Outside The Frame - All Comments

re: Golden Globalization

Ashley Rigazio — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 18:50:37 GMT

And what were they thinking having Josh Duhamel read the nominees? Dude can barely read. Torturous.

re: Interview with Danny Boyle ("127 Hours")

Mick — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 04:44:44 GMT

You ask some pretty inane questions dude - I fear Stephen Frears may have just not wanted to bother with you. Doesn't make him a bad person as alluded to in your intro.

re: Dispatches from the 34th Montreal World Film Festival

David M — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 01:15:09 GMT

I would really like to see that one about Scientology. I don't think Tom Cruise will approve.

re: Chlotrudis condolences

Peter Keough — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:54:54 GMT

Point well taken, Gustav. The photo I chose was an attempt to illustrate some of her "mercurial" side, but I've since added another to balance out the account.

re: Chlotrudis condolences

Gustav — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 01:17:37 GMT

Well said, Ch. But not the best photo of the mercurial, wonderful Tracy Wright.

re: "Conversion" at Cannes

Lisa Spinelli — Mon, 24 May 2010 20:16:36 GMT

Nice job! :)

re: "Conversion" at Cannes

lisa — Wed, 19 May 2010 09:55:08 GMT

congratulations!

re: IFFB review: "Looking for Eric"

IAmCantona — Tue, 18 May 2010 22:28:19 GMT

When people think of golf movies, we think of "Caddyshack." When others think of American football films, our favorites are either "Remember The Titans" or "Rudy." With Ken Loach's latest, there will be a day when soccer films are thought of and "Looking For Eric" will be the synonymous answer. Since it's arrival in Europe, the film has won a British Independent Film Award, and has been nominated at the Cannes Film Festival (for a Golden Palm), as well for a European Film Award. Since opening in the U.S. last week, The New York Times' A.O. Scott has given rave reviews and so has Jeannette Catsoulis, of NPR. If you want to see an emotional realistic film, I recommend seeing this picture. It may not feature greats like Chevy Chase or Denzel Washington, but it does include Manchester United's soccer king, Eric Cantona. //tinyurl.com/28kyhs4

re: Look who's going 3-D!

Darryl Gold — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 08:40:13 GMT

I think Roger Ebert was saying of all the excuses to raise ticket prices 3D was the stupidest.

He didn't say "3-D is a distracting, annoying, anti-realistic, juvenile abomination" he said "3-D is a distracting, annoying, anti-realistic, juvenile abomination to use as an excuse for higher prices." and I agree with that.

re: The John T. Simpson guide to right wing rhetoric

Peter Keough — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:45:35 GMT

It's partly explained, though perhaps not to your satisfaction, in the first paragraph:

"All very timely, given the Tea Party demonstration (and counter demonstration from Tea Party Poopers) occurring today at the Boston Common (see photos)."

These are pictures taken by Phoenix staff members of that Tea Party rally. The photo you refer to is a graphic example of the rhetorical tactic "Namecalling" or "Ad Hominem" explained in the text. In this case the demonstrator offers to refute the positions of the Obama administration by, in effect, calling him Adolf Hitler. As Barney Frank once said to a person with a similar placard, to discuss issues with someone who poses that as an argument is like talking to a dining room table.

re: The John T. Simpson guide to right wing rhetoric

L.N. Smithee — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 00:05:32 GMT

Mr. Keough, having trotted out an exhaustive and apparently thoughtful piece, can you please explain what the photo of a protestor holding a photo of Obama with a Hitler mustache has anything to do with what John T. Simpson wrote?

I await your answer. It should be hilarious.

re: New Right Wing cause celebre: Jafar Panahi

L.N. Smithee — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 23:33:22 GMT

<blockquote>But I doubt if the reason for Hollywood's relative silence has much to do with left wing politics or support for pedophilia, as Simpson suggests. It probably has more to do with the bottom line, money: Hollywood stands to lose a lot more money if Polanski goes down than if Panahi does.<blockquote>

Nonsense. Polanski may be a legend in the eyes of Hollywood's great auteurs, but in the age of moviegoers used to CGI, 3-D, and unremarkable unknown actors seemingly selected to avoid overwhelming the director's overinflated ego (Oh, hello, Hayden Christiansen!) he's old, and old news. Polanski hasn't released anything that approached blockbuster status since Chinatown. His latest, The Ghost Writer, has been out since mid-February in the U.S. and will be lucky to break even worldwide <a href=www.boxofficemojo.com/movies(budget: $45 million budget/$35.6 million sales as of today).</a> And if Hollywoodites really valued money that maddog much, they wouldn't have flushed Benjamins by the bushel down the toilet churning out over a dozen anti-Iraq War pictures that nobody wanted to see <a href=www.boxofficemojo.com/movies(latest victim: Matt Damon's Green Zone -- $100 million budget, $34 million take thusfar)</a>.

Maybe it would have been going too far to suggest that Hollywood supports pedophilia. Maybe. But the filmmaking crowd certainly doesn't go out of its way to avoid it or soft-pedal it, the latest examples including Towelhead and The Reader.

re: New Right Wing cause celebre: Jafar Panahi

Night Fighter — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:56:44 GMT

Lol! A tidbit thrown our way in the form of a halfhearted concession to a huge and obvious truth can hardly camouflage your leftist sympathies, Mr. Keough. I've never read you before, but I get the distinct impression you're trying to appear even-handed and neutral, yet consider the following two points, which unmask you:

You say: "Where are the petitions and statements of protest from Republicans, Tea Partiers, conservative religious groups, and the like [concerning Panahi's plight]?"

Answer: I dunno, and who cares? As far as I can tell from your column, John Simpson never complained that, say, Democrats, community organizers, leftist atheist groups and the like have spoken up in defense of Roman Polanski (and I don't even know if they have). His complaint concerned Hollywood and the film industry alone, because many of the movers and shakers in Hollywood have very loudly and publicly come out for Polanski. So if Simpson's argument concerns the response of these Hollywoodites only, why is it that equivalence for Panahi in your mind must encompass a group easily a hundred times larger? In classic leftist fashion, you want to call Mr. Keough a hypocrite for supposedly demanding of Hollywood what he is unable to produce on his own side, yet the only equivalent group on his side would be the relatively small contingent of vocal right-wingers in Hollywood, OF WHICH HE IS A CHOSEN SPOKESMAN, POSTING ON A SITE CALLED "BIG HOLLYWOOD," you bleeping such-and-such. Keough IS (italicize "is") raising the cry!

But even more damning is what comes next (after all, that could just have been a kindergarten-grade logical error). You say: "[Panahi's films] are dramatizations of injustices committed by the powerful against women, the poor, and the helpless. If they had been American movies set in American society, I suspect that rightwing critics would be the first to denounce them as propaganda from the 'leftist Hollywood establishment.'" This marks you out immediately as just another trained monkey. For who but an education-camp puppet thinks that only left-wingers are concerned about women, the poor, etc., being oppressed by "the powerful?"

Answer: no one. The issue between right- and left-wingers involves the question of what is truly "oppression" and what is not. Where real oppression exists, right-wingers are in the forefront of those demanding justice. But where only phony, Marxist-style "oppression" is claimed to exist, right-wingers loudly object...and Marxist-style "oppression" is what is naturally and commonly portrayed by the leftist Hollywood establishment. So yeah, to that extent, then, you're correct. But if someone made a film dramatizing the suffering of your average American Joe at the hands of his leftist oppressors in government, academia, and journalism, right-wingers would stand up and cheer loudly. And that's the point: Panahi is a political prisoner, the victim of a dictatorial regime not much unlike the combined official and shadow ministry that rules in America today. (And please, spare me. Yes, I know American leftists are not able to put their enemies in jail so directly and openly yet, but that day is not far away. My point is that the ends and aims of the dominant leftist authority in America are the same as those of the Iranian leadership: despotism--authoritarian rule from above--and the permanent elimination of self-government.)

--oops, sorry, have to run, so I can't properly finish up. sorry about that.

re: New Right Wing cause celebre: Jafar Panahi

EdSki — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:55:30 GMT

If you read Simpson's piece, its fairly obvious the reference to Polanski is for contrast.

He's not suggesting Hollywood liberals have a penchant for pedophiles, he's highlighting the point that Hollywood liberals are clueless. Most I'd be surprised if many supporters even really bothered to learn the details of the case. Polanski's name attached was enough to seal the deal.

Which is Simpson's point. Preachy Hollywood liberals don't know what they're talking about, so why are people listening to them.

re: New Right Wing cause celebre: Jafar Panahi

Hollywoodron — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:47:37 GMT

You last paragraph... wow! So the rightwing is opposed to women, the poor & the helpless oppressed by the powerful?

Like Chavez? Castro? & any number of communist dictators?