Hey people,

I expected at least some of this divided response, and I share it up to a point or I wouldn't have dragged Brisseau's extracurricular issues into the review.

If you see the film and respond to it as a loathsome self-justification, fair enough. But I think it's a lot more complicated than that, and from his obviously compromised position, Brisseau is trying to be as honest as he can. Plus, he's a masterful director in every technical way, and the film is a mysterious, ambiguous experience overall (as well as a semi-pornographic one). A friend and colleague of mine has made the point that Brisseau uses lighting better than almost any director in the biz, and it's true. There are a lot of truly eerie and memorable sequences in this film (with no sex).

Furthermore, to call Brisseau a "convicted sex offender" is misleading, to say the least. The offenses of which he was convicted were sexual harassment and fraud. That is, the actresses reported that he coerced them into doing nude audition tapes, and they felt they wouldn't get the parts if they refused. Under French law, that's potentially criminal behavior. In the United States, those actions probably would not constitute a crime in any jurisdiction (given that everyone involved was an adult) although they certainly might provoke an expensive civil lawsuit.

I'm not defending Brisseau's actions in any way, but "sex offender" suggests or implies that he may have molested or raped someone. As far as I know, no one has alleged that he made sexual contact (consensual or otherwise) with any of these women.

I agree that the argument that he eventually did find actresses who were willing to expose themselves, physically and psychologically -- and who were apparently fine with the resulting film -- is in itself a specious defense. (It's not totally irrelevant to judging his intentions, however.) I believe he adjusted his interview process significantly before making this film. On the shoot for "Exterminating Angels," he was apparently never alone with the young actresses. Other crew members were always present during rehearsal and shooting.

I didn't mean to say the food at the Alamo was so amazing, Austinites, what I said was that it was "decent," meaning pretty damn good for a movie theater. As for Tex-Mex, I took the wife & kids to Chuy's last night (on various recommendations) and it was awesome.

Not stupid enough to make any further comments about Michael Moore. But I totally want one of those grackle T-shirts. I want to write a book about them now.

Appreciate the feedback. It is indeed obnoxious to "berate the masses for their execrable taste," and that's exactly what I said I was not doing. Perhaps my clear prose was less than admirably clear at that moment.

Haven't seen "Blades of Glory" and have no basis for judging it or the people who liked it. Wasn't the point anyway. I do think Will Ferrell is pretty funny with the right material. Loved "Old School." Less so "Elf."

Well, you learn a little tiny bit more about writing every day you do it. What I have learned today (for about the 47th time) is that the sardonic tone is not as easy as it looks.

I fully expected a fair bit of disagreement and hostility, and as far as that goes I'd rather not simply hear a chorus of amens.

But why is it assumed that Alex Gibney or I or anyone else who is concerned about the United States' calamitous abandonment of constitutional principles and the rule of law somehow has a smoochy attitude toward wacko Islamic terrorists? I guess it's because when you're stuck with a bogus, losing argument you try to shift the terrain as much as possible. But it's pretty much the definition of a false dichotomy. The Cheney crowd got away with this rhetorical smudge for many years. Thankfully it's not quite as easy now.

We fixed the title of the Coen bros. film, thanks for noticing. When you get to see it you'll understand why I made that particular error.

On Angelina and Mariane Pearl: Pearl's version (at yesterday's press conference) is that she entrusted the role to Angelina, very much wanted her to do it, felt she was perfect. They describe each other as friends; they had a play-date in Paris with their kids before the movie was even on the table. You can ascribe these remarks to greed and puffery if you want, but Mariane Pearl is not that sort of person.

Thanks for reading.

You know, I write these Cannes pieces really fast, so I can only concede the point that this article doesn't make much sense if you don't already know what "Grindhouse" is/was. I just assumed most readers were in that category, which may not be fair. Another three sentences of context mighta done it.

Harvey W. didn't tip his hand about DVD release, but I can't believe he's dumb enough not to milk it. Surely a $40 set will be available that includes all "three" films, plus whatever extras QT and RR have lying around.

Lastly, I grew up in the Bay Area and am almost exactly QT's age. There were genuine grindhouses in both San Francisco and Oakland as late as my early 20s. I used to see triple bills at the Lux in downtown Oakland for $2: a horror film, a kung-fu film and a blaxploitation film, generally. So I don't think there's any question that QT's experience was first-hand. Late in the era, yes, but still.