Of course political art doesn’t ”have to be didactic and uninvolving”. But it can be. Why not? A wake-up call to get off the pot and actually engage in the world maybe sometimes needs to come in the form of a bludgeon.

I was deeply moved by this movie. It was didactic, yes. Uninvolving, definitely not. I didn’t care for Redford’s performance at all. He had too much of a twinkle in those bright blue eyes, and he seemed too self-aware – almost as if he too was embarrassed by his earnest preaching movie. But good for him that he made it anyway. The university scenes between Redford’s professor and his privileged and promising but coasting-on-his-laurels student were kinda hokey, but rendered very powerful in contrast to the scenes of his previous students – hard-working, minority kids who chose to forego any graduate school in the country – to put their lives on the line in Afghanistan.

Thomas Malkin said it – in this age of irony and relativism it’s considered, by privileged liberals especially, uncool and embarrassing to talk straight about truth and belief, to consider the really big questions of how one is going to use one’s gifts in the world, to “ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” Very uncool indeed.

Feel free to pan the movie. But actually go and see it before you open your mouth, and try to watch it with an honest openness to the penetrating questions it asks. And then pan away.

Didactic lines that no actor should be made to utter, visually static, extremely boring in places – maybe so. But Zacharek still finds herself thinking about it for days afterward, and so will I.

Cary is right on the money here.

I still remember my brother's wedding 6 years ago. He married a wonderful woman who grew up dirt poor in Northern Arizona, one of 21 children of polygamist parents.

She grew into a very tasteful and classy woman, and all the wedding details were just so. But what made it a wedding to remember was the generous, welcoming, open-hearted spirit of the bride and groom, which did indeed set the tone for everyone who came. It was by far the best and most beautiful wedding I'd ever been to - and everyone I talked to said the same - and none of that had anything do with the flowers, or the food, or the location. It had everything to do with the sense of celebration and gratitude and acceptance and love that was so palpable.

I hope mine someday will be that good.

My mouth is watering. I'm tempted to run out right now to Safeway and see if they've gone on sale yet! It's almost Easter after all.

I love, love, love those things, and always have. Only the originals, not the ones with the nasty carmel inside.

Why we the readers should care about somebody like Eric Schaeffer? What small corner of the world does this interview illuminate besides the eerily twisted mind of some New York asshole?

I admit to having read the whole thing, but only because I was kind of in a state of wonder at Why?

Maybe if I had ever lived in New York I would understand. But do most Salon readers live in New York? Do Salon editors suppose that the New York dating scene - all those narcissistic twisted weirdos you you drag out and pick apart brick by brick - is really all that interesting to the rest of us? Dunno, maybe it's just me.

The other comment I'd like to make is: Traister, you're a very sharp interviewer and an engaging writer. A whole lot of talent is going to waste on these ridiculous male vs. female topics you're always going on about. I don't know how great your shoe collection is, but you're way smarter than Carrie Bradshaw. You should get real.

Someone made the observation around here once - and I hadn't noticed it before - that women writers on Salon are subject to the nastiest and most vituperative feedback on their writing.

Granted, the work of Traister and Waldeman are not my cup of chai, but I will read ANYTHING by Joan Walsh, even an article about a neurotic psuedo-stay-at-home mom.

As a former newspaper reporter I have to say: Joan rocks, people! I miss seeing more of her writing now that she's the Big Cheese, but I think she's one of the most insightful, sober, balanced, sane and interesting journalists in this country and her editorship is a big reason why I trust Salon as a publication much more than most.

I'm not sucking up or anything, I'm just sayin'....

Can't folks stick to attacking the argument? Why get so personal? Sheesh.