September 17th, 2007 -- by Bacchus
De Niro and Depardieu Getting Handjobs
OK, ladies and select gentlemen: you owe me for this one. OMG Blog calls this the “infamous two-fisting hooker scene”:
Yes, that’s Gerard Depardieu and Robert De Niro the both of them, nekkid as jaybirds and getting simultaneous handjobs from a multi-tasking hooker. Celebrities would not be nearly as entertaining if they didn’t all have a “I was young and broke and unknown and naked” phase!
The movie was something called Novocento, back in 1976. OMG Blog has more, including a video clip.
This entry was posted on Monday, September 17th, 2007 at 10:31 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response.
Shorter URL for sharing: http://www.erosblog.com/?p=2038
Shorter URL for sharing: http://www.erosblog.com/?p=2038
I love the grin on De Niro’s face.
Isn’t there a difference in meaning between “fisting” and “fisted”? I would call this “two-fisted.”
but Deniro wasn’t an unknown, novecento is from 1976, a bernardo bertoluccio movie (The last emperor), two years after he made The Godfather II. I think he just liked the handjob
Wow! You have scored one coolness point for finding and pointing out a mistake on the internet!
Phil, so would I. OMG didn’t, though, and I was quoting.
I just have to admire the skill involved to do anything amberdextriously (sp?) since I don’t consider myself THAT talented.
sorry, movie geek reflex. i wonder how you rehearse for a scene like that? i mean, is there a second shot involved?
Apology accepted, I should not have been so snippy in any case. I’ve been getting a lot of “ZOMG, you’re wrong!” comments lately and some of them really leave me going “Was there any reason to say that except to score points in some game I’m not even playing?” But yours was helpful / useful to folks who care about their movie stars, I see that now.
As for the rehearsal, I’m betting they just did it in one take and moved quickly forward pretending it never happened.
Yeah, DeNiro definitely didn’t need the work, money, or recognition. He was already an Academy Award Winning actor in 1976 for his supporting work in Godfather II I think – at least I definitely remember a nomination. He was a real intense “method” guy back then. Even wanted to shoot heroin for real on film with John Belushi in a project they wanted to do together. Unfortunately, Belushi out methoding the method master died for real od’ing on the horse before they could bring the project to light.
Not that much of a method actor: his face might look like he’s enjoying it but his cock doesn’t!
The film was released as “1900” in the US, and was directed by Bernardo Bertolucci, who is no stranger to sexually explicit mainstream films. He also directed “Last Tango in Paris”, with its infamous “butter up the ass” scene, and “Luna”, a film about an incestuous love affair between a mother and her heroin addicted son.
DeNiro made this after “Taxi Drive”, “Mean Streets”, “Godfather Part II”, and “Bang the Drum Slowly”, so this was hardly his young and broke phase. This was Depardieu’s 15th film, so he doesn’t fall into this category either.
I don’t think enough people have elaborated on my ignorance of ancient movie trivia. Anybody else care to pile on?
sorry, Bacchus, not trying to make you seem ignorant. Just trying to put things in perspective. Besides, isn’t it good to know that a famous movie star like DeNiro will allow everyone to see his willie, and not just because he needed the money?
MJK, you were the third person to elaborate on my mistake. How much more perspective do we need?
For everybody: I’m not a movie guy. I grew up in an astonishingly rural place, and literally never saw a movie in a movie theater until I was in college. These two guys are just names to me, I know they still do movie stuff but couldn’t pick either one of them out of a lineup.
That said, I know folks like to see naked celebrities, the more naked and the more celebrity, the better. Usually the pattern is: person is obscure, struggling, does nudie scene because they are taking any work that comes along, later they become huge star, people dig up old nude scene for our amusement.
So I see this scene with two big name guys, from a movie made thirty-one freakin’ years ago, and I naturally just assumed it fit the usual pattern. I must have devoted all of 23 seconds to making that sentence and embodying it in print.
I’m genuinely baffled to find three commenters (and I’m sure the fun-ride isn’t over yet!) elaborating on just how deeply and profoundly and amazingly ignorant and wrong my one-liner was. What’s the point? Wrong is wrong, I can’t be any more wrong that I already was. I’m genuinely baffled by the continuing attention to the point.
My first impulse was, as you all saw, to assume you guys were just counting coup, which seems to be a popular sport these days. Lots of people seem to take joy in exposing error on the internet, even when the error is trivial and nobody cares. Hence my “coolness point” crack.
But I’m now starting to suspect this is more of a “clash of subcultures” thing. Movie geeks do care, and care deeply, about obscure movies made thirty years ago and the actors (obscure or otherwise) who were in ’em. And maybe to movie geeks, this kind of conversation is just the normal sociable backchatter of life? (I’m theorizing here.)
I think people just like to talk about things they’re interested in. When I find myself dispensing some little nugget of trivia, by no means is it to assert “see, you are stupid and I am smart and I’ll prove it by showing you that I know more about this than you do”. Instead, it’s with the same spirit that I might have were I to give someone a gumdrop. “Here’s an interesting little bit of data, a small gift. I hope you enjoy it”. Along with that, I’ve become more aware how easy it is to come across wrongly on the ‘net and for offense to be taken where none was intended, and I’m trying to do better along those lines. I don’t think anything was intended maliciously in these comments.
Reading down the column of comments, I was surprised by your touchiness, Mr. Bacchus. I don’t know what other comments you may have received and preferred to spare us, but I do see the extra information provided by some coontributrs as just that, and not one-upmanship. In any case, they’re more interesting than the one-liners that tell us pretty much what we already know…
Bacchus dear, is it not possible that some of these commenters, feeling like they’re in conversation with Eros Blog, feeling like they’re on speaking terms with the great Bacchus, merely reply to your post on those friendly terms? Possibly, having as you say received a number of irritating “ZOMG you’re wrong” posts lately, you’re rubbed a little raw in this area, perhaps not unlike the appendages of the gentleman in the previous post?
Of course, it’s also possible that movie geeks are, indeed, geeky, and as such are, indeed, irritating.
Yes, I am a movie geek, and I sincerely appologize for overwhelming you with movie information. I obviously didn’t do a very good job of expressing myself, as I was just trying to share, not overwhelm. In addition to being a movie geek, I’m a hardcore Wikipedia contributor, and as a result I tend to launch into “article mode” without a lot of warning.
And, just one last comment–as a conniseur (sorry for misspelling) of erotica, you just might enjoy the other Bertolucci films I mentioned. You’ll see more examples of big name stars doing the deed after they were famous.
Thanks everyone. I definitely am rubbed a little raw as SydneyGal puts it, and I have overreacted at least a bit to mostly-friendly helpfulness. And if some small portion of that helpfulness was delivered with classic geek tactlessness, well, I’m too much the geek myself to take offense (in theory) on that basis.
Having said all that, I remain convinced that there is an internet subculture that thrives on the game of going around the web finding error, pointing it out, and delivering a metaphorical “neener neener” to rub it in. That crew baffles and annoys me — but has not visited this thread despite my initial “the internet sucks at delivering conversational tone” misimpressions.
I completely agree with you about the geek subculture, Bacchus, though it’s not really limited to the internet. It must be like the urge that drove gunslingers in the Old West to see who was the fastest draw. And I know it’s a bad habit I share.
I saw this movie with my Dad when I was in my early or mid-teens and remember this scene perfectly. I also remember walking out shortly after, not because of the threesome but because the film was so terrible. I think it was Robert Duvall killing a cat by smashing his head against the critter that was the clincher for us to walk out. I suppose it was another example of Bertolucci’s heavily Marxist world view much like Il Conformisto, but it’s always good to throw in a threesome or double handjob to keep people focused on politics.
Bernardo Bertolucci, not Bertoluccio !
Conformista, not Conformisto !
I just red here some crazy comm., so I prefer to correct the mistakes, ’cause it isn’t useful to make objections against so many prejudges …
(an italian cinéphile)
It didn’t stop at handjobs. There are stills that show DeNiro reaching over and manhandling Depardieu’s cock.
For that one, go to http://1.bp.blo...D.JPG