Old MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Boldface Gets to Bottom of 'Smoking' Sex Mess


Having evidently learned from Lloyd Grove the dire consequences of skipping a Thank You For Smoking story for dessert, The Times’s Campbell Robertson scampered uptown last week for a party celebrating Jason Reitman’s buzz-packing feature debut. And bless Robertson’s heart, readers can finally anticipate the movie based on its narrative merits rather than the bidding war it provoked in Toronto or the gamy prospect of Katie Holmes fucking:

What happened to the KATIE HOLMES sex scene that was totally missing from the screening at Sundance because I totally heard it was like TOM CRUISE breaking into the projection room or something and it was like a five-hour sex scene and the movie was totally going to get an NC-45 rating how crazy is that?

“It disappeared for a week, just a very prominent week,” said Mr. Reitman (above), who looked as if he had not been asked that question for at least three minutes. “It was a result of a projection issue. The movie you saw tonight had it.”

Oh that scene? That was it?

“The L.A. Times did an article two days later saying, ‘Was it the Mormons or the Scientologists?’ and that’s what set it all off,” he continued. “People started speculating. And I think people just felt like, ‘Well, if we’re going to make stuff up, let’s go all out.’ And people started saying there was nudity, people said it went on longer than they thought, people said it was steamy and sensual and it’s none of that.”

Ah-hah! There goes the goddamned L.A. Times, ruining it for everybody once again. Except “projection issue” sounds vaguely like “wardrobe malfunction” or some other, equally sinister P.R. euphemism for “accidentally on purpose,” don’t you think? Or maybe it is just my prurient side imagining how Cruise foresaw men “projecting” at the sight of his L’il Katie all hot and bothered. Not that there is anything wrong with that–the guy obviously has enough to worry about these days without Ivan Reitman’s kid exploiting his babymaker. Hopefully he will be done with Katie by the time the DVD comes out and we can get the unexpurgated Holmes/Eckhart/Macy three-way that will probably show up on YouTube in a week, anyway. Keep your fingers crossed.

Be Sociable, Share!

One Response to “Boldface Gets to Bottom of 'Smoking' Sex Mess”

  1. prideray says:

    The scenes are sufficiently tame and at sufficient distance that Aaron Eckhart could well be standing up with a male body double, and they do occur just prior to a reel change.

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