'Romeo and Juliet' director: No nude scene for Hailee Steinfeld -- EXCLUSIVE

Hailee-Steinfeld

Image Credit: Julien Hekimian/Getty Images

The ladies of The View had a field day today discussing reports that 14-year-old actress Hailee Steinfeld will be asked to appear nude in her upcoming adaptation of Romeo and Juliet. British papers have printed excerpts of the script, which reportedly called for the titular pair to “start undressing each other — slowly, gently, and carefully — until they are naked.”

But in a statement exclusive to EW, director Carlo Carlei says the scene in question has been revised: “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.”

Tags:

Comments (173 total) Add your comment
Page: 1 2 3
  • vin

    Being an english major, I have had to take two shakespeare classes and a shakespeare in film class and I can honestly say that none of the plays really translated into a film as well as Romeo and Juliet (maybe Othello…..the laurence fishbure version and the old version with Lawrence Oliver). This should be no different since they casted the perfect Juliet in my opinion. She could get an oscar or an oscar nom for this.

    • Robert

      An English major, and you used the word “casted”? Oy.

      • vin

        Look at it this way, I ddin’t make a mistake on my papers but I made one here……the way I see it I’m okay with that.

      • James D

        you shouldn’t say you’re an English major on the internet and then make a grammatical error. I think i mad some mistaks but at least im not a neglish majer.

      • I am an English major, too.

        Seriously, there’s more to being an English major than grammar.

      • Joe

        I’m not an English major, and even I know to capitalize proper names.

      • I am an English major, too.

        Good for you, Joe. I’m sure you make sure to do that when you send text messages, make random comments on posts, and leave a note for someone to read – all of which people make minor mistakes when doing. Being an English major doesn’t make you King or Queen of grammar rules. It just means you studied works of previous writers to know more about their style, technique, genre, and so forth. People are really uptight when it comes to grammar on hear, English major or not.

      • vin

        Firstly, Thank you I am an English major too! It’s good to know that somebody else knows about the realities of choosing English as a major and the fact that grammer has nothing to do with the major at all. Secondly, I am taking a summer class currently and as long as I make the mistakes on this website and not on my paper than I am fine with that.

      • I Hope You English Majors Got Scholarships

        Because, if you didn’t, you’re gonna be jobless and staring down the barrel of a debt obligation that’s comparable to a mortgage in a few years.

      • Freud

        I’m a psych major and I was wondering what drives people to troll an otherwise positive comment so hard? Not enough love? Someone touched you?

      • HoneyRyder

        I would just like to say, that I am also an english major.

      • Brenda

        Hahahaha.

        Look how the English major spells “grammar”…with an E.

        Spare us your credentials next time, fool.
        Let your comment speak for itself.

      • Kelly

        Note to all the losers picking on Vin:

        First, how many of you have even attended college?

        Second, do you really need to tear someone down to build yourself up & make your miserable, insignificant lives seem more important?

        Seriously, get over yourselves.

      • Me Fail English???

        that’s UNPOSSIBLE!

      • RickD

        I think you are confusing the task of being an English major with that of being a grammarian. My background is in math, and I have found that math majors are far more focused on grammar than actual English majors are.
        (And, FWIW, in spite of my advanced degrees in math, I still make mistakes in basic arithmetic from time to time. Because being a mathematician is not the same as being a human calculator.)

    • Brett

      I am sure that Mr. Fishburne and Mr. Olivier would be pleased to hear that you appreciated their performances.

    • Sam J

      Hailee spoke like an English major in lasts years True Grit. The dialogue was very well written and well spoken by Miss Steinfeld. I’m a little embarrassed to admit her’s was my favorite performance of last year. Her character had “true grit”, moreso than Jeff Bridges’. I am also embarrassed to be posting on a R & J article, now that I notice. Gotta go>>>>>

      • Pogi

        You shouldn’t be embarrassed! Her performance was very deserving of you love! =P

    • @Vin!

      Stop, Vin, before you hurt yourself. You “didin’t” make just one mistake. To your credit, you never said you were good at English or graduated, either, for that matter.

      • D

        …I’m dying. HAHAHA.

      • Chuck

        Yeah vin,

        how about spelling grammar correctly not the way you spelled it “grammer”. Time to change majors.

    • Henry Plantagenet

      Olivier’s Othello was appallingly bad. A total Amos and Andy.

      • Tim

        For those of us born post 1950, he means to say C. Thomas Howell in Soul Man or the Wayans brothers in White Chicks.

    • Otto

      yeah, that’s embarrassing for you Vin…

    • Anonymous

      You say you’re an english major but you said casted and you didn’t even spell “laurence fishburne” with the capital letters…..someone made a mistake

      • vin

        I am taking a summer class currently and as long as I make the mistakes on this website and not on my paper than I am fine with that. As far as I am concerned that is all that really matters!!!!!

      • ugh

        After reading what you guys have put this kid through, I am shocked at your stupidity. The kid is not perfect but gotta give credit to him since he is not making msitakes on graded stuff. You people are all judgemental jackasses.

      • mouse

        lol! vin, buddy, let it go. let it go.

      • RickD

        Jesus H., people, get over yourselves.

    • HawHaw

      Damn Vin you got owned….

    • HawHaw

      Oh and you say you “didn’t make any mistakes on your papers”…that’s probably because you clicked on that thing called spelling and grammer check. HAW HAW.

      • levelheaded

        Really? Spelling and grammar check? You must have never used it for a college paper.

        You still have to manually go through and verify everything, especially since you can write ‘hear’ but actually mean ‘here’ or use ‘your’ and mean ‘you’re’ and thousands of other mistakes it never catches.

        Why all the hate? Did you have some really pretentious English lovers while you were in school or something?

        *I am not an English major, but I have attended college recently. Any spelling or grammar errors found in this post are not a direct reflection of my intelligence*

    • Matt

      I was an english major, and I just want everyone out there to know that not all of us have our a$sh0les clenched that tight. Thank you.

    • Javadude54

      I’m an English Major General and I approve this massage. A little lower, please. Ah, yes… right there.

      • Ace

        Ha! I will definitely be referring to myself as an English Major General from now on. Excellent.

    • joesy

      Stop giving him/her a hard time. Its an online blog…. no one important reads these anyway.

  • Karin

    i’m just impressed they actually cast a girl who is age appropriate for the role

    • JJ

      Yeah but they could have found a better looking actress.

      • Cygnus

        I think Haley is a beautiful young lady. Prettier than Clare Danes when she played Juliet.

      • Anonymous

        Are you serious? She’s beautiful.

      • sln

        c’mon man, she’s just 14. why do you have to criticize her on her looks rather than on her acting?

      • Amy

        Dude, go back and look at pictures of yourself when you were 14. I’m sure that you looked just as awkward as you think that Hailee looks. Growing up in front of a camera can’t be easy, especially when there are d-bags like you who like to critize how a young teenager, who is still maturing, looks.

      • Liz Lemon

        She’s gorgeous. Shut up.

      • @JJ

        ASS!

      • aj

        I don’t think JJ was necessariy critizizing her looks, it is just that when one thinks of Juliet, one thinks of a sublimely beautiful creature, and if the movie is set in the time period for which the original play was written, then she also has to look like she’s not wearing make-up.

      • Javadude54

        That’s funny considering when Romeo and Juliet was originally produced, Juliet would have been played by a teenage boy.

      • Em

        In observing of the scripts, Juliet isn’t supposed to be beautiful or gorgeous. She’s supposed to be in the stage of going in to womanhood, which Hailee is perfect for, and even then she’s very pretty.

    • Brett

      That’s always been the dilemma of casting the leads in this play. If you cast actors who are age appropriate, they’re usually not skilled enough to handle the verse and act convincingly. By the time the actors can handle the verse and act convincingly, they’re too old.

    • Sam

      Any word on who is playing Romeo? Is he the correct age (as in, inappropriately older for modern times)?

      • Page

        To those with questions about Romeo’s age: The actor playing Benvolio is 14. However, the actor playing Tybalt is well into his twenties. For Romeo to feasibly have a 14 year old as his buddy (the actor looks 14) and kill a much older guy, I’m guessing 16-17.

      • Em

        His name is Douglas Booth, an English actor.

    • Sonny’s Girl

      I’m sure Hallie will be great in the role. But, I wish they’d found an older actress so they wouldn’t feel the need to santize the part. I’m not saying Hallie should necessarily be nude. But, if it was appropriate for the role there’s no reason she shouldn’t be. Olivia Hussey was only 15 when she starred in the 1968 version of Romeo and Juliet, and she had a nude scene.

      • Robin

        STILL THE MOST BEAUTIFUL MOVIE EVER AND I WAS NOT THINKING ABOUT THE NUDITY I WAS ENTHRALLED, (OOO BIG WORD), IN THE STORY WHICH WAS TASTEFULLY DONE…I AM TIRED AND IN PAIN FROM A CAR ACCIDENT SO FORGIVE ME IF I SPELLED ANYTHING WRONG AND DARN IT MY CAPS BUTTON IS STUCK….

  • Terry

    use a damn body double

  • RayT

    So, in other words, this adaptation is going to suck because they’re going to remove all the sensuality from it. Cast an 18-year-old actress now!

    • Kayla

      You do realize that Juliet was 14/15 in the original play right? I think they actually cast the right actress.

      • RayT

        Yeah, except in 2011 in America, it’s not feasible to have 14/15 year old actors or actresses having sex in artistic portrayals the way it was 400 years ago. I’m saying, if they remove all the sex from R&J, it’s going to be terrible so cast an older actress.

      • Anakin

        Actually Juliet was 13 years old in the play. However the original play does not call for nudity. That’s a modern spin to get people to watch the movies.

      • Dirge

        Ray, the “scandalous” thing about Romeo & Juliet in its era–an era in which only adults from either the royal or aristocratic class were seen as appropriate protagonists–was that such young people were elevated to leading roles (the Montagues and Capulets weren’t even aristocrats, btw). So, my point: It wasn’t appropriate for 14-yr-olds to be depicted having sex on stage 400 years ago; it wasn’t even appropriate for kids to be on the stage. And, as has been pointed out already: there’s no sex in R & J.

      • Dirge

        . . . or even 500 years ago, to be more precise.

      • Squishmar

        Okay, I’m completely with RayT on this. Are we not to believe that the couple had sex together after their marriage? Act III, Scene 5. They are together after spending the night together in Juliet’s chamber. You don’t think Shakespeare intended for us to believe they had consummated the marriage? Of course he did.

        The ultimate adaptation of this play to film is Franco Zeffirelli’s with Olivia Hussey, who was 15 when they were filming. There is no ‘sex scene’ per se, but they do show R & J in bed together waking up, naked. It’s a beautiful scene. They don’t have to be nude in the new one, but you have to indicate that they have consummated the marriage.

      • Kate

        @Squishmar, i agree. The Olivia Hussey version was done really well. The whole “it was the nightingale not the lark” scene is one of my favorites in the play. Hopefully they do it the same way, just without the nudity. But i still have a feeling people will be freaking out if Hailee is in bed after their night together at all.

    • Sam

      There isn’t any sex in the actual play. Sex is added to modern productions and movies to sell tickets to those who wouldn’t otherwise bother with Shakespeare.

      • Shannon

        That’s true, but obviously, the couple do indeed have sex in the play and there are plenty of double entendres. No, there isn’t an actual sex scene, but I never saw anything wrong with adding one to the modern adaptations. I mean, this is a couple that are so in love that they die for each other. We might as well see them get it on. But, with age-appropriate actors, of course.

      • Captain

        I don’t think that’s completely why. I know sex sells but in this play, they are suppose to be madly in love, to the point of obsession. I’m pretty sure they’d be having lots of sex.

      • Javadude54

        Presumably, both Romeo and Juliet would have had to defecate some time during the time frame of the play, but it isn’t important to the plot to show them doing it, or wiping themselves immediately after. Neither is it important to the plot to show them having sex or waking up naked in bed to imply they had sex. The play is about love, not coitus.

      • Squishmar

        Javadude, Ummmm….. I’d say that the consummation of their marriage in R&J is a lot more important than their bathroom habits and is actually germane to the story, unlike your example.

      • Ace

        I always bristle at the “R&J is about love” comments. It’s not about love. Romeo and Juliet were idiot kids whose entire story takes place over the course of a few days. It’s about foolishness and haste and emotion. It’s about familial prejudice and obligation, short-sightedness, and hubris. It’s about teenage hormones and lack of impulse control. It’s about regret. It’s NOT about love.

      • theshiftingwinds

        I think it is not necessary to have a sex scene, not because I’m a prude, but because in the actual play there was no sex scene. Shakespeare just said that Romeo was in the same room as Juliet. That doesn’t mean that they have to have sex. What do you think? Do you think a sex scene in a play written 400 or something years ago would be acceptable? Hell to the no! Shakespeare would have gotten a lot of criticism if he had done that! Hell, the book would’ve probably been banned. Besides, sex scenes in most movies are just for more revenue anyways. I think Hailee is a wonderful actress and I think R and J has as much potential without a sex scene.

    • RickD

      In Shakespearean days, Juliet was played by a boy.
      I don’t know where you get your notion that the play is supposed to be “sensual”. This is Shakespeare, not 9 1/2 Weeks.

      • Robin

        ACE / RICKD BOTH WAY OFF BASE, REALLY.

  • Cygnus

    My Shakespeare is rusty, but does the original play actually insinuate any nudity or sex, or is this strictly screenwriters taking liberty with the original material? I can remember the 1968 Olivia Hussey version of R&J, when she was 17, drawing a lot of controversy for her boobage nudity, which I dont believe is illegal by then or today standards, but scandalous all the same.

    • vin

      The play never explicityly says nudity. It just has Romeo waking up with Juliet at oen point but says nothing about nudity. This is the screen writers taking liberties like they did in the Olivia Hussey version (but than again it was a good movie so I guess the risks they took back then payed off….I just think that Haley is a thousand times a better actress and that sticking to the original play is a smart move since Juliet requires a lot of emotion and angst and inner conviction and HALEY HAS IT ALL).

      • Nothing Can Keep Us Together

        do you no how many sexual inndeundos shakesphare fills his plays with?? alot so even if he doesn’t flat out say stuff he is suggestive

      • Teach

        The original play has a “morning after” scene, when the couple has had their wedding night and Romeo must leave Juliet or be discovered in her bedroom and killed. Though never stated explicitly, what do people usually do on their wedding night? And they don’t wear PJs, which is why Zeffirelli and others often depict them getting out of bed and getting dressed. The scene could just as easily be played clothed (as it no doubt was on the Elizabethan stage), but it’s more realistic to have Romeo tugging on his clothes before he escapes through Juliet’s window. Given the current laws, it seems obvious a 14-year-old actress won’t be appearing in a nude scene on American screens in 2011, Olivia Hussey’s underage flash (from over forty years ago) aside.

      • Squishmar

        And, let me get this straight… we are all nitpicking over whether there should be (God forbid) even *implied* nudity… but I’m assuming we all have no qualms about the fact that she plunges a dagger in to her heart? Is that right? Okay. Just checking. God, we Americans are so uptight.

      • Anakin

        @Teach, back then people DID sleep in clothes and had sex UNDER the clothing. They don’t go to sleep in the buff or have sex openly naked like we do now (even married couples). Some women wore night clothes that just had a hole where her vagina is and is still fully covered.

        Again, modern movies had more sex and nudity just to sell the movie, they aren’t realistic to the times. People can’t say they want the age of Juliet to be appropriate to the play but don’t want to stick with the rest of the play and time period.

      • Okay…

        Are you sure that people went to bed clothed 500 years ago. Are you a historian? Do you have the pictures, videos, …any evidence at all?

    • Michelle

      I believe that Olivia Hussey was 14. Leonard Whiting (Romeo) was 17. This is actually one of the very few films in which the nudity was appropriate rather than gratuitous. Hope this new version is as good

    • Sonny’s Girl

      Olivia Hussey was 15 not 17.

  • mark

    Olivia Hussey was 16 when she did Romeo and Juliet nude, it was important to the integrity of Shakespeare’s vision. Tell the pterodactyls that occupy the set of The View to shut up and go back to making horrible puns written buy interns hours beforehand…. Makes me sick

    • Shannon

      “pterodactyls”…lol

    • Squishmar

      mark… I agree completely. There seems to be discrepencies on the age of Hussey when filming… maybe she was cast at 15, filmed at 16? I had always thought she was 15. No matter. That scene is just beautiful. God, I love that film.

  • nana

    I read EW every day and I have never heard of this Romeo and Juliet movie. Sounds good though, good for Steinfeld.

    • Shannon

      Yeah, I didn’t know it was in the works either. I do know, however, that Chloe Moretz was interested in the role.
      I think she’s an awesome young actress as well and would prefer to see her continue to play more distinctive characters anyway.

      • n

        Agreed.

  • godzilla_foil

    That’s just pathetic that they’re talking about “age appropriate” in today’s terms for a play written in 1560-something. If it helps telling the story, then f*ck PC and do it already, be the actress 14, 20 or 74.

    • Cygnus

      Though I tend to agree with your libertine sentiment, you have to remember today’s social climate. 30 years ago when Blue Lagoon came out, and 10 or so years before Baby Doll, Brooke Shields was full frontal nude as a tween. Yes, it was scandalous, but still daring to be made. Many decades ago you still saw movies and TV shows depicting blacks are nothing more than simpleton farm hands and uncle toms, like Gone With the Wind. You couldnt come close to making that movie these days. Things change. Who knows maybe in 100 years we’ll Romeo and Juliet with Juliet in a Burqa, as anything less would be against societal norms. However, there is an irony in that tweens running around the malls hardly wear anything, yet a tasteful, classic movie can’t be made a nude scene. Society is so hypocritical.

      • Shannon

        You’re correct. And Blue Lagoon… Bleh. Just a horrible movie all around. Laughably so.

      • robert

        If they did a remake now either Rhett or Scarlett would be black & Mammy would be Asian.

      • Squishmar

        To Cygnus: I just have one quibble with your statement…. Mammy is the wisest character (next to maybe, Melanie) in the entire film.

    • Amy

      So are you also a fan of kiddie porn because that is what you are telling them to make. Just a thought…

      • Wha’ever

        I think you’re highly confused if for you nudity = porn. Or a prude.

      • Javadude54

        Hey, Wha’ever… go call your local police station and tell them you have tasteful nudes of 14 year old girls on your computer. See how that works out for you.

  • Quirky

    I’m so glad they dumped the nude scene from the movie. Romeo & Juliet isn’t about teenage sex. It’s about teenage violence and suicide. Get it right people.

    • Shannon

      Well, it is a little about teenage sex. And love. And tragedy. And the idiot lengths parents go to to keep their kids away from “undesirables”. It was a Shakespearean “Parental Control”.

      • robert

        dysfunctional families.

    • Squishmar

      God, Quirky… yes, there is violence and suicide but the play is not *about* those things. It is, above all else, a tragic LOVE story. And, yes, a cautionary tale about war, told through the awful fate of these two star-cross’d lovers.

  • Tye-Grr

    EW sure has a knack for using the worst pictures they can find of the entertainers they do their stories on. That has to be the least flattering picture of Hailee I’ve yet to see, which is a shame because she’s a natural beauty, but they use the one picture of her wearing way too much makeup.

  • Shakespeare

    Uh why do we need another one, seriously this story has been told into the ground countless times by now. Its been made so much you can dream about it!

  • Ms. Chanandler Bong

    The Baz Luhrman R&J will always be the best adaptation…ever. I do like the 60’s one too for it’s traditional viewpoint, but mixing the modern landscape and the original language…I think I read every Shakespeare play after that.

    • Lisa Simpson

      The Baz Luhrman version was awful. There were so many times that actors read their lines as if they didn’t understand them that it was obvious that the director didn’t either.

      • vin

        It was good….it wasn’t perfect but it got the majority of the events in the play accross so it was true to the source. def better than most shakepereare movies.

      • Shannon

        I liked the costume ball scene in the Baz Luhrman version and the way Romen & Juliet first see each other through the fish tank. It’s a guilty pleasure, mainly. But, man, the end. With the stupid gun and everything. Pretty ridiculous.

      • Marianne

        I like the 1996 Baz Luhrman adaptation!

      • Nothing Can Keep Us Together

        leo was cute in that. i must say that the fish tank scene and the elevator/first kiss scene was truly epic. the way they kiss and the elevator door opens only for romeo to pull juliet back in and kiss her again plus the rotation of the camera around the kiss and the costumes made it romantic

      • Shannon

        Yeah, and the choice of costuming–Romeo’s knight outfit and Juliet’s fairy ensemble add a particularly sweet and magical effect.
        Before all that, however, you’ve got Romeo dropping acid, Mercutio dancing around in drag… It’s camp at it’s finest.

      • m1

        I thought the Baz Luhrmann version was all right, but it was cringe-inducing to see these actors reading iambic pentameter in a ’90’s setting. Really?

      • Squishmar

        I can now watch Baz Luhrmann’s version without screaming, but I hated it when it first came out. There are many things wrong with it. Firstly, if you’re going to have the original language, it must be spoken in the rhythm of the language (mostly iambic pentameter), otherwise, it sounds absurd. Secondly, the death scene with R&J is ruined; not just because she uses a GUN rather than a dagger (and therefore, one of Juliet’s best lines is cut) but mainly because Romeo is not dead yet when Juliet wakes up and they get that last look at each other which just ruins the frustration of it all. In the play, she wakes up AFTER he’s dead. It just really bothered me.

        On the plus side… Harold Perrineau as Mercutio is amazing. When I first saw him on “Lost” I remembered him from R&J and how great he was. And Pete Postlethwaite as Father Laurence is great, too (and the only one actually speaking in iambic pentameter).

      • KM

        Oh how I love the Baz Luhrman version! It’s been said, but the fish tank, the elevator, and the pool are such beautiful moments! and though some of the language was botched, the movie did a great job of giving modern day teens a way of grasping the plot! plus leo is so adorable and claire is simply gorgeous

  • ann

    you do realize that an accurate portrayal of the great Shakespeare romance would have cast ALL MALE actors. Women were not permitted to perform in that era. Therefore nulling all your arguments

    • Shannon

      No, the play was still written with male and female leads, regardless of how it was performed on stage. It’s absolutely true that women were not permitted on stage, but that doesn’t mean that the actors were all of age.

      • JMB in FL

        Thank you, ann. The actors playing women in Shakespeare’s day were generally young enough that their voices hadn’t changed. That’s why they were playing girls. Nudity was not allowed on Shakespeare’s stage, either, which is why it’s all implied with word play (see the play within a play scene for Hamlet’s dialogue with Ophelia for some pretty risque talk). People in prior ages were a lot more earthy and open about bodily functions than we are now. They put on a “proper” front and policed women’s behaviors pretty harshly, but take a look at the codpieces worn by fashionable young men and you will see that sexuality was not exactly “forbidden.” Additionally, girls during the Elizabethan era were often married at 15. And if you think it doesn’t happen any more, read the last issue of National Geographic’s article on child brides. “Childhood” as we conceive it is a fairly recent historical construct, and one pretty confined to the Western world.

  • Marianne

    In the 1996 film, there was no nudity, but we did see them start to undress each other…why not do it in that sort way? We don’t have to physically see them having sex, they can always cut to the morning after…it would still be fine.

    • Shannon

      A 14-year-old simulating nudity as a prelude to sex is still kinda creepy.

      • Kate

        I completely see what you are saying, but I really don’t get how they are going to make it obvious that they slept together without doing something like that.

      • Shannon

        Well, they’ll imply it in some way….or, they’ll just use puppets. lol, no idea.

      • Squishmar

        Well, then Shannon, you have to say the whole play is creepy. Juliet IS 13 in the play. She gets married, and does sleep with Romeo… then, she kills herself after he does the same. It’s a “creepy” thing all around, but that’s what it is.

      • Squishmar

        Actually, I like your puppet idea. Like “Team America.” LOL

      • Shannon

        lol, Squishmar, thanks! Yes, I was indeed thinking of Team America.
        As for R&J as a creepy play.. Yeah, it kinda is. I mean, two kids kill themselves. It’s also a bit funny in a dark sorta way, but I’m not at all for 14-year-olds snacking up. At least they’re both 14, though. Plus, I love Shakespeare and the play. And I’m kind if a sucker for teen angst/romance.
        If they implied nudity with Hailee, I’d be ok. But, I sure don’t want to see her start showing off her, well..”true grit”.
        As for the dagger scene.. I think the reason no one’s fretting over that and is instead focusing on the nudity is because we know the kid’s not actually going to be
        tearing through her skin, whereas she could very well
        be showing some depending on which way the director
        wants to go. No, she wouldn’t actually be having sex,
        but she’d be shedding some clothes in a sexual
        context. I know it’s the play and I know a young
        actress has done a nude scene for the teen tragedy before (Hussey? What a name…), but if people are uncomfortable with a child stripping down and projecting sexuality on screen, I think it’s perfectly normal and healthy.

      • Shannon

        Blah, sorry for the choppiness of that post. I suck at scrolling on my phone. I just end up knocking sentences over.

      • Shannon

        Just noticed my “snacking” up typo. Hahaha.
        Should be *shacking up.

      • Paul

        Shannon: Glad to see you’re against 14-year-olds shacking up, not against them snacking up. It’d be a nuisance if people had to show I.D. every time they went to buy Doritos and Pepsi and stuff.

      • Julia

        There are a few prleobms with the movie compared to the book. 1) NO one they could get to be Edward would be good looking enough. 2) The guy the got to play James was WAY too good looking considering that he’s supposed to be average/unattractive in the book and 3) The sparkle effect was hilariously bad.Other than that, if you liked the book, I imagine you’ll like the movie. Personally, I think the book’s overall message is a dangerous one for girls as they become women. Edward is the ULTIMATE badboy, he may be nice, intelligent and kind, but a fundamental and unchangeable part of him wants to kill Isabelle and drink her blood. But does this scare her away, like it should any logical person? No, she thinks she can change him or the situation and, of course, since it’s fiction, she does. The movie makes this one point so blatantly obvious that girls I saw the movie with (who didn’t understand my point after reading the book) started to see what I was saying.

  • Nothing Can Keep Us Together

    in 1968 olivia hussey was about 14 or 15 and i believe leonard whiting was 18. they did a nude scene but the director made sure it was tasteful and a closed set for the young actors

    • Robin

      Wow I thought this was about a movie not who can spell better. JEEEZE

    • Robin

      That is the most beautiful movie ever. In history people of that age did get married, it was expected. Did I spell everything right?LOLLOL

      • Adedoyinsola

        @Robin while are u scared of spelling they are all correct

Page: 1 2 3
Add your comment
The rules: Keep it clean, and stay on the subject - or we may delete your comment. If you see inappropriate language, e-mail us. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field.

When you click on the "Post Comment" button above to submit your comments, you are indicating your acceptance of and are agreeing to the Terms of Service. You can also read our Privacy Policy.

Latest Videos in Movies

Advertisement

TV Recaps

Powered by WordPress.com VIP