1. "Welcome to My Cinematheque": James Wolcott links to a video blast from his past, accessible in the pullquote below or at his blog. We'll respect his wish to "say no more for the present," and will only thank him for the kind mention of us "thin slicers."

["So much is packed into this little film, presented exclusively at Vanity Fair. Yet I will say no more for the present so as not to burden the viewer with "preconceptions," thus allowing--freeing--him, her, you, to experience it afresh, before the thin slicers at The House Next Door explicate the damn thing to death and my enemies in the right blogosphere pick apart the performative qualities of my Brechtian approach to fake-crying and illustrating with my hands the eternal dance of sperm and egg."]

["I'm not against the filmmaker appearing in a film. I think some of the greatest documentaries I've ever seen have been made by a filmmaker who's present in the film. I don't know if you've seen any movies by Marcel Ophuls—The Sorrow and the Pity or Hotel Terminus. Ophuls is a great filmmaker because he's a great interviewer and he has a very sharp and analytical mind. In the case of Michael Moore, I don't see any particular filmmaking skills, and I think his point of view is extremely simplistic and self-serving."]

["It seems that one thing great television shows have in common these days is their ability to craft good roles for character actors like Tobolowsky, or for actors whose best days seemed long behind them. Tobolowsky himself had a nice turn on "Deadwood" as the weasely politician Hugo Jarry. "Deadwood" also featured Brad Dourif in arguably his most affecting role since "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", as well as Jeffrey Jones and Powers Boothe among others. "The Sopranos" had Robert Loggia and John Heard, who turned in an exquisitely fine-tuned performance as the corrupt and self-loathing Det. Vin Makazian during the show's first season."]

["Mulder and Scully. "Fight The Future" whets The Shamus' appetite for their new screen adventures."]

["I hoped that people who loved the blog would spill over to people who read Dilbert, and make my flagship product stronger. Instead, I found that if I wrote nine highly popular posts, and one that a reader disagreed with, the reaction was inevitably "I can never read Dilbert again because of what you wrote in that one post." Every blog post reduced my income, even if 90% of the readers loved it. And a startling number of readers couldn't tell when I was serious or kidding, so most of the negative reactions were based on misperceptions."]

_____________________________________________________
"Links for the Day": Each morning, the House editors post a series of weblinks that we think will spark discussion. Comments encouraged.