Thanks to the reader who cleared the air on the Verhoevens. Michael Verhoeven is indeed German, and as far as I know not related to his more famous Dutch namesake. Given the existence of said namesake, I suppose I could have clarified.

Yes indeed, there's a good reason cigarettes are mentioned in the title of Turturro's musical, and as one reader has already mentioned, they are not glorified or romanticized. Turturro himself does not smoke.

As to the negative opinion of one reader who's seen R&C (on a plane? unbelievable!), you know, chacun a son whatever. But the last sentence of that commentary might be thrown into better perspective if it were rephrased this way: The film is bad and that's why its been playing all over the Western Hemisphere outside North America for two years.

I have absolutely no doubt that R&C could have been released profitably, on a moderate scale, by THINKfilm or Picturehouse or any of various other independent distributors. This hasn't happened partly because of the deal with the Devil that Turturro made to make the film in the first place, but also because of bad luck and bad timing (UA was acquired by Sony last year, more or less, and the film's supporters within the company vanished) and most of all because, the higher you get within the film biz, the more the people who are running things become morons who don't actually like movies.

For so eloquently saying what I am not quite qualified to say. I'm really grateful for that thoughtful and articulate response, which captures in many ways the complicated and painful spirit of Tony Kaye's film.

Now for the angry papists. Check out my last name, people! Wouldn't you speculate that I might have some connection to Catholic tradition? I am very well aware of traditional RC dogma on both the death penalty and abortion and yes, it certainly has the (theoretical) virtue of moral consistency. Pretty much the only thing I respect about Bill O'Reilly is his Catholic-motivated opposition to the death penalty. He even once asked GWB, on air, whether he believed Jesus would support capital punishment. (To his credit, Bush said probably not.)

In fairness, JP2 spoke out strongly on the death penalty and social justice for the poor, but I don't think any Catholic can deny that over the last few decades the focus of church teachings has swung steadily and inexorably toward sexual and reproductive questions. I certainly have a soft spot in my heart for Catholic Worker types, and for the classic "liberation theology" of the '60s and '70s. While I don't think the state should ever be in the business of regulating sexual activity or reproductive choice, there are certainly Catholics whose overall social view encompasses a pro-life position with clarity and consistency. I think one has to acknowledge that.

But. Isn't it funny how often the American bishops talk about the death penalty? They just yammer on and on about it and refuse to shut up about how immoral it is, don't they? And the way they refuse communion to politicians who support the execution of juveniles -- now that's principle! OK, point being it's not accurate to say that Catholics hold a consistent position on these issues, any more than other people. Recent polls suggest that American Catholics divide almost 50-50 on the death penalty, which seems to be pretty close to the general public. (Opinion on the subject has shifted rapidly in recent years, with all the publicity on wrongful convictions.) See this article:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0607423.htm

The church fathers are getting on the anti-death penalty train as it's leaving the station, but abortion and gay marriage has obsessed them in recent years, virtually to the exclusion of all other topics. And they don't talk about the death penalty much with their fundamentalist brethren in the big-tent anti-abortion movement, do they?

So that's my long-winded answer to Bryson K.: Yes, there is an enormous difference between principled opposition to abortion and the mouth-breathing creepazoids who murder doctors and blow up clinics, and I applaud your efforts to reach out beyond caricature, engage in dialogue, etc. But the 2,000 year old tradition you speak of, founded as it is on sexual exclusion and domination (and on an especially perverse division between body and spirit) is not quite the pinnacle of moral clarity you make it out to be.