UNTIL WE REACH "BECAUSE YOU LOVED ME: THE DIANE WARREN MUSICAL," WE'RE SAFE: Ann Althouse takes on NYT theatre critic Ben Brantley's rant about the horrifying (to him) "American Idol"-ization of Broadway from her perspective as an "AI" fan. I come at it from a slightly different perspective--my viewing of "AI" in its history has totaled somewhere around 10 minutes, but I adore Broadway, both the classics and the more contemporary. A few things to note:

1. Ann rightly observes that there's a long history of "belty" numbers in musicals. However, what's kind of a new development is the Act I finales of shows being big belty solo numbers. Most musicals reserve those numbers for the so called "11 o'clock" number, near the end of the show, but not quite there. In contrast, the Act I Finale has traditionally been a number for the full ensemble--witness numbers like "One Day More" from Les Mis, "La Vie Boheme" from Rent, and "Along Came Bialy" from The Producers, none of which focus on a single performer.

2. Brantley's smackdown is largely limited to female performers, an odd choice since this season is an uncommonly weak one for women's roles on Broadway--the season's two big hits thus far--Spamalot and Dirty Rotten Scoundrels are completely male driven. However, the showy self-importance that Brantley condemns isn't limited to women--Nathan Lane in The Producers, Michael Crawford in Phantom, and the various Valjeans in Les Mis have all commited much the same sin (or at least are forced to by the music). Heck, this season, we're subjected to an "Idol"-ized Act I finale of "I Am What I Am" in the mediocre revival of La Cage. Aside from a brief mention of Scoundrels, none of these people make the list.

3. In particular, Brantley singles out three scores for bashing. One, I haven't seen (Brooklyn), but the excerpts I've heard and reviews I've read suggest he's right on the money about it. However, the entire score is apparently written in that fashion, a far more understandable choice than having one "belter" song.

That's the problem Little Women has. In its effort to find something, anything, for its talented star, Sutton Foster, to do besides exclaim "Christopher Columbus!," they throw in an Act I finale ("Astonishing") that has almost nothing to do with the rest of the score and that degenerates into being nothing more than "look at me! I am the STAR of this show!" The lyrics have almost nothing to do with the show or the plot, and the music is wholly different from the rest of the score--a far more subdued endeavor. The song feels as though it was lifted from another, completely different, show.

The third song he singles out to bash is the Act One finale of Wicked, "Defying Gravity." First, it must be noted that in a lot of ways, "Defying Gravity" is a traditional Act I Finale. While the song is primarily sung by one of the show's two leading ladies, a substantial part of it is a duet, and it closes with punctuation from the entire ensemble. Second, unlike "Astonishing," "Defying Gravity" fits into the plot, both musically and character-wise. The lyrics relate to and advance the plot, and the music makes sense--the character singing the song has reached a breaking point in her life--a departure--and the music reinforces that--soaring into a belt at the end of the first Elphaba verse--as does the staging. Wicked does have songs that might rightly be proclaimed as nothing more than "Look At Me!" songs (most notably "Popular"), but this isn't one of them.

All that said, Brantley does have a point--overly showy singing and shows have, in some cases, overtaken actual theatrical merit. I don't know how else to explain the continuing success of "Mamma Mia!," while better, but equally commercial, shows like "The Full Monty" and "Ragtime" have closed, and more challenging shows like "A Class Act" and "Caroline, Or Change" fail to survive more than a few performances.

K-I-T, K-I-T, KEEP IT TOGETHER: Tom Cruise's new thing, Sofia Vergara, apparently knows what it will take to keep her man and so spent some time at Scientology's Head Office. But if you are looking for spiritual enlightment from an unorthodox source -- and aren't trying to bed Hollywood elite -- take a gander through Sarlo's Guru Rating Service.

Where else would you learn about U.G. Krishnamurti who offers, in the words of the rating service: "[N]o message for mankind . . . No gatherings, no lectures, no courses, no method, no mantras, no organization, no office, no secretary, no telephone number, no fax and no fixed address."

DO IT! Honestly, I don't know if I've seen a more unintentionally funny clip this year than the one you'll find if you click here and then click on "professional journalism." Suffice it to say that CNN apparently is having some difficulty finding stuff to fill the spaces between Schiavo-palooza, and this clip involving "reporter" Rick Sanchez and a 50,000 volt stun gun demonstrates exactly how far they'll go.

YOU CAN RIDE MY TAIL ANYTIME: Expanding the turf Quentin Tarantino covered a decade ago, one website presents more Dynamic Homoerotic Duos of Hollywood. HoYay!

THIS IS THE REAL TEST OF A DRINK'S THICKNESS: I might be remiss, amid all this talk of Wendy's, were I to not point you towards excerpts from Joe Wenderoth's Letters to Wendy's (some text NSFW), a collection of letters Wenderoth wrote on the restaurant's "Tell Us About Your Visit" cards:

September 20, 1996

Today I had a Biggie. Usually I just have a small, and refill. Why pay more? But today I needed a Biggie inside me. Some days, I guess, are like that. Only a Biggie will do. You wake up and you know: today I will get a Biggie and I will put it inside me and I will feel better. One time I saw a guy with three Biggies at once. One wonders not about him but about what it is that holds us back.

More here.

SADLY, IT'S ONLY MADE $300,000 SO FAR: You've probably not heard much about "Millions," which Fox Searchlight has kind of dumped in its quest to find another "Napoleon Dynamite." Since this film is far more "arty" and family oriented than Searchlight's last big success, they've chosen to dump it. The plot is simple--shortly after two children lose their mother and move to a new town, the younger one, played wonderfully by complete unknown Alexander Nathan Etel, builds a fort out of boxes which he uses to spur daydreams. However, when a bag of money falls out of the sky, the family is changed forever--especially since the younger child believes he's talking to God. Of course, in an American film, this could lead to cut rate slapstick comedy, or (after the revelation of where the money came from) a cookie-cutter "thriller." Instead, the movie maintains a kind of dreamlike tone, as the children try to figure out how to do what's right with the money. The only detraction is an ending that abandons logic, but the film as a whole is an authentic and touching film for the entire family--it's well worth your time, and ought to become a Christmas perennial (most of the film is set at Christmas). It's only in 77 theatres right now, but will continue to expand over the next few weeks, so check it out.

In fact, the only false notes were in the trailers, which included "Herbie: Fully Loaded," which only deepens my despair over Michael Keaton's career, and "Roll Bounce," the upcoming movie about roller disco.

MARGIN OF ERROR IS +/- 25 RBI: Apparently, polling firms need something to do now that we're in the political off-season, so they're surveying Baseball's Hall of Fame voters to see how they feel about McGwire and Bonds being in the Hall. Bonds was at 80.8% among those surveyed, while McGwire was at 55.6%. The article scores automatic bonus points due to mention of the hatable Dan Le Batard, who gives Bonds some dap.