What is the proper etiquette one must employ when interviewing Juno screenwriter Diablo Cody? Are you allowed to ask her about her time as a stripper and a phone-sex operator? Is that crude or off-topic? There's no question how she (and Fox Searchlight) feel about the issue -- sitting down with Cody for a one-on-one interview last month (for another outlet) was one of the oddest experiences of my life, since Fox insisted on having a senior publicist actually be in the room and stand near me during the interview and occasionally even interrupt my questioning -- a first. I later found out the same treatment was given to others, and this thinly-disguised attempt to intimidate the journalist out of asking any potentially non-PG questions was really out of line and unnecessary. However, Cody can't control television interviews as successfully, as evidenced by her upcoming appearance on Peter Bart's AMC show, which apparently turned into a cringe-fest.

On Cody's MySpace page, she says Bart "was full of condescending questions. Wait until Sunday -- you'll see him asking when I plan to be a normal woman and have children!" I can't wait to see that, since it would seem to be a new contender for the stupidest thing he's ever said, and that's saying a lot. In the meantime, AMC is hosting some teaser clips from the interview, and you can see Cody's face drop into a pained grimace when Bart asks "Were you ever a stripper?" and moves on to other questions like "Were you writing at the time that you were stripping?" and "Where did you strip?" Some bloggers have taken the position that it's invariably creepy and unnecessary to ask Cody these kinds of questions, but I still say when someone writes a whole book about something, it's sort of fair game.

It's looking like next week's big watercooler subject in Hollywood will be the surprising failure of Grindhouse at the box office. Tracked to bring in about $25 million in its opening weekend, the uber-hyped Tarantino and Rodriguez double feature will almost certainly limp into Monday with a much smaller take; it opened Friday with a paltry $5 million, a total that puts it squarely in fourth-place, behind Will Ferrell's skating movie Blades of Glory, Meet the Robinsons (whatever that is -- sorry, I just can't tell kids movies apart anymore) and the most recent Ice Cube crapfest, Are We Done Yet?, which had already been playing since Wednesday. In fact, it did only marginally better than The Reaping, which opened on Thursday and is so bad that it was called "unreleasable" by many. Let's leave aside for the moment the implications of Grindhouse's flaccid opening for the fledgling Weinstein Co.; I think it's worth considering what kind of ripples this might send through Hollywood.

For a while now, America has been holding Hollywood by the ears and screaming in its face that it only wants completely pointless, souless, painless, recycled comedy and kiddie fare at the box office, and Hollywood has happily bent over backwards to comply, turning out more and more nothing-movies each year and fast-tracking the careers of nothing-directors like Brian Robbins, who can be relied on to turn in 'critic proof' garbage with a smile. Pointless sequels to pointless originals continue to climb higher and higher into the box-office record books, bringing us ever closer to the day when an objectively worthless film that's been scientifically engineered to meet all 'quadrants' will probably crack the top spot. Meanwhile, senile industry butterflies like Peter Bart snark that it's in fact the critics who need to get with it and start praising the crap in order to stay 'relevant.'

I don't have any conclusions here, other than the one offered in my headline. It seems that the prospects for talented filmmakers who take some chances and try to create quality films that also appeal to the mainstream movie-going audience are going downhill faster than Chevy Chase on that sled in National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. How long before quality films of any stripe simply become a bad investment? Obviously I'm a little worked up over this, so you'll have to allow me a little exaggeration.

The divide between critics and audiences has been growing stronger and stronger. This very site has done several reports of late about how studios and directors think critics are snooty, snobby, and out of touch with what the public wants. It seems more and more movies are not even being shown to critics prior to release. That practice used to be reserved solely for the worst of the worst, but now big-budget movies with big stars aren't being submitted for review. In light of recent evidence, critics' opinions don't really seem to have any effect on business at all. These past few months have made for some shocking revelations come Monday morning box office report time, with such critically panned movies as 300, Norbit, Ghost Rider, and Wild Hogs all doing huge business.

Now Peter Bart at Variety has chimed in with a new article on the subject. He says that critics "may be shopping around for a new line of work," and states that they "should consider a sabbatical until September, when movies aimed at their quadrant magically reappear." Huh? Bart suggests, "if the established media wants to stay relevant, should their critics make a passing attempt to tune in to pop culture?" Well, what does that mean exactly? Does that mean hiring a quote whore to just write about how he or she adores every steaming pile that comes down the chute? Why should critics' tastes have to sync up with what makes money? To me, reading a great film review is like having a conversation after the movie. It's a kick to read an in-depth analysis of something I just saw, whether the reviewer agrees with me or not.

This whole debate has gotten out of hand. Audience poller Cinemascore reports that all four of the aforementioned movies were not just successful financially, but at least reasonably enjoyed by audiences. Is anyone who laughs at Wild Hogs an uneducated hillbilly idiot? Of course not. Does Norbit's success mean that all critics are dumb and should quit their jobs because they personally didn't like it? No way. The old "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" rule doesn't, shouldn't, and can't apply to film criticism.

• Whilst the Big Dumb Christmas Flicks fought out the top three slots, a handful of "serious" films made a big impact in limited release over the holiday weekend. Munich opened  strong on 500 screens, with exit research indicating that "politics and history" (read: the so-called controversy) inspired 80% of ticket buyers to pick Spielberg over the Big Fake Gorilla or the Magical Mystery Closet. Brokeback Mountain continued to expand into the suburbs, besting Munich's per-screen average even as it dropped out of the top ten. Even Casanova and The New World opened big, with the latter racking up over $10,000 on each of its 3 screens.
• Narnia is kicking Kong's ass overseas. Buena Vista International is chalking up the success in non-English speaking territories to a trailer campaign begun in 2004 – which, considering what such a campaign must have cost, makes one wonder if was even worth it.  In a related question, if Kong is rock and Narnia is paper, than what's scissors?
• Peter Bart on Munich: "I'm not sure Spielberg had a message to send or merely an ambiguity to convey. In any case, ambiguities aren't great grist for movies."