Instead of today, not-quite-an-actress Linda Doucett takes the witness stand of the ongoing Pellicano trial on Tuesday March 18th. On the The Larry Sanders Show, she played the busty blonde role of Darlene Chapinni, secretary to sidekick Hank "Hey Now!" Kingsley. She was also Shandling's then real-life fiance. Doucett was fired when they broke up, and she filed two lawsuits against him, Brad Grey and the show. You may recall that Doucett made all sorts of accusations against Brad Grey in a 2006 article in The New York Times. But the feds have not charged the Paramount boss, who was then a bigtime manager and producer, with any wrongdoing.
Meanwhile, Allison Hope Weiner, the lawyer-journalist who's covering the Pellicano trial for The Huffington Post, has obtained the audio of a rather sordid 2001 late night telephone call between Chris Rock and then Hollywood private investigator Anthony Pellicano. I mention this only because Rock says on the tape that getting caught "with needles in my arm shooting heroin" would be a "much better blow to the career" because "once you're accused of rape, you're just FUCKED." Listen here if you must.
And LA Weekly's Steven Mikulan, who has been covering the Pellicano trial for the newspaper as well as DHD, has filed his weekly wrap-up here about how comic Shandling kept a straight face during his testimony.
This whole thing is vile. Chris Rock is gross and sexist. Makes our stomach turn. He should be on trial - he knew what the PI was going to do. Women take a real beating in our society. It must stop.
Comment by Disgusted — March 14, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
Yeah, but things like this happen all the time. I do like that this time there’s a recording of it. (Talking about Rock, here.) But the even worse thing is that some fucker’s going to hire him, regardless, when it’s calculated that he’s worth amount A of money.
Not on my watch.
Comment by Agent — March 14, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
Love the line about white pants. What a nitwit. Hey, Chris Rock, women are not disposable symbols of your status.
Comment by Jim — March 14, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
Apparently, Mr. Grey’s official announcement post-Shandling did not do the trick. Grey and his appendages have pulled out the heavy artillery.
see A Variety Story Dictated From the Top
Comment by kathy — March 15, 2008 @ 2:53 am
I doubt with plunging circulations that the LA Times and Variety can endure losing this kind of credibility.
Three weeks ago Reed-Elsevier, Variety’s parent company, put Variety, with only 30,000 copies, on the chopping block for the first time in 70 years as part of a cost-cutting maneuver.
And the Los Angeles Times, over the last four years has plunged 20 percent of its circulation - more than a 200,000 copy drop.
If the freefall was all about the internet than one would think that their corresponding internet sites would be popular like their papers once were, but they are not.
People know when they can not trust a news source and so they gravitate away to places where they think they can.
Look at cable news… plunging viewership.
Comment by Stan — March 15, 2008 @ 11:19 am
Re: the Marc Graser Variety article.
Uh, pretty biased article. Shandling isn’t even mentioned until the seventh paragraph and then is summarily dismissed.
It’s pretty clear there is a conflict of interest here. Shandling did a smart thing hiring out-of-town lawyers.
Comment by Marcus — March 15, 2008 @ 11:39 am
Thank you, Nikki, for offering a comment section that offers intelligent readers to do a little digging when ridiculous pieces like the Variety con job gets foisted on the public.
It will be interesting to see if Variety allows any comments on the Graser story. I know I left one on the Variety site that hasn’t been posted yet, and I’m not holding my breath.
I wonder what Graser has to say for himself. As far as I can tell, he has zero experience reporting on federal criminal trials. If he does, I’d like to hear him defend his work.
Comment by gerry — March 16, 2008 @ 11:43 am
Did you guys listen the tape? It’s only one side of the story, but Rock comes across as pretty straightforward, and if his story is true, the woman was lying to get money. Not just lying, but accusing someone of a felony.
Comment by Kaji — March 20, 2008 @ 6:44 am