Judge to Drop $500 million Case Against 1968 Romeo and Juliet Stars

Due to a nude scene in the 1968 production of Romeo and Juliet, Paramount won't have to defend itself against a lawsuit alleging that the studio engaged in sexual assault.

Judge Alison Mackenzie of the Los Angeles Superior Court hinted on Thursday that she would dismiss the lawsuit, calling the allegations that the film depicts sexual actions a "gross mischaracterization" of the sequence. According to her provisional decision, the claims "arise from protected activity" as defined by the First Amendment.

The film was directed by Franco Zeffirelli and starred actors Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting, who were 16 and 17 years old, respectively, at the time of filming. The focus of the $500 million lawsuit is a bedroom scene in which Whiting's buttocks and Hussey's bare breasts are briefly shown. The lawsuit was filed in accordance with a California legislation that suspends the window to make a complaint for childhood sexual abuse. Although Zeffirelli had already informed the actors that they would be wearing flesh-colored knickers in the shot, the cast said he nevertheless put pressure on them to do naked sequences. According to their claims, Zeffirelli instructed them "that they must act in the nude or the Picture would fail" and threatened them with "never working again in any profession, let alone Hollywood."

According to the lawsuit, Paramount made money off of the alleged sexual harassment and exploitation.

According to California's anti-SLAPP law, which permits the early dismissal of claims threatening protected speech, Paramount filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Hussey and Whiting responded by claiming the studio isn't entitled to First Amendment rights since the movie's bedroom scene is considered child pornography under both federal and California law.

Choosing to side with Paramount, Mackenzie determined that the sequence isn't "sufficiently sexually suggestive." She cited case law that determined that only images involving "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" are considered child pornography and not all nude pictures of youngsters.

Hussey and Whiting's attorney, Solomon Gresen, contended during the hearing that he simply needed to show that Paramount was aware the performers were minors at the time the sequence was filmed.

Mackenzie disagreed with the statement. You're suggesting that taking pictures of persons who are younger than 18 is unlawful, right? she questioned.

"Nude images is all that's needed for the crime," Solomon retorted.

Additionally, the lawsuit was dismissed on formal grounds. A so-called "certificate of merit" from a qualified mental health professional attesting there is a reasonable basis to believe they were the victim of sexual assault when they were younger is required in order to file a complaint under the California law giving adults more time to sue over childhood sexual abuse. They must file as "Doe" plaintiffs and are prohibited from naming themselves as defendants in the complaints.

Mackenzie disagreed with Gressen's claim that Paramount cannot bring up his failure to provide the certificate in an anti-SLAPP motion. In the proposed ruling, she stated that his "interpretation of [the statute] defies common sense."

In addition to appealing the decision, Gressen said he will file a new complaint in federal court in California with claims that Paramount is still making money from the film after it was rereleased in February 2023. We believe that there is no constitutional protection for the naked depictions of young children in films, he continued.

Hussey and Whiting claim that the incident has left them with ongoing bodily and psychological agony. They released a statement saying, "We waited for justice for close to 55 years." "I guess we'll have to wait a little longer."

An inquiry for comment was not immediately answered by Paramount. Richard Kendall and Nary Kim of Kendall Brill & Kelly were its representatives.