treat people with respect...quote!

If you treat everyone with dignity and respect

that you cross paths with

you won't have to worry later that you insulted the wrong person

Julian Ayrs
Divine Grace
Collection of Poems
2008

Obama...Los Angeles Times "videotape" controversy! Unbiased reporting?

When I spied a few twitters on the Internet last night over the Los Angeles Times scandal that has been brewing over the past twenty-four hours - I got the distinct impression from the musings of a handful of blog writers - that the editors at morning daily were wrongfully "withholding" incriminating evidence which established Obama's questionable past associations with individuals of dubious character.

On the heels of the brouhaha - management at the TIMES responded to McCain's finger-pointing - by publishing an account of their own version of events in what appeared to be a sincere effort to shed light on the issues.

For those of you in the dark, McCain is alleging that the daily "intentionally suppressed" a videotape it obtained through "unknown" sources which allegedly reveals Barack Obama at a 2003 banquet acknowledging a friendship with a leading Palestinian scholar and activist, Rashid Khalidi.

In response, the editors were adamant in their rebuttal piece - that contrary to what McCain believes - the newspaper sought to bring the matter to the public fore.


The editor noted for the record that - if anything - the daily simply sought to protect a confidential source who provided the tape on the provisio that it not be released.

The Times keeps its promises to sources, Editor Russ Stanton asserted to the media, in the wake of the controversy.

Management did not respond to the McCain's allegation that they were inclined to favor Obama, though.

Stanton either sidestepped that issue or overlooked it perhaps?

For the most part, the paper's arguments appear to be reasonable, under the circumstances.

But, can the LA TIMES be trusted to report fairly on the issues without bias?

After all, they are at the heart of the controversy.

It wouldn't be the first time a news organization - or media outlet - pulled the old soft-shoe to get themselves out of a tight fix.

Is there an independent "body" - a media watch organization - that can be called upon to act as a mediator in the dispute?

If not, perhaps the current crisis cries out for one to be established, to ultimately preserve the integrity and ethical standards of the media at large in the future.

AFI FEST...Gala premiere in "DOUBT". Hoffman and Streep no shows? Red Carpet event fizzles...

Well, I reported earlier in the week that last-minute there was a lot of excitement over the announcement that "DOUBT" - adapted for the screen from the award-winning play by John Patrick Shanley - would kick-off the AFI Fest's gala opening night.

Festival-goers were thrilled at the prospect of mixing and mingling on the red carpet with two of the celebrated stars - Meryl Streep and Phillip Seymour Hoffman - who grace the screen in "DOUBT".

But, looks like the premiere has lost its luster and is fizzlin' out.

At press time, it was confirmed that Streep and Hoffman would be no-shows at the premiere.

According to PR Director John Wildman.

Who wants to kibitz with a bunch of suits from the studio - or the stuff-shirts from AFI - on what was supposed to be a glittering star-studded gala event?

Without any tinsel on hand, what's the point?

Notwithstanding, DOUBT will be screened as an uncut unpolished version that isn't ready for public consumption, yet.

Were the AFI Fest organizers stuck, in a bind, or what?

I guess when "The Soloist" bowed out this past week, AFI was left holding an empty bag and the big-wigs had to scramble for a replacement.

DOUBT looked like a good prospect for the gala initially, but at this late juncture,it appears to be a losing choice for the Fest Event.

Maybe DEFIANCE will have a little more pizazz on Friday Night.

Or, at least a bit of titillating red carpet fodder to write about.

I'll keep you posted on the curious goings-on at the AFI FEST events which are slated to start-up at the end of this week and run for eleven days at a handful of venues around Tinsel Town.

At the moment, AFI is off to a shaky start, though.

AFI Publicity Director John Wildman screwed up.
Streep did walk the red carpet last night.
Talk about egg on the face!
(Edit 10.31.08)

Keanu Reeves...appears in court in role as defendant! Paparazzi altercation takes foray into celebrity realms...

Keanu Reeves appeared on the witness stand yesterday - starring in a scene - which was obviously coached by an attorney.

For the jury, the whole fiasco was a fascinating peek into the world of celebrity and the pitfalls of fame in the underbelly of Hollywood.

Reeves was there to offer up a defense to an allegation that he ran down and injured an overzealous member of the paparazzi arising from a stake-out incident which occurred last year on a dark street in Rancho Palos Verdes.

Allegedly, the photographer - Alison Silva - ambushed Reeves in an aggressive attempt to secure stills of the popular actor which he intended to sell for cash to the highest bidder.

After he was cornered in his vehicle, Reeves attempted to move forward in his Porsche, when the ballsy upstart stood in the way and was summarily hit by the slow-moving vehicle.

Mr. Silva is suing Reeves for allegedly causing a "career-ending" injury to his wrist as a result of the fender-bender.

Based on the testimony provided by Reeves in court yesterday, I am inclined to side with the popular star.

For example, when asked if Mr. Silva was disrespectful, he curtly replied.

"He wasn't rude per se."

I expect that most guilty parties - anxious to get out of the fix - would have taken the occasion to accuse the party of being pushy and belligerent - whatever - to justify their actions to the court.


Because Mr. Reeves didn't take this approach, I am inclined to believe his account of things.

In addition, the Matrix Trilogy hero testified, that he nudged his luxury roadster forward a bit, to signal he intended to go on his way.


Under the same set of circumstances, I expect that any number of people would have responded the same way.

Was Mr. Reeves supposed to just sit there and have his liberty restricted by an individual who was obviously intruding upon his "body" space?

If the hopped-up photog chose to remain in front of the vehicle as it moved forward, he did so at his own peril, in my estimation.

Silva testified that he ambushed Reeves with the intent of hopefully catching the sexy stud exiting with a girlfriend in tow.

At this juncture, he revealed to a fascinated jury, that Reeves was what the paparazzi referred to as a "shark".

A shark, he elaborated, is a term used to describe a big star who rarely ventures out.

"Photos of Reeves, therefore, bring a higher price."

The trial continues.

AFI FEST..."The World We Want" an inspiring documentary about children effecting positive change in the world!

If given the golden opportunity, can mere children rise up and tackle social and political issues - that have challenged their parents for decades - and effect real change?

After screening "The World We Want" - an uplifting documentary which premiered at the AFI Fest this afternoon - I wholeheartedly assert that the answer is a resounding "yes".

The well-crafted doc focuses on an organization - Project Citizen - which gives children from a handful of participating Nations around the globe an opportunity to launch a project that addresses the needs of a particular community.

The ones that show promise from the get-go ranged from one that focused on the need for clean drinking water in an African Village, to a call for stringent controls on underage gambling in Russian, and an altruistic goal to create a constitution in a war-torn town crying out for a healing solution.

The inspirational log follows the students as they struggle to convince local and national leaders to implement their proposed ideas for the good of all in the community.

Like their parents before them, the "dreamers" run smack dab into red tape - and the tangles of bureaucracy that threaten to thwart their unselfish plans - before they get out of the starter's gate.

In the final analysis - after marvelling at their bold-faced efforts for a call to action - it becomes quite evident that children from races of all persuasion (as one astute young lady pointed out) are the same at the "core".

And - of course - each is just as enthusiastic, emotional, passionate, articulate, engaging, and determined - as the other in pursuit of a vision for a future they recognize they must seize as their own.

After reviewing hundreds of the programs - and taking stock of the issues that were tackled - producer Patrick Davidson selected eight stories to feature in the upbeat "World We Want".

The tales are all heartwarming and inspiring.

"We the People - Project Citizen" is an international program for young people funded by the U.S. Department of Education, by an act of Congress (1995).

The program is administered and implemented in the U. S. and abroad by the Center for Civic Education (CCE) which is a National and International leader in Civic Education.

It's important to note that the documentary, on the other hand, was financed entirely through private investments.

"The World We Want" screens: November 8th / 7:00 pm (MANN)

Ticket Info: http://www.afi.com/

In closing, I would like to point out that the project from Senegal for "clean water" was honored as the most worthy "Project Citizen" entry in a recent round of competitions.

Although the project to guarantee water to the town is underway - and should be operating in the near future - funds are still needed for basic parts essential to the proper function of the water tower.

"Angels" out there are kindly asked to consider making a contribution to "Project Citizen" so that the dream to provide a clean water facility may be fully realized by the children of this humble African Village.

Info: http://www.civiced.org/

Patrick Goldstein...Los Angeles Times writer pens pap! Wasted column inches...

Well, Patrick Goldstein is at it again.

Once again, he's penning ignorant musings for the morning daily, to satisfy his overblown sense of self-importance.

Just a few days ago, everyone was savoring a big chuckle over a silly piece he threw together on the Roger Ebert scandal.

If you recall, Roger Ebert confessed on his blog, that a nifty review on the feature - Tru Loved - was crafted without disclosing the fact the rotund little critic only screened about eight minutes of celluloid.

In response, Mr. Goldstein jumped into the fray (to rustle up some much-needed publicity for himself, no doubt. Poor baby!) and wildly predicted that Ebert's shame-faced admission would spark trouble for all critics around the country.

As I quipped at the time, baloney!

When I opened the newspaper and turned to the Calendar section and started to peruse his latest article this morning, I literally laughed out loud!

After noting that he attended a screening of a comedy this past week (Role Models), the ingenuous hack proceeded to ponder why the Academy didn't award more Oscars to that popular genre.

Duh!

In fact - he noted in the overly-long shallow piece - that after the screening he found himself "wondering" why the Oscars didn't recognize good work in comedy the way they do drama, animation, cinematography, editing (oh boy, he left no stone unturned on this one) - etc. etc. and so forth and so on!

The man is a piece of work, isn't he?

For starters, the subject he was whining about has been thoroughly covered - ad nauseam - for about two decades by a handful of top entertainment writers in the industry.

More galling, perhaps, is Goldstein's deceitful bold-faced effort to conjure up the impression that his take on the issue is a fresh insight!

Mr. Goldstein, do you honestly think everyone in the biz has lived in a vacuum for the past twenty years?

Or, just maybe, you thought we were born yesterday?

At this juncture, I think it's obvious why the Los Angeles Times is losing credibility (and suffering circulation losses) in recent months.

Who wants to read the tired old news that Mr. Goldstein is offering up under the pretense that it is his own original thought-provoking material?


Years ago, Frank Sinatra caught a lot of flack from the media for referring to journalists as a bunch of hookers.

In Mr. Goldstein's case, the label is right on the money.


If I was the managing editor at the daily, I would give Goldstein's butt a swift kick into the "Want ads" department.

His writing would be better-suited for drafting copy for used cars.

After all, his propensity for selling pre-owned properties, makes him well-suited for the task.

Che...bloated two-part 4 hour bio (!) a bit of a yawn! Soderbergh needs to trim fat...

If you're going to catch "CHE" - which is being unveiled this week at the AFI Film Fest - the best place to catch the much-heralded release by controversial director - Steven Soderbergh - is where the press slipped in to view it today.

Michael Hall's plush little theatre on Wilshire in Beverly Hills is comfy enough to soften the mind-numbing ramblings of what ended up being an interminably-long film.


It's doubtful I would have held out 'til the end, had I attended a preview at a regular movie house with cramped seating and poor screening facilities.


I arrived early, so I was able to snatch up one of the big comfy easy chairs at the back.

Even still, Che is a four-hour plus celluloid offering that is tough to sit through for the most-patient of film buffs.

If I was required to take a gander at one more close-up shot of a military boot, ticking clock, or soldier standing around in the jungle engaging in idle chit-chat, I would have screamed bloody murder.

Get me outta here!

Albeit, there was a half-hour intermission, but the big screen bio amounts to a bloated overly-long tribute to Soderbergh's ego and an exercise in excess.

Yes, there is a taut little film with the potential to impact somewhere, but it's trussed up inside a lot of marbled fat!

The film starts off slow. Continues, slowly. Then, slowly ends at the close of the first two-hour segment without having accomplished a heck of a lot.

Except to cause me to doze off a couple of moments here and there in the dark.

But - the 2nd part of the ambitious bio grips - jolts the audience out of a deep slumber - and turns down an entertaining path.

Thankfully!

Of course, Benicio Del Toro is fascinating to marvel at from beyond the footlights, as always.

His performance is worth the price of admission alone.


Out-of-the blue, Matt Damon (gee, I think that was him) sauntered into a scene for about two minutes or so, then vanished into thin air.

Duh!

What was that all about?


Frankly, the most appealing aspect of the film for me, was the highly stylized approach that Soderbergh took at various junctures as the film unfolded on the silver screen.

Even still, Che was uneven on those occasions, too.

Maps that were color-fed onto the screen on at least two occasions - to spoon-feed and educate the filmgoer about regions affected by the revolution - didn't gel for me.

At times, I was inclined to pinch myself.

Had I been magically transported back to a boring geography class of yesterday?

But - black & white shots of a fifties-era Cuba and intriguing camera-work which strategically layered scintillating images throughout the big budget fiasco - appealed to my artistic sensibilities now and then.

At times, the soundtrack stirred the emotions, and added an undercurrent of drama.

But, after awhile, the score became an obvious tip-off.

Whenever a particular strain of music was obsequiously ushered in - the audience was keen to the fact by now - that something downright intriguing was about to happen right before their eyes.

Golly!

Perk up, get ready!

Thoroughly well-acted, well photographed, and well - ill-conceived.


I just betcha that if Soderbergh withdrew to the edit bay - and trimmed about forty-eight minutes of fat - he might have a dynamite little art-house film on his hands.

Til then, the release smacks of a ceremonial barge floating down the river, aimlessly.


No doubt, Che will be a big yawn, to many.