Goodness, I wasn't aware I had run over anybody's kitten in the column this week.

I appreciate your defense of my honor, though, Elisabeth! And in answer to your very fine question, obviously the Best Picture nominees are very much found Within the Multiplex. Arguably I should just leave that stuff alone. But "Good Night, and Good Luck," "Brokeback Mountain" and "Capote" are all, in some technical sense, independent films. Is that meaningless? Yeah, pretty much so. But still true. (I'm not even sure "Crash" is technically a studio film. I haven't seen it, and can't tell you offhand who produced or distributed it.)

I do want to add a clarification about "Darwin's Nightmare," which was indeed not among the 200 or so films I have seen in the past year. The criticism I referred to has come from environmental activists and aid workers, not primarily from film critics, and I could have said that. As originally written, the paragraph also seemed to imply that I thought it, and "Street Fight," were less worthy of nomination than Werner Herzog's films. Although I'm inclined to suspect that's true, it wasn't what I meant to say, and we've edited the passage to make that clearer.

As to "Brokeback," it's been reviewed by Salon, and it's not my job to revisit or question Stephanie's review (which is as well argued and well written as all her stuff -- hey, I used to be her editor!). Do I believe it would speak well of Hollywood to give its biggest award to this particular picture? Essentially the answer is yes, and I pretty much said that. But since I haven't seen all the Best Picture nominees, I don't have an informed opinion about what film should win on aesthetic grounds. Nor, frankly, do I find that question all that relevant. The Oscars are an important marketing tool for the film biz, and they do possess social significance. But any relationship between those statuettes and good movies is pretty much accidental IMHO.

Appreciate the comments, folks, even those from the discontented customers.

Just a couple of points of clarification: We tweaked the cover type on this piece on Thurs AM because I felt the term "indie cred" was a little misleading. (Cover type is almost always written by editors, not the authors of the stories in question.) The point was largely that Sundance, and the indie-film industry in general, seems to have lost the power to influence the culture beyond the hardest core of film fans. At least when it comes to dramatic feature films. As I could perhaps have discussed more clearly in the article, I see the big documentary wave as something else, driven by larger social and political forces. "Why We Fight" is a pretty good film, but it's just not appealing to the same nerve endings, or quite the same audience, as "Being John Malkovich."

For the reader who thought "Oldboy" was great, or the other one who Netflixed "The Woodsman" and told all his friends about it -- all I can say is, Hey, cool! Liking adventurous movies, and seeking them out, is what this column is all about. Does it matter that 99 of 100 people in America have never heard of either film? Well, it matters in some way. You can decide you don't care about that. And given today's technology I can watch almost anything I want anytime I want. But it does have ramifications: On the micro scale, it effects whether that filmmaker can keep working, and what kind of distribution s/he will get. On the macro scale, it contributes to a climate of Global Entertainment Warming, in which the globe is increasingly dominated by homogeneous products of the Fun Industry.

Sundance has settled into hosting three kinds of films: earnest documentaries (the heart of the festival now, in many ways); arty little films that hardly anyone will end up seeing; and near-Hollywood product that's just there to generate buzz. None of that's a crime, mind you, and all other festivals, from SXSW to Tribeca to Cannes, are largely in the same boat. But, well, isn't that kind of too bad?

Oh, and for the record, I haven't even seen "King Kong."

I can assure all of you that it won't be difficult to see "Why We Fight," wherever you live. It's being distributed by Sony Classics, which may be an indication of how mainstream this kind of discussion has become. I was incorrect in stating that it will open "nationwide" on Friday (Jan. 20), but it will definitely open that day in New York and L.A., with a national rollout scheduled for Feb. 10. I'll correct the story accordingly.

It may indeed be possible to download the film, but then again, it's also possible to download "Batman Begins" or "King Kong." That doesn't make it legal or (at least in this case) defensible.

and Ewan, I know the Irish team's failure was a bitter pill, I felt it myself. But listen, the US team's advance to the quarterfinals was actually big news in heartland America. I heard people talking about the Mexico game in the Pittsburgh airport (this was a day or so later), and from the conversation it was clear they weren't hardcore soccer fans. I think there's been much less soccer-bashing in the US media since then. A lot more Americans, even if they're primarily baseball or (gridiron) football fans, are neutral toward soccer or even somewhat OK with it. I know, that's a long way from the insane passion of the UK or Ireland (or almost anywhere else) at WC time. But it's what we've got to work with.

PS Baseball is not exactly a knockoff of rounders. It's much older than most people think, mentioned e.g. in Jane Austen's "Northanger Abbey," wch was written in 1798. A kids' game until taken up in rural 19th c. America as "town ball."