The stories
beyond the screen.

Darkside of Hollywood

Glamour. Power.
And everything after.

The Hollywood archive Explore Darkside ↗

Behind the velvet curtain

Allan Arkush's Claim That 'Get Crazy' Was Deliberately Buried via a Wall Street Tax–Shelter Scam

Get Crazy (1983) / Allan Arkush 1980s Scandals & Feuds Unverified 4/5 wildness

Director Allan Arkush has publicly maintained one of the thorniest explanations for Get Crazy's near‑instant disappearance from theaters: that the picture was intentionally set up to lose money. After Heartbeeps (1981) had tanked and Arkush was desperate to make a film about the rock‑hall culture he loved, he says producer Herbert F. Solow and others arranged financing in a way that allowed the movie's production shares to be sold to a Wall Street tax‑shelter group. Arkush's allegation — echoed in interviews and summarized on the film's Wikipedia page — is blunt: the people behind the release "put it out so it would lose money… just like The Producers (1968)!" The fallout was immediate and personal. Get Crazy opened on August 6, 1983 to mixed reviews and a domestic gross of only $1,645,711, and Arkush has long complained that the distribution strategy was tantamount to burying the film on purpose. He also recounts long-standing friction with Solow over creative control (Solow reportedly vetoed Arkush's casting suggestions such as Mariska Hargitay and Tom Hanks). The result was a bruising mix of artistic compromise and an industry maneuver that, if Arkush's account is accurate, turned a labor of love into a tax‑shelter write‑off — leaving the director convinced his work had been sabotaged rather than supported.

Follow the sources:

← Back to Hollywood Archive

Daily darkside

A different story. Every day.
Allan Arkush's Claim That 'Get Crazy' Was Deliberately Buried via a Wall Street Tax–Shelter ScamAI concept artwork

Archive Record · 1980s

Scandals & Feuds4/5 wildness

Allan Arkush's Claim That 'Get Crazy' Was Deliberately Buried via a Wall Street Tax–Shelter Scam

Get Crazy (1983) / Allan Arkush / 1980s

Director Allan Arkush has publicly maintained one of the thorniest explanations for Get Crazy's near‑instant disappearance from theaters: that the picture was intentionally set up to lose money. After Heartbeeps (1981) had tanked and Arkush was desperate to make a film about the rock‑hall culture he loved, he says producer Herbert F. Solow and others arranged financing in a way that allowed the movie's production shares to be sold to a Wall Street tax‑shelter group. Arkush's allegation — echoed in interviews and summarized on the film's Wikipedia page — is blunt: the people behind the release "put it out so it would lose money… just like The Producers (1968)!" The fallout was immediate and personal. Get Crazy opened on August 6, 1983 to mixed reviews and a domestic gross of only $1,645,711, and Arkush has long complained that the distribution strategy was tantamount to burying the film on purpose. He also recounts long-standing friction with Solow over creative control (Solow reportedly vetoed Arkush's casting suggestions such as Mariska Hargitay and Tom Hanks). The result was a bruising mix of artistic compromise and an industry maneuver that, if Arkush's account is accurate, turned a labor of love into a tax‑shelter write‑off — leaving the director convinced his work had been sabotaged rather than supported.

Unverified

The backlot files

More Stories from the Hollywood Archive

Follow a name. Question a legend.
Find what the final cut left out.

5896 stories

5896 stories in this selection.

01

Scandals & Feuds1960s

The Columbia Post-Production Battle That Branded Jerry Bresler a Studio Hatchet-Man

Major Dundee

Jerry Bresler’s most controversial association came through Sam Peckinpah’s 1965 western Major Dundee, a troubled production whose conflict continued after filming had ended. At Columbia Pictures, the film underwent post-production interference, including studio involvement in the editing process. Because Bresler was the producer attached to the picture, the episode temporarily gave him the reputation of being a studio hatchet-man—an executive representative willing to impose Columbia’s wishes on a director’s work. The controversy was not simply a personal dispute between Bresler and Peckinpah: later accounts have treated the editing battle as one part of a much more complicated production history involving the director, the studio, and the difficult process of shaping the film for release. The episode became a lasting blemish on Bresler’s professional image, illustrating how a producer in the 1960s could be blamed publicly for decisions that emerged from the broader power struggle between an increasingly independent filmmaker and a traditional Hollywood studio.

Archive: verified ↗
02

Scandals & Feuds2020s

Bonnie Rotten and Jesse James File for Divorce, Then Retreat from the Fight

Bonnie Rotten and Jesse James

In November 2024, TMZ reported that Bonnie Rotten and television host Jesse James had each filed for divorce and that both sought restraining orders against the other. The filings suggested a serious marital breakdown and transformed the couple’s private conflict into a public legal dispute. The account provided here does not disclose the specific allegations behind the requested orders, and those details should not be supplied as fact without court records or reliable reporting. The confrontation ultimately did not produce a completed divorce: in 2025, Rotten and James filed a joint notice of nonsuit to dismiss the proceedings, indicating that they had reconciled or at least agreed to end the litigation. The episode remains a striking example of a highly publicized celebrity marriage crisis that moved from mutual legal protection requests to a formal withdrawal of the case.

Archive: verified ↗
03

Scandals & Feuds2010s

The Brief Life and Feud Behind Bonnie Rotten’s Tattoo Shop

Bonnie Rotten’s Best Kept Secret

After leaving the adult-film business temporarily, Rotten opened a tattoo parlor in 2017 under the deliberately provocative name Bonnie Rotten’s Best Kept Secret. The shop employed tattoo artists Ryan Stoner, Gentle Jay, and Mark Matthews, but the venture lasted only about a year. By early 2018, the business had closed after Rotten cited differences between herself and Gentle Jay. The source does not specify whether the disagreement involved finances, management, artistic control, or personal conflict, so the episode should not be inflated into a documented public scandal. Its curious afterlife comes from the contrast between the shop’s highly branded celebrity identity and its rapid collapse: a tattoo business built around Rotten’s image disappeared almost as quickly as it opened.

Archive: verified ↗
04

Scandals & Feuds2010s

Bonnie Rotten’s 2014 Identity Lawsuit Against Max Hardcore

Bonnie Rotten and Max Hardcore

In May 2014, Bonnie Rotten filed a lawsuit against adult-film actor and producer Max Hardcore over a scene the pair had recorded in 2012. Rotten alleged that Hardcore had appropriated her identity and had defamed her through the later publication of the footage, while also accusing him of intentionally inflicting emotional distress. The dispute was not merely a disagreement over a performance: it involved competing claims about who had the right to use Rotten’s name and image and how the material could be distributed. Hardcore responded in July 2014 with a countersuit, alleging that Rotten herself had breached the agreement she signed and contesting her claims to the image rights. The case illustrates the unusually murky contract and publicity battles that could arise in the adult-film business, where performers’ stage identities were valuable commercial assets but agreements over recorded material could become fiercely contested. The supplied account does not establish a final court judgment or settlement.

Archive: verified ↗
05

Scandals & Feuds2010s

The 2015 No-Contest Plea That Ended Donny Pauling’s Anti-Porn Evangelist Career

Donny Pauling

On October 15, 2015, Pauling entered a no-contest plea covering sexual conduct involving three teenage girls. He admitted having oral and vaginal sex with one victim beginning when she was 14 in 2012 and continuing into 2014, acknowledged lewd or lascivious conduct involving a 16-year-old, and admitted sexually abusing a third teenager by massaging her genitals in early 2014. The plea documents described his conduct as being motivated by an “unnatural or abnormal interest in children,” and he agreed to a six-year prison sentence. The case produced a grim reversal of his public image: after leaving pornography, Pauling had worked with XXXChurch founder Craig Gross, spoken at Christian anti-pornography events, debated performers including Ron Jeremy at Yale, and presented himself as an authority on the industry’s moral dangers. His criminal case transformed that redemption narrative into one marked by abuse allegations and a felony conviction-related plea rather than reform.

Archive: verified ↗
06

Scandals & Feuds2010s

The Porn Producer’s Double Life and 2015 Plea Deal for Sexual Abuse of Three Teenagers

Donny Pauling

Donny Pauling, a former pornographic producer who had built a lucrative business supplying content to larger companies including Playboy, was arrested in Nevada on December 1, 2014, after a 16-year-old girl reported that he had maintained sexual contact with her over several years. According to the reported account, the girl told detectives that Pauling had warned her to tell him before speaking to police and had threatened that he would kill himself if she disclosed the relationship. She also said he had attempted to distinguish himself from other offenders by claiming that he loved her. The allegations were especially stark in light of Pauling’s public reinvention as a Christian anti-pornography speaker who lectured about exploitation, addiction, and the damage pornography could inflict on young people and families.

Archive: verified ↗
Showing 1–6 of 5896

The legend isn’t always the story. Verification labels come from the archive; follow the sources and explore the evidence.

For curious minds & independent creators

Give these stories
another screen.

A daily feature for your website.
An archive for your next idea.

01 / THE EMBEDYour site. Our daily story.

Add the existing Hollywood daily widget to your website. Its artwork and story follow the daily selection.

Widget instructions ↗
02 / THE APIBuild beyond the screen.

Find stories by keyword, actor or production, category, myth status, and wildness. Start with a simple request.

Read the API guide ↗

In the guide, choose the REST API tab for endpoints and filters.

From the Hollywood archive

Get Crazy (1983) / Allan Arkush / 1980s

Allan Arkush's Claim That 'Get Crazy' Was Deliberately Buried via a Wall Street Tax–Shelter Scam

Scandals & FeudsUnverified4/5 wildness

Director Allan Arkush has publicly maintained one of the thorniest explanations for Get Crazy's near‑instant disappearance from theaters: that the picture was intentionally set up to lose money. After Heartbeeps (1981) had tanked and Arkush was desperate to make a film about the rock‑hall culture he loved, he says producer Herbert F. Solow and others arranged financing in a way that allowed the movie's production shares to be sold to a Wall Street tax‑shelter group. Arkush's allegation — echoed in interviews and summarized on the film's Wikipedia page — is blunt: the people behind the release "put it out so it would lose money… just like The Producers (1968)!" The fallout was immediate and personal. Get Crazy opened on August 6, 1983 to mixed reviews and a domestic gross of only $1,645,711, and Arkush has long complained that the distribution strategy was tantamount to burying the film on purpose. He also recounts long-standing friction with Solow over creative control (Solow reportedly vetoed Arkush's casting suggestions such as Mariska Hargitay and Tom Hanks). The result was a bruising mix of artistic compromise and an industry maneuver that, if Arkush's account is accurate, turned a labor of love into a tax‑shelter write‑off — leaving the director convinced his work had been sabotaged rather than supported.

Follow the sources

Status and citations are supplied by the archive. AI concept art is an interpretation, not historical evidence.