After an absence of several episodes, Rand Gauthier (Seth Rogen) reappears, still broke and now being taken in by a dominant personality who isn’t Tommy Lee. Meanwhile, Pamela’s big moment – the premiere of Barbed wire, her first film role, is overshadowed by the release of the sex tape. We take a look at how closely episode 7 matches reality.
[Read: What’s Fact and What’s Fiction in Pam & Tommy Episode 6]
Was Rand a debt collector for Butchie Peraino?
While his business partner Milton Ingley (Nick Offerman) is partying in Amsterdam spending the proceeds of the tape on sex and drugs and not sending back messages, Rand is poorer than ever – only now without his own apartment and crashing into his ex-wife’s couch. With Milton unreachable, Rand bears the brunt of their mafia moneylender Butchie Peraino’s (Andrew Dice Clay) impatience for a return on the $50,000 he invested in distributing the tape. Rand, who also hasn’t seen any money from the tape’s impressive sales, can’t make a payment and gets beaten up by the mobster as a result. Butchie feeds Rand a bowl of Everclear-dipped cherries but, eventually convinced by Rand’s drunken but constant protestations of ignorance, offers Rand the opportunity to pay off his debt by collecting money from other deadbeats. . Rand leaves with a baseball bat but proves pretty desperate at his new job because he’s not violent enough – until he vents his anger at all the guys who fucked and beat him. a gambling addict.
Hulu
This is broadly true, but the reality differs in significant details. Gauthier was depressed, but instead of couchsurfing at his ex-wife’s house, he was staying with a porn director named Fred Piantadosi. Piantadosi’s daughter told Rolling Stone that Gauthier stayed with them for almost an entire year, sleeping in his bunk bed while she, aged 5, slept in her father’s bedroom. Louis “Butchie” Peraino was the son of a Colombo crime family capo, which was the porn equivalent of Warner Bros., having produced Deep Throat. The episode says it was May 1996 when Peraino called on Gauthier’s services as an enforcer, but in reality Ingley hadn’t left for Amsterdam at that time. Also, after his move, far from refusing to speak to Gauthier, Ingley asks Gauthier to oversee the sale of his studio in the hope of raising money to reimburse Peraino. Nor did Ingley refuse to pay Peraino anything, at least according to Gauthier, who said Ingley raised the money to repay the original loan, but the interest was still unpaid.
Peraino actually served Gauthier with Bing cherries dipped in Everclear, though he preceded it with a dinner of linguine and oysters served with a bottle of Merlot. But on his own, Gauthier was definitely up to the job of debt collector. He reminded Rolling Stone, “Knees are a little harder to break than most people think, so I had my own idea” – that is, to approach the debtor holding what seemed being a cup of coffee but was actually ammonia, throwing the contents in the target’s face, detaching a metal handle from a mop wringer, and shattering the victim’s collarbone before vanishing.
Did Pam report Jay Leno on The show tonight?
Pam continues The Tonight Show Starring Jay Leno promote Barbed wire, and after some great initial banter, she’s met with a barrage of sex tape-related innuendo, as we saw in Episode 1, in the foreground of the entire series. She finally gets tired of being a good sport and lets Leno and the audience see the real hurt persona under the sex bomb persona, saying, “It’s horrible to have something private from your marriage exposed to the world. It’s devastating.
Leno said things like, “I never would have imagined there was something sex-related that Pam Anderson didn’t know about,” and Anderson said how devastating the exposure of the tape was in a Tonight’s show maintenance. However, although the episode’s hair and makeup Tonight’s show interview are similar to what Anderson wore for a Tonight’s show promotion of appearance Barbed wireAnderson didn’t hit back at Leno until a later appearance, so the episode confuses the two.
For context, Leno was finally out of the ratings slump he had languished in for three years since taking over. The show tonight in 1992 by similarly putting Hugh Grant in the wringer, when Grant had to go on a talk show tour to promote a film during his own tabloid scandal.
Has been Barbed wire Really such a bomb?
Pam and Tommy are excited to go to the Hollywood premiere of Barbed wire, where the invited audience gives an enthusiastic welcome to the film and its star. Before heading home, Tommy thinks it would be a good idea to see the film in a real movie theater so she can savor the adoration of the audience. However, the plan backfires when the few people in the audience make their disdain for the film and the fact that the leading lady keeps her clothes on.
Barbed wire was indeed a critical and commercial air-to-surface missile, with an opening weekend box office of just $1.8 million, although most critics felt that the fault lay more with the script and to the achievement than to the leading lady. Entertainment Weekly has compiled a list of the film’s “pneumatic moments,” from “number of aerial cleavage shots” (4) and “number of times Lee shows his nipples” (15) to “number of lines of dialogue Lee speaks which are two words or less” (55) – which gives some idea of how misplaced Anderson’s expectations that this project would launch her as a major actress.
Was Pam and Tommy’s lawsuit dismissed?
When Tommy learns that the judge has already ruled on their lawsuit against Penthouse, he assumes it’s good news. However, it turns out to be the opposite, with the judge dismissing their lawsuit and ruling in favor of Penthouse because, according to the decision, the tape is part of the public conversation, therefore newsworthy and covered by the first amendment.
It’s correct. According to the Los Angeles Times, in March 1997, a judge dismissed Anderson and Lee’s “invasion of privacy” lawsuit, ruling that since the Penthouse footage had already been published elsewhere, it was no longer private property. . The judge also dismissed Anderson’s claim that the magazine exploited her image for profit because the photos were published alongside a “newsworthy” article about the couple’s marriage.
Comments are closed.