MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Hot Button – Circles Of Lies

Oy… this is what I get for watching The View.
The ladies spent 5 minutes discussing how the Western Wall prayer that was taken out of the wall and published in Israel was, according to the paper that published the presumably private document, Ma’ariv, pre-approved for publication by Obama even before the note was stuck in the wall. The claim from an unnamed Ma’ariv editor was legitimized by publication in The Jerusalem Post as part of a story about a potential legal probe and boycott of Ma’ariv for publishing the note.
The Wall Street Journal pushed the story further by publishing a series of web attacks on Obama without bothering to do what they do best… report news.
“Maariv’s response: “Obama’s note was published in Maariv and other international publications following his authorization to make the content of the note public. Obama submitted a copy of the note to media outlets when he left his hotel in Jerusalem. Moreover, since he is not Jewish, there is no violation of privacy as there would be for a Jewish person who places a note in the wall.”
Problem is… the story was a lie.

The rest…

13 Responses to “Hot Button – Circles Of Lies”

  1. doug r says:

    Here’s a phrase you should be familiar by now:

  2. David Poland says:

    What does that mean, doug?
    It’s ok to lie if you are a Republican? Or are you saying that I am attacking Republicans unfairly?
    I actually don’t agree that Republicans are inherently hateful and more willing to do dirty tricks. Some are. But so are many Democrats, as we learned in the primaries.

  3. Cadavra says:

    IOKIYAR means the breaking the law, lying, having an adulterous affair, et al, is okay if you’re a Republican, but not if you’re a Democrat.
    Clinton gets a blow job? Impeachment.
    Dan Burton fathers a child out of wedlock? Crickets.
    Eliot Spitzer goes to hookers? Resignation.
    David Vitter goes to hookers? Zzzzzzz.
    And so on, and so on, and so on…

  4. LexG says:

    Spitzer’s chick was THE MEGAHOTNESS.
    Dude should be a HERO for pulling that. That OWNED.
    Just annoyed Ashley hasn’t accepted my ADD on MySpace.
    And, oh, yeah, tell me why any Californian is excited about voting for President? Obama will take CA in a landslide. It’s like being personally excited about the ten-spot you laid down to see TDK.

  5. RDP says:

    So is John Edwards a secret Republican, then?

  6. ManWithNoName says:

    Uh, Lex, how is Spitzer a hero? He didn’t “pull” anything. If you wanted the MEGAHOTNESS, all you needed was a couple grand in your bank account!

  7. IOIOIOI says:

    She’s not megahotness. She’s another girl with daddy issues and bad tats. Those tats are literally horrible, but she was a hooker. So it worked for her.

  8. sloanish says:

    I don’t think Britney understands it, but I wonder if Paris Hilton is concerned that simply being associated with her is now meant to damage you politically. Now that I think about it, she probably doesn’t care either.
    BTW, the Lex show is getting old. There’s no coming back from “the incident.” Last week at Efilm I kept my head down. I was afraid one of the dubbers was going to bug out.

  9. LexG says:

    There is no “Lex Show,” there is just me posting my thoughts and slowly but surely winning over the hearts and minds. Even former haters are now ACKNOWLEDGING and finally getting it and taking it in stride. I only aim to please.
    GET ONBOARD, SON, there’s plenty of room… I can ASSURE YOU it is not a SHOW when I opine (good word) that PARIS and ASHLEY FUCKING RULE.

  10. LexG says:

    By the way, what exactly was “the incident”? Me telling LYT that he looks like LOU FROM CADDYSHACK in his WEAK-ASS PLANVIEW JERK-OFF VIDEO?
    Christ, that was like my Z material, and it still made THE FAMER.

  11. sloanish says:

    Lex, I’m not buying a ticket, but I’m currently on board. Train is too going too fast to get off and I need to see where it wrecks.
    You’re too consistent for it all to be an act so that’s not the issue. Saying that Spitzer owned when in fact he threw his life away for an LA 8 is not correct or sane. If he was having an affair with DiCaprio’s girlfriend it might be a different conversation. But it was just another hooker.

  12. sloanish says:

    Who’s Ashley?

  13. repeatfather says:

    Ashley is the prostitute that Spitzer got caught making transactions with. Sorry, Lex, if you lived in New Jersey, you could probably go to any cheap club, get drunk on yaegar and Red Bull and come home with any number of chicks like that.
    With that particular incident, I was more disturbed by Spitzer’s lack of fiscal responsibility than his marital impropriety. He could have just shelled out for a couple Long Island Ice Teas and gotten the same deal.
    Anyway, aren’t people tired yet of this same stupid game of Republicans trying to paint Democratic candidates as elitist and over- privileged? It’s so fucking ridiculous, especially in 04 with Kerry when the accusations were coming from George W., the poster boy for oligarchy.
    I’m also really sick of this Obama-is-arrogant charade. Of course, he’s arrogant! He thinks he should be president! That any presidential candidate is, at least, somewhat arrogant is a given.
    The fact that the press and other critics seem so focused on this one aspect of Obama smacks, to me, of some old-fashioned Jim-Crow-Boy-Don’t-Know-His-Place-Like-Jackie-Robinson Did malarkey.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

This is probably going to sound petty, but Martin Scorsese insisting that critics see his film in theaters even though it’s going straight to Netflix and then not screening it in most American cities was a watershed moment for me in this theatrical versus streaming debate.

I completely respect when a filmmaker insists that their movie is meant to be seen in the theater, but the thing is, you got to actually make it possible to see it in the theater. Some movies may be too small for that, and that’s totally OK.

When your movie is largely financed by a streaming service and is going to appear on that streaming service instantly, I don’t really see the point of pretending that it’s a theatrical film. It just seems like we are needlessly indulging some kind of personal fantasy.

I don’t think that making a feature film length production that is going to go straight to a video platform is some sort of “step down.“ I really don’t. Theatrical exhibition as we know it is dying off anyway, for a variety of reasons.

I should clarify myself because this thread is already being misconstrued — I’m talking about how the movie is screened in advance. If it’s going straight to Netflix, why the ritual of demanding people see it in the theater?

There used to be a category that everyone recognized called “TV movie” or “made for television movie” and even though a lot of filmmakers considered that déclassé, it seems to me that probably 90% of feature films fit that description now.

Atlantis has mostly sunk into the ocean, only a few tower spires remain above the waterline, and I’m increasingly at peace with that, because it seems to be what the industry and much of the audience wants. We live in an age of convenience and information control.

Only a very elite group of filmmakers is still allowed to make movies “for theaters“ and actually have them seen and judged that way on a wide scale. Even platform releasing seems to be somewhat endangered. It can’t be fought. It has to be accepted.

9. Addendum: I’ve been informed that it wasn’t Scorsese who requested that the Bob Dylan documentary only be screened for critics in theaters, but a Netflix representative indicated the opposite to me, so I just don’t know what to believe.

It’s actually OK if your film is not eligible for an Oscar — we have a thing called the Emmys. A lot of this anxiety is just a holdover from the days when television was considered culturally inferior to theatrical feature films. Everybody needs to just get over it.

In another 10 to 20 years they’re probably going to merge the Emmys in the Oscars into one program anyway, maybe they’ll call it the Contentys.

“One of the fun things about seeing the new Quentin Tarantino film three months early in Cannes (did I mention this?) is that I know exactly why it’s going to make some people furious, and thus I have time to steel myself for the takes.

Back in July 2017, when it was revealed that Tarantino’s next project was connected to the Manson Family murders, it was condemned in some quarters as an insulting and exploitative stunt. We usually require at least a fig-leaf of compassion for the victims in true-crime adaptations, and even Tarantino partisans like myself – I don’t think he’s made a bad film yet – found ourselves wondering how he might square his more outré stylistic impulses with the depiction of a real mass murder in which five people and one unborn child lost their lives.

After all, it’s one thing to slice off with gusto a fictional policeman’s ear; it’s quite another to linger over the gory details of a massacre that took place within living memory, and which still carries a dread historical significance.

In her essay The White Album, Joan Didion wrote: “Many people I know in Los Angeles believe that the Sixties ended abruptly on August 9, 1969, ended at the exact moment when word of the murders on Cielo Drive traveled like brushfire through the community, and in a sense this is true.”

Early in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, as Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt’s characters drive up the hill towards Leo’s bachelor pad, the camera cranes up gently to reveal a street sign: Cielo Drive. Tarantino understands how charged that name is; he can hear the Molotov cocktails clinking as he shoulders the crate.

As you may have read in the reviews from Cannes, much of the film is taken up with following DiCaprio and Pitt’s characters – a fading TV actor and his long-serving stunt double – as they amusingly go about their lives in Los Angeles, while Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate is a relatively minor presence. But the spectre of the murders is just over the horizon, and when the night of the 9th finally arrives, you feel the mood in the cinema shift.

No spoilers whatsoever about what transpires on screen. But in the audience, as it became clear how Tarantino was going to handle this extraordinarily loaded moment, the room soured and split, like a pan of cream left too long on the hob. I craned in, amazed, but felt the person beside me recoil in either dismay or disgust.

Two weeks on, I’m convinced that the scene is the boldest and most graphically violent of Tarantino’s career – I had to shield my eyes at one point, found myself involuntarily groaning “oh no” at another – and a dead cert for the most controversial. People will be outraged by it, and with good reason. But in a strange and brilliant way, it takes Didion’s death-of-the-Sixties observation and pushes it through a hellfire-hot catharsis.

Hollywood summoned up this horror, the film seems to be saying, and now it’s Hollywood’s turn to exorcise it. I can’t wait until the release in August, when we can finally talk about why.

~ Robbie Collin