Professional Opinions

Variety: Paramount has filed a motion to throw out a lawsuit over the 1968 version of “Romeo and Juliet,” arguing that a nude scene with underage actors does not amount to “childhood sexual assault.”

Dr. Feiner: So what word do you take issue with?...(1) they were children. (2) it was sexual. and (3) adults at paramount knowingly exploited minors (which is an assault). Paramount approves of such a wide range of sexual content, the company itself has lost sight of the rules of the law. Do they have an Enterprise Risk Officer who helps the company follow child protection laws.  If Paramount continues to argue that they did nothing wrong, I think they risk admitting to being too desensitized to govern themselves on the lines of legal and illegal.

Variety: Actors Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting were 16 and 17 when they starred in the movie, which was directed by Franco Zeffirelli. The film’s famous bedroom scene includes a lingering shot of Whiting’s buttocks and a brief glimpse of Hussey’s breasts.

Dr. Feiner: Sex sells. That's the first thing students learn in marketing. It works so well, Paramount Executives got lazy and Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting became victims of their laziness and greed. 

I like how you try to deflect with the words "a glimpse of buttocks and breasts" because you got what you wanted with was "a Little Tits and Ass"

Glimpse is exposure. Do you also believe someone can be half-pregnant?

Variety: The actors, now in their 70s, filed a $500 million suit in December, alleging that Zeffirelli pressured them into performing in the nude. They accused Paramount, the distributor, of profiting from their sexual exploitation.

Dr. Feiner: I am not sure of these details, but I know there have been no royalties for Hussey and Whiting. Though continued use of the footage goes directly to Paramount in full. This could have been corrected proactively by Paramount. It's just another example of greed and negligence. 

Additionally, I imagine there have been several successors at Paramount in the Executive Offices, so every successive executive became another betrayer, and moved the Actors farther and farther away from getting justice for the crimes of the first culprits. 

Variety: Paramount’s lawyers filed a motion on Monday, arguing that the suit is doomed to fail for a host of reasons. Among other things, the suit argues that the actors cannot file suit under a California law that suspends the statute of limitations for child sexual assault, because the scene does not qualify as assault.

Dr. Feiner: In an era of higher standards, this claim is shameful, immature, greeding, embarrassing, and likely the very reason. This is a fine example of corporate "cock blocking" that the #MeToo Movement exposed. How about rich executive men with golden handcuffs stop being wimps behind technicalities. Man up, men. 

Variety: The motion also notes that Hussey and Whiting have fondly recalled their participation in the film in the intervening decades, including in a 2018 Variety interview and a 2016 Q&A with the British Film Institute.

Dr. Feiner: Recalling fondly their participation is a way to protect themselves from feeling shame. Defense mechanisms are unconscious emotional reactions that help people function in the world instead of experiencing a constant onslaught of emotional reactivity. 

They made the best of it.

But the statement itself is ignorant. Paramount exploited minors, so it doesn't matter how the actors feel about it. It's a crime.

Variety: The motion argues that Hussey and Whiting cannot sue in California, as they lived in the U.K. at the time and the filming took place in Italy. They also note that Paramount was only the distributor of the film, not the production company. Paramount was thus not Zeffirelli’s employer, and was not responsible for supervising his conduct on set, the motion argues.

Dr. Feiner: Thank you for trying to find a loophole for Paramount. The issue you raise still points to Paramount's guilt. 

Typical of guilty leaders to throw a dead man under the bus.

Variety: The motion invokes the California anti-SLAPP statute, which protects First Amendment speech on matters of public debate. Paramount argues that the film stoked “ongoing debate about nudity in cinema.”

Dr. Feiner: Not sure how to read this. An "ongoing debate on the topic of nudity." Paramount can get on the right side of the issue, and do what's right and start another debate to hold everyone to a higher standard.

Variety: The company also quotes from a glowing 1968 review of the film by Roger Ebert. “A lot of fuss has been made about the brief, beautiful nude love scene,” Ebert wrote at the time. “I doubt whether anyone could see it and disapprove of it, but apparently someone has.”

Dr. Feiner: Easy for Ebert to say. Ebert would be pretty embarrassed too if he was caught with his pants down. Get real people. 

Projecting what you want other people to think is insensitive and self-centered. Try empathy Ebert. Try empathy world.