Unless Zeffirelli kept the post-production for two years, she was at least 16 and maybe 17*, not 15, when the the movie was filmed. Zef let out that she was younger than she was in order to hype the movie. (I saw her in an interview, one time, where she ruefully described losing a boyfriend because he bought the hype and was afraid he’d get in trouble for dating a “kid.”) For that matter, at least her age has “advanced” to 15. When the movie came out, the rumors were talking fourteen or younger–hence her boyfriend’s issues.
*(Born April, 1951, movie released October, 1968.)
How is, as you describe, “a tiny minority (from one church)” supressing anybody’s rights in this situation?
Your first mistake might be assuming they have some kind of consistent standards they follow. Perhaps they do. Perhaps you should ask them, if possible. I’d be interested to hear what they say.
<ahem>
And if filming started in March of 1967, how old would she be?
Doesn’t the female lead hold out? I honestly don’t remember, but I thought another female character actually thinks she’s pregnant, which is a somewhat serious moment. I’m not sure I see how you draw such a conclusion.
Again, I seem to remember that those who were having sex came off badly. They made fun of the “prude”, but that’s just realistic… and bitchy. It was conveyed as such. I think they were going for a play (film) that teenagers, or former teenagers, could relate to.
Also, I don’t think that she alters her personality in the play. (I may be way off here) I think the leather pants were added for the movie version.
Anyway, it’s interesting to hear a different take.
Eh, as a high school drama teacher, I find things like this to be oportunities for kids to talk about issues like this. I had great conversations with my kids about the characters and potential moral issues in Chicago when we put that on a few years ago. Drama is drama, and just because kids are acting in it doesn’t mean they swallow everything at face value.
There are two main women. One of whom thinks she’s pregnant, but then turns out to not be. The other, after being labeled a prude and not being ‘that kind of girl,’ basically does a complete 180 for the finale of the show, coming out all, er, ‘tramped up,’ takes a swing at her nemesis, and gives a big kiss to her boyfriend, who had spent the whole play both trying to play off his interest in the girl to his friends, and trying to get into her pants.
And that’s all in the play.
Thanks. I was actually in the play about 15 years ago, but I don’t remember the swing or the slut.
That being said… did Sandy ever actually do the guy, or is that just implied?
Um, let’s see, by making a big fuss and getting the play cancelled for the entire school?
And their rights were violated how, exactly?
I read a re-review once that said that Romeo and Juliet is actually a brilliant spoof. It is about how dumb, dramatic, short-sighted, and love-stricken teenagers can be. Romeo can be seen oogling other girls in the beginning just like you would find at any junior high today until he hooks up with young, permanently grounded Juliet.
Their wacky antics make a great black comedy.
I always liked that interpretation and feel that it fits pretty well. Shakespeare was a genius and I doubt that young teenagers in the 1500’s were regarded as full adults that could serve as a vehicle for adult emotional complexities.
I wish more schools would direct the play using that view. Students may find it more entertaining and educational.
Well, according to Zeffirelli’s autobiography, when We opened filming on 29 June 1967 in the beautiful town of Tuscania, Ms. Hussey would have been 16 years, two months, and 12 days old.
The way I see it, the churchgoers made a miniscule fuss, sending all of three letters. The superintendent decided to cancel the play based on it, in a complete overreaction. I think he left his balls in the sock drawer when going to work that morning.
If there was evidence of widespread church action against the school, let’s see it. I’d prefer that the school do whatever the fuck it wants as a play, if the churches get pissed, let them picket. It only takes one quick “the play is cancelled” if the heat gets too high, to make them all go away.
But, and here’s the critical thing, make the protesters actually put some effort into it. At least make them prove it really is an important issue in the town at large. Don’t take your lead from a tiny minority that spent all of 3 hours writing 3 letters in some sad effort to avoid all possible controversy.
I did work in a Christian school where a parent came up to me spontaneously (I had no plans to read “Romeo and Juliet” with the kids, hadn’t mentioned it, didn’t even have copies), to make sure I knew that her child would not under any circumstances be permitted to read or watch the play.
Because it glorifies teen suicide.
What exactly do these zealots think high school students should be reading and or performing?
Left Behind: The Kids
You’re right; I’m making an assumption, and I could very well be wrong. I remember thinking, when I heard about the change, okay, you’re going to replace a possibly objectionable play with one that has faeries running around doping characters with love potion so they wake up and start chasing each other through the woods and double entendre out the ying-yang; if tightasses fussed about Grease, what makes you think they’re not going to fuss about this one?
I noticed in the article that they had talked about doing Little Shop of Horrors next fall, but now most likely won’t be able to, because there’s a plant that eats people and a woman who gets the crap beat out of her by her boyfriend. What crap. Little Shop of Horrors would be a blast for those kids to do; dark comedy with awesome music. I wonder what they’ll replace it with? Curious George Watches Paint Dry?
Only as part of a larger repressive environment.
In my district, while a superintendant would respectfully consider all inputs, there is no way that some letters from churchgoers would lead to a play being cancelled. The town next to mine put on The Laramie Project, I’m happy to say.
So, the Superintendant seems to have taken the easy way out, perhaps for fear that if he did not the churches would raise a bigger stink. As a result, as we see from the article, the drama teacher is looking over her shoulder, fearful of putting on any but the most innocuous plays for fear of losing her job. Is that the message we want to give our children?
I reject the validity of the complaints, but not the right of the people to make them. Being a troublemaker, if it were my town, I’d be before the school board yelling. (But it shouldn’t be necessary.) Why do these people think that they should be able to stop productions where under 18 year olds kiss, and why are they able to?
The beginning of the article mentions that the #1 play is Seussical: The Musical. When I read that, I thought wtf? That was a bomb on Broadway. I’ve never seen it, and I love Dr. Seuss, but I’ve never read anything to make me think it had any artistic merit.
But after reading the article, I understand. I don’t think the Butter Battle Book is included, and Yertle the Turtle’s political message may be too subtle (or directed at Nazis) to have anyone object. So Curious George Watching the Paint Dry should do very well.
I stand corrected.
IMDB still mentions 15 in her bio. (I suppose the only way for that to be right is if she were attached to the film before her birthday in April. However, as your cites points out, during filming her age was >16.0y/o.)
I just wanted to say that a local children’s theater performed this recently and it was beautifully done. Funny, moving and engaging. So it all depends on the talents involved.