The '80s rock star thing was meant to be sardonic. But also categorically correct. It was in the '80s that Strummer became exactly what he didn't want to become, a Jagger-esque rock star. The tail end of that experience sent him into a decade-long depression, as the film (which is, again, really great) makes clear.

For what it's worth, I saw the Clash play. In 1978. Twice. I still have an autographed single of "White Man in Hammersmith Palais" somewhere. So mellow out already.

Hey rhenley etc.,

You know, I wish I had seen "The Devil Came on Horseback." Everybody I talked to at Sundance who had seen it said it was amazing. At every film festival there's stuff you should have gotten to and just didn't, and Sundance this year had many films that fall into that category. That one's high on my list, and I hope to catch up to it soon. And yes, definitely, my uninformed opinion is that Western governments and the Western media have done little to help the people of Darfur.

On "Black Snake," well, I've said my piece and I don't think any context I can add is likely to change anybody's mind, sight unseen. But quoting my own words back at me as if they exposed some kind of irony is kind of dumb. Obviously my point was that Brewer is playing with the most outrageous, apparently misogynistic imagery. (Among other kinds of outrageousness.) Whether you think he successfully subverts or inverts them, or just finds a self-congratulatory way of repurposing them, is up to you. But at least see the film before you draw conclusions.

To whoever it was who said Brewer should just admit he's an "exploitation" filmmaker (whatever that means), I don't think there's some big secret to reveal. I didn't transcribe his remarks verbatim on Wednesday night, but what I recall him saying from the stage of Eccles was that his principal inspiration for "Black Snake" came from "Southern mythology" and "the drive-in, exploitation thing." He also said that he and Christina Ricci spent a long time looking at various brands of chains and padlocks, to identify ones with the right "aesthetic."

As to the definition of independent film, the industry standard is to follow the money. The financing for "Black Snake" came from independent producers (most notably John Singleton, director of "Boyz n the Hood," "Shaft," etc.), meaning it did not come from the coffers of one of the six major studios. Paramount Vantage acquired distribution rights to the film at some point between initial financing and right now, but they didn't make it. I realize that that explanation does not please everyone, and it may in certain respects be outdated. But it has the virtue of clarity and comprehensibility, and otherwise you're making a Potter Stewart judgment call about any and every film.

It has been suggested that no film with a budget above $10 million can be regarded as independent, no matter whose money it is. I doubt in practice that that "rule" would work much better. But then what? Do you give a cost-of-living increase, so that the number becomes $12 million in 2012, or what? My attitude is generally that some movies are clearly indies, based on the totality of their circumstances ("Old Joy" and even "Half Nelson"), others are clearly not, and there's a universe of gray area, which includes "Black Snake" and "Crash" and "Good Night, and Good Luck" (a Warner Bros. studio film) and a whole lot of other things.

It is very much on Ralph's side re 2000, essentially makes the point that Gore lost a winnable election. (Doesn't mention that Gore may have lost an election he actually won, but maybe that's implied.) Nader-haters like Gitlin, Alterman, et al. are included in the film in the interest of fairness, not b/c the filmmakers agree with them. The woman who co-directed the film used to work for Ralph, and in the final analysis it's a love letter & attempt to redeem his reputation.