Blind Item #8 - Dancing Boy Update
After I clicked "send" on that last update, I immediately had regrets - not because of what I said but because of what I didn't say. I'm talking about that cryptic final paragraph. That's where the bombshell is. As far a certain type of story is concerned, this one could register high on the Richter scale (sorry for the mixed metaphors) - probably in the top three. For people of a certain age, it might be #1.
Maybe, in writing it that way, I was being a little paranoid. After all, should the invitation to the bed-in at the Chateau Marmont be accepted by this person (not the actor, I mean, whose story we all now know), a certain permanent A list entertainer will probably have a bad day, maybe more than one. He's not likely to be happy with us.
Part of the cause for my concerns lies in one of the entertainer's works (with his longtime collaborators) from the 1990s. It teases violence against a person in a particular occupation - the one practiced (in another medium) by that son of the acting family whose real father we all know; the eyes are the giveaway. What's creepy to me is the title of this work, which includes not just a word but a name. Here's hoping it doesn't prove to be prophetic.
But back to the invitee.
As it happens, he is my age, and at roughly the same time I was doing small time kid modeling gigs, and community theater, he - along with other boys our age - was doing videos in a state neighboring his own. These videos were about an alt-sport not involving water, but sometimes practiced in places drained of it.
Then came that fateful year when we were both offered the proverbial part. But while I would end that year nearly famous, he would become actually famous for this one thing. It aired on tv. In fact if you were alive and of a particular age you probably saw it on a specific show.
And while he is credited as an alt-sporter on IMDB, what do you suppose his other role in this production was? Of course, he disrobes less than I did, but by the end of his roughly four minutes of screen time he's at least halfway there.
A note too about the format: obviously it's 16mm (which was at the time the standard for film school gear). I'm guessing that the director, because of his day job, didn't need to buy or even rent cameras and lenses for the shoot.
Is it all clear now or do I need to s-p-e-l-l it out further (with not dashes but another kind of punctuation)?
PS I dated this person's close friend from teen times - a year or so before that occupational work came out. When they had lived together, in barely legal times, the entertainer when in town would come to the boy's bedroom window. He was jealous of the friend. Maybe I was getting too close to the truth back then.
Maybe, in writing it that way, I was being a little paranoid. After all, should the invitation to the bed-in at the Chateau Marmont be accepted by this person (not the actor, I mean, whose story we all now know), a certain permanent A list entertainer will probably have a bad day, maybe more than one. He's not likely to be happy with us.
Part of the cause for my concerns lies in one of the entertainer's works (with his longtime collaborators) from the 1990s. It teases violence against a person in a particular occupation - the one practiced (in another medium) by that son of the acting family whose real father we all know; the eyes are the giveaway. What's creepy to me is the title of this work, which includes not just a word but a name. Here's hoping it doesn't prove to be prophetic.
But back to the invitee.
As it happens, he is my age, and at roughly the same time I was doing small time kid modeling gigs, and community theater, he - along with other boys our age - was doing videos in a state neighboring his own. These videos were about an alt-sport not involving water, but sometimes practiced in places drained of it.
Then came that fateful year when we were both offered the proverbial part. But while I would end that year nearly famous, he would become actually famous for this one thing. It aired on tv. In fact if you were alive and of a particular age you probably saw it on a specific show.
And while he is credited as an alt-sporter on IMDB, what do you suppose his other role in this production was? Of course, he disrobes less than I did, but by the end of his roughly four minutes of screen time he's at least halfway there.
A note too about the format: obviously it's 16mm (which was at the time the standard for film school gear). I'm guessing that the director, because of his day job, didn't need to buy or even rent cameras and lenses for the shoot.
Is it all clear now or do I need to s-p-e-l-l it out further (with not dashes but another kind of punctuation)?
PS I dated this person's close friend from teen times - a year or so before that occupational work came out. When they had lived together, in barely legal times, the entertainer when in town would come to the boy's bedroom window. He was jealous of the friend. Maybe I was getting too close to the truth back then.
