village

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#53 Post by FrauBlucher » Sat Feb 11, 2023 4:16 pm


User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#54 Post by colinr0380 » Sun Feb 12, 2023 6:25 am

I'm not sure if I should click that click based on Gary's uncanny ability to hone in on even the briefest flash of nudity in a screencapture!

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#55 Post by Matt » Sun Feb 12, 2023 2:23 pm

I clicked it for you. It’s SFW and you won’t be put on a FBI watch list.

LCD22
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2023 7:46 pm

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#56 Post by LCD22 » Sun Feb 26, 2023 10:34 am

Could any here provide insights on the bolded portions of this review?

https://www.criterionforum.org/Review/r ... on-blu-ray
The new restoration and end presentation significantly improve upon Paramount’s previous DVD edition. The new scan has picked up an incredible level of detail, the textures of the costumes leaping out now, same with the courtyard's stone walls and other settings. The colors look decent, limited a bit by the Eastmancolor source and what looks to be a bit of a teal push at times, but skin tones and whites still look strong alongside nice pops of blue, red, and orange. Black levels are inky with wide range in the shadows, though some day-for-night shots can look a little flat with a bit of crush that could be baked into the photography.

User avatar
Tuppence
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 7:52 am

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#57 Post by Tuppence » Thu May 25, 2023 5:49 pm

Whiting and Hussey are apparently about to have their lawsuit thrown out, but according to this article:
The actors, who were both under 18 at the time, are allegedly planning to appeal as well as file a separate lawsuit pinned to the recent Criterion DVD release of the film which would not be affected by the statute of limitations.
Hard to say if this means it would have any greater chance of legal success, or if they're just trying to make the release so painful and unprofitable that Criterion pull it from the marketplace.

User avatar
furbicide
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:52 am

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#58 Post by furbicide » Thu May 25, 2023 8:08 pm

Wow, that does sound ominous. Is it fair to assume Criterion probably aren't going to have the resources to fight this? I also feel like the scope to play the heel here (something that a big movie studio like Paramount can do effortlessly) is going to be considerably more limited given Criterion's niche market position and the centrality of reputation management to their business model.

In any case, the disc is already out there and has been for three months, so it presumably wouldn't be a big loss to jettison it now if it helped avoid a payout. I don't know if it would make any sense to make this a fight to the death on principle, either: whatever we think of Whiting and Hussey's motivations, if actors are saying that they're uncomfortable with their (let alone underage) nude scenes in a film and that they were manipulated into them, there's not much room to move there regardless of the lawsuit's prospects of success.

User avatar
Kracker
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 2:06 pm

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#59 Post by Kracker » Thu May 25, 2023 10:35 pm

Judge Throws Out Lawsuit Over 1968 ‘Romeo and Juliet’ Underage Nude Scene

Yeah, guys, that is absolutely laughable. Criterion or anybody else releasing the film does not "restart the statute of limitations". That is not a thing. Whatever greedy scumbag lawyer the plaintiffs hired, they are free to argue the case but its just going to get thrown out again, as predictably as this one did. Nor does Criterion have to do anything when they are still suing Paramount as the licensee.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#60 Post by cdnchris » Thu May 25, 2023 11:14 pm

furbicide wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 8:08 pm
Wow, that does sound ominous. Is it fair to assume Criterion probably aren't going to have the resources to fight this? I also feel like the scope to play the heel here (something that a big movie studio like Paramount can do effortlessly) is going to be considerably more limited given Criterion's niche market position and the centrality of reputation management to their business model.
I doubt they have to worry for a few reasons, including, as Kracker said, it's Paramount's "problem" primarily.

It also sounds like a Hail Mary that will get laughed out.

It appears the lawyers tried to take advantage of that temporary suspension of the statute of limitations in California, but the judge found that they didn't meet the criteria required. Yet it doesn't sound like that matters and was secondary since the judge also ruled that the scene was not pornographic based on the language of the law, even saying that they twisted the language in their suit to force it to fit, and in the end, the suit had no merit on those grounds. What the lawyers are doing is they're looking for a way to at least get around the statute part of the ruling by saying that the new restoration (not necessarily Criterion's home video release) resets the clock to get another attempt at the very least. As Kracker also said, that's "laughable" because that's not how it works since the scene was not refilmed when the restoration was done. They may even be hoping to set a precedent of some sort so they could then attempt other lawsuits on that basis, but chances are good it's not going anywhere.

Post Reply