'Romeo and Juliet' child actors sue over 1968 nude scene

[ozimoron]

This was my first "porn" experience. I watched this movie several times as a 14 year old kid and fantasized over Olivia Hussey for years.

 

Olivia Hussey was 15 and Leonard Whiting 16 when they starred in the Oscar-winning version of William Shakespeare's tragedy.

The actors, now both in their 70s, claim in a suit filed in Santa Monica last week that a bedroom scene in which buttocks and bare breasts are visible amounts to sexual exploitation by movie studio Paramount, and that the company was guilty of distributing nude pictures of adolescents.

The suit says Zeffirelli -- who died in 2019 -- cajoled them into performing the scene, telling them without it "the picture would fail", having originally insisted there would be no actual nudity, with both actors covered by flesh-colored underwear.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/romeo-and-juliet-child-actors-sue-over-1968-nude-scene/

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-64160726

 

 

Edited January 4, 2023 by ozimoron

[4MyEgo]

Must have run out of money, but was good for the money at the time, now 54 years later crying over spoilt milk, good luck with going up against the giant, be years before they get anywhere, probably closer to their graves before anything comes of it, if anything.

Edited January 4, 2023 by 4MyEgo

[Jingthing]

They have got to be kidding.

It was not porn.

It was beautiful and in keeping with the theme of the movie.

[OneMoreFarang]

Next: Jesus is suing whoever because there are bare-chested pictures from them out there. They were nonbinary but because of the oppressing patriarchy they were too shy to come out at that time.

[Caldera]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we need statutes of limitation, so that old goats (m/f/d) can't clog the courts with their travesties ad infinitum.

 

They should be held in contempt for wasting everyone's time. 

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Next: Jesus is suing whoever because there are bare-chested pictures from them out there. They were nonbinary but because of the oppressing patriarchy they were too shy to come out at that time.

Forgetting something? She was 15.

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, Caldera said:

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we need statutes of limitation, so that old goats (m/f/d) can't clog the courts with their travesties ad infinitum.

 

They should be held in contempt for wasting everyone's time. 

There was a statute of limitations. The administration dropped it for one year. This is why E Jean Carroll could sue trump and why this suit could go ahead.

[OneMoreFarang]

Another one

 

Steven Tyler is sued for alleged ’70s sexual assault of teen - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

 

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Another one

 

Steven Tyler is sued for alleged ’70s sexual assault of teen - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

 

All a result of this.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/douglaswigdor/2022/05/25/statute-of-limitations-on-sexual-assault-eliminated-for-one-year-in-new-york-following-passage-of-the-adult-survivors-act/?sh=4d812b3546fd

 

https://www.wxxinews.org/capitol-bureau/2022-11-23/adult-survivors-of-sexual-abuse-have-a-year-to-sue-the-alleged-abuser-starting-thanksgiving-day

 

 

Edited January 4, 2023 by ozimoron

[JeffersLos]

 

Leonard does look like a very unhappy 16 year old, being horribly exploited.

[Jerno]

Convenient that the director is now dead, unable to defend the Producers or Paramount.   

[ozimoron]

12 minutes ago, Jerno said:

Convenient that the director is now dead, unable to defend the Producers or Paramount.   

What is there to defend? She was in a movie topless at age 15.

 

They were unable to sue when he was alive. The act covers children, not adults. Presumably, by the time they were old enough and had the wherewithal to sue the statute of limitations prevented them. They still need to prove their case which will be difficult because of the time elapsed.

 

I suspect there will be the usual suspects along to blame the victims.

Edited January 4, 2023 by ozimoron

[Jingthing]

They are actors. 

Not victims.

[Mac Mickmanus]

46 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

They are actors. 

Not victims.

They are still underage , paying Children to get naked and filming them  doesn't make it acceptable .

  Just because you pay them , doesn't make it OK

[sidjameson]

I feel at 16 the boy is on one side and at 15 the girl is  on the other side of a very blurry line.

My wild guess. The woman knows she can't win the case without the man's supporting evidence that they were firmly pushed. The man agreed to be part of the case as long as he got part of the spoils.

 

[London Lowf]

Where were the parents/guardians? If they weren't around at the time of filming they certainly would have seen the finished movie.

 

[Jingthing]

Read to the end of the BBC article.

This is an ART film!

These two oldsters are participating in a cynical money grab!

Edited January 4, 2023 by Jingthing

[ukrules]

4 hours ago, Caldera said:

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we need statutes of limitation, so that old goats (m/f/d) can't clog the courts with their travesties ad infinitum.

 

They should be held in contempt for wasting everyone's time. 

The opposite happened, there was some kind of statute of limitations which was recently removed - and that's how and why they can sue at this time.

 

Considering they were actually wearing clothes at the time I doubt this has much if any chance of success - they're likely working with some kind of litigation financer for a cut of any potential settlement.

 

[Mac Mickmanus]

56 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Read to the end of the BBC article.

This is an ART film!

These two oldsters are participating in a cynical money grab!

It really doesn't matter what they call it , it was two naked children  in a sex scene .

   The BBC had an appalling record of that sort of thing  , mainly to do with heir staff rather than what they broadcast though 

[jvs]

3 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

They are still underage , paying Children to get naked and filming them  doesn't make it acceptable .

  Just because you pay them , doesn't make it OK

It was a different time back then,woman were topless sunbathing in many countries but of course not in the USA.

The land of the free and all that.

Maybe i can sue the director also because i was offended seeing it?

[Enoon]

5 hours ago, ozimoron said:

What is there to defend? She was in a movie topless at age 15.

 

They were unable to sue when he was alive. The act covers children, not adults. Presumably, by the time they were old enough and had the wherewithal to sue the statute of limitations prevented them. They still need to prove their case which will be difficult because of the time elapsed.

 

I suspect there will be the usual suspects along to blame the victims.

Here is one of the victims speaking for herself.......in 2018:

 

In a 2018 interview with Variety, Hussey defended the nude scene.

"Nobody my age had done that before," she said, adding that Zeffirelli shot it tastefully. "It was needed for the film."

In a separate interview with Fox News, also conducted in 2018, she said the scene was "taboo" in the US, but that nudity was common in European films at the time.

"It wasn't that big of a deal," she said. "And Leonard wasn't shy at all! In the middle of shooting, I just completely forgot I didn't have clothes on."

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64160726

 

Now that an unexpected opportunity to possibly make a pile of cash has come up........she's changed her tune

 

Well whaddya know!

 

In truth, her shameless attempt to jump on the gravy train merely underlines the legitimacy of the grievances of those who were systematically, covertly, coerced and abused into sexual acts, for the personal pleasure of their abusers,  without cameras being anywhere near them.

 

 

 

Edited January 4, 2023 by Enoon

[digger70]

What in Satans name is wrong with them Old Codgers ? 

Why sue now, Are they Broke ? they should've if they wanted to sue done that 50 years ago .

Nothing wrong with the  Movie clips it's not a big deal at all.

They probably showed more Flesh in the dressing rooms.

[Jingthing]

The thing with these lets go back in time "me too" thingies is that there has often been a hysterical lack of common sense and judgement that fails to differentiate one case from another.

For example conflating  a dead serious case like Harvey Weinstein with the rather trivial comedic prank that sunk Al Franken.

This Romeo and Juliet case is just 100 percent stupid.

Nudity in an art film from decades ago where that nudity was essential to the movie?

Are they having a laugh?

Yes it's true that today even though various kinds of media shows very explicit teenage sex scenes (not talking about pornos) if the production is in the US and some other countries they will now use young adults to portray teens.

Standards did change on that at least in the US. There is nothing wrong with actors playing younger when it works dramatically but often they are casting 30 year olds that really do look too much like 30 year olds which does take away from the believability of the plots.

 

BTW, did y'all see this film back when it was released? I did. 

Edited January 4, 2023 by Jingthing

[4MyEgo]

5 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

They are still underage , paying Children to get naked and filming them  doesn't make it acceptable .

  Just because you pay them , doesn't make it OK

I would like to ask, where were the parents in all of this, no doubt they would have had to sign off as their guardian's, heaven forbid I seen14-15-16 year old's topless on Bondi Beach, should I sue them for throwing that in my face without my consent.

 

It is not porn, it is art and there is the fine line.

 

Haven't seen the movie, but...????

[Jingthing]

9 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

I would like to ask, where were the parents in all of this, no doubt they would have had to sign off as their guardian's, heaven forbid I seen14-15-16 year old's topless on Bondi Beach, should I sue them for throwing that in my face without my consent.

 

It is not porn, it is art and there is the fine line.

 

Haven't seen the movie, but...????

It's very good but I don't want to watch it again as I prefer to have the memory of seeing it when it was released.

 

 

 

[stoner]

so falls into the category of underage art ? 

[ezzra]

Can i now sue my parents for taking many naked baby pictures of me 70 years ago? they were very very explicit and left nothin to the imagination, I'll clue ya that much...

[LaosLover]

Brooke Shields, call your lawyer if your pension needs a top up.

[BananaStrong]

YES!!!!   Get that money, and arrest everyone.

 

I'm suing the hospital where I was born, indecent exposure, called me a "boy" and I clearly identify as a "buffalo" and I was nude around other adults. trauma.  

 

suing for 20000000000 zillion .  

 

Reminds me of Spider-man.  Really, how?  One bite, all these superpowers and you get everything.  The QUICK fix; no work, just luck.   They should also try to arrest everyone who saw the movie, shared the movie, sold the movie, etc..... kiddy porn!!!!!!

 

OK, back to stealing Bitcoins from North Korea...late!!! 

[KannikaP]

9 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Forgetting something? She was 15.

And a fine rack too ! 

No complaints about being asked to do a sex scene, only that for less than a second, you saw her billies! Pathetic.

Edited January 5, 2023 by KannikaP