When you ask Colin Firth to speak about what went into his latest performance, he won’t give you the typical actor-speak. Rather, he’ll tell you more widely how his character fits into the overall scheme of the story. He gives off the expertise of a writer or director who’s brainstormed and structured the work. Not content to be an actor in a role, Firth seeks the complete picture.

For instance, while discussing “Easy Virtue,” Firth expounded on the themes and vision of the original writer, Noel Coward. He did the same when plugging his latest film, “A Single Man” which is directed by famous fashion designer Tom Ford (slightly NSFW). Firth recognized the “improbable combinations” that the first-time director injected into the film. He fully digests what the films are about (in this case: rage, finality, lust, regret, irony, adoration and sentimentality.)

Interviewer Janet Maslin made sure to ask about the controversy surrounding the film, which centers on a gay man but had marketing materials that conveyed a more “heterosexual” message. Firth acknowledged that Ford and the marketing team struggled to find the right way to sell the film, but he’s convinced that the movie will reach all audiences.

While Firth is analytical and upbeat, he’s also somewhat complex. Maslin correctly pointed out that Firth is drawn to two vastly different types of roles – the everyman and the royalty. For his “Single Man” role, he turned to the works of Dennis Potter as a source of inspiration to make sure his character’s grappling with death was not synonymous with depression. In order to achieve that difficult balance during filming, Firth had to quickly shift to different emotional states to show the multi-faceted nature to his character and the film overall. When they screened an example of what Firth describes as the “emotional trajectory” required to make that sudden change seem natural and believable, the audience recognized that as one of the talents Firth has certainly mastered.

What They Said
“One’s work isn’t just dependent on a fresh start or a clean slate. And your experience can be used as an instrument for that character.”
- Colin Firth invests some of himself into his films

“If you get a guarantee that everyone you take a risk on would deliver, then every film would be a masterpiece.”
- Colin Firth, not considering “White Chicks”

“People are generally secretive about their sexuality in one way or another in general. Unless they’re Italian.”
- Colin Firth is married to an Italian woman

“Because I’m English, there’s a perpetual state of embarrassment.”
- Colin Firth prescribes character traits to nationality

What We Thought

• We’ve never seen a crowd skew so much in the direction of one gender. Whether it can be explained by the accent or his acting talent, Firth has a firm grip on the 40s and 50s female demographic.
• Firth said that while they were shooting some of the more intimate gay scenes in the film, Proposition 8 passed in California. He said that it was an unfriendly reminder that America wasn’t as progressive as he’d liked to believe. He did, however, say that Obama getting elected during the same period was reassuring.
• He said the only late-night show he would agree to do time and again (as he just did) is “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.” He said that he doesn’t like to be told that he has a few minutes to come up with several funny anecdotes.

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

Panel Nerds don’t like…Fawners
If you get the courage to go up to the microphone to ask one of your favorite actors a question you’ve always wished you could ask him… actually ask it! It’s unbecoming (yep, we said “unbecoming”) to see a 50-something-year-old woman trying to repeatedly regain her composure while fanning herself and taking deep breaths into the mike. You may be a first time questioner. Tom Ford was a first time director. You can succeed your first time.

Politico is taking heat from all over the blogosphere for a story they posted Wednesday that conflated support for convicted rapist Roman Polanski with political donations to President Obama.  The splashy headline read “Roman Polanski Backers Gave $34k to Barack Obama, DNC.”

The story prompted a strong reaction from the DNC, whose spokesman called it “lowbrow…amateur hour…one of the silliest stories that I’ve ever seen.”  Politico is now being ripped by HuffPo, Media Matters, Gawker, and many others for what Salon calls the “Smear of the day.”  Politico, however, stands by their story:

“We will look for the political angle in virtually any story,” responded top Politico editor Jim VandeHei. “This short blog item was done for the Click page — where we run a lot of entertainment and personality items. It was quick item based on FEC data alone.”

Critics of Politico’s story point out that the data offered doesn’t actually support any sort of link between the President and Polanski, and seems designed solely to generate traffic from conservative websites.

I took a look at Politico’s story, then did some checking of my own.

First of all, Politico says that the Polanski arrest “sparked a vigorous national debate about sex, justice and extradition that – thus far – has yet to draw in the Obama administration.”  That’s not entirely accurate.  Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about the case several days after the arrest:

Q Will the President pardon Polanski? Will he, or not?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t know of any pending pardon request, Lester.

Q Does he believe pedophiles should not be prosecuted?

MR. GIBBS: The President believes pedophiles should be prosecuted, Lester.

I also did some checking into this “US Government” that sought Polanski’s arrest, and it turns out Barack Obama is in charge of it.

Still, there is the matter of those 6 signatures on the Polanski petition.  The 7th, Harvey Weinstein, didn’t actually give Barack Obama any money at all.  In fact, Politico even points out that Weinstein gave $88,000 to Hillary Clinton.  I wonder why that didn’t make it into the headline?  Maybe he was the only Hillary donor on the list.  It’s still almost 6 times what Obama got, but let’s give Politico the benefit of the doubt and check it out.

Director Michael Mann (who didn’t make Politico’s list) donated $2300 to Hillary Clinton, Brett Ratner has donated $8,800 to Hillary (and $4,600 to John Edwards, tee-hee), Martin Scorsese donated $3,500 to Clinton, and Harvey Weinstein donated that whopping $88,000 to Hillary.  That’s $102,600 to Hillary, versus $15,500 to Barack Obama, almost a 7 to 1 difference.  Does Hillary’s name belong in a headline with a rapist?

I was also able to identify an even stronger link between Polanski and 2004 congressional candidate Nick Clooney.  Adrien Brody donated $2000 to Nick Clooney. and Weinstein gave Clooney $4,000.  Taken as a percentage of total dollars raised, Clooney cleans Obama’s clock by a 348-1 margin.  Is “Obama, DNC Snubbed by Polanski Pals in Favor of Nick Clooney” too long a headline?

Still, you have to give Politico credit for caring so much about women.

— Slate movie critic Dana Stevens on Twitter, causing me to almost spit up my morning Diet Coke. I feel the same way about Hervé Weinstein.










Photo: John Paul Filo/CBS
©2007 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved

Thanks to Harvey Weinstein, Debra Winger and co., now I know.

While our country is engulfed in two wars, struggling to climb back after falling off of an economic cliff last year and trying to find a way to provide health care for nearly fifty million uninsured Americans, I am glad to see that some of Hollywood’s elite, (including Mr. Weinstein, Ms. Winger and Woody Allen, among others) have found a truly important cause worth fighting for: defending Roman Polanski.

My first thoughts upon learning that Mr. Weinstein was circulating a petition on behalf of Mr. Polanski were:

1) Finally! Hollywood finds a cause the average American can get behind.

2) Shouldn’t Mr. Weinstein be more focused on saving his troubled studio than saving an aging fugitive?

3) When Woody Allen is coming to your defense in a case involving alleged sex with a teenager…well, that’s a punchline that writes itself.

I have been beyond baffled at the bizarre rationale (or lack thereof) used to defend this movement to save Roman Polanski.

His defenders seem to alternate between three primary lines of defense:

1) “He may have done it but it was a really long time ago.”

I’d never really looked at crime that way but Mr. Weinstein and his buddies may be on to something. With that in mind maybe we should stop pestering all those Nazi war criminals we have insisted on harassing for the last half century. I mean, after all, it was a really long time ago.

2) “He is really, really talented.”

Also a good point. Maybe it would be easier if we just created a set of penalties specifically for “really talented” people so we can avoid this kind of confusion in the future. I know some amazing pantomimes and jugglers. Should we give them free rein to sexually assault adults? I’m assuming you actually have to win an Academy Award to be given a free pass on children. It’s just too bad we already executed serial killer Ted Bundy because according to the judge who sentenced him to death, he was a talented attorney.

3) “The victim is ready to move on.”

Having to endure the pain of revisiting an assault of any kind, particularly in a public forum, is something I would not wish on my own worst enemy. I can understand a victim’s desire for privacy and closure, but thankfully in this country that does not trump the public’s right to justice — and protection from potential re-offenders. It is worth noting that a number of states have laws in place that give district attorneys the power to prosecute batterers even when victims of domestic violence refuse to testify, for this very reason. They may have a variety of reasons why they would rather “move on” than face their assailant in court (or perhaps more terrifying, chance facing him outside of court). But thankfully for the greater good and safety of society, it’s not always up to them.

Hollywood hypocrisy is one thing when it takes the form of a celebrity touting their environmental consciousness while globetrotting in a fuel-guzzling private jet (ahem, Madonna.) But when people like Mr. Weinstein, who supports a plethora of liberal candidates, and was the producing arm behind Michael Moore’s iconic, cinematic Bush takedown “Fahrenheit 9/11,” seem content to paint the former president as harmful to Americans but Roman Polanski as merely misunderstood, they are proving Sarah Palin and every other anti-Hollywood conservative’s point for them.

It is not for me to say that Mr. Weinstein and his cohorts have no moral compass but I will venture to say that they are certainly out of touch and maybe out of their minds. Because in the parts of America that so many of us in big cities think of dismissively as “flyover country,” they may not know that Le Cirque is a restaurant, but they do know that pedophiles are a bad thing — regardless of how rich, talented or influential they may be.

Actor, director and Polanski acquaintance Luc Besson provided a welcome measure of clarity on this whole mess in a recent radio interview when he said, “This is a man who I love a lot and know a little bit… Our daughters are good friends. But there is one justice, and that should be the same for everyone. I will let justice happen…I don’t have any opinion on this, but I have a daughter, 13 years-old. And if she was violated, nothing would be the same, even 30 years later.”

Even if the violator in question is really, really talented.

Keli Goff is a political writer for TheLoop21.com and the author of “Party Crashing: How the Hip-Hop Generation Declared Political Independence.” See more by Keli at www.keligoff.com. This column is a slightly modified version from one which ran earlier on the Huffington Post.