<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>Roger Ebert&apos;s Journal</title>
        <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/</link>
        <description></description>
        <language>en</language>
        <copyright>Copyright 2010</copyright>
        <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:00:05 -0600</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/</generator>
        <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>
        
        <item>
            <title>Where I draw the line</title>
            <description><![CDATA[<p><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/11/TSA-28156.html" onclick="window.open('http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/11/TSA-28156.html','popup','width=200,height=264,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false"><img src="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/11/TSA-thumb-260x343-28156.gif" width="260" height="343" alt="TSA.gif" class="mt-image-left" style="float: left; margin: 0 20px 20px 0;" /></a></span>It appears that not a single TSA agent has declined to perform a full-body pat down of airline passengers. That includes patting down small children. They're not patted down on a routine basis, but on some occasions they can be and they are. A child under 12, sometimes way under 12, may be required to remove outer clothing and be touched on such areas as the genitals.</p>

<p>	Would you take this job? I don't believe I would. But it's worth reflecting that employment as a TSA agent is a good job in these hard times of high unemployment.  The starting pay is $12.85 an hour, better than Wendy's for an employee who doesn't need a high school diploma. Wages go higher. The 40 hours of training are paid for by the government. Agents are given uniforms, badges, "a choice of health care plans," and power. </p>]]></description>
            <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/11/where_i_draw_the_line.html</link>
            <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/11/where_i_draw_the_line.html</guid>
            
                <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Political</category>
            
            
            <pubDate>Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:00:05 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Midnight at the oasis</title>
            <description><![CDATA[<p><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/11/npr_logo-27874.html" onclick="window.open('http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/11/npr_logo-27874.html','popup','width=450,height=148,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false"><img src="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/11/npr_logo-thumb-260x85-27874.jpg" width="260" height="85" alt="npr_logo.jpg" class="mt-image-left" style="float: left; margin: 0 20px 20px 0;" /></a></span>Everywhere I go, as much as I can, I listen to National Public Radio. It's an oasis of clear-headed intelligence. Carefully, patiently, it presents programming designed to make me feel just a little better equipped to reenter the world of uproar. </p>]]></description>
            <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/11/everywhere_i_go_as_much.html</link>
            <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/11/everywhere_i_go_as_much.html</guid>
            
                <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Political</category>
            
            
            <pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2010 01:02:33 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>A meeting of solitudes</title>
            <description><![CDATA[<p><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/11/3793422516_aa35ae4036-27736.html" onclick="window.open('http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/11/3793422516_aa35ae4036-27736.html','popup','width=500,height=342,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false"><img src="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/11/3793422516_aa35ae4036-thumb-260x177-27736.jpg" width="260" height="177" alt="3793422516_aa35ae4036.jpg" class="mt-image-left" style="float: left; margin: 0 20px 20px 0;" /></a></span>I had no idea. For days I've been reading waves of messages from the lonesome, the shy, the alone, the depressed. Some who live as virtual hermits. Some who have few or no friends. Some who rarely speak with their families. Some who have never dated, or ever had sex. Some who consider it a good day when they never speak to anyone. Some who are sad to be alone. Some who are relieved. Some who can't do it any other way.</p>

<p>	Day after day these posts arrived after </p>]]></description>
            <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/11/i_had_no_idea_for.html</link>
            <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/11/i_had_no_idea_for.html</guid>
            
                <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">People</category>
            
                <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">The Immensity</category>
            
            
            <pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 23:22:20 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>All the lonely people</title>
            <description><![CDATA[<p><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/11/6a00d83451901a69e20105365a0fb9970c-800wi-27524.html" onclick="window.open('http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/11/6a00d83451901a69e20105365a0fb9970c-800wi-27524.html','popup','width=640,height=480,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false"><img src="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/11/6a00d83451901a69e20105365a0fb9970c-800wi-thumb-260x195-27524.jpg" width="260" height="195" alt="6a00d83451901a69e20105365a0fb9970c-800wi.jpg" class="mt-image-left" style="float: left; margin: 0 20px 20px 0;" /></a></span>Lonely people have a natural affinity for the internet. It's always there waiting, patient, flexible, suitable for every mood. But there are times when the net reminds me of the definition of a bore by Meyer the hairy economist, best friend of Travis McGee: "You know what a bore is, Travis. Someone who deprives you of solitude without providing you with companionship."</p>

<p>	What do lonely people desire? Companionship. Love. Recognition. Entertainment. Camaraderie. Distraction.</p>]]></description>
            <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/11/all_the_lonely_people.html</link>
            <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/11/all_the_lonely_people.html</guid>
            
                <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">The Immensity</category>
            
            
            <pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 2010 23:11:21 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>To NSFW or not to NSFW? (now SFW)</title>
            <description><![CDATA[<p><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/10/       49969-1975-06-azizi-johari-122-46lo copy-27266.html" onclick="window.open('http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/10/       49969-1975-06-azizi-johari-122-46lo copy-27266.html','popup','width=494,height=565,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false"><img src="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/10/       49969-1975-06-azizi-johari-122-46lo copy-thumb-260x297-27266.jpg" width="260" height="297" alt="       49969-1975-06-azizi-johari-122-46lo copy.jpg" class="mt-image-left" style="float: left; margin: 0 20px 20px 0;" /></a></span><i>This entry is <b>safe</b> for work.</i></p>

<p>	I hesitated just a moment before including Miss June 1975 in my piece about Hugh Hefner. I wondered if some readers would find the nude photograph objectionable. Then I smiled at myself. Here I was, writing an article in praise of Hefner's healthy influence on American society, and I didn't know if I should show a Playmate of the Month. Wasn't I being a hypocrite?  I waited to see what the reaction would be.</p>

<p>	The Sun-Times doesn't publish nudes on its site, but my page occupies a sort of netherland: I own it in cooperation with the newspaper, but control its contents. If anyone complains, I thought, it will be the paper, and if they do I'll take it down. </p>]]></description>
            <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/10/to_nsfw_or_not_to_nsfw.html</link>
            <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/10/to_nsfw_or_not_to_nsfw.html</guid>
            
                <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">The Webopolis</category>
            
            
            <pubDate>Sun, 31 Oct 2010 19:25:37 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Hugh Hefner has been good for us</title>
            <description><![CDATA[<p><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/10/10187500-playboy-logo-26951.html" onclick="window.open('http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/10/10187500-playboy-logo-26951.html','popup','width=295,height=422,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false"><img src="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/10/10187500-playboy-logo-thumb-260x371-26951.jpg" width="260" height="371" alt="10187500-playboy-logo.jpg" class="mt-image-left" style="float: left; margin: 0 20px 20px 0;" /></a></span>From the moment that Hal Holmes and I slipped quietly into his basement and he showed me his father's hidden collection of Playboy magazines, the map of my emotional geography shifted toward  Chicago. In that magical city lived a man named Hugh Hefner who had Playmates possessing wondrous bits and pieces I had never seen before. I wanted to be invited to his house.</p>

<p><br />
I was trembling on the brim of puberty, and aroused not so much by the rather sedate color "centerfold" of an undressed woman, as by the black and white photos that accompanied them. These showed an ordinary woman (I believe it was Janet Pilgrim) entering an office building in Chicago, and being <i>made up</i> for her "pictorial." Made up! Two makeup artists were shown applying powders and creams to her flesh. This electrified me. It made  Pilgrim a real person. In an interview she spoke of her life and ambitions.</p>]]></description>
            <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/10/entertainment_for_men.html</link>
            <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/10/entertainment_for_men.html</guid>
            
                <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">People</category>
            
            
            <pubDate>Sun, 24 Oct 2010 14:11:23 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Your new age, and mine</title>
            <description><![CDATA[<p><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/10/fortune-teller-11-26813.html" onclick="window.open('http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/10/fortune-teller-11-26813.html','popup','width=379,height=463,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false"><img src="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/10/fortune-teller-11-thumb-260x317-26813.jpg" width="260" height="317" alt="fortune-teller-11.jpg" class="mt-image-left" style="float: left; margin: 0 20px 20px 0;" /></a></span>Most events called "psychic" do not take place at all, but only seem to. All the events we can perceive take place in a rational universe governed by physical laws. They can be explained by human thinking and do not require a supernatural loophole. <br />
 <br />
	I'm drawn to this thinking by Clint Eastwood's new film, "Hereafter." You may have absorbed the idea that it's about the afterlife. It would be fairer to say it's about the common human <i>need</i> for there to be an afterlife. </p>

<p>When I write that I expect to experience no more after death than I experienced before birth, I receive comments from people who pity me. They wonder how I can possibly live with such a bleak prospect. </p>]]></description>
            <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/10/your_new_age_and_mine.html</link>
            <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/10/your_new_age_and_mine.html</guid>
            
                <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">My Old Gang</category>
            
                <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">The Immensity</category>
            
            
            <pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:15:02 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>The storyteller and the stallion</title>
            <description><![CDATA[<p><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/10/Bill Nack photo-26573.html" onclick="window.open('http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/10/Bill Nack photo-26573.html','popup','width=225,height=298,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false"><img src="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/10/Bill Nack photo-thumb-260x344-26573.jpg" width="260" height="344" alt="Bill Nack photo.jpg" class="mt-image-left" style="float: left; margin: 0 20px 20px 0;" /></a></span>Bill Nack is a born story-teller. The author of the biography <i>Secretariat</i> has enveloped me time and again in the fascination of his tales. That process began nearly 50 years ago at the University of Illinois, when we were both working on The Daily Illini. I was the editor, he was the sports editor, and then the following year he was the editor. He was also a natural writer -- and, perhaps more significantly, a natural reader. His taste was persuasive.</p>

<p>He approached literature like a gourmet. He relished it, savored it, inhaled it, and after memorizing it rolled it on his tongue and spoke it aloud. It was Nack who already knew in the early 1960s, when he was a very young man, that Nabokov was perhaps the supreme stylist of modern novelists. He recited to me from <i>Lolita,</i> and from <i>Speak, Memory</i> and <i>Pnin.</i> I was spellbound.</p>]]></description>
            <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/10/the_storyteller_and_the_stalli.html</link>
            <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/10/the_storyteller_and_the_stalli.html</guid>
            
                <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Books and reading</category>
            
            
            <pubDate>Sun, 17 Oct 2010 12:17:15 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>What do you mean by a miracle?</title>
            <description><![CDATA[<p><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2009/08/images-10737.html" onclick="window.open('http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2009/08/images-10737.html','popup','width=293,height=172,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false"><img src="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2009/08/images-thumb-260x152-10737.jpg" width="260" height="152" alt="images.jpg" class="mt-image-left" style="float: left; margin: 0 20px 20px 0;" /></a></span>I'm not a miracle. And neither are the Chilean miners. We are all alive today for perfectly rational reasons. Yet there is a common compulsion to describe unlikely outcomes as miraculous -- if they are happy, of course. If sad, they are simply reported on, or among the believing described as "the will of God." Some disasters are so horrible they don't qualify as the will of God, but as the work of Satan playing for the other team. </p>]]></description>
            <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/10/post_3.html</link>
            <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/10/post_3.html</guid>
            
                <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">The Immensity</category>
            
            
            <pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 23:56:51 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Secretariat was not a Christian</title>
            <description><![CDATA[<p><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/10/    andy-26082.html" onclick="window.open('http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/10/    andy-26082.html','popup','width=180,height=261,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false"><img src="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/10/    andy-thumb-260x377-26082.jpg" width="260" height="377" alt="    andy.jpg" class="mt-image-left" style="float: left; margin: 0 20px 20px 0;" /></a></span>Andrew O'Hehir of Salon is a critic I admire, but he has nevertheless written a review of "Secretariat" so bizarre  I cannot allow it to pass unnoticed. I don't find anywhere in "Secretariat" the ideology he discovers there. In its reasoning, his review resembles a fevered conspiracy theory. </p>

<p>In this example , we do not find proof that Obama is a Muslim Communist born in Kenya. No, the news is worse than that. It involves Secretariat, a horse who up until now we innocently thought of as merely very fast. We learn the horse is a carrier not merely of Ron Turcotte's 130 pounds, but of Nazism, racism, Tea Party ideology and the dark side of Christianity. </p>

<p>Oh, and I forgot the Ku Klux Klan:  "The movie itself is ablaze with its own crazy sense of purpose," O'Hehir writes, "...as if someone just off-screen were burning a cross on the lawn."</p>]]></description>
            <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/10/secretariat_was_not_a_christia.html</link>
            <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/10/secretariat_was_not_a_christia.html</guid>
            
                <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Specific films</category>
            
            
            <pubDate>Thu, 07 Oct 2010 22:08:06 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>CIFF 2010: Our capsule reviews</title>
            <description><![CDATA[<p><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2009/08/bilde-10805.html" onclick="window.open('http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2009/08/bilde-10805.html','popup','width=382,height=309,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false"><img src="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2009/08/bilde-thumb-160x129-10805.jpg" width="160" height="129" alt="bilde.jpg" class="mt-image-left" style="float: left; margin: 0 20px 20px 0;" /></a></span><b>• Bill Stamets and Roger Ebert</b> </p>

<p>The 46th Chicago International Film Festival will play this year at one central location, on the many screens of the AMC River East 21, 322 E. Illinois. A festivalgoers and filmmakers' lounge will be open during festival hours at the Lucky Strike on the second level. Tickets can be ordered online at <a href="http://www.chicagofilmfestival.com/films_and_schedule/"> CIFF's website,</a></b> which also organizes the films by title, director and country. Tickets also at AMC; sold out films have Rush Lines. More capsules will be added here.</p>]]></description>
            <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/10/ciff_2010_our_capsule_reviews_1.html</link>
            <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/10/ciff_2010_our_capsule_reviews_1.html</guid>
            
                <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Film festivals</category>
            
            
            <pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2010 11:58:57 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Start at the top and work your way down</title>
            <description><![CDATA[<p><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/09/jeangabindone_1452863i-25719.html" onclick="window.open('http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/09/jeangabindone_1452863i-25719.html','popup','width=472,height=400,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false"><img src="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/09/jeangabindone_1452863i-thumb-260x220-25719.jpg" width="260" height="220" alt="jeangabindone_1452863i.jpg" class="mt-image-left" style="float: left; margin: 0 20px 20px 0;" /></a></span><b>• Introduction to <i>The Great Movies III</i></b> </p>

<p>	You'd be surprised how many people have told me they're working their way through my books of Great Movies one  film at a time. That's not to say the books are definitive; I  loathe "best of" lists, which are not the best of anything except what someone came up with that day. I look at a list of the "100 greatest horror films," or musicals, or whatever, and I want to ask the maker, "but how do you <i>know?"</i> There are great films in my books, and films that are not so great, but there's no film here I didn't respond strongly to. That's the reassurance I can offer.<br />
</p>]]></description>
            <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/09/start_out_with_the_first_one.html</link>
            <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/09/start_out_with_the_first_one.html</guid>
            
                <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Best film lists--and worst</category>
            
            
            <pubDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:52:37 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Casey Affleck levels about &quot;I&apos;m Still Here&quot;</title>
            <description><![CDATA[<p><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/09/300.ad.CaseyAffleck.JoaquinPhoenix.011609-1-25351.html" onclick="window.open('http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/09/300.ad.CaseyAffleck.JoaquinPhoenix.011609-1-25351.html','popup','width=300,height=300,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false"><img src="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/09/300.ad.CaseyAffleck.JoaquinPhoenix.011609-1-thumb-260x260-25351.jpg" width="260" height="260" alt="300.ad.CaseyAffleck.JoaquinPhoenix.011609-1.jpg" class="mt-image-left" style="float: left; margin: 0 20px 20px 0;" /></a></span>The bottom line: Casey Affleck thinks of it as a performance and not as an act, and he thinks of "I'm Still Here" as a film, and not a hoax. In an interview where he revealed details behind the making of his controversial film with and about Joaquin Phoenix, he also said:</p>

<p><br />
	• David Letterman was not in on the performance, and what you saw on his show was really happening.</p>

<p>	• Phoenix dropped out of character when he was not being filmed or in public.</p>

<p>• The drugs and the hookers were staged. The vomiting was real.</p>]]></description>
            <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/09/casey_affleck_levels_about_im.html</link>
            <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/09/casey_affleck_levels_about_im.html</guid>
            
                <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Specific films</category>
            
            
            <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:46:54 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>♬  It was a very good year ♬</title>
            <description><![CDATA[<p><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/09/swan-25250.html" onclick="window.open('http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/09/swan-25250.html','popup','width=408,height=198,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false"><img src="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/09/swan-thumb-260x126-25250.jpg" width="260" height="126" alt="swan.jpg" class="mt-image-left" style="float: left; margin: 0 20px 20px 0;" /></a></span>• Toronto Report # 7</b> </b> </p>

<p><br />
	"There must be directors at Toronto other than Werner Herzog and Errol Morris," one reader wrote impatiently. "Try reviewing someone else's films for a change." Point taken. I intend to do that below, and say in my defense that I have already written about eight films not by my heroes. Actually, that's not so many, is it? I saw 26 of the films but feel no need to write about all of them; in a  few cases, I don't want to say negative things about those still searching for buyers. <br />
</p>]]></description>
            <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/09/_it_was_a_very_good_year.html</link>
            <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/09/_it_was_a_very_good_year.html</guid>
            
                <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Toronto 2010</category>
            
            
            <pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 2010 00:34:42 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>I&apos;m still not all here</title>
            <description><![CDATA[<p><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/09/3408567-25078.html" onclick="window.open('http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/09/3408567-25078.html','popup','width=627,height=462,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false"><img src="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2010/09/3408567-thumb-260x191-25078.jpg" width="260" height="191" alt="3408567.jpg" class="mt-image-left" style="float: left; margin: 0 20px 20px 0;" /></a></span><b>• Toronto Report #6</b> </p>

<p>	We now have it on Casey Affleck's word that "I'm Still Here," the film about Joaquin Phoenix's apparent descent into self-destruction, was a hoax. We cannot doubt this. Well, perhaps we can; the possibility exists that Affleck caught so much shit after the release that he decided to back off from his devastating portrait of his brother-in-law. But let's agree it is a hoax.</p>]]></description>
            <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/09/im_still_not_all_here.html</link>
            <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/09/im_still_not_all_here.html</guid>
            
                <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Specific films</category>
            
            
            <pubDate>Fri, 17 Sep 2010 23:33:35 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
    </channel>
</rss>

