News

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.

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.