169
Olivia Hussey, star of 1968 film ‘Romeo and Juliet,’ dies at 73
(www.nbcnews.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2024
169 points (95.2% liked)
News
23731 readers
3653 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Someone was defending it in another thread. Saying it was "sex positive." And when I said it was child pornography, I got a bunch of downvotes.
And let's be clear: we are talking about a realistic sex scene between two teenagers in a movie.
Somehow child porn is okay because Shakespeare.
I am so fucking astounded.
Lemmy is a very weird place, man. Some parts weirder than others.
There’s a lot of “MAPs” on here… (」°ロ°)」
That was me. I think this discourse is important. Is every sex depiction necessarily porn? I don't think so. I think sex can be depicted in art and media for other than pornographic purposes and it's ok to do so. But it shouldn't be done by assholes like Zeffirelli, let's agree at least on that.
I never found the scene in R&J pornographic, it spoke to me in the way the narrative should go - young people fall in love and consume their relationship. I felt happy for them, but not turned on. If anyone IS turned on by some scenes, that's ok too, everyone has different triggers I guess, and it can't be helped. The fact that, let's say, a view of an actress's feet or an actor's arms turns some people on doesn't mean these things shouldn't be depicted.
The actors did not consent. That's the most important aspect of this and not a single sentence of your comment acknowledges the actual problem or the human beings that were impacted to create this.
The sentense that acknowledges it is the one about Zeffirelli.
I agree artist should not be allowed to force actors into things they don't consent to. I also think scenes like the one in R&J should be allowed in movies.
Maybe I wasn't clear that the initial problem came from the actors being minors. The scene would have been fine if they had been capable of consent. It's fucked that Zeffirelli tricked them, even more so because we recognize now they couldn't have knowingly consented to begin with. It's similar to the backlash from the movie Cuties. I personally loved the message behind it and appreciated as an adult woman some of the struggles I dealt with at that age represented, but casting children for those roles was not ok.
I'll add that while we didn't have the same legal system when R&J was filmed, I apply my moral standards regardless. The same harm occurred whether it was legal or not.
So as long as you personally don't find any titillation, explicit scenes in movies with minors having sex is acceptable? If I shoot full-on penetrative sex scenes with children in it but have John Donne poems read over it, add some avant garde camera angles and release it as an art film, there's no problem?
How about if it's a rape scene? Very explicit rape scene where a child is raped and you see everything. No porn there, so it's fine to film an explicit rape scene with a child, right?
Those aren't for pornographic purposes, so it's sex-positive according to you.
I don't think you understood what I was trying to say. I said I think child actors should not be exploited for artistic purposes. Ever. I think we both agree with that, right?
I don't find anything wrong about depicting a sex scene with a minor as a character if it makes sense artistically though (which is the case of R&J). There are ways to film it without including unconsenting or minor actors (or both).
I think of art as a form of complex communication and I think it's important to communicate even about hard, painful and taboo topics.
I also think porn is not a bad thing, so sex positivity is not connected to not being pornographic in my mind.
How does it make sense artistically? What other version of Romeo and Juliet has a sex scene like that in it? Do you think that is what Shakespeare intended considering all the roles were played by men but there were also very strict anti-sodomy laws? That wasn't Shakespeare, that was Zeffirelli.
And I would also suggest that a story about two teens that fall into a toxic, codependent relationship that ends in their tragic deaths might not be the best place for teaching about sex positivity.
The film Pretty Baby with Brooke Shields involved her being nude and involved simulated sex, but it was also essential to the story and the story was intended to talk about a difficult subject, something that was a reality for the actual young girls who were raised in 19th century brothels, only to have their virginity auctioned off while they were barely pubescent, if pubescent at all. I would call that justifiable, both for the sake of art and for the sake of broaching a difficult subject. Shields consented and to this day she says it was the right decision. It's not an easy watch, but I would say that is a justifiable situation.
There's also the Jeremy Irons version of Lolita, which was a much more faithful adaptation of the book than the version Kubrick was forced to make to avoid censorship. You can't tell that story without showing a child being raped and stay faithful to the novel. So, again, I support that.
But I really do not think the place to be making the argument of "sometimes showing children having sex on film is not automatically a bad thing" is in a thread talking about a film where children were exploited and, as far as I can tell, for no purpose beyond titillation. It's the wrong place and time to defend it. Just like you don't start talking about your target shooting prowess at the funeral of a gunshot victim even though target shooting is a harmless use of a gun.
I think basically we agree with each other. Using and exploiting children (or adults) is bad, depictions of sex can be done well and can be good.
The reason I feel differently about this particular movie is perhaps because I saw it without knowing anything about the shooting and it felt like a very good take on the story (including the sex scene - the fact they had sex was crucial even in the original play, no matter how it was portrayed at the time). The way Zeffirelli behaved makes me sick though.
Also I don't view the story as being about a toxic codependent relationship, more like being about innocent horny teens betrayed by the power games and complete incompetence of the adults around them. They are really just teenagers trying to navigate their own new needs and feelings, just like it usually is at that age.
My comment about sex positivity was not meant to say all depictions of sex are or should be positive. I wanted to say sex positivity is needed for the society to view sex depictions as something normal, not necessarilly automatically pornographic or straight out taboo.
As for the overall direction the conversation went, well, the post was about the death of an actress and most comments were about her teenage boobs - that's the internet for you.
I appreciate your view of Pretty Baby and Lolita - these are films that are quite hard for me to watch and I agree they're great examples of movies with meaningful sex scenes. I also think many people would call them child porn without thinking twice about it (and they would be very wrong).
Edit: whatever. Im not going to be villianized over something I never had any part in.
Maybe not try to excuse it or at least make it sound better than it is?
Or imagine how she felt about this during her entire life. Being filmed naked in a sex scene without consent at the age of 15 and the public response is either just that it was a long time ago, there wasn't that much to see anyway or just people remembering the movie just because of her being naked in a scene there (and that being a "funny" thing), which is why it also ended up on Lemmy shitpost.
Edit: whatever. Im not going to be villianized over something I never had any part in.
I want to thank you for invalidating mine and countless others' child SA experiences. It doesn't matter if no one else has seen it or if those who participated and facilitated remember or admit it. It happened, and how fucking dare you and anyone else minimize that?
What tf are you talking about?
Yes it happened. This movie happened in 1969. Ok.
Im out. Im not going to be made a villian for you over a movie this actor that just passed away was in decades ago.
I made it quite plain.
Does it matter?
I am trying to say that downplaying seriousness of CSAM is harmful to victims. This case included.
To answer your question, having a scene with nude underage teenager likely increases that number in case of some old movie like this one.
Edit: YouTube recommended search results prove me right
And no, I was searching for the Romeo and Juliet: Sealed with a kiss animated thing, not this one.
Edit: whatever. Im not going to be villianized over something I never had any part in.
The number of views, which is what you were talking about:
Yes that's what i said. Good job. I hope you have a good rest of your weekend.
It's used in high school English classes all the time. My teacher used a piece of paper to cover the nude bits. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of good Romeo and Juliet movies to choose from. DeCaprio version is good, but it is an odd setting.
Say "It's bad"?
That seems like kind of a bare minimum. There are also some societal things that are set up for that, things like financially penalizing the studio involved and giving some money to the victims. It's not really making people whole, but it is a signifier that we want to do more than a South Park "We're sorry" commercial. Some concrete acknowledgement that yes, it was fucked up that thing that happened to you, and we want to make efforts to make it right, fix the balance, and put penalties in place for anyone who's thinking about doing it to someone new.
Or, we could spread the narrative that if it's been a long time, then it doesn't count. That would be fun too. Up to you.
Seeing as everything is streaming, you can edit it.
Not watch it?
It's a 1968 Romeo and Juliet movie. I'm willing to bet the number of times anyone has watched this in the past 30 years is very very small.
Then you haven’t been to a lot of high school English classes.
And I’m not sure what your point is even if you are right. “Don’t watch this child pornography” is something I think is worth saying while the child pornography is available to watch.
This isn’t Traci Lords porn, this is a mainstream movie you can buy and even stream. Don’t do those things. If you weren’t anyway, that doesn’t apply to you.
Even ignoring the child porn issue, it's just an OK version of the play, at best. DeCaprio version is really good, even if it's set in modern times.
Nah, obviously this is the best one:
I barely remember it now. Really, I only remember its existence.
The version we were shown had been edited by the local "tech whiz" who handled all of the AV stuff in the district. The video was replaced with a title card that said, "Romeo Romeo wherefore art thou picture?" for that scene.
That's not what wherefore means. 0/10, figuratively unwatchable.
I don't make it a habit to visit high school English classes, no. The one i went to made us watch the DeCaprio movie that had just come out.