I'm always trying to do both, frankly. That is, talk about what I (and others) really liked and also think about the business end a little. Can that create some awkwardness? Sure it can. But that awkwardness is built into Cannes (and most other festivals) to some extent. Cannes has always been both a marketplace and a celebration of cinema, a trade show for the most media-friendly versions of movie glamour and also for completely uncompromising art film.

Talking about the market does not equate to approving of all its choices. I think most of us who do this for a living would like to change the film market, at least a little bit, or subtly. Emir Kusturica talked about this this morning, very movingly, at the press conference for "Promise Me This" (which is as crazy as I thought it would be, like an ultraviolent Three Stooges comedy made in Serbia). He talked about trying to recapture the spirit of American and European cinema of the '70s and '80s, when people looked to films to tackle existential, social and political questions. Borrowing a phrase from Naomi Klein, he said that the pop-culture market has made us all "global teenagers" whose only job is to "enjoy."

"But what happens to films that are about outsiders, losers, the heroes from Chekhov? They just cease to exist. To enjoy -- I'm not against it. But cinema has to include the vital aspects of human life." He said that to the extent movies had become industrialized, they were dying as an art form, but that he hoped cinema could "use technology to make a bigger human impact." The press room broke into spontaneous applause.

I would suggest seeing the film and judging for yourself. As I say in the review, the filmmakers offer a mini-history of who took those photographs and where they got the fetuses. I found it pretty convincing, but as I say, make up your own mind.

If pro-choice advocates want to argue that the photos aren't legitimate, something more convincing than "I don't think they're real" is called for.

I support reproductive choice. But it's fallacious, if not mendacious, to claim that what results from abortion is just random globs of tissue that bear no resemblance to a human baby. As anyone knows who's ever seen an ultrasound image or intra-uterine photograph of a first-trimester embryo/fetus, it just isn't true.

Listen, I've already had my say, and I went into this knowing that inevitably this subject pisses people off on all sides. Given that, the letters have been fairly civil, and I appreciate that. Just a few points of clarification:

1. Although the filmmakers don't tip their hand directly and I don't know them, I would bet the ranch they are pro-choice. Whatever you may think of "Unborn in the USA," it is not a propaganda video for the anti-abortion movement.

2. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are neutral journalistic terms, the terms both sides use to describe themselves. That's why I used them, it's pretty standard.

3. When I wrote that the film would make everybody unhappy, I meant everybody, not just the presumptive majority of pro-choice liberals in Salon's audience. Many of the pro-life activists in the film are disturbing ideologues, to put it mildly. I don't think thoughtful people who oppose abortion will feel very comfortable either.

4. My own history here is not relevant, but "childless liberal male" is not accurate, I assure you.

5. As to the photos, I say again: See the film and make up your own mind. At least some of the photos seen in the film appear to have been taken by a woman named Monica Miller, an anti-abortion activist who with a group of associates scavenged fetal remains from dumpsters behind Chicago clinics in the mid-to-late '80s. Of course that doesn't rule out the possibility that others are less legitimate.

It's true, originally I had "traduire en français" and that's nonsense in this context. Been fixed.

OK, but as to your point about transposition and the many English-language films set all over the world, I said exactly the same thing, no?

As to the reader who watched "Broken English," I'm glad you liked it. Seriously. All I've got to express is my own response, which is worth no more than anybody else's. Maybe I'm a cynical cuss or something, but the problem is not "life experience," trust me. If I had much more of that I'd be dead.

I definitely saw both John Carpenter's 1982 movie of Swamp Thing and that TV Doctor Strange movie. In context, I thought it was clear that I was talking about the 21st century zillion-dollar versions. The fact that there have been numerous previous films based on Superman, Batman and Spider-Man comics did not seem to inhibit the production, or popularity, of these behemoth spectacles whose budgets rival the GNP of Slovenia.

You're absolutely right. I believe it's pretty clear that Abby is Jewish, in fact. She certainly blows up when Celia Weston's character starts to preach her brand of Christianity to Joshua. (The fact that it's an interfaith marriage is just another of those perfect Upper West Side details, actually.) I'll fix it.