Would You Have a Problem with 14-Year-Old Hailee Steinfeld Getting Naked for 'Romeo and Juliet'?
It's art! It's pornography! It's immoral! It's European!
Britain's The Sunday Times (via The Daily Mail) posted an excerpt from Julian Fellowes' Romeo and Juliet script which will feature the now 14-year-old star of Joel and Ethan Coen's True Grit, Hailee Steinfeld, as Juliet. The excerpt in question calls for the two title characters to "start undressing each other – slowly, gently and carefully until they are naked… They are eternal figures in a Raphael painting. Romeo then carries her to bed, kissing her again and again as they explore uncharted territory. Then they make love, transported into each other's soul."
According to Dave Karger over at Entertainment Weekly the ladies of television show "The View" had a "field day" discussing the report (I've included the video at the end of this post). However, Karger got in touch with the film's director, Carlo Carlei, who told the mag, "In the original adaptation written by the Oscar-winning screenwriter Julian Fellowes, there was a lovemaking scene that included nudity for the married Romeo and Juliet. This script was written with a 20-year-old actress in mind. As soon as Hailee Steinfeld was cast, all nudity and lovemaking have been excised from the script. It will be romantic and age-appropriate for a 14-year-old."
Interestingly enough, this week has provided two different topics of discussion that I think directly relate and make this a far more interesting story.
I'll begin with the more specific comparison, which was my review of Criterion's recent Blu-ray release of Catherine Breillat's Fat Girl, a film that features 14-year-old Anais Reboux being raped at the end in a scene some could easily compare to a similar scene in Sam Peckinpah's Straw Dogs. Of course, in Straw Dogs we're still talking about a 21-year-old Susan George and not a 14-year-old girl, playing a 12-year-old girl.
Reboux's breasts are seen in this scene as well as in a prior scene where she poses in front of a mirror. The film contains other material many would consider questionable, and some would probably call pornographic, but if you venture over to the discussion boards at IMDb you'll find comments such as the following one by a user going by "josie4play" defending the use of such imagery:
Sex is a part of humanity. It's part of growing up. It's part of life. It can be beautiful, or it can be ugly. Pedophiles will look at children no matter what. Americans have hangups about sex that Europeans simply don't. The French weren't raised with the puritanical, largely fundamentalist Christian background to which the majority of Americans were subjected.
Twelve-year-old girls have breasts. Fifteen-year-old girls have breasts and genitals. I personally lost my virginity at fifteen, and I'm not traumatized for it, and I wasn't traumatized by seeing a film in which two young actresses, both old enough to make their own decisions, bravely explored their sexuality. Pretending adolescent sexuality doesn't exist doesn't make it go away. If you watch the extras on the DVDs, there's an interview with Anais in which she talks very frankly about her decision to make the film and her feelings about making it. She is impressively wise beyond her years.
If there are pedophiles renting French art films to get their jollies, they're probably going out of their way. Why not just surf about the internet for ten minutes (or less?) To me, Fat Girl is actually a very innocent, if brutal, film about sexual coming of age. I wish there were more films that explored the things I was feeling when I was a young adolescent, standing in front of the mirror staring at my body for hours, comparing myself to everyone I knew.
What do you think of that?
Next, on Tuesday we saw the debut of an uncensored poster for David Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo featuring the titular star (pun sort of intended), Rooney Mara, fully topless. This isn't exactly the same conversation considering Mara is in her mid-twenties, but I found the comments intriguing. Here's a selection:
"It's quite funny and a little bit sad how a poster like this is considered shocking in the U.S. Whatever happened to the land of the free?" – Steffen
"Land of the free as long as it's not considered sexually stimulating or offensive in any way, because THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" – Vince (Not Vance)
"I don't know, part of me thinks that just because one can do something, doesn't mean one should. I respect Fincher a great deal, but I'm not crazy about this. I do not have kids, but if I did, and I was taking my little 8 year old son to see a kid movie, I would not be pleased with him seeing this poster in the theatre lobby." – Jack Petrillo
"Oh no, it's uncensored. Where are the yelling parents who don't have lives?" – Seiko
Those arguments were, however, even less interesting than the point "A-K87" brought up when he/she said, "I think we're having the wrong discussion here. The discussion should be this: How has a story about a disenfranchised rape victim, misogyny and originally titled 'Men Who Hate Women' end up with a nude poster of the women. If there ever was a film which ought not exploit sex to sell, this should be it."
So where does this leave us? Some seem to think the nudity in Fat Girl is okay because it was made by a European filmmaker, and as the commenter above says, "The French weren't raised with the puritanical, largely fundamentalist Christian background to which the majority of Americans were subjected." Well, Romeo and Juliet is directed by an Italian-born filmmaker, does that give him a pass to make Romeo and Juliet however he wants? Would the defenders of the teenage nudity in Fat Girl say Steinfeld should get naked in Romeo and Juliet to preserve the artistry of the feature? Will they be offended the script has been rewritten due to the age of the stars? Is sex simply sex no matter the age? Again, as the commenter above says, "Twelve-year-old girls have breasts. Fifteen-year-old girls have breasts and genitals." Hard to argue the facts of that one, but I don't necessarily think that's the point detractors are arguing against.
Where should the moral line be drawn? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Here is the video from "The View" I mentioned earlier:
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 46 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
At the outset, let me say nudity in films or art does not bother me. Also authenticity is important. The age of Shakespeare's Juliet is 14 or 15 or younger IIRC, but I would not want this nude scene to be filmed.
In the end, it comes to this for me. Shakespeare's Juliet did not live in the age of internet perverts. If I have to choose between art, authenticity and a 14 year old girl's image not being exploited by perverted individuals, I would err on the side of caution and say no.
Are you really such an idiot to think that there were no sexually deviant people in those days? Actually, in those days a middle age man being attracted to a 14 year old girl was considered perfectly normal.
At least Roman Polanski is not the director of Romeo and Juliet haha
lol
Is she comfortable with it? Are her parents comfortable with it?
Are you asking for a reason? What is your point? Elaborate.
My point is that this is a decision between her and her parents, not anyone's in Hollywood. If they are fine with it, there shouldn't be much for anyone to worry about.
m1 is correct. If she doesn't object and her parents don't object, I fail to see a problem.
Eh, there will always be parents willing to exploit their children… Does that mean that society at large shouldn't frown upon it?
What is wrong with m1 and Clay? I have a problem with parents who sell their children to Hollywood? A 14 year old should not and is not in a position to make this type of decision. For those who think otherwise, I see plenty of teen parents where I work and believe me, they are NOT ready.
Would it make me a little uncomfortable? Yes. Is it unprecented? No. There was a Romeo and Juliet from the 60s or 70s that had the actress playing Juliet appear nude, even though she was underage.
Yep! And, I think Brad mentionede this when the story first broke, Brooke Shields was 12 and did nudity in 'Pretty Baby'. Also a few years ago I saw the movie 'Blue Lagoon' for the first time all the way through (I'm 32 now, I was around 26, I think…) and I was surprised that movie had scenes of both the boy and girl swimming nude at the beginning of the movie and evetything was shown… and both those kids had to be under 10 at the time… Now I understand that there was nothing of sexual nature going on in that scene, it was just two kids swimming and it showed the innocence of childhood… but I was still surprised it was allowed at the time… As far the new 'Romeo and Juliet' goes, if it's filmed right, it can be implied nudity and if it wasn't implied and it the full monty, as long as it was tasteful and showed the innocence and normal curiosity of young teens in love and not filmed in a way that is meant to excite or titillate (the big difference between porn and art that people always seem to forget about or never think about when subjects such as this are brought up), then I don't see an issue with it at all…
The human body is a beautiful thing and Shakespeare expressed those ideas in beautiful ways such as unconditional (while impulsive adding depth to the characters) love in Romeo and Juliet. To think that we should shame the name of Shakespeare because of the repulsive way so-called art is viewed as today. A movie is meant to tell a story and by filtering your story you're not allowing it to fully flourish. This is almost exactly like that atrocious time when people tried to take the word "nigger" out of Huckleberry Finn. Not all stories are happy little fairy tales with butterflies, rainbows and good triumphing over evil. Movies and stories for that matter are meant to show you something new and exciting. It's disturbing that this has actually become a topic of argument and discussion if her and her parents are comfortable then she has the right to portray any character, in what could be a beautiful, piece of art that she wants.
There is no nude sex scene in Romeo and Juliet. Juliet wasn't even played by a female in the original productions of Shakespeare's work, so not including such a scene today is hardly comparable to editing Mark Twain.
I release that there was no sex scene in the original Romeo and Juliet and the only reason Juliet was played by a girl was because women were seen as inferior. I'm merely commenting on the ideas expressed in Romeo and Juliet which includes love and if a film director (artist) wants to personify those ideas in the act of making love than who are we to say he doesn't have the right to do so?
It doesn't bother me at all, as long as she's okay with it. It's ridiculous how much America frowns upon nudity and language. Like Showgirls getting an NC-17 simply because of nudity. Get over it.
Showgirls would get an R today
"It will be romantic and age-appropriate for a 14-year-old."
Yes, until they irrationally kill themselves.
Word.
I remember in Zefferelli's version, Olivia Hussey was 17 and revealed her breasts and she could not attend to premiere becuase she was under the age of the film's rating. That was in 1968, so in 2011, could we see a 14 year old girl in a similar fashion?
Ms. Hussey was only 15 or 16 at the time of filming 1968's R&J, and could not legally attend the London premiere due to the rating. Yet somehow this film was rated G in the US – was this scene cut? The MPAA says the filmed was "edited" in 1973 and re-rated PG at that time.
In general (and there are always exceptions) America has more issues with sexuality and nudity, while Europe has more issues with violence and gore. Take for example all the horror movies that are or were "banned in the UK" and advertised that way here in the US. Or those 1980s Rolling Stones music videos: the one with the sexy redhead was censored on MTV; the one with the violent shooting was censored in the UK. (Don't ask me for the song titles, my memory is a little fuzzy).
The fact of the matter is that a 14 year old is still a child. Would you want grown men looking at your 14 year old's private parts? I sure as hell wouldn't. I wouldn't want her to have that stigma placed upon her at that young an age. If she's an adult and makes that choice fully understanding the repercussions of her actions and how they will effect her life, then fine. But a 14 year old, 12 year old, etc, is hardly mature enough to truly understand. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves.
This is a very complex topic for me and it's hard to really answer. I think it's the directors responsibility to depict such nudity in an artful manner and not in a way that is exploitive (think I spelt that wrong…) or offensive. I also think it should be totally the decision of the actress and her parents- no one else. However, I could also understand why some would be uncomfortable with it. I'd even feel a little uncomfortable with it. It all depends on how it is depicted in the film. I think it would be a safe decision, however, for the scene in "Romeo and Juliet" to be toned down a bit.
Actually, this is an important fact: Hussey was 15. That's one year older than Hailee. Is it necessarily good if she posed nude? No. Would it ruin her life, exploit her, etc. No. It is her choice. If she is not "mature" enough to understand, that's actually more dangerous, because who knows what she'll do. It is the job of the parents to educate her correctly and make sure that she understands at this point what she is portraying. Parents thinking that they are not "mature" enough pose an indirect link in the rising rates of teenage pregnancy and teenage STDs.
Before I begin, let me say that I'm no pedophile. I agree with josie's IMDB comment, but I must say that in some cases it is an abused art form. I find the poster for The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo to be especially grievous. The point of the film isn't that she's topless, it's actually the opposite. If its a form of artistic impression, then sure. Juliet is supposed to be 14, and the play was written to heavily suggest that they have sex (and in fact confirmed in some translations of the original folio). It makes progress in the story and heavily influences the tone and entire scope of the film. In American Beauty, the nudity was an expression of both the security of Thora Birch's character and the insecurity of Angela. It had a point, so it shouldn't have been excised. I see no reason to discard the Romeo and Juliet scenes, especially since Steinfeld has proven her worth seven times over in True Grit, and the original intent of the artist will be diminished. It was like when they took the "fuck"s out of The Kings Speech…just plain wrong. In the case of the one sheet for The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, as someone who has read the books and has seen the original Swedish trilogy, although the film shouldn't censor her nudity (it is a time of horrific vulnerability and defines the character) to plaster her tits on a poster is antithetical to the spirit of the movie and makes me not want to see it (even though Fincher is an amazing director)
I believe the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo poster was not meant to objectify women. The studio however probably did intend this as a sex sells situation, but I doubt Fincher did. To me the poster is of a very confident young woman, and is a very beautiful shot. Nudity in art is generally meant to convey the juxtaposition of innocence and depravity, duality of man. I believe 99% of film nudity is gratuitous. It should only be on film if making a statement, which can be said about every single frame of a movie. So many filmmakers are lazy and think nudity=realism. I don't think we need to see a 14 year old nude to get the message across that she shared intimacy with her partner (a bare back may be appropriate if we want to show Juliet's sexual confidence and wanting to share herself completely, on the screen. not sure if that makes sense.) I'm not against nudity on film, but I also don't think we need to throw it in every movie that involves two lovers.
Why the fuck are they making this agian?
Girl With The Dragon Tattoo or Romeo and Juliet?
Would I have a problem with a 14-year old actor appearing nude in a sex scene? Yes. I think that is too much to ask of such a young actor. There is too much prurient film-making as it is (witness Brad's post about Michael Bay).
I have not seen Fat Girl but I don't believe that the rape scene there was meant to be a sex scene as would be filmed in R&J. The artistic intent is radically different, or I hope it would be.
But whatever the age of the actor, the issue should be what the artistic purpose is. There may be scenes in which it is truthful to have nudity, and others when it is not. When Schindler's List was shown on network TV in the US, the scenes with actors posing as naked dead people were shown. Network officials argued that the nudity was is no way prurient.
Yet ANOTHER film of Romeo and Juliet….
Now, how can we get a buzz going for this thing?
Hey! "Leak" some script details about teenage nudity and sex! That'll be all that people remember when they go to see it a year later and it's all been taken out of the movie.
Who needs yet another remake of this? The Zeffirelli version nailed it.
When's Steinfeld 16 years old? Over here in the UK the age of consent is 16 years old. Am I being mad when I say: if they are crazy on having Steinfeld play Juliet, why can't they wait a year and shoot that particular scene in the UK??
Am I being simple?
On the point of whether it is appropriate. I think it depends on whether it is a modern interpretation or set in Elizabethan times.
Like how the deletion of 'nigger' from Huck Finn was disgraceful. I think the ignoring the fact that Juliet's character was written to be a woman (in those times) is the prevailing point. Steinfeld will be portraying a woman (who is 14/15). That's the difference. 14/15 were not children back then.
As someone who has suffered abuse, my thought is that it is wrong and will set a bad precedent if artists are allowed to have child nudity in their art. You see, if artists can do that then everyone can do that. Even the people who have more evil intentions. You wont be able to use that to arrest them or stop them.
To me, all these people who say it's art are being selfish. They are putting their own interests before child safety. And these are the people who probably complain about the rich.
There is a dimension here that should be added, without making my opinion directly known on this: Why is this so appalling when horrendous depictions of violence are passable in PG and PG13 films? There seems to be a twisting of what is inevitable and what is deplorable.
If I had to hazard a guess, it would be based on most parents believing that seeing a depiction of murder is not likely to spur their children to murder someone, whereas most can easily see depictions of sex spurring their children to have sex.
When you see people enjoying sex, it always looks like a good idea. Double homicide, not as much.
I think that, by dropping the scenes, the production itself is admitting that they were there for titillation… And that's fine. There's nothing wrong with throwing in a little sex to steam things up for consenting adults. But when they considered a 14 year old girl for the role, they obviously decided that casting young brought a different angle to the film, and were willing to lose the steamy sex for that new take.
Romeo and Juliet can be played any number of ways, from torrid to chaste. The role of Juliet was played by male actors when the play originally premiered, so not including sex scenes is in no way compromising the original work… Although it certainly shows that art has always brushed against society's ideas of propriety. Yet art still manages, somehow.
Interestingly enough, I was just reading a quote from Warren Beatty, who gave a Q & A along with a screening of "Dick Tracy" this weekend, where he said that simply casting a film was essentially rewriting the script, regardless of whether you changed one word. I think this is the perfect example of what he was talking about.
Remember "The King's Speech" getting an R-rating because of the word "fuck"?
The stupid MPAA should GET OVER IT!!!! It's just a word.
As this is just a nude scene.
It's a girl who comes out and shows her breast.
I'm not 14, but when I was 14, I got to see lots of 14-year-old breast.
I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.
GET OVER IT.
I think the ratings system is completely unnecessary anyway.
I haven't seen Fat Girl so I can't remark on it but it appears that the person Josie has seen it and she's entirely within her right to post a defence of it once she's seen the content and context of the nudity and sex. I haven't, so I can't…………..and neither can anyone else who hasn't seen the film.
The Romeo and Juliet film seems to be a non-issue now though. The makers have said that with the casting of a much younger actress, the film has been reconcieved appropriately. So, that would imply Steinfeld wouldn't appear to be now doing a nude scene or sex scene. Even if she was, it would have to be with her full understanding and consent and that of her parents. If they then went ahead and let her be in the film…………that is her/their choice to make.
I suppose moving from 20 to 14 also displays the inherent flexibility of the story as written – and it's probably an attempt to catch the teen audience and try and make more money. They may simply have replaced titillation with 'how can me make more money? Oh yep, make them tiny teens instead'. With R&J you can make it as explicit (and your going to have to have some way of defining and expressing the sheer intensity with which Romeo and Juliet fall into each other, and frankly, if the it's an older cast, then sex is one way to do that) or as unexplicit as you can and you can get it to work.
As for Girl with the Dragon Tattoo………..let's see, a teaser trailer that sucked, and a poster that does too. I'm almost officially out of interest for Fincher's film anyway and his marketing isn't helping restore it.
Everyone on the View has no Idea what they are talking about. Why does their opinion matter, a football players wife and 2 washed up comedians. Thanks America.
Do people not seem to realize that the title roles in the play were written with the characters being only 14 or 15 years old. Just listen to some of the stupid shit that they say in that play. It's stuff that only adolscents would utter when they're "in love"
My interpretation of that play, which partly comes from having stage managed a regional version of it years ago, is a litte different than most, but I have no problem with an actress as young as Steinfeld playing that titular role.
As for Dragon Tattoo, it's one of the few movies this year which has my interest.
At least it won't be in 3D. That would be even worse.
And yet no one complains at all very violent, R-rated films that Dakota Fanning was in when she was 8 and 9 and 10 years old. Violence is very traumatizing in real life. Sex rarely is, unless it's rape. If a kid can distinguish acting in one subject area, they can distinguish it in another.
You know it's also a double standard because it says both her and the guy playing Romeo would also be naked. Female nudity is so frowned upon but it's perfectly okay for the guy to be naked?
the wedding reception has also been rewritten to inculde a man in a panda suit randomly hitting people with a tennis racket
I fail to see the reason for this discussion. In the U.S. its illegal for studios to show a film where a under-18 girl displays nudity. This is not a U.S. film apparently, so the Europeans can do whatever they want. HOWEVER, the director has clearly stated that all scenes of nudity were immediately removed when Hailee signed up for the role.
Thems the facts
No, a 14-year-old girl should not be doing a scene like this. Of course, I am referring to 2011 from an American perspective. Even being "european", as you put it, I'd still have a problem with such a high-profile picture (Fellowes and Steinfeld are both high-enough-profile). I love the Zefferelli version and have no problem with Ms. Hussey's breast flash. That was pre-Internet, the concerns regarding this were different. That movie was obviously art, so no problem
Should a poster like that be in a movie theatre? No. Parents are taking their kids to see CARS 2. They know they'll be seeing posters of raunchy and violent films, but they could easily sell that film without going that far. Let me state that the poster looks pretty cool and I want to see the movie, but as a kid, I always hated that awkward thing where you see movie posters like this in the theatre with the folks arund, even though it would be fine without them.
Is sex the wrong way to sell this story? I guess I'd have to read the book to see if there's some deeper tale, but the whole point of the Swedish movie seemed to be edgy sex and violence (in a good way, loved the first movie), so no I don;t see that as an issue. And given the preposterousness of the story in the two following books, I findit hard to take this seriously as some sort of serious social issue tract.
A 14-year-old child is not capable of fully understanding the implications of appearing naked in a movie. Her opinion simply and lawfully does not count. If her parents would say to do it, that would open a pandora's box of other parents willing to exploit their child to make money.
And I have to agree that the scene is not needed as it was not in the original play.