I'm genuinely curious: if "just because a dog humps your leg doesn’t mean they want to have sex with you", what *does* it mean? They want to scratch their balls but their tongue isn't rough enough? Now, dogs *want* to do plenty of things you shouldn't *let* them do, but arguing that a dog humping your leg isn't acting out of a sexual impulse seems silly.

May we assume that you will no longer "associate" with any animal that has had sex with another animal?

Frankly, we (humans) do far worse things to animals (wild, farm, and pets) than have sex with them. If it's okay to castrate your male dog (and I think it is, if done humanely), why is that preferable, *from an animals-rights point of view* (as opposed to any moral impact on the human), to having sex with him?

Let’s all take a vow: I will not have sex with any being incapable of informed consent and I will not associate with anyone who does (nor will I watch movies about them).

How frightening that we walk alongside beings who’ve fallen so far off the radar of what can, even liberally, be considered acceptable human behavior. Not just that they have the (entirely perverse and wrong) desire to have sex with animals, but that they don’t have the shame/common sense/survival instinct to keep it to themselves.

But then again, someone made a movie about them. And someone in a well-known magazine wrote a review of that movie. And I, dammit, wasted an entire five minutes penning this little squawk of outrage. Perhaps the final, unthinkable perversion in this country is walk away from the spotlight, even if it’s shining directly on your stinking pile of moral vacuity.

Who could possibly be interested in watching this movie?

As a horse owner I am extremely offended by any mentions of bestiality in the media (with the exception of the man who died….) Molesting animals is on par or worse than molesting a 3 year old kid. Think how bad that is people. I have noticed that mentions of ‘zoophiles’ or whatever is now used regularly in the comedies Hollywood feeds us every year. Movies like the one at Sundance should be just as illegal as showing child porn at a film festival. Anyone who supports, finds it amusing etc. etc. is going straight to hell. And no just because a dog humps your leg doesn’t mean they want to have sex with you….I am soooo sick of that argument. What perverts people are. Yuck.

By implying that it is somehow a failure on the part of the observer to find this behavior completely sick, immoral by any standard, and calls for severe social sanction is to enable the Rick Santorum view of gay rights to have complete credibility.

The definition of prejudice most Americans would identify with is "unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group". There is nothing unreasonable about anyone finding these 'zoo people' sub-human for their actions.

Every year I read the reviews of the Sundance film festival in Salon, and every year I am mystified by their coverage. Salon always seems to focus on the location, their dislike of the weather, the celebrity trappings, and a few perverse films that do not represent the festival at all. To their credit, the "Chicago 10" was covered, but most of the ink was about films that most people would not want to see under any circumstances ("Zoo", and "Teeth").

This year the Festival is comprised of a tremendous variety of films. Sundance had 7,500 submissions and accepted 220 entries. The program directors, in their wisdom, allow a wide spectrum of subjects (and mostly good films) into the Festival.

As an avid Sundance participant, I try to see more than 25 films during the 10 days. I think it is fair to say that the Festival presents a set of films that give the viewer a wide range of emotions and educational experiences (it is not a Hollywood experience). A lot of the films will never see distribution because they are not "commercial", but this does not mean that they do not have really important messages, or represent important points of view.

In short, I think Sundance, like Salon, is a major contributor to the freedom of ideas, and I think this is the Festival's goal.

I sometimes wish Salon, in their yearly review, would "get it".

The '80s rock star thing was meant to be sardonic. But also categorically correct. It was in the '80s that Strummer became exactly what he didn't want to become, a Jagger-esque rock star. The tail end of that experience sent him into a decade-long depression, as the film (which is, again, really great) makes clear.

For what it's worth, I saw the Clash play. In 1978. Twice. I still have an autographed single of "White Man in Hammersmith Palais" somewhere. So mellow out already.

I can't imagine that being fucked by a man would be much of a thrill for a horse.

That glib, dismissive summary of Joe Strummer as a "dead 80s rock star" rankled me, too - and was even more bizarre considering how much O'Hehir actually liked the film.

It's also inaccurate. While the Clash's biggest American hits - "Rock the Casbah" and "Should I Stay Or Should I Go" came from 1982's Combat Rock, as O'Hehir himself noted - the group was more a product of the 70s punk movement than of the '80s. Their most influential record, London Calling - which regularly makes rock critics' top ten "best of all time" lists - was released in 1979.

Even if Mr. O'Hehir grew up thinking that "'80s music" was a genre and that the Clash were two-hit wonders on par with Wham and the Human League, he has no excuse for such lameness after viewing Temple's documentary.

I've got to wonder what kind a culture critic this guy is if he can't show the proper respect for a real musical legend!