Whether or not you're offended by the use of the word "retard" in Tropic Thunder, it's hard to deny the difference between the intention of the humor and the ire of the groups protesting it. When Ben Stiller's character, Tugg Speedman, learns that he was mistaken in going "full-retard" with his miscalculated awards-bid performance as a mentally challenged man in Simple Jack, you either laugh or you don't, but you definitely get it. Stiller's point is that self-important actors often take crass or poorly formulated roles on the basis of subject matter simply so they can get a chance at the podium. At no point are we forced to laugh at a character meant to be taken as actually retarded; instead, we only get Tugg Speedman's really bad, really offensive interpretation of one.

At his Scanners blog, Jim Emerson gets this point, and smartly rails against complainers like the Special Olympics for making such a big deal out of a scene before even coming to terms with its purpose. He also brings up a brilliant historical parallel: In 1977, Randy Newman's single "Short People" was pulled from the air because it supposedly offended, uh, short people. "If you do satire or parody, you have to expect there will always be fools who will take it literally," writes Emerson. "Those people are called 'literalists.' And there ought to be a law against them."

An eclectic group of online film notables, including former Times critic Elvis Mitchell, AICN's Harry Knowles, my colleague Glenn Kenny of Premiere.com, Roger Ebert's sidekick Jim Emerson and Jen Yamato of Rotten Tomatoes have gotten together to have a long, in-depth discussion about one of the year's top awards contenders, No Country for Old Men. A lot of topics are discussed during the free-floating talk, ranging from macro subjects like the film's much talked-about ending and the theme of old vs. young to minutiae like what happened to the coin that the gas station attendant won his life with and the significance of Javier Bardem's Prince Valiant haircut. There's also a lot of talk about the significance of feet in the film -- one character gets wounded in the foot and Bardem's character has a peculiar obsession with keeping his feet clean and there are lots of shots of walking feet in the film. What does it all mean?

It's the controversial ending that prompts the most debate, and Harry Knowles talks at one point about a screening of the film that took place in Austin with Josh Brolin in attendance: "A member of the audience stood up and [said] 'Why did they end it like that?!' and Brolin just looked at the guy and he looked angry." Kenny offers a unique interpretation of the last act, specifically referring to two events that happen in quick succession involving Bardem and another character. He believes Bergman's The Seventh Seal was an influence for the Coen Bros. on that. To hear the whole thing, just download the MP3 off the film's official website and enjoy.

It's been awhile since we've had a little film blog group hugging action around here. Today it's cold and snowing here, so what better way to put off cleaning house and baking lasagna for our Boxing Day party than to cozy up under a quilt with a cup of hot tea and some of my favorite film bloggers? As 2007 wanes away and Sundance looms near, I thought I'd pop by some of my favorite film blogs to see who's doing any writing this holiday weekend.

Before taking a well-deserved break for the holidays, hard-working film blogger Karina Longworth at Spout Blog put up this thought-provoking piece on whether Disney wants to turn your daughter into a whore. As Karina points out, Barbara Ehrenreich's recycled rant on the evils of all things Disney is well past-due. I was getting into arguments about Disney back when I was doing time in mom's clubs when I did the stay-at-home-mom gig for a few years; the "We're raising our kids gender-neutral," granola-crunching, feminist hippy mamas in Seattle and parts elsewhere have had Disney in their crosshairs for years.

My favorite line from Ehrenreich's piece: "One's sexual inclinations--straightforward or kinky, active or passive, heterosexual or homosexual--should be free to develop without adult intervention or manipulation. " Riiiiiiiiight. If you raise your kids in a bubble unexposed to any society whatsover, perhaps. Kids are products of their social communities whether they grow up in the favelas of Brazil or in a high-rise overlooking Central Park, and trying to mold their little minds with the androgyny of gender-neutrality is no less manipulative than allowing your daughter to dress up like a pretty princess. Bratz, though, is another story. I hate those damn dolls with a passion previously reserved for Barney. If anyone's trying to shallow-fy and whore out our daughters, it's the evil geniuses behind those Bratz dolls. At least the Disney Princesses don't have lips that look like they had an unfortunate experience with a silicone injection. Anyhow.

More group hugs after the jump ...