Press Release Criterion Press Release: Romeo and Juliet (1968) (Blu-ray) (1 Viewer)

[Will Krupp]

Consenting KIDS is the operative word here. Is a KID (or even a teenager) mature enough to make such a decision when confronted by all these grown ups. They wouldn't be intimidated by the adults saying it's okay, would they? Did YOU make the best decisions when you were 16 years old? If you did, congratulations! Alas, I did many stupid things when I was a teen that I regret and it's been my experience that your teen years is when most of us do dumb things. Our minds aren't mature enough to make decisions that could affect us the rest of our lives.

That's the aspect that I find most troubling about this lawsuit. Their ages are being misrepresented in the filing as 15 and 16, which may have been the ages they were when they accepted the roles, but they had both aged a year by the time the offending scenes were shot in September 1967, making them 16 and 17. It may sound like a small thing, but it isn't. The age of consent in the UK (where they were both from) was 16. The age of consent in Italy (where the film was shot) was (unbelievably, perhaps) 14. The laws in either jurisdiction didn't see them as kids, but as adults who could sign contracts, get married, and make decisions.

I don't think any of us needs to hold on to any illusions about Zeffirelli. If Bruce "Benvolio" Robinson and Jonathan Schaech are to be believed (and I see NO reason why they shouldn't) Zeffirelli was something of a lecherous creep towards the actors he hired over the years. Robinson, in his screenplay for Whitnail & I, based the the predatory character of "Uncle Monty" squarely on Zeffirelli and it isn't pretty. That's another story, however.

As regards the surreptitious nudity, as least as far as Whiting is concerned, it makes no sense if he's only referring to what appears in the finished film.

I watched the scene again the other night and I noticed something I had never noticed before. When the camera pans across the couple in bed, Hussey's hair is artfully covering any naughty bits (the same thing is true when they briefly tussle a few seconds later, making me think her hair may have been taped to her breasts a la Brooke Shields in Blue Lagoon.) Whiting gets out of bed and this is what I noticed for the first time. He swings his legs to the floor and launches himself up towards the window. When he does this, you can see that something is attached to his front (the corner of the cloth peeps up momentarily on the left side of his abdomen) and when he sits back down on the bed he does so as to protect his "bits." If he has a type of loincloth attached, he has to assume that everything else in the shot would be visible, else why do it? The shots and actions themselves are choreographed and look very well rehearsed and I just cannot believe that he had no idea his ass would be shown. Hussey, for her part, may have a case regarding the few seconds her entire breasts are shown (it looks like an off the cuff moment) but I don't know why Whiting, if that's all this is about, is attached as co-defendent. I think it weakens the case, unless there is more to the story that we don't yet know.

 

[Thomas T]

RE: your meeting with Hedren.

I'll concur with your reflections about her genuine quality, having met her myself only once before. But at that meeting, in the early 1990's, she waxed affectionately about Hitchcock and the two movies she made for him. There was no animosity, no attempt to besmirch his reputation, and certainly, no willful disgust over her treatment in making either The Birds or Marnie.

So, precisely, when all that changed for Hendren is, at least for me, a very curious footnote. Time withers memory. But in her case, it did a complete one-eighty. And this, I neither understand, nor respect. Were you lying to me, or was she lying to you? One of us didn't get the real/reel story. How 'sincere' or 'gracious' was that? Just saying.

I'll concur with your evaluation of Hussey and Whiting's acting skills - perhaps, the principle reason why all other versions of Romeo and Juliet (save the DiCaprio version) cast much older actors in the teenage leads. I prefer the Norma Shearer/Leslie Howard version to Zefferelli's, but still think his effort has its merits. Hope WAC gets around to the 1936 version one of these days.

Re: my comment about consenting kids. Whiting and Hussey, while immature, where nevertheless, asked by Zefferelli to strip nude for the scene and did so. There was no gun to their heads, not even the threat of being fired if they refused to do so. Did Zefferelli ply his young charges with booze and pills to get them 'in the mood' for their close-ups. No. Did he even order them in a way that might have spelled public humiliation on the set? No hint of this either.

So, Zefferelli being re-branded today as something of a middle-aged pervert who just wanted to look at two naked bodies, degraded for his art, is a malicious and false representation of what went on, on that set.

Was it the right decision for them? Apparently, not.

Did they make it then? Well, yes.

Do they regret it now? Likely.

Is regret alone cause for legal action. Ah, no.

Not now. Not ever.

If I could sue for all the stupid decisions I made in my youth I'd be a millionaire today several times over. Can't revisit that well. And I've since grown into the maturity of realizing all of it is nevertheless a part of my tapestry of life. Some regrets you just have to live with.

Re: Tippi Hedren.

I first met her in the late 1970s (pretty sure it was 1978) and then in the late 1980s. She has never regretted working for Hitchcock, I don't know where you got this information. As recently as last year (2021) in an interview, she stated that while her relationship with Hitchcock soured during the making of The Birds, she has no regrets: "He had a lot to do with shaping my career, and having him as my drama coach was perfect. I still admire the man for who he was. I’ve been able to separate the two. The man who was the artist. But on the other side, there is that dark side that was really awful". Sounds like she's made peace with the man who gave her a career and then took it away. As she said, "He ruined my career. He didn't ruin my life".

In 1978, she alluded there would be a book coming out (which would be Donald Spoto's The Dark Side Of Genius) that would detail her difficulties working with Hitchcock. So even as far back as 1978, she was opening up about it.

As for the lawsuit. If they say they were traumatized, I believe them. But I've always been partial to the victim rather than the perpetrator and there's enough known about Zeffirelli (he was no saint) like the anti-Semitic remarks and physically forcing himself on his actors (are they all liars?) that give credence, however small, to the lawsuit. That being said, I suspect the lawsuit will either be dismissed or settled out of court (Paramount may want to avoid the messiness of a court battle and just pay them off).

 

[mark brown]

You don’t just pay off frivolous lawsuits!

 

[Thomas T]

You don’t just pay off frivolous lawsuits!

Don't they? Perhaps in a perfect world but in the world we live in, a person or corporation often weighs the expense of a long and costly trial and the possibility that a jury might actually agree on the side of the plaintiffs (no matter how frivolous) with negotiating a deal. The plaintiffs get money (not as much as they wanted but it's money) and the corporation saves the time and money of a court trial.

 

[John Gilmore]

In 1978, she alluded there would be a book coming out (which would be Donald Spoto's The Dark Side Of Genius) that would detail her difficulties working with Hitchcock. So even as far back as 1978, she was opening up about it.

Thank you! I couldn't understand why everyone got so wigged out when her book was released. I remembered her talking about Hitch's abuse many years before.

 

[mark brown]

The kind of $ you are talking about to settle this case is NOT NUISANCE value!

 

[SD_Brian]

unless there is more to the story that we don't yet know.

I think that's a fairly safe assumption since it's unlikely any of us were actually present on-set to witness what did or did not go on.

The claims in the lawsuit would seem to be wildly inconsistent with public statements the actors have made over the last 55 years. Whether or not the case has any actual merit, those statements are likely what will result in it being thrown out.

 

[SD_Brian]

Do they still show this movie to high school classes? I would have thought, if a movie version of the play is still being shown, it would be the Baz Luhrmann version. That way, instead of scarring the youth of today with exposure to nudity, they could enjoy some good old-fashioned gun violence.

 

[titch]

‘My first day was a sex scene’: the disturbing history of teen actors and nudity

From Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver to Brooke Shields in The Blue Lagoon, are films that used teen actors for sexual roles heading for a reckoning? As Paramount is sued over Romeo and Juliet, we look at the scenes cinema and TV might want to forget

www.theguardian.com

 

[Lord Dalek]

Blu-ray.com's caps confirm the intermission card is intact.

 

[moviebuff75]

I was coming here to announce the same thing regarding the intermission! The aspect ratio is 1.85 here. I know it was shown in this ratio in the U.S., but what about the U.K. and Italy?

 

[RobertMG]

Seems the disc will be released - the lawsuit will not stop the release - Good news for the films many fans! Criterion getting review copies out quickly hope the great reviews really come in!

 

[Worth]

I was coming here to announce the same thing regarding the intermission! The aspect ratio is 1.85 here. I know it was shown in this ratio in the U.S., but what about the U.K. and Italy?

Pretty sure 1.85 was standard in the UK and Italy by 1968.

 

[Dick]

Considering what Criterion's art director did to TOM JONES among other recent abominations, this could have been much worse. Once upon a time, Criterion's covers used to be so definitive, not to mention attractive. They created a sense of anticipation, so you couldn't wait to watch the film. What happened?

Well, artwork isn't the only thing they've been skimping on. A majority of their titles used to contain thoughtful commentary tracks...now, a mere handful. I would love to hear from the screenwriter about how he was able to edit the play down to 138 minutes. Two of the three credited screenwriters passed away four years ago, but Masolino D'Amico is still alive. Of the actors, Michael York is still with us. And there is no shortage of historians out there doing commentaries.

Anyway, it's a done deal.

​

 

[ahollis]

Change always happens. .

 

[AlanP]

Can't say I care for the cover on this. That poster art was a classic.

View attachment 162446

Totally agree the new cover from CRITERION is awful !

 

[AlanP]

Well, artwork isn't the only thing they've been skimping on. A majority of their titles used to contain thoughtful commentary tracks...now, a mere handful. I would love to hear from the screenwriter about how he was able to edit the play down to 138 minutes. Two of the three credited screenwriters passed away four years ago, but Masolino D'Amico is still alive. Of the actors, Michael York is still with us. And there is no shortage of historians out there doing commentaries.

Anyway, it's a done deal.

​

Always thought CRITERION was a purist ? Their covers are hideous ! Never seen one I really liked! Loved the original poster of "Tom Jones" and they really dropped the ball !

 

[richardburton84]

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the cover art for this Blu-ray is derived from a Polish variant of the original poster art, which can be found on the second page of this thread.

 

[JPCinema]

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the cover art for this Blu-ray is derived from a Polish variant of the original poster art, which can be found on the second page of this thread.

 

[JPCinema]

It is so ugly. I customer made the poster art that used during the original release.