As a liberal who writes about film, there are few things that I find more irritating than the tendency of other liberal film writers to treat the 95 percent of Hollywood films that push (explicitly or implicitly) liberal ideas as if they were utterly apolitical and commonsensical, and then react with shock and despair on those rare occasions when a movie with conservative themes makes its way to theatres. Yes, in two recent films, Waitress and Knocked Up, a woman whom we might otherwise expect to consider abortion instead opts to have the baby. (Isn't it supposed to take three examples to establish a trend?) And yes, of course, Hollywood would prefer not to talk about abortion at all, as it's a subject generally not known for its entertainment value. But do we really need successive articles in Slate and The New York Times positing some conservative climate of fear in Hollywood? I seem to recall two recent films, The Cider House Rules (which the Times article mentions but dismisses) and Vera Drake (which neither article mentions at all) that netted Academy Award nominations (and one victory) for actors playing heroic abortion providers. (In the former case, Michael Caine won the Oscar despite delivering what may have been the most mawkish performance of his long and frequently riveting career.) When actors start getting nominations for playing anti-abortion activists, then I'll expect to see a raft of articles about Pro-Life Hollywood. (If it needs to be added, I am myself firmly pro-choice.) I hated The Passion of the Christ as much as anyone, and think it essentially demanded ideological analysis. But that doesn't mean we have to have a national dialogue on politics and film every time a movie hints at an anti-euthanasia theme or offers a story in which religion is right and science is wrong. --Christopher Orr