Thursday, 26 October 2000

LEO HASH: I was surprised about how much mail I got condemning me for running the story about Scorsese ripping DiCaprio in Tuesday's column. I thought I was pretty clear about it being a gossipy story and that it was a borderline choice on my part, but that I thought the ending (DiCaprio gets focused) was happy and not abusive to Leo. It would have been hypocritical, given my stance on some other entertainment writers, had I not been clear in labeling the story, but I was. (And ironically, readers who complained about my complaints about other writers accused me of suggesting that they, the readers, weren't smart enough to read between the lines for themselves. So, I can't really win with some people.) Nonetheless, that's not how some people saw it. They felt that the story itself was somehow abusive and that Leo being called to task was somehow humiliating and somehow tarnished Leo. I don't see it that way at all.

What strikes me is that—as I thought about the various accusations against me—I thought, well, maybe I could be enjoying a piece of purely fabricated gossip. So why would I enjoy it? I have no axe to grind against DiCaprio. I think he's a fine actor. But the reason I kind of went with it was because it doesn't strike me as all that surprising. I've seen Leo in action…the kid is a wild one. And here he is, recently hooked up with a stunning supermodel, loose in Rome. How wild would YOU get? How late would YOU be up?

And as for the people arguing that poor Leo is being abused, they too are reaching. While it is true that set gossip is often exaggerated, it's amazing how often stories turn out to be completely true. At last weekend's junket/press conference, no one from the Charlie's Angels team was doing anything about the stories from their set except softening tone. Drew and Cameron talked about how great Bill Murray is and Lucy Liu sat silent, staring. McG just bounded with enthusiasm…and Cameron talked about how great that was to have around by (she said with a gulp) month five of shooting. Now, there aren't a load of Lucy and Bill fans, hanging on every word and fighting for the image of their heroes. So, I won't get mail about this. But Leo and Kevin Costner and Brad Pitt and whoever, say something "bad" and WHAM! The thing is, they take this stuff more seriously than I do. I'm not remotely surprised by the idea that Leo went out and partied too much. My writing about it won't hurt his career. He's not a rehab guy. He's just a kid…a very talented kid. So, simmer down.

Finally, the publicists got in their say. As I've written in the past, though it may be unfair on some levels, membership in Scientology combined with an actor who suffers rumors about his possible homosexuality tends to act more as a confirmation of rather than a shield from rumors. (Part of the reasoning is that Scientology has very specific rules about homosexuality.) Similarly, when the gossips start a barrage of comments on a particular story, it is clear that it is coming from publicists and thus, by the nature of the beast, is not to be believed…even more so than The Guardian.

From Liz Smith: "HERE ARE five statements about Leonardo DiCaprio that his rep says we can go to the bank with: 'He's absolutely not engaged…He's not partying…Martin Scorsese did not scold him on the set of Gangs of New York…He looks terrific…He's working out every day…And he loves raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens!'" At least Liz knows when she's being played.

At Fox News, Roger Friedman offers: "The reality: All I know is that Scorsese is not the sort of director who invites confrontations. A couple of years ago, before filming Bringing out the Dead, he had to ask screenwriter Paul Schrader to tell Nicolas Cage to keep his performance restrained and not over the top. Scorsese literally took them both to a meal, stood up, and said, "Paul has something to tell you." And left. So I doubt he yelled at Leo in public, if at all. A source close to Leo, one of his defenders, says since all the shooting has been at night, it's unlikely Leo's been cavorting off-set, or in Rome, during the wee hours. Does this seem like someone who Scorsese would humiliate in front of others???" Does Roger Friedman really believe that story about Cage, Schrader and Scorsese? Where did he get it? Where is the context? And do you really think that the incredibly fast-talking though often soft-spoken Scorsese hides from his actors? Do you think that's what makes him great? Or is he just willing to talk to them when things are good? I consider this rumor far more insulting to Scorsese than the other is to DiCaprio. (However, I wouldn't be shocked if Scorsese set Schrader up to be an additional voice in Cage's ear, telling him he was playing it too broadly…that would be directorial politics…that would be intelligent…just as everyone does once in a while, directors who do not use humiliation have to use humiliation to achieve a goal.)

Of course, what I didn't run, even tagged as gossip, and what I don't care about or believe to be accurate are reports about Leo's weight, the specifics of Leo's fun, or any supposed specifics from the alleged dressing-down by Scorsese, especially since The Guardian clearly admits that the whole thing came from an extra who didn't understand English well, much less English at Scorsese speed. (I'm told that Scorsese was the only guest on Roger Ebert & The Movies who actually talked faster than me…no mean feat.) The idea that I embraced was that Scorsese is one of the few directors who would have the guts to have a confrontation with a star and get the respect from that star so they could just move on with work, no hard feelings.

PAGE TWO: Ramis, Judy & The Dude