Old MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Snobs, Sheets and So On: Welcome Back, Cindy Adams


Shockingly, more than two months have passed since Cindy Adams’s last mention on The Reeler. I can remember when nary a day went by without some massively entertaining screed against J. Lo. or King Kong or some confused, soaked-sheet phone romp with Matthew Modine. Today, however, Adams greeted readers with a two-fer (or maybe a one-and-a-halfer) that should help her re-establish dominion in my heart–and yours.
Like this adorable verbal shrug regarding David Kamp and Lawrence Levi’s upcoming book, The Film Snob’s Dictionary (to be reviewed here Feb. 21):

WHAT this means I don’t know, but coming out is The Film Snob’s Dictionary, which states: “The only Tom Cruise movie it’s OK for Snobs to like is Ridley Scott’s Legend.” That was ’85, Tom’s first super-important role. Maybe someone can explain to me what all that’s supposed to mean?

Of course, nobody fucks with Cindy, so I contacted the authors right away to inform them of her request. They clarified a little while ago on the official Snobsite:

Cindy, if you even have to ask… but we will say that, for starters, U.S. audiences only got to see the tragically truncated 89-minute version, while the European version ran nearly a half-hour longer. That alone is enough to create a Snob cause célèbre.

As Cindy herself might say, possibly maybe perhaps we just might elaborate on this when the people who elaborate on such things feel like elaborating some more if they’re in an elaborating mood. And when the room service people in the Shanghai Mandarin Oriental figure out how to make a simple bagel with a schmear for Joey. Is all we’re saying.

And this is me, finally exhaling. Now that that is settled, we can move on to Cindy’s next item, which appeared anonymously yesterday on Gawker but which Cindy attributed today–accidentally or otherwise–to one of the New York film community’s own:

SCOTT Gluck of the Weinstein Company got on the E train at West Fourth. Sitting opposite was a person with a white sheet over his head. No cut-out eyes, no holes for the nose. Nothing. And he just sat there like that. Not one other passenger even batted an eyelash at this sight.

Stunning. It is always a nice to see the Weinstein staff hitting the gossip circuit so hard. Memo to Scott Gluck: While I prefer the dirty laundry to just, you know, laundry, I will run your camera phone pictures and laugh at your burka jokes until I puke if you think it will get me any closer to The King. Cindy is fun, and Gawker is sexy, but they will not respect you in the morning. They will not even remember you in the morning. So write it down: Tips [at] TheReeler.com. I am here for you, pal.

Be Sociable, Share!

One Response to “Snobs, Sheets and So On: Welcome Back, Cindy Adams”

  1. Pat Regensburg says:

    Would like to write Cindy Adams. address?

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