Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

UpvotesPokemon t1_j583c8f wrote

Reply to comment by tan-499 in Whiting, Hussey, "Romeo and Juliet" 1968 by GoldenChinchilla

Yeah.. because that makes her not a child that was exploited by filmmakers… Edit to add: He was exploited as well as a child.

4

davtruss t1_j59qx61 wrote

Just stop it. There was nothing exploitative about the film for 40 years until somebody decided it was exploitative.

It's like saying Thora Birch was exploited in American Beauty.

−10

UpvotesPokemon t1_j5a8bkf wrote

Dude, I don’t even have words to say how gross this is of you. Especially given the fact that both of these actors are now suing because they were exploited as minors.

4

davtruss t1_j5asx5d wrote

What's gross is when people in their 70s attempt to cash in on contemporary morals like yours. I very much doubt they can prove either emotional or monetary harm. We shall see.

What you need to remember is that your concept of what's gross is in many cases impertinent.

0

UpvotesPokemon t1_j5bjsdu wrote

Try to justify this however you can, the fact is that a 16 year old girl and a 16 year old boy should never have been put in the position of having their bodies exposed in a major motion picture. It should never have happened. If you cannot take the actors themselves saying they were exploited as proof, that says a lot more about you than it says about them.

3

charlesdexterward t1_j5ael7m wrote

Thora Birch is a bad example. There are a lot of behind the scenes stories about her father/manager being really controlling and creepy.

3

davtruss t1_j5ath8g wrote

She received a BAFTA nomination for best supporting actress....

−3

charlesdexterward t1_j5aznh7 wrote

Okay? What does that have to do with anything?

2

davtruss t1_j5b3rj5 wrote

It means she was acknowledged for her artistic contribution to an Academy Award winning film. Who hurt you?

−1