Podhoretz vs. Bergman
Ingmar Bergman “stopped making motion pictures in 1982, though he wrote and directed several small films for television,” writes N.Y. Post columnist John Podorhetz. “And the truth is, he quit just in time. His day had passed. After decades of declaring modern life worthless and offering only suicide as a way out of the nightmarish tangle of human existence, Bergman had nothing more to say.”
Podhoretz also says that “the critics who described Bergman as the greatest of film artists were people embarrassed by the movies. They didn’t admire the medium. They were offended by its unseriousness, by its capacity to entertain without offering anything elevating at the same time. They believed the movies were a low and disreputable art form and that its only salvation lay in offering moral and aesthetic instruction to its audiences about the worthlessness of existence.”
In other words the people who understand the true soul and purpose of movies (i.e., guys like Podhoretz) know that movies are best at offering light-hearted foolery and unserious entertaining that don’t get too mucky-mucky about reflecting “real life.”
Do I have to point out that this is what the ill-informed always say about movies and particularly about audience-friendly popcorn movies — comedies, thrillers, adventures, westerns, etc.? They don’t understand that the very best motion picture entertainments are always written with and informed by the same structural discipline and seriousness that go into the best heavy-duty dramas. Ask any comedy writer and they’ll tell you all good comedies are written with the same regard for real-life undercurrents as anything written by Eugene O’Neil or directed by Ingmar Bergman.
.
We all know the line between tragedy and comedy is wafer thin. We now also know that guys like Podhoretz don’t know very much about movies. You can’t be a truly devoted movie hound and be an admonisher of the cloistered liberal culture that tends to produce (and always rushes to the defense of) liberal-minded film directors, which are pretty much the only kind that exist with th exception of guys like David Lynch.
Quick — name me a conservative, three-piece-suit-wearing critic who has truly interesting things to say about movies and/or knows what he or she is talking about (except for Michael Medved). By this I mean a critic who really gets what’s going on with this or that new or classic film, and isn’t using film criticism as a podium by which to push some right-wing, family-values, Jesus-loves-you agenda.
michael medved is the reason i love SKIDOO.
and he’s still wrong about it.
Steven Hunter like his guns and hates his hippees, and knows plenty what goes into great filmmaking and how to comment on it.
I’ve never detected that much of a nyah-nyah, liberal-scolding, right-wing agenda current from Hunter. What I’ve noticed is that he’s an excellent writer
medved always praises films with a pro-religious bent no matter how awful. he singled out KILL BILL for religious persecution based on sonny chiba’s line about cutting down god with his hanzo sword. medved is a political pathological liar who had a neat handle on a certain type of movie. now he’s a bushbot. and all that implies.
and i’ve said this to him on his radio show so i don’t feel bad repeating it.
Why would it be so hard for Podhoretz to say, “I was never a fan of Bergman. Just didn’t get his stuff.” Instead, he simply assumes bad faith on the part of his admirers.
Also, does his article read like he’s never actually seen a Bergman film, except maybe “The Seventh Seal”? Except for a mention of that film, there’s not a word about any of Bergman’s actual work.
Victor Morton is a total Catholic arch-conservative, but he is also one of the most insightful writers on film you’ll ever read. (And Bergman was probably his favorite living filmmaker, until yesterday.) You can read him here: http://cinecon.blogspot.com/
Victor would kick Podhoretz’s ass in a heartbeat.
I’ve always hated Medved even when he was the 2nd string replacement co-host (along with Jeffrey Lyons) of the post-Siskel & Ebert Sneak Previews.
I’m not a violent person, but some people you just want to kick.
Right after Bush’s infamous “Mission Accomplished” speech, Hunter took great offense with the U.S. military being used as the Hulk’s primary punching bag in Ang Lee’s flick.
Medved is the nelliest “heterosexual” this side of Ted Haggard. Watching him mince and flounce as he rants about the “gay agenda” is both hilarious and depressing at the same time. Has he ever actually seen videotape of himself?
what role with this putz play when Rupes takes over the Wall Street Journal?
This John Podhoretz genius is pretty much out of his freakin’ mind.
A late work like “From The Lives of Marionettes” seems like the work of a young radical Fassbinder rather than a guy who has nothing left to say.
Podhoretz is indeed a putz. He’s traded on being Norman’s son. Before his being hired by the Post, his biggest claim to fame was winning on “Jeopardy” where they made absolutely NO mention of his relatively known familial connection. His columns in the Post are usually ill-informed but then most of what that rag publishes is. He should not be writing about film any more than I should be writing about foreign policy.
well, the podheretz klan clearly share brain cells. hree’s normam p. on bush bombing iran:
“As an American and as a Jew, I pray with all my heart that he will.”
some prayer!
hey, my keys are fucked up, kay?
Setting aside Jeff’s political bait, I thought this was a pretty dense article. I mean, fine if you don’t get Bergman, we all are dense about some art form somewhere. But it’s silly to think he was a filmmaker for people who don’t like movies– his films are intensely alive to the minute effects of film, of cinematography and editing, and above all to performance, to the insights actors are capable of achieving with their faces and bodies.
I watch a lot of silent films and watching Wild Strawberries last night it really struck me how much Bergman had absorbed the visual lessons of silent film (which he grew up with, of course) and made films which, for all their sometime talkiness, were primarily visual; the fact is that his screenplays would often be too obvious if not for the much greater delicacy in his direction and editing and in the performances. Anyway, his movies produce joy from their artistry even when their message produces despair.
Who needs Bergman when you’ve got Ron Howard?
“The upcoming Cinderella Man, starring Russell Crowe and directed by Ron Howard, is a thrilling piece of work. No, more than thrilling. I left the screening room this afternoon exhilarated, moved, excited, stirred and overwhelmed, convinced that Cinderella Man is one of the best movies ever made… It’s a terrific Depression melodrama, but it’s not merely a Depression melodrama. It’s a sterling biopic, but it’s not a standard-issue biopic. It’s, rather, the story of a family man and a portrait of a good marriage — and it’s the depiction of these simple phenomena that makes Cinderella Man so wonderfully powerful. Howard has become his generation’s answer to William Wyler — a classic cinematic storyteller who can work wonders in any genre. As for Russell Crowe, there’s almost no superlative that wouldn’t be appropriate. Crowe hasn’t made a full-on comedy yet. If it turns out he can do that too, Russell Crowe will then have proved himself unquestionably the greatest screen actor not only of our time, but probably of all time.”
–John Podhoretz
If only Ingmar Bergman could have depicted life with the delicate complexity of Ron Howard.
Vomit.
“Medved is the nelliest “heterosexual” this side of Ted Haggard. Watching him mince and flounce as he rants about the “gay agenda” is both hilarious and depressing at the same time. Has he ever actually seen videotape of himself?”
Yeah, Michael Medved is one of the gayest straight men I’ve seen. And that 70s-era porn star mustache of his ain’t helping his cause.
According to this article in The Independent John Podhoretz apparently thinks that “nobody was tortured in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo”. Should we really be taking his opinions on Ingmar Bergman that seriously?
I’ve always hated Medved even when he was the 2nd string replacement co-host (along with Jeffrey Lyons) of the post-Siskel & Ebert Sneak Previews.
I’m not a violent person, but some people you just want to kick.
Is this the same clown named Podhertz that James Woolcott is always poking holes in?
“Quick — name me a conservative, three-piece-suit-wearing critic who has truly interesting things to say about movies and/or knows what he or she is talking about (except for Michael Medved). By this I mean a critic who really gets what’s going on with this or that new or classic film, and isn’t using film criticism as a podium by which to push some right-wing, family-values, Jesus-loves-you agenda.”
James Bowman. As stodgy and Anton Ego-ish as one can get, but the guy can write and he’s no shill. http://www.jamesbowman.net
Here he is on the Sopranos finale:
http://www.jamesbowman.net/articleDetail.asp?pubID=1844
Setting aside Jeff’s political bait, I thought this was a pretty dense article. I mean, fine if you don’t get Bergman, we all are dense about some art form somewhere. But it’s silly to think he was a filmmaker for people who don’t like movies– his films are intensely alive to the minute effects of film, of cinematography and editing, and above all to performance, to the insights actors are capable of achieving with their faces and bodies.
I watch a lot of silent films and watching Wild Strawberries last night it really struck me how much Bergman had absorbed the visual lessons of silent film (which he grew up with, of course) and made films which, for all their sometime talkiness, were primarily visual; the fact is that his screenplays would often be too obvious if not for the much greater delicacy in his direction and editing and in the performances. Anyway, his movies produce joy from their artistry even when their message produces despair.
I agree about the 2 fascinating writers mentioned above: Steven Hunter and James Bowman. I respect both greatly and always feel well nourished after reading them.
This idiot Podhoretz is a four star clown. Dude, shut up and go see Transformers yet again.
This is more than enough time spent on a fool like this dumbbell. We’re all due back on planet Earth.
I don’t think much of Podhoretz of Medved, but the bigotry of Wells deciding that your politics qualifies you to judge films is sickening.
Art (and entertainment) exists in a realm outside politics. Politics only has a tangential relation to aesthetics. (If anything, too much politics in a film is usually a bad thing.) This is why a communist or even a Nazi can make a great film–which anyone can recognize–while the most well-meaning liberals can (and regularly do) make boring crap.
I bet nPod is kicking himself for going to print so quickly — if he would have waited a day, he could have published the same column about Antonioni by only changing a few names and dates.
Politics only has a tangential relation to aesthetics.
The politics of nPod and the rest of the National Review crowd are inextricably intertwined with their moral midgetry and lack of serious introspection about the human condition. How can you expect someone like that to have an appreciation for a filmmaker like Bergman who was all introspection, all the time?
The politics of nPod and the rest of the National Review crowd are inextricably intertwined with their moral midgetry and lack of serious introspection about the human condition.
Jeff, is this really what you wanted whooped up on your site when you went trolling with this one?
I was reading Stanley Kauffmann in the New Republic a while back, and he was reviewing some documentary about Sacco and Vanzetti which took, as an article of liberal faith, the innocence of these two martyred saints.
The only trouble is, it’s pretty much recognized now that they were, in fact, guilty. (At least Vanzetti.) And that some lefty supporters like Upton Sinclair knew this and suppressed it. Did I fling the New Republic across the room in disgust that such liberal orthodoxies are still being peddled? No, because Stanley Kauffmann is very interesting to read on movies. I hate this Internet-age politicization of everything, not just politicization but you’re-with-us-or-against-us-ism in which we all have to pick sides and enforce ideological rigidity and purity. It’s like the 50s, where your choice was either following the Moscow line or the anti-Communist line. How about thinking for yourself, seeing the good and bad in all points of view? No, that’s for pussies. Get him!
Wow, how delightfully insulting!
Apparently, no conservative can possibly have anything profound to say about film or any other art form. Thanks for letting me know, Jeff! I’ve been wasting my time watching these movies.
Of course I’d be even more insulted if I thought Jeff’s and my definitions of “conservative” bore any resemblance to each other.
Seriously, though, the irony of Jeff close-mindedly dismissing any conservative film critic because of their inherent close-mindedness can’t be lost on him or anyone else, can it?
A little off-topic, but Yahoo! News is reporting that AtTheMovies.com will soon be posting virtually every Ebert & Siskel/Roeper film review of the past 20 years. That is some accomplishment.
I don’t know exactly which reviews will be posted because I lost track of the show when it went syndicated in the 90s, but there were some great donnybrooks back in the day. If it’s on there, make sure to try to find the review for Bring Out Your Handkerchiefs. One of them (I think it was Siskel) thought it was the best movie of the year. The other literally said the print should be made into ukulele picks.
>>The only trouble is, it’s pretty much
>> recognized now that they were, in fact,
>> guilty. (At least Vanzetti.) And that some
>>lefty supporters like Upton Sinclair knew this
>>and suppressed it.
Wow. What a delightfully imaginative reading of the facts. And I like the way you say “they were, in fact, guilty” and then add the (qualifying parenthetical, which btw is wrong). Actually, it’s SACCO whose guilt has been alleged by a number of people. Nothing has yet been proven, but it should be also noted that everyone who has alleged Sacco’s guilt has also alleged Vanzetti’s innocence. Some “they.”
Yep, citing Sacco and Vanzetti is pretty rich. Their trial was one of the most corrupt trials in our country’s history, influenced by the anti-Italian and anti-immigrant sentiments that were popular at the time (replace “Italian” with “Mexican” and you can make a very easy analogy for today’s political climate). From coerced testimony, to corrupt jury members (including the foreman), missing and corrupted evidence, as well as a judge who was predisposed against the defendants (calling them “anarchist bastards” and that he would “get them good and proper”), their trial was a mess and certainly proved no guilt. Claiming it is a fact that they were guilty based on that trial is like saying OJ is innocent based on his.
The politics of nPod and the rest of the National Review crowd are inextricably intertwined with their moral midgetry and lack of serious introspection about the human condition.
Jeff, is this really what you wanted whooped up on your site when you went trolling with this one?
I was reading Stanley Kauffmann in the New Republic a while back, and he was reviewing some documentary about Sacco and Vanzetti which took, as an article of liberal faith, the innocence of these two martyred saints.
The only trouble is, it’s pretty much recognized now that they were, in fact, guilty. (At least Vanzetti.) And that some lefty supporters like Upton Sinclair knew this and suppressed it. Did I fling the New Republic across the room in disgust that such liberal orthodoxies are still being peddled? No, because Stanley Kauffmann is very interesting to read on movies. I hate this Internet-age politicization of everything, not just politicization but you’re-with-us-or-against-us-ism in which we all have to pick sides and enforce ideological rigidity and purity. It’s like the 50s, where your choice was either following the Moscow line or the anti-Communist line. How about thinking for yourself, seeing the good and bad in all points of view? No, that’s for pussies. Get him!
Sometime in the mid-80s. Podhoretz wrote a cover story for the Washington Times’ Insight magazine. He said that movies were as good if not better than they ever were. I still remember one sentence very clearly. He wrote “Judge Reinhold is the closest thing to Buster Keaton that we have.”
“Judge Reinhold is the closest thing to Buster Keaton that we have.”
“Judge Reinhold is the closest thing to Buster Keaton that we have.”
“Judge Reinhold is the closest thing to Buster Keaton that we have.”
“Claiming it is a fact that they were guilty based on that trial is like saying OJ is innocent based on his.”
Who claimed they were guilty based on their trial? Jump to a few conclusions without reading carefully, did we, in our overheated dudgeon?
I can’t think of anything more ridiculous than refighting the Sacco-Vanzetti case on this movie site, unless it’s refighting the Hiss case, so suffice it to say that you missed my point by a country mile– against this crude, choose-sides politicization of EVERYTHING. Which your reaction typifies, alas.
When I first read this piece I swore it was from The Onion. Politics are irrelevant, the guy is an idiot and he has no business commenting on this matter. As for conservatives, I’m proud to have Stephen Hunter as my hometown critic, even if he was responsible for SHOOTER. Isn’t Podhoretz the guy who went on Fox calling Vonnegut “irrelevant” soon after he died? He has a habit of pissing on graves before the body is cold. I have to tell you, I can’t wait until incisive and worthwhile writing like his graces the pages of Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal.
In Podhoretz’ defense, I’ll cite his take on World Trade Center. He wrote a kind but firm trashing of the movie’s sentimentalism, at a time when a lot of conservatives were falling all over themselves to praise it. I also think he’s a pretty humorous writer, particularly in regard to dealing with Hollywood crap.
Plus, given it had a 70-80 tomatometer, I’m sure I can find more than a few liberal critics who failed to see through Cinderella Man. Nor do I think that having an arguable dissenting opinion centering on Bergman’s depressive tendencies – I mean, imagine that! – qualifies someone for mental midgethood. I doubt he’s the only person in the world who thinks similarly, and I doubt they’re all conservatives.
In Podhoretz’ defense, I’ll cite his take on World Trade Center. He wrote a kind but firm trashing of the movie’s sentimentalism, at a time when a lot of conservatives were falling all over themselves to praise it. I also think he’s a pretty humorous writer, particularly in regard to dealing with Hollywood crap.
Plus, given it had a 70-80 tomatometer, I’m sure I can find more than a few liberal critics who failed to see through Cinderella Man. Nor do I think that having an arguable dissenting opinion centering on Bergman’s depressive tendencies – I mean, imagine that! – qualifies someone for mental midgethood. I doubt he’s the only person in the world who thinks similarly, and I doubt they’re all conservatives.
> I can’t think of anything more ridiculous than
> refighting the Sacco-Vanzetti case on this
> movie site…
Neither can I, but you should have been more careful when you brought it up. You offhandedly alleged facts where there were none, and even the ones you alleged were wrong.
I absolutely sympathize with your frustration at the polarization of everything (and I agree with you that a critic’s political shortcomings need not render them irrelevant)…but carelessly citing incorrect information doesn’t exactly help.
That said, I do think Stanley Kauffman is way overrated.
i don’t care what politics a critic has if he/she can make their point. john simon would take down the left and right in his reviews.
but if a simplistic, anti-intellectual worldview informs the opinions, then you get podhoretz.
but at least medved can admit when a film is well-made, even if he doesn’t agree with the politics.
Nevertheless, Bilge, it’s simply not true that “everyone who has alleged Sacco’s guilt has also alleged Vanzetti’s innocence.”
My post contained an example of someone of whom that’s not true, and who was one of their staunchest defenders– yet privately convinced of their guilt, it seems.
Sometime in the mid-80s. Podhoretz wrote a cover story for the Washington Times’ Insight magazine. He said that movies were as good if not better than they ever were. I still remember one sentence very clearly. He wrote “Judge Reinhold is the closest thing to Buster Keaton that we have.”
“Judge Reinhold is the closest thing to Buster Keaton that we have.”
“Judge Reinhold is the closest thing to Buster Keaton that we have.”
“Judge Reinhold is the closest thing to Buster Keaton that we have.”
“Claiming it is a fact that they were guilty based on that trial is like saying OJ is innocent based on his.”
Who claimed they were guilty based on their trial? Jump to a few conclusions without reading carefully, did we, in our overheated dudgeon?
I can’t think of anything more ridiculous than refighting the Sacco-Vanzetti case on this movie site, unless it’s refighting the Hiss case, so suffice it to say that you missed my point by a country mile– against this crude, choose-sides politicization of EVERYTHING. Which your reaction typifies, alas.
>>My post contained an example of someone of whom
>>that’s not true, and who was one of their
>>staunchest defenders– yet privately convinced
>>of their guilt, it seems.
If you’re talking about Upton Sinclair, you should know that you don’t quite have the entire story. Sinclair talked to their lawyer, who privately confided to Sinclair that the men were guilty. Then Sinclair learned that the lawyer himself was not entirely a trustworthy person, that he had had a substance abuse problem, and that the men themselves had not told the lawyer anything. (Also, what the lawyer was saying was not based on any kind of actual, y’know, evidence.) It’s true that Sinclair walked away from the experience greatly troubled and conflicted, but he was by no means convinced of their guilt.
Nevertheless, some evidence (mainly ballistics) has emerged in the ensuing years to suggest that Sacco *may* have been guilty. But there’s still almost nothing to suggest Vanzetti was.
Never mind the fact that, with the kind of evidence on hand, if this case were being tried today, it would probably be tossed out of court.
Nevertheless, Bilge, it’s simply not true that “everyone who has alleged Sacco’s guilt has also alleged Vanzetti’s innocence.”
My post contained an example of someone of whom that’s not true, and who was one of their staunchest defenders– yet privately convinced of their guilt, it seems.
Well, gee, then I guess that’s a little more than “none” in the way of facts in my original post, too– even if you disagree with the conclusion I came to.
I don’t mean to harp on this, but I can’t stand this creeping DZ-itis that seems to be coming from every direction, assuming bad faith on the part of others as a matter of course and attributing personal responsibility for all the evil in the world to anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest. Especially when its scorched-earth nitpickiness is about something so tangential to the main point, as here. It’s wearying.
Well, gee, then I guess that’s a little more than “none” in the way of facts in my original post, too– even if you disagree with the conclusion I came to.
I don’t mean to harp on this, but I can’t stand this creeping DZ-itis that seems to be coming from every direction, assuming bad faith on the part of others as a matter of course and attributing personal responsibility for all the evil in the world to anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest. Especially when its scorched-earth nitpickiness is about something so tangential to the main point, as here. It’s wearying.
Jon Swift gets the final word:
“Jack Warner once said that he judged movies by whether his ass shifted in the seat while he was watching them and Podhoretz has been judging movies by his ass for years. Antonioni’s L’Avventura is “disastrous fare,” he says. West Side Story is “an unintentional laff riot.” (Only elitists spell words correctly.) Raging Bull is “the most unpleasant American movie” and “torture to sit through.” Vertigo is “silly.” The Searchers is “a turgid, wooden, boring and weird movie.” 2001: A Space Odyssey is “a crashing bore.” On the other hand Podhoretz is a big fan of Road House, Phantom Menace and Cinderella Man.”
http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2007/08/antonioni-and-bergman-bite-dust.html
“I can’t think of anything more ridiculous than refighting the Sacco-Vanzetti case on this movie site, unless it’s refighting the Hiss case, so suffice it to say that you missed my point by a country mile– against this crude, choose-sides politicization of EVERYTHING.”
You can’t think of anything more ridiculous, yet you said this in your original post:
“The only trouble is, it’s pretty much recognized now that they were, in fact, guilty.”
The only trouble is, that statement is pretty much nonsense. If you don’t want to re-fight the Sacco-Vanzetti case on a movie site, then maybe you shouldn’t bring it up and then make false statements of “fact” in reference to it.
Jon Swift gets the final word:
“Jack Warner once said that he judged movies by whether his ass shifted in the seat while he was watching them and Podhoretz has been judging movies by his ass for years. Antonioni’s L’Avventura is “disastrous fare,” he says. West Side Story is “an unintentional laff riot.” (Only elitists spell words correctly.) Raging Bull is “the most unpleasant American movie” and “torture to sit through.” Vertigo is “silly.” The Searchers is “a turgid, wooden, boring and weird movie.” 2001: A Space Odyssey is “a crashing bore.” On the other hand Podhoretz is a big fan of Road House, Phantom Menace and Cinderella Man.”
http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2007/08/antonioni-and-bergman-bite-dust.html
I want all of the pencil-necked geeks who debated Sacco and Vanzetti to post their addresses on this thread so I can send them nice silk bowties from J. Press.
Sounds great! Send mine to:
129 Dead Italian Anarchist Lane
Suck-It-Trebek, Canada
Oh, and be sure to make it a small (you know, for my pencil-neck and all)
Thanks!
i’ve always liked the theme song “Sacco and Vanzetti” by joan baez and ennio morricone.
I want all of the pencil-necked geeks who debated Sacco and Vanzetti to post their addresses on this thread so I can send them nice silk bowties from J. Press.
“On the other hand Podhoretz is a big fan of Road House”
Well then clearly he’s not all bad. I take back everything I said about him. Seems kind of like a double standard though. Rowdy Herrington is surely the Berman of our age.
ados.jhtml?schid=12&search_type=internet&query=site:gugara.com/+gyno+bizarre+fetish+p”>gyno+bizarre+fetish+p
nancy+bizarre+fetish+forum+sick+incest
fetish+incest+nancy+bizarre+forum
nancy+fetish+forum+sick+bizarre+pervert
lesbian+tongue+fetish
fetish+foot+lesbians
lesbians+fetish
lesbians+fetish+foot
foot+fetish+lesbians
legs+fetish+lesbians
fetish+pied
pied+fetish
gay+fetish+pied
esclave+odeur+pied+fetish
sentir+odeur+fetish+pied
pied+fetish+asiatique
fille+fetish+pied
lecher+pied+nu+fetish
obligation+respirer+pied+fetish
pied+fetish+link
pied+fetish+photo
fetish+pied+femme
pied+femme+fetish
riding+boots+fetish
fetish+anna
fetish+film+video
film+xxxl+fetish
film+fetish
fetish+pretty+foot+porn
soiree+fetish+paris
trans+fetish+paris
fetish+in+paris
fetish+medical+paris
fetish+and+medical+and+paris
leather+fetish
fetish+and+leather
fetish+leather+boots
leather+fetish+gay
leather+fetish+glove
barbie+satin+fetish+leather+shemale+domina.com
fetish+n+leather
fetish+slave+femdom+young
fetish+slave+femdom+galerie
femdom+fetish
fetish+hotel+femdom
fetish+gay+medical+exam
medical+fetish+gay
ass+asshole+dildo
dildo+ass+dick+pussy
ass+dildo+mature
huge+dildo+in+ass
ass+dildo+fisting
black+dildo+ass
dildo+in+my+ass
double+dildo+ass
mature+dildo+ass
dildo+ass
huge+dildo+ass
big+ass+dildo
dildo+in+ass
brutal+dildo+ass
black+big+ass+dildo
big+dildo+ass
dildo+in+her+ass
dildo+ass+ebony
extreme+dildo+ass
shemale+ass+dildo
massive+dildo+ass
huge+dildo+her+ass
http://search.jubii.dk/cgi-bin/pursuit?cat=loc&query=site:tage
y=site:tagebuch.aol.de+mec+gay+gratuit
mec+gay+sexe
beau+mec+gay+gratuit
gay+poilu+bear+mec
mec+des+cite+gay
mec+muscle+gay
mec+a+poil+gay
photo+gay+mec
photo+gratuite+des+mec+gay
photo+penis+beau+mec+gay
video+beau+mec+gay+x
beau+mec+gay+video+x
gay+chat+chat+rencontre+mec+mec
jeune+mec+gay+normandie
mec+gay+muscle
mec+bi+gay
photo+beau+mec+nu+gay
photo+de+mec+gay+nu
gay+mec+lyon
hard+mec+gay
mec+poilu+gay
image+mec+gay+nu
photo+beau+mec+gay+nu
photo+mec+bite+gay
mec+gay+video+jour
mec+nu+porno+gay
mec+x+plaisir+gay
video+gay+mec
blog+gay+mec+nu
jeune+mec+gay+photo+nu
sex+mec+gay
beau+mec+gay+x
gay+apollon+beau+mec
gay+beau+mec+garcon
gay+gallery.un+mec+nu.com+homo+com.htm
mec+and+gay
mec+gay+chaud
mec+gay+video
mec+sexy+gay
photo+bo+mec+gay
photo+mec+gay+gratuit
sexe+mec+gay
video+mec+arabe+gay
gay+mec+chaud
homme+mec+gay
image+de+mec+gay
mec+baskets+gay
mec+gay+nu+et+gratuit
mec+gay+poil+photo
gay+dating+site
gay+online+dating
gay+dating+service
dating+gay
gay+speed+dating
gay+and+dating
speed+dating+gay+paris
gay+men+in+ny+dating+site
gay+photo+gratuit
gay+gratuit+photo
photo+porno+gay+gratuit
photo+sexe+gay+gratuit
photo+gratuit+gay
photo+gay+nu+gratuit
gratuit+photo+gay
photo+jeune+gay+gratuit
photo+sex+gay+gratuit
photo+and+gay+and+gratuit
galerie+photo+gay+gratuit
photo+minet+gay+gratuit
photo+gay+amateur+gratuit
minet+gay+photo+gratuit
gay+photo+porno+gratuit
photo+gay+bi+gratuit
gay+nu+gratuit+photo+partouze
photo+de+gay+en+porno+gratuit
photo+gay+sexe+gratuit
photo+homme+gay+nu+gratuit
porno+gay+gratuit+photo
photo+bite+gay+gratuit
photo+x+gay+gratuit
gay+nu+photo+gratuit
gay+sex+photo+gratuit
gay+sexe+photo+gratuit
gratuit+gay+photo
photo+et+video+gay+gratuit
photo+gay+hard+gratuit
sexe+gay+photo+gratuit
gay+minet+photo+gratuit
photo+gay+gratuit+nu+minet
sexe+gay+gratuit+photo
gay+nu+photo+gratuit+jeune
photo+anus+gay+gratuit
photo+gratuit+masturbation+gay
photo+mec+gay+gratuit
porno+gay+photo+gratuit
gay+minet+photo+hard+gratuit+black
homme+gay+photo+gratuit
jeune+gay+gratuit+photo
photo+gay+xxx+gratuit
annuaire+photo+gay+gratuit
mec+gay+en+photo+gratuit
photo+gay+black+gratuit
photo+gay+imberbe+gratuit
photo+uro+gay+gratuit
de+photo+ado+gay+gratuit
photo+fellation+gay+gratuit
photo+gay+boys+gratuit
photo+gratuit+routier+gay
photo+policier+gay+gratuit
photo+video+gay+gratuit
pur+plaisir+photo+gay+gratuit
gay+gratuit+photo+bite
gay+trans+gratuit+photo+video
gay+x+photo+gratuit
photo+de+gay+militaire+gratuit
photo+homme+gay+gratuit
photo+homme+nu+gay+gratuit
photo+xxx+gay+gratuit
gay+sm+bondage+photo+gratuit
jeune+gay+minet+photo+gratuit
photo+galerie+gay+gratuit
photo+de+gay+gratuit+militaire
photo+gay+gratuit+minet
photo+hot+gratuit+gay
photo+pompier+gay+gratuit
video+et+photo+gay+gratuit
gay+photo+gratuit+porno
gay+photo+sexe+gratuit
gay+photo+video+gratuit
gay+porno+photo+gratuit
masculin+gay+photo+gratuit
photo+ado+gay+vestiere+gratuit
photo+and+gratuit+and+gay
photo+couple+gay+gratuit
photo+gay+uniforme+gratuit
photo+gay+xx+gratuit
photo+gratuit+jeune+gay
photo+pied+gay+sexe+gratuit
sex+gay+photo+gratuit
beau+gay+photo+gratuit
bite+gay+photo+gratuit
galerie+photo+gay+gratuit+gay+sportif
gay+europeen+photo+gratuit
gay+mec+photo+gratuit
gay+nu+photo+gratuit+jeune+ado
gay+sexe+gratuit+photo
gay+skets+photo+gratuit
jeune+gay+photo+gratuit
masturbation+photo+gay+gratuit
mec+nu+gay+photo+gratuit
minet+gay+amateur+photo+gratuit
photo+chubby+gay+gratuit
photo+gay+blond+gratuit
photo+gay+gratuit+pipe
photo+gay+gratuit+sodomie
photo+gratuit+minet+gay
chat+gay
chat+gay+gratuit
gay+gay+lesbienne+rencontre+chat+homme+mec+homo+homosexuel+annonces+rencontre+dialogue
chat+gay+fr
chat+gay+en+francais
chat+room+gay
chat+room+gay+gratuite
chat+entre+gay
chat+gratuit+gay
gay+sex+chat
chat+gay+kelma
chat+gay+direct
chat+ado+gay
chat+sm+gay
chat+cite+gay
gay+chat+gratuit
gay+chat+rooms
chat+and+gay
chat+gay+suisse
chat+rencontre+gay
chat+and+gay+and+gratuit
chat+webcam+gay
chat+gay+france
chat+beur+gay
chat+gay+webcam
chat+gay+beur
chat+gay+cam
gay+chat+fr
chat+gay+belgique
chat+gay+paris
chat+gay+sans+inscription
chat+cam+gay
chat+gay+ado
chat+gay+gratuit+sans+inscription
beur+gay+chat
gay+cam+chat
chat+gay+avec+cam
chat+webcam+gay+gratuit
chat+gay+guy
salon+de+chat+gay
rencontre+gay+chat
gay+webcam+chat+gratuit
chat+gay+cul
t+chat+gay+sm
chat+gay+en+webcam+gratuit
free+chat+gay
gay+chat+chat+rencontre+mec+mec
rencontre+chat+gay
chat+gay+jeune
chat+gay+region
chat+rencontre+gay+gratuit
chat+black+gay
cite+gay+chat
kelma+chat+gay
chat+gay+lille
gay+beur+chat
chat+direct+gay
gay+chat+uk
mariage+gay+chat+belgique
webcam+chat+gay
chat+free+gay
chat+gay+arabe
chat+gay+gratuite
chat+gay+rencontre
liens+chat+gay
chat+gay+rencontre+gratuit
chat+sexe+gay
free+gay+chat
gay+chat+cam+gratuit
latin+chat+contactos+gay
chat+and+gay+and+webcam
chat+cam+gay+gratuit
chat+gay+ado+oise
chat+gay+avec+webcam
chat+gay+black
chat+gay+gratuit+france+rennes+ca
chat+gay+maroc
chat+gay+rebeu
gay+and+chat
gay+bear+chat
gay+chat+belgique
gay+france+chat+rencontre
cam+gay+chat
chat+gay+americain
chat+gay+avec+photo
chat+gay+black+beurre
chat+gay+pour+mineur
chat+gay+sex+gratuit
chat+sms+gay
gay+jh+chat
boy+chat+cam+gay+branle
chat+and+gay+and+francais
chat+bdsm+gay
chat+gay+berlin
chat+gay+bretagne
chat+gay+ch
chat+gay+cybermen
chat+gay+gratuit+beur
chat+gay+hard
gay+men+in+ny+dating+site
cum+gay
porn+cum+gay
cum+cock+gay
gay+cum+eating
gay+cum+face
gay+eat+cum
gay+ass+cum
gay+cum+shot
young+gay+cum
gay+boy+cum
gay+face+cum
cum+black+gay
gay+swallow+cum
cum+for+gay
gay+cum+swallow
ass+cum+gay
cum+face+gay
gay+oral+cum
gay+cum+amateur
big+cum+gay
eat+cum+gay
gay+facial+cum
gay+cum+party
gay+hunk+cum
gay+love+cum
gay+cum+boys
gay+suck+cum
gay+cum+shower
cum+mouth+gay
free+gay+movies+cum
gay+cum+in+mouth
gay+cum+suck
gay+black+cum
gay+cum+mouth
gay+russian+twink+cock+cum
cum+shower+gay
gay+cum+fetish
cum+bear+gay
cum+eating+gay
gay+cum+eat
gay+ohboys+cum