So I just returned home from checking out the New York Film Festival's closing night film, Persepolis, which is an amazing little animated flick about a girl coming of age during the Islamic revolution. Sony Pictures Classics is releasing it in December, it might get nominated for a Best Foreign Language Oscar (it's currently France's selection, so we'll see), and, heck, it might even win. An Oscar! For a film starring an animated girl from Iran! Go figure. The theater was pretty crowded, because from what I gathered people were still interested in films featuring women in the lead roles. I know I am. By now you probably see where I'm going with this -- in case you haven't heard yet, Warner Bros. chief Jeff Robinov is still simmering in some hot water over comments he allegedly made; how, ya know, he doesn't want to make any more female-driven films because ... The Invasion and The Brave One didn't do so well? Yeah, I don't get it much either.

Nikki Finke, the blogger over at Deadline Hollywood who broke the story, continues to go on and on about the fiasco, while, I imagine, folks over at Warners are scrambling to correct this PR nightmare. Finke reminds me of that girl from Can't Hardly Wait who runs around throughout the entire film trying to get people to sign her yearbook. Whatever happened to that girl after everyone completely dissed her? Where did she go after high school? What is she doing now? Let me take a wild guess ... Anyway, I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around this whole thing. If it's true, and Robinov did say those things, then why is he blaming the actresses? I asked a friend of mine, who saw both The Invasion and The Brave One, if he didn't like the films because of Kidman and Foster. His answer: "I didn't like them because they sucked. Kidman and Foster had nothing to do with that." And why did he go to see them in the first place? "I like Kidman and Foster." Heh. (I wonder if they changed the name to Legally Blonde: Invasion of the Purse Snatchers, if, then, people would've showed up to see it?)

I tried reading Finke's reports, but I just got a headache. They're filled with lines like, "And then a Warner Bros. rep told me ..." and "Three studio insiders claimed to have ..." and "When I got off the phone with the agent whose rep used to be a studio exec ..." Who gives a sh*t? Should we care about this story at all? Seriously. Warner Bros. could make 70 films in a row about homosexual kangaroos from Egypt, and it still wouldn't change the fact that my electric bill is too high. Should we boycott Warners? No. Why? There are very few guarantees in life: 1. A lot of folks making the decisions in Hollywood are morons. 2. 300 is and will always be a pile of crap. 3. Female-driven films simply don't do well at the box office unless they star Reese Witherspoon doing her best Valley-girl accent, and 4. There will always be something better worth seeing on any given weekend, be it on DVD or in the theater. Like Persepolis. So let Warners make their testosterone-laced, male-driven films, and the rest of us can go about our lives knowing there will always be a choice when it comes to what we watch, when we watch it and who we watch it with. Isn't that what's most important here?