Old MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Allen Just Loves to Dote on Little Scarlett's Sex Life


Today’s Page Six notes that Scarlett Johansson moved into Josh Hartnett’s Tribeca apartment and that she “is seen walking her dog mornings on Hudson Street.” I mean, it is good to know that Johansson and Hartnett spend time out together, but I can hear you preparing a breath to ask, “Why the fuck is this news?”
I did not take it too seriously either until reading Jeanette Walls’s Scoop column this morning on MSNBC, which had me feeling nine ways of sick:

Scarlett Johansson says Woody Allen was obsessed with her love life. “He’s not always sure of himself, and that’s a sexy quality,” the Love Match [sic] star tells the upcoming issue of Life magazine regarding her director. “But you know what cracks me up? He’s fascinated with my love life. And John Travolta [Johansson’s costar in last year’s A Love Song for Bobby Long] is even worse than Woody–he wants to know everything. I guess it’s because they’re both married with kids and want to live vicariously.”

I will forgive the “Love Match” error; after all, Roger Friedman’s trangressions over on Fox make Walls look like Lillian Ross. But if Allen’s insecurity is “sexy,” I can only imagine how all that classically Woody-esque paternal tenderness is going to develop as these two continue working together. Let it suffice to say that if Hartnett thinks he can fight Allen off by clearing a spot on the sink for his girlfriend’s toothbrush, he might reconsider his adversary right… about… now.
Travolta? Just another horny Scientologist. Allen? By his own admission in Manhattan, “Beneath his black-rimmed glasses was the coiled sexual power of a jungle cat.” So hell yes–in a simmering battle between a dog and a cat, my money is always on the cat.

Be Sociable, Share!

One Response to “Allen Just Loves to Dote on Little Scarlett's Sex Life”

  1. Antiroeper says:

    Calm down, dude.
    Johansson’s stock persona is of a smart, self-aware girl who is fussed over by older guys and rather enjoys it.
    This is the 2005 equivalent of hearing that Garbo may have actually snuggled with another girl.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon