I just watched this strange tale about a French dysfunctional family, and while parts of it were alternately funny or fascinating, and some of the actors were impossible to ignore, the movie left me both puzzled and annoyed. What was the point of the score's use of Mendelsohn's incidental music to "A Midsummer's Night's Dream"--and Paul's viewing the famed Max Reinhardt film of that play on TV? Of course I caught the quote from Puck at the end of ACT, but the shadows haven't offended, they've just puzzled.

More importantly, the family is split in part because Elizabeth has "banished" her brother Henri but there is never any real understanding of why she did it. Ivan says there was some "insupportable" letter Henri wrote her, and we even see her give Henri a letter addressed to her, as his Xmas present, but not letting us know what the truth is here felt like cheating the audience. If the point is that, well, families are irrational, so what? Even knowing French didn't make this movie less opaque.

It's not just literary fiction that will suffer in the current climate. Writers are being dropped who aren't writing literary fiction. Uncertainty and panic aren't good for any industry--and yes, publishing is an industry. Maybe it's Victorian roots have been dressed up with digital book reading devices, but it's still a business. One that was doing much better before entertainment companies et al. starting buying up firms and imprints to turn fantasy profits.

I am already beyond sick of hearing what a nice guy Rick Warren is--even from Juan Cole, who should know better. The man is an ideologue and a bigot, no matter what good works he does in the world and how much he says he likes gays or Muslims or puppies. He is a hate-monger, plain and simple. Stop making excuses for him! He degrades gay relationships by comparing them to incest and pedophilia. Just as bad in my book is his anti-choice stance which he buttresses with obscene references to the Holocaust. Each time he does so, he cheapens and demeans the murder of millions of people.

As for the blogger, this is simply idiotic:

"the word marriage is a religious, holy, word that people who go to church on sundays are told belongs to them. like yamaka, menorah, or matzo."

1) Marriage is a secular institution as well as a religious one.

2) There is absolutely nothing sacred or holy about matzah, yarmulkahs or a menorah.

3) If matzoh belongs to people going to church on Sundays, I quit doing Pesach.

How dare salon devote so much time to the plebian pie? How anti-intellectual. I demand matching space given to the neglected petit four.

How about rage? Rage at seeing one's country illegally invaded, ripped apart, sectarian violence encouraged, oil plundered, fortress-style permanent bases planted there, sovereignty mocked, at least tens of thousands killed and many more turned into refugees, not to mention the ancient culture of Babylon--an international treasure--plundered and ruined.

"Understand the frustration" has got to be one of the most mealy-mouthed responses in the last 24 hours, as bad as Chris Matthews chuckling about how "nimbly" the president ducked. He admires the guy!

So we either lionize the shoe thrower or condemn him?

What about acknowledging that this is the closest Bush has come to raw criticism in eight years? That he's insulated himself more than any other president (with "free speech" zones, for instance). That he still disavows any role in the disasters he's created here and abroad?

I'm not happy that anyone is throwing shoes at an American president, but I'm more ashamed of the fact that he has single-handedly brought us to a new low in international esteem; that he has shown contempt for the Constitution he swore to protect; that he has filled the government with unqualified appointees who have wreaked havoc in their bailiwicks; that when he travels abroad he acts in ways that demean the presidency and our country; that when he speaks at home with his ever-present backdrop of soldiers, he fosters a disgusting cult of militarism completely antithetical to what the Founders imagined in a chief executive.