1171 Romeo and Juliet

Discuss releases by Criterion and the films on them. Threads may contain spoilers!
Message
Author
PillowRock
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:54 pm

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#26 Post by PillowRock » Thu Nov 17, 2022 12:34 am

Reading Romeo and Juliet always was on the 9th grade English syllabus at my high school. When I was in 9th grade (during the '75 - '76 school year) this movie showed up in a second run movie that was about a 2 mile drive from the school. The entire 9th grade class got bused to the theater for a matinee showing field trip. I must say that a theatrical screening was better than watching a VHS on a TV in a classroom - and obviously nothing along the lines of a teaching strategically blocking the screen could happen.

User avatar
dekadetia
was Born Innocent
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:57 pm
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#27 Post by dekadetia » Tue Jan 03, 2023 4:46 pm


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

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#28 Post by FrauBlucher » Tue Jan 03, 2023 5:05 pm

Image

Time for publicity

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

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#29 Post by furbicide » Tue Jan 03, 2023 9:08 pm

Perplexing on a few fronts. Not unusual for people to come forward years later, but the fact that the scene has been addressed so often over the years in interviews (including, as the article says, quite recently, when the actors were already in their 60s) makes this strange. Makes me wonder if it’s coming more from one of them (say, Whiting) and Hussey is joining mainly out of solidarity.

And even if one were to interpret this as purely opportunistic, I can’t imagine they actually have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. Their lawyer’s assertion that “nude images of minors are unlawful and shouldn’t be exhibited” doesn’t bear out, and there have been numerous precedents in the US that have dealt pretty conclusively with that question (e.g. Pretty Baby, which has always been legal to distribute and screen). So on what grounds could anyone legally determine that Zeffirelli was wrong to claim the scene was artistically necessary? Unless there’s more to this that we’re not hearing about (which, given Bruce Robinson’s experience, might not be entirely surprising).

Regardless, it is saddening to hear that the scene makes them feel uncomfortable and they felt pushed into it, and there’s no question that that knowledge casts a shadow over the film now.
Last edited by furbicide on Tue Jan 03, 2023 11:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Feego
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:30 pm
Location: Texas

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#30 Post by Feego » Tue Jan 03, 2023 9:48 pm

I don't know how accurate this is, but according to IMDb, filming began on July 17, 1967. Whiting was born on June 30, 1950, which means he would have been 17 at the time. The article claims he was 16 and a minor. Would 17 have been legal age?

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

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#31 Post by Kracker » Wed Jan 04, 2023 2:49 am

Probably so. Articles can't seem to decide what age he was.

It'll be interesting to see what they have say in the interviews on the disc the despite sexual abuse, sexual harassment and fraud they endured, not to mention never seeing the film apparently since they just now, after over 50 years, saw they were filmed in the nude without their knowledge. I mean, the actors now being in their 70s, any defense could push the idea that these two have some level of onset dementia or Alz and simply forgot properly consenting to the shoot. Not to mention the director died a few years ago so him, along with all the other defendants who would be charged responsible, producers, studio heads, are no longer alive to defend themselves. Then on top of that, you have a statue of limitations to somehow get around.* Who are these lawyers taking on these absurd cases just so they can be thrown out?

*EDIT: it seems they got around that by taking advantage of the statute of limitations for older claims of child sexual abuse being temporarily suspended, due to an emergence of Boy Scout and Catholic Church cases, before that suspension could expire just a few days ago. wow.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#32 Post by MichaelB » Wed Jan 04, 2023 5:57 am

Feego wrote:
Tue Jan 03, 2023 9:48 pm
I don't know how accurate this is, but according to IMDb, filming began on July 17, 1967. Whiting was born on June 30, 1950, which means he would have been 17 at the time. The article claims he was 16 and a minor. Would 17 have been legal age?
Definitely in the UK at the time, and I suspect this would have been true of virtually all of the rest of Western Europe. And the UK definition of "a minor" (and doubtless elsewhere in Western Europe) was someone under sixteen, not someone who'd already passed that milestone.

For a parallel example, John Moulder-Brown was born on 3 June 1953, and Deep End had its world premiere on 1 September 1970, when he'd only have been seventeen - and there's a very real possibility that he might still have been sixteen when some (or possibly even all) of it was shot. And you get to see at least as much of him as you do of Leonard Whiting, and in rather more bizarre circumstances, but I don't recall any controversy at all.

And the UK's 1978 Protection of Children Act originally set the age limit at 16 - it was upgraded to 18 several years later.
Kracker wrote:
Wed Jan 04, 2023 2:49 am
It'll be interesting to see what they have say in the interviews on the disc the despite sexual abuse, sexual harassment and fraud they endured, not to mention never seeing the film apparently since they just now, after over 50 years, saw they were filmed in the nude without their knowledge. I mean, the actors now being in their 70s, any defense could push the idea that these two have some level of onset dementia or Alz and simply forgot properly consenting to the shoot.
Surely the question of "properly consenting" is a matter of checkable contractual fact? Actors' contracts are usually very explicit about what they can and can't do with regard to nudity and sexual activity.

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

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#33 Post by furbicide » Wed Jan 04, 2023 7:58 am

MichaelB wrote: Surely the question of "properly consenting" is a matter of checkable contractual fact? Actors' contracts are usually very explicit about what they can and can't do with regard to nudity and sexual activity.
In 2023, sure. But do you reckon such stipulations existed back then as any kind of standard aspect of acting contracts? I’d honestly be surprised if the documents they signed said anything about it one way or the other.

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

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#34 Post by colinr0380 » Wed Jan 04, 2023 12:55 pm

Well, I suppose that explains the lack of any new supplements on this edition. It terms of the debate going on, I hesitate to bring it up because it is rather below the radar but the big recent example of this is Keira Knightley pre-Bend It Like Beckham appearing topless (albeit in an autopsy scene, which... mitigates it?) in The Hole that was released in cinemas in April 2001, less than a month after her 16th birthday.

User avatar
Rayon Vert
Green is the Rayest Color
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:52 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#35 Post by Rayon Vert » Wed Jan 04, 2023 1:04 pm

furbicide wrote:
Tue Jan 03, 2023 9:08 pm
Regardless, it is saddening to hear that the scene makes them feel uncomfortable and they felt pushed into it, and there’s no question that that knowledge casts a shadow over the film now.
On Olivia Hussey's Wiki page, interviews are mentioned from 2018 where she said she felt omfortable on the set and where she defended the nude scene as necessary and tastefully done. The Variety interview.

User avatar
Fred Holywell
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:45 pm

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#36 Post by Fred Holywell » Wed Jan 04, 2023 1:17 pm

Odd, but Mr. Whiting didn't seem to mind posing in front of a rather explicit poster for the film, when he appeared at a San Francisco screening back in 2015.
SpoilerShow
Image

User avatar
reaky
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:53 am
Location: Cambridge, England

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#37 Post by reaky » Wed Jan 04, 2023 3:30 pm

colinr0380 wrote:Well, I suppose that explains the lack of any new supplements on this edition. It terms of the debate going on, I hesitate to bring it up because it is rather below the radar but the big recent example of this is Keira Knightley pre-Bend It Like Beckham appearing topless (albeit in an autopsy scene, which... mitigates it?) in The Hole that was released in cinemas in April 2001, less than a month after her 16th birthday.
Nastassja Kinski was 14 when Hammer shot her full-frontally nude in To the Devil a Daughter. They deserved to go out of business after that.

User avatar
Feego
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:30 pm
Location: Texas

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#38 Post by Feego » Wed Jan 04, 2023 4:30 pm

While I don’t feel righteous at all in questioning someone’s motivation for coming forward, this just seems especially out of nowhere for Hussey and Whiting since they have long appeared so open and enthusiastic about this film and their participation in it. I wonder if this will have any impact on the Criterion release, or at very least the cover art, which is taken from the controversial scene.

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

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#39 Post by Kracker » Wed Jan 04, 2023 6:11 pm

I'm pretty sure the people at Criterion see this is another "Nevermind baby" that will get thrown out of court, not to mention a win for them because this means more people will be picking this up. And I don't feel unrighteous at all because people do lie all the time and everyone is motivated by money and people, or the lawyers who exploit them I should say, do throw frivolous lawsuits at the wall hoping to it will stick enough to get at least a few bucks regardless whether it involves a sex crime or not. Even more so in this case because people know they get more unconditional support with accusations of this nature. While one crime gets more seriousness and pearl-clutching than another, one victim isn't more righteous or entitled than another in a fair justice system.
MichaelB wrote:
Wed Jan 04, 2023 5:57 am
Surely the question of "properly consenting" is a matter of checkable contractual fact? Actors' contracts are usually very explicit about what they can and can't do with regard to nudity and sexual activity.
Yeah you would think but lawyers will try to slither around that too. "Properly consenting" would mean not just signing the contract but giving and maintaining agreement the entire way without any undue pressure and with full understanding of the contract at their young age. Especially nowadays, there's just lot of angles they can exploit. But with everyone involved on set now dead including witnesses who would attest the actors weren't under any form of duress, the case depends solely on their contradictory word after spending 55 years celebrating the film and the nude scene they now say they never agreed to.

User avatar
jheez
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:17 pm

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#40 Post by jheez » Wed Jan 04, 2023 9:03 pm

The criterion blu-ray is currently the #9 best selling blu-ray on Amazon and #1 in the drama category. The lawsuit is causing either good publicity for the release or FOMO (people thinking this might get pulled).

ford
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:44 pm

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#41 Post by ford » Wed Jan 04, 2023 9:17 pm

A particularly perfect sign o’ the times. Chef’s kiss. Four stars.

User avatar
Fred Holywell
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:45 pm

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#42 Post by Fred Holywell » Thu Jan 05, 2023 8:04 pm


ford
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:44 pm

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#43 Post by ford » Thu Jan 05, 2023 10:04 pm

Fred Holywell wrote:
Thu Jan 05, 2023 8:04 pm
Discussed on "The View" today.

“Romeo And Juliet” Stars Sue Over Nude Scene | The View
Even better. Such a pure episode of Our Era.

No doubt Jeffrey Epstein himself was inspired by Franco Zeffirelli’s evil.

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

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#44 Post by colinr0380 » Fri Jan 06, 2023 2:29 am

Peter Bradshaw in The Guardian on the situation, who also reminds that the film was already courting controversy as there were issues around Zeffirelli and the actor Bruce Robinson. Robinson at least was in his early 20s at the time, but Bradshaw suggests that his experience on Romeo & Juliet was a partial inspiration for Robinson to create the character of Uncle Monty in Withnail & I.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#45 Post by MichaelB » Fri Jan 06, 2023 3:52 am

It’s hardly a “suggestion” - Robinson has been cheerfully open about the blatant references to Zeffirelli in Withnail & I for decades, whether it’s the boy landing a plum role for a “top Italian director” or the direct quotation of Zeffirelli’s own chat-up line (“Are you a sponge or a stone?”).

Amusingly, and no doubt deliberately, the film had its world premiere in a Lake District cinema called Zeffirelli’s.

pistolwink
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2013 3:07 am

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#46 Post by pistolwink » Fri Jan 06, 2023 4:14 am

wait 'til folks hear how young the main characters of the play are supposed to be!

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

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#47 Post by ellipsis7 » 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'...

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

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#48 Post by Kracker » 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.

User avatar
RPG
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#49 Post by RPG » Fri Jan 06, 2023 7:55 am

reaky wrote:
Wed Jan 04, 2023 3:30 pm
Nastassja Kinski was 14 when Hammer shot her full-frontally nude in To the Devil a Daughter. They deserved to go out of business after that.
Kinski was 13 when she went topless in Wrong Move, in bed with an adult man.

Orlac
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:29 am

Re: 1171 Romeo and Juliet

#50 Post by Orlac » Fri Jan 06, 2023 10:54 am

reaky wrote:
Wed Jan 04, 2023 3:30 pm
colinr0380 wrote:Well, I suppose that explains the lack of any new supplements on this edition. It terms of the debate going on, I hesitate to bring it up because it is rather below the radar but the big recent example of this is Keira Knightley pre-Bend It Like Beckham appearing topless (albeit in an autopsy scene, which... mitigates it?) in The Hole that was released in cinemas in April 2001, less than a month after her 16th birthday.
Nastassja Kinski was 14 when Hammer shot her full-frontally nude in To the Devil a Daughter. They deserved to go out of business after that.
Wasn't she giving her age as older at the time? I've noticed in my old horror referrence books from the 90s that Kinski is listed as being older than the truth, whilst Ingrid Pitt shaved 7 years off her age!

Post Reply