The Secret Sex Lives Of Romeo
And Juliet
(1969)
Director: "A. P. Stootsberry" (Peter
Perry)
Cast: Forman Shane, Diedre Nelson, Stuart Lancaster
Many years ago I read something about filmmaker Tom
Laughlin (the man behind the Billy Jack movies,
including Billy Jack Goes To Washington)
that has stuck with me. It was when he released the non-Billy Jack
movie The Master Gunfighter. All the movie critics hated
it, which infuriated Laughlin, and in retaliation he spent thousands of
dollars on advertisements that blasted these movie critics, saying
(among other things) that the critics were "frustrated writers who
failed to make it into show business." I don't know about other movie
critics, but I do know that this movie critic once did have aspirations
to make it in Hollywood. When I was in grade eleven, I took a
television class in my high school with dreams to make my own
productions. I remember one of the productions I had in mind, a series
of commercials one after the other. The first would be a man taking a
walk, and encountering a man desiring a chocolate treat. The man taking
a walk would give the other man a Kit Kat. The man would walk on, and
encounter another man, this man having a bad case of hemorrhoids. The
helpful man would pull out another product, this one being titled "Sit
Sat". The man would walk on, and then encounter a man who was unable to
talk. The resourceful man would pull out a third product, this one
being titled "Chit Chat". The man walks on, and encounters a man who is
suffering from constipation. Yes, our helpful man has something for
this individual as well. He reaches in his pocket, and pulls out... a
box of Ex-Lax.
Well, I thought it was pretty funny at the time.
It was certainly better than the various ideas for short subjects my
group in the television class came up with. The unfortunate fact for me
in that class was that the group I was in was (aside from me) consisted
of morons. They not only came up with stupid and unfunny ideas for our
various productions, they constantly rejected my various (and much
better) ideas. When I finally got the chance to do my Kit Kat sketch as
part of a larger production (as a commercial break for a live
television production assignment), shortly after starting it I had to
abandon it with much frustration. Not only were the people in my group
poor actors, they couldn't remember their lines. I soon realized that
if I wanted to live out my ideas, I would have to do it on my own.
Later, I did a short two-part comedy sketch about a guy and his
sarcastic computer that I wrote, acted, and directed completely on my
own. I had the satisfaction of having it aired on community TV not long
after it was completed, though my sense of humor in the sketch was so
salty that my television teacher edited it before it was aired. So this
boy with eyes towards Hollywood was definitely frustrated by his
experiences in television class. Fortunately, I have had other
experiences with entertainment that have been more satisfying. In grade
three, I had the satisfaction of being cast as Mutch, the miller's son,
in the class play of Robin Hood. It was a good experience, even
if the play's production values were pretty poor.
My biggest experience, however, was in grade twelve when
I auditioned for the school play Romeo & Juliet. Though I
was originally cast in a smaller role, when someone quit the play I was
recast in the pivotal role of Friar Lawrence. Let me be excused for my
bragging when I reveal I was told that I was one of the best things
about the play. The behind-the-scenes experiences I had were great as well. I managed to bring something to
the other actors when I showed them a passage from a book called
Banned Films that I had found in the school library. One of the
banned films described was The Secret Sex Lives Of Romeo And
Juliet, and my castmates were tickled to read the description
of the movie (except for the actor who played Paris, because his
character was described in the movie as being a homosexual.) I tried
for years to find the movie, but I couldn't find it anywhere.
Fortunately, it was released on DVD a few years ago, and I finally got
a copy to watch and review for this web site. The setting, as you have
probably guessed, is in ye olden tymes, specifically in "beautiful
downtown Verona" of this period. We are told that we are to see
Romeo & Juliet in the way Shakespeare intended, as a reflection
of those ribald times. Romeo's and Juliet's family are feuding, but
when they are not feuding they are boinking. For example, Juliet is
sleeping with the prince of Verona, as well as her nurse, while Romeo
is sleeping with Juliet's mother. Yet despite this, the two are deeply
in love and yearn to be together. In this version, will they manage to
overcome tragedy and get together?
I really wanted to like The Secret Sex Lives Of
Romeo And Juliet. In fact, I fully expected that I would have a
lot of fun with this movie. That's because for years non-stop, I have
been exposed to Shakespeare in a serious vein. There was the play I was
in, of course, but I have had other serious experiences with
Shakespeare. In my high school English class we took several weeks to
study Romeo & Juliet, while in university I took a full
term devoted to the study of several Shakespeare plays. After all this
serious (and sometimes boring) study of Billy-boy, I was ready to see
some serious spoofing of the Bard. Then there was also the timing of
this movie. It was released in 1969, one year after the release of the
hugely successful Franco Zeffirelli Romeo & Juliet
movie. I had the impression that this movie would also spoof elements
of the Zeffirelli movie, which in my opinion is ripe for parody. Of
course, there is also the fact that The Secret Sex Lives Of
Romeo And Juliet promised to be chock-full of nudity and sex,
and those elements can certainly add to the watchability of a movie.
But a fun time was not to be. By the end of the movie, I felt as numb
as if I had been watching an Andy Sidaris movie. To be fair, the movie
could have been a lot worse. There were a few times when I found the
going-ons amusing. For example, there are a lot of cuts to characters
making brief comments a la the then-hot TV show Laugh-In, like
when one character pops by to say, "If Juliet sold oranges on the
corner, would she be called Orange Juliet?" before disappearing.
Corny, I'll admit it. But there are a ton of one-liner
asides like that in the movie, and with so many it's inevitable that
some of them will hit their mark and make you smile or laugh. It also
helps that a number of the actors in the movie, from those who just say
these one-liners to those who have more substantial parts, are pretty
enthusiastic in their roles, big or small or whatever they have to do.
Two of the performers deserve special mention. As Lord Capulet, Stuart
Lancaster (a veteran of grindhouse movies like these, including some
Russ Meyer movies) reminded me of Sid Caesar, both in looks and the way
he delivers his dialogue. He's amusing, and it's a pity that his role
isn't very big. Wendell Swink (who only made one other movie after this
one), who plays Friar Lawrence, is a hoot. His bug-eyed,
tongue-licking, and giggling performance got some much needed laughs
from me when he appears late in the movie. But unfortunately he gets
even less screen time than Lancaster. Besides the one-liners and the
go-for-it acting by the cast, I suppose I could also praise the musical
score, which does sound appropriately medieval, even when they play
something other than Greensleeves. But they play too much of
the same bars of music over and over, and during the parts when there
is actually a singer on the soundtrack, you can't really make out
anything she sings. I did make out the phrase "golden showers" at a
couple of points, so the song may have been intended to be comic. But
as it is, the song and the rest of the music are just the tip of the
iceberg as to what goes wrong with this movie.
The first of the big ways that the movie goes terribly
wrong is with the screenplay. Those who are expecting a story that is
pretty faithful to the Shakespeare original will be sorely
disappointed. There are only a few elements of the Shakespeare play
here, and they are introduced almost casually (the true introduction of
Paris into the various going-ons does not happen until over half an
hour has passed) As a result, any chance of Shakespeare's original play
being satirized is virtually destroyed. (It should come as no surprise
when I reveal that there are no elements of the Zeffirelli movie that
are satirized.) Maybe this wouldn't matter if the movie found another
way to be funny, but aside from those few one-liners that I mentioned
earlier, the movie simply isn't funny. The "Sock it to me!" line of
humor here hasn't dated well overall, and the movie seems more
concerned with delivering an endless number of scenes with sex and
nudity instead of humor or plot. There's a chance this sexual material
could have saved the movie, but it doesn't. That is, unless you find
appealing pale bodies covered with freckles and other marks, sex scenes
directed with constant close-ups of feet and heads instead of full-on
views, and the various undressings and sex scenes going on for such a
long time that the little erotic content they have is overwhelmed by
the boredom they generate. (And the lesbian scene is filmed in the dark
- boo hiss!) By the end of the movie, I had a new appreciation for
Shakespeare's original work. He knew how to deliver the goods in his
day, but most of all he knew when some things should remain a secret.
Check
for availability on Amazon (DVD)
See also: The Fantasticks,
Let My..., Revenge
Of The Teenage...
|