Sundance is abuzz this morning over a sex scene, featuring Katie Holmes, that mysteriously disappeared from Jason Reitman's Thank You For Smoking in between its Toronto premiere and Sundance screening. Most people on the ground here don't believe, as various tabloids are reporting, that Tom Cruise had anything to do with the scene's excision, but it is odd that the director himself isn't taking any responsibility for it. Claiming he was "in shock" when he saw the sex scene-less version projected on Saturday night, Reitman told the LA Times that a projectionist had accidentally snipped off the scene whilst changing reels. As implausible as that sounds – even the shortest scene would live on several feet of film stock, making any kind of accidental snip both unweildy and conspicuous – there doesn't seem to be another credible explanation at this point. I did not see the film in Toronto, but my sources tell me that the original scene wasn't graphic in any way – certainly not as graphic as anything Nicole Kidman did whilst co-starring opposite then-husband Cruise in Eyes Wide Shut – and considering that Holmes herself appeared topless several years ago in the Gift, any squeamishness on the part of Holmes' fiancee would just be really, really crazy. When I saw Smoking here at Sundance, I actually sort of admired the lack of hardcore action in the innuendo-laden film – I thought Reitman was trying to be Preston Sturges. Guess not. But what do you think is going on here? If nothing else, isn't it a little funny that this not-inherently controversial film finds a way to cause some kind of silly hoopla everywhere it goes? Here's one more scrap of "evidence": when the film screened again on Sunday, the scene in question had not been replaced.Sundance: Katie Holmes sex scene cut from Smoking?
Sundance is abuzz this morning over a sex scene, featuring Katie Holmes, that mysteriously disappeared from Jason Reitman's Thank You For Smoking in between its Toronto premiere and Sundance screening. Most people on the ground here don't believe, as various tabloids are reporting, that Tom Cruise had anything to do with the scene's excision, but it is odd that the director himself isn't taking any responsibility for it. Claiming he was "in shock" when he saw the sex scene-less version projected on Saturday night, Reitman told the LA Times that a projectionist had accidentally snipped off the scene whilst changing reels. As implausible as that sounds – even the shortest scene would live on several feet of film stock, making any kind of accidental snip both unweildy and conspicuous – there doesn't seem to be another credible explanation at this point. I did not see the film in Toronto, but my sources tell me that the original scene wasn't graphic in any way – certainly not as graphic as anything Nicole Kidman did whilst co-starring opposite then-husband Cruise in Eyes Wide Shut – and considering that Holmes herself appeared topless several years ago in the Gift, any squeamishness on the part of Holmes' fiancee would just be really, really crazy. When I saw Smoking here at Sundance, I actually sort of admired the lack of hardcore action in the innuendo-laden film – I thought Reitman was trying to be Preston Sturges. Guess not. But what do you think is going on here? If nothing else, isn't it a little funny that this not-inherently controversial film finds a way to cause some kind of silly hoopla everywhere it goes? Here's one more scrap of "evidence": when the film screened again on Sunday, the scene in question had not been replaced.Related Headlines
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. Missing scene? Hum, strange indeed. If Mr. Cruise had anything to do with it, which I suspect him did, then I think it's time that Katie's family and friends need to step in and get that girl out of that situation quickly. Cruise is one strange man, to the point that it's getting scary. I hope his people get him help soon.
Posted at 2:19PM on Jan 24th 2006 by M. Scott
3. The article you link to explains the likely reason for the accidental snipping as being that the scene should have been "at the end of the second reel but is preceded by a brief blackout." Why does Cinematical so often omit key points like this from your regurgitations of other people's stories?
Posted at 2:27PM on Jan 24th 2006 by Jake
4. AS a practicing counselor of over 18 years in the field of psychotherapy, I would hope that Ms. Holme's family would see the slow but deliberate control Mr. Cruise is placing on Katie. She has made some rather drastic changes in a very short time; that in itself is a red flag.
Posted at 2:42PM on Jan 24th 2006 by LC Snyder
5. My guess is a projectionist stole the footage. It happens.
Posted at 2:47PM on Jan 24th 2006 by Coyote
6. It is possible that it was the projectionist who removed the scene--for his (or her) own personal collection.
Posted at 3:35PM on Jan 24th 2006 by mister wonder
7. I had the unfortunate pleasure of meeting Tom Cruise while he was filming "Collateral" as I was on the catering crew. By the end of the third day, my crew and I did everything possible to avoid him. Talk about obnoxious, demanding, and plain rude! A total control freak and made your life a living hell if you didn't comply to his orders.. and they were orders. I'm sure Cruise had everything to do with the scene edit; he's just that kind of person. I pity Katie and her unborn child. I pray she gets out in time.
Posted at 3:36PM on Jan 24th 2006 by Andi
8. Tom Cruise is a wierd sicko. Always has been.
Posted at 3:37PM on Jan 24th 2006 by M.May
9.
KATIE NEEDS TO GET AWAY FROM CRUISE HE IS NUTTIER THAN A FRUIT FLY. ANY THING HE IS IN I WILL NOT WATCH. HELP HIS POOR GIRL FRIEND.
Posted at 3:38PM on Jan 24th 2006 by SAL LIPUMA
10. Tom Cruise's evident control over Katie is scarey. Her family have a lot to worry about. To her parents -Please separate her from this crazy controlling man.
Posted at 3:40PM on Jan 24th 2006 by Gloria Jean Cicchino
11. I'm sure the edit had something to do with katie's engagement, however direct or indirectly due to Tom. She definitely is under a spell. everytime i see her on tv she looks like a star struck teenager with that big ridiculous looking grin on her face. she thinks she won a prize or something, but this dude worships "aliens that planted their souls in valcanos.' he's clearly not right, and bases his whole life on a made up religion written by a swindler sci-fi writer who's "doctorate" was from a mail order company.. ..
Posted at 3:49PM on Jan 24th 2006 by Doug Martin
12. amen something is amiss with cruise.
Posted at 3:50PM on Jan 24th 2006 by karin
13. Katie likely has an agreement with Tom just like Nicole did. The whole community of LA knows the truth about him. He is gay and these women give him the look of a hetersexual in exchange for great fame. Keeping Katie more pure while they are together just keeps him looking better. Why hasnt the media reported on Tom being gay? Everyone else seems to be fair game. I wonder why he is so fearful of coming out of the closet. I dont see it as something that would end his career. He is a very talented actor. He just has a big problem with being himself in real life.
Posted at 3:51PM on Jan 24th 2006 by bert
14. Hell yes, Tom's my man. There's no reason for nasty sex scenes in movies anyway, someone should have cut the scene as it is.
Posted at 3:51PM on Jan 24th 2006 by evil_bacteria
15. Why isn't it possible that the director himself ("shocked" as he says he was) took it out to create buzz for his movie?? If it was uncontroversial to begin with, then why not call attention to the fact that someone-in-the-news like Katie Holmes has a sex scene in it that was somehow'mysteriously' cut out? Hmm, we're supposed to wonder, was it controlling Tom Cruise who did this? Seems too convenient that a projectionist accidently, but neatly snipped out an entire scene.
Posted at 3:56PM on Jan 24th 2006 by NS
16. Maybe Katie needs to have a long talk with Nicole and LISTEN to her. It strikes me that Nicole got tired of being his little Stepford wife and RAN! I bet she thanks her lucky stars every day for doing it.
Posted at 3:56PM on Jan 24th 2006 by Pam
17. THIS IS THE MOST BIZARRE RELATIONSHIP OUT THERE: TOM HAS FOUND HIMSELF A FEMALE PUPPET TO IMPREGNATE AND GOES AROUND CLAIMING IT'S TRUE LOVE WHEN IT'S REALLY CLOSER TO MALE DOMINATION AND TOTAL CONTROL. A SEX SCENE MISSING? SURE TOM HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT...MUST HAVE GONE AGAINST HIS QUACKY RELIGION AND DEFACED HIS BABY INCUBATOR'S REPUTATION. I WISH HE AND THE PUPPET WOULD JSUT DISAPPEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Posted at 3:58PM on Jan 24th 2006 by MARY
18. Come on people, you know the real reason the scene "mysteriously disappeared"...Tom Cruise. Poor Katie, young, naive and in love with the wrong man. Tom, come out of the closet, be true to yourself and your loved ones and maybe your sanity will return.
Posted at 3:59PM on Jan 24th 2006 by BJG
19. My hatred for Tom Cruise is without boudaries. Who does he think he is? Trying to control our minds he is !!! And now he is editing films which reveal his own personal prize...to the WORLD??? As I sit here on break from my welding job, eating my trans fat chips, sloshing them down with sugary laden bubble pop, and puffing on a cigarette, I feel nothing but hatred for TOM CRUISE...and KATIE HOLMES for that matter !!! Who do they think they are ?????
Posted at 4:04PM on Jan 24th 2006 by Fred Nietze
20. Can you say Napoleon complex?
Posted at 4:06PM on Jan 24th 2006 by Vanessa
1. I saw "Smoking" screened in Ogden earlier in the week and there was definitely a sex scene with Katie Holmes in the movie at that screening, not sure if the scene was shortened from the Toronto version though.
Posted at 1:24PM on Jan 24th 2006 by Tucker Starr