All I can say to Lev R. and the other anti-Christmas Tale poster is that tastes vary. I don't mean that as a diplomatic copout. To me, comparing Christmas Tale to A Secret isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. They're totally different kinds of works, with totally different aims. Someone who loves one probably won't love the other. Certainly true for me and apparently for you too, Lev.

Klytus: Don't worry, Waltz With Bashir will get there. I don't know the N.O. art-house scene, but this is a Sony Classics release which only just opened in NY/LA on 12/26. They operate a very old-school platform release which will take the film to SF/Chi/DC next, then to the top 10 markets, and then the top 25. It'll get there, and then they'll have the Sony DVD ready to go by about May 15.

on Gomorrah: I saw it at Cannes and totally loved it. Close to Xmas Tale for the movie of the festival. But I restrict this list to 2008 theatrical releases; I don't think it makes sense to include festival-only movies seen by zero regular moviegoers. Gomorrah's theatrical release is on the way, in March I think, and I'd be very surprised if it didn't make my '09 list.

Thanks for the thoughtful responses, everybody.

Well, thanks for reading and I'm glad you let us know how you feel and all that. But you haven't seen the film, have you?

1. The "actors" in the film are all members of Chihuahua's Mennonite community. No one held a gun to their heads, and they were paid very little, if anything. Evidently they decided to make the film for reasons of their own.

2. The film isn't about the purity of their Luddite lifestyle. That's never discussed and simply isn't the subject matter. The story is about a troubled marriage and an adulterous love affair, and it could be happening in any other social context you care to name. Yes, the specific religious and social context of this story plays a role, along with the physical environment. It's not a Mennonites-vs-world story.

3. In fact, they don't have a Luddite lifestyle. The people in the film live relatively simply, but they seem to use motor vehicles and electricity, for instance.

4. Nobody's going to make any money off "Silent Light," and compared to any mainstream film and most independent films, its audience is going to be very small and not especially "hip." Trust me on this. No hordes of tattooed PBR drinkers gawking at the folks who wear funny clothes and talk funny German, I promise.

I recognize that this movie has touched a very sensitive nerve with you, sight unseen. But as you yourself admit in your last post, your problem with this movie is not really with this movie. You haven't seen it, you won't see it, you propose that you know what's best for the Old Colony Mennonites better than they do themselves, and the underlying issue is that you reject the entire mission and agenda of contemporary art, especially in its "postmodern" incarnations. You don't see any possibility that a filmmaker could enter the Mennonite community and gain its trust, for example, without causing grave damage.

I further recognize, in all sincerity, that you see me as a representative of the smarmy and diseased Zeitgeist you so despise. (And yes, I am impressed by your range of references.) But without knowing much about the specifics, I'm going to guess that global corporate capitalism, the stultifying effects of mass culture, the widening global disparity between rich and poor and the fallout of the current economic crisis pose bigger problems for the Old Colony Mennonites than a Mexican art-film director whose movie will be seen by, to guess wildly high, an American audience of 20,000 people.

It's not that there aren't some philosophically valid debating points in the issues you raise. There are. But what comes through loudest, as you are perhaps aware, is an exaggerated and generalized anger that overwhelms the points you're trying to make and has nothing to do with Carlos Reygadas or his film.

I really appreciated the response from the reader who was involved with the production, btw. Fascinating stuff. The Internet is so great. Sometimes.

Thomas Kuhn's book on scientific revolutions is cited by Johnson on numerous occasions, and is clearly one of the touchstones for this work. Arguably I should have mentioned that, but I didn't.

I'll fix the reference to Scheele. I think Johnson identifies him as Danish, but will double-check.

On the question of whether Johnson is treating Priestley anachronistically (or I am), well, maybe. As I hope the review makes clear, Johnson sees Priestley's role in the prehistory of ecosystem science (so to speak) as his primary accomplishment. He does indeed try to give ample weight to Priestley's work in theology and political theory, and marvels that one man could have been on the radical forefront of such diverse fields.

I think he's pretty clear, though, that Priestley was a man of his time, and not a modern ahead of his time. I mean, who have we got today who's a leading clergyman and theologian, an important scientist and a political revolutionary? It doesn't happen and almost couldn't happen. It's a very 18th century thing.

As far as the comment about Priestley's career being a career of "almosts," I think that's very astute. Johnson is such a sunny character, so interested in reclaiming Priestley as a key figure of Enlightenment science and the early years of the American republic, that he downplays the peculiar, not entirely successful aura that seemed to surround this remarkable person. It was Ben Franklin, after all, who glimpsed the vast implications of Priestley's mint-plus-mouse discovery. There's no clear indication that Priestley himself saw it in such broad and systemic terms.