As for not saying anything about the human condition, I dunno, a lot of the film focused on bad relationships between fathers and there kids, and on the possibility of redeeming those relationships. That’s at least a part of the human condition that some of us have experience.

And sure, Anderson riffs on Altman, but I’ve never understood why that’s a bad thing or why it counts as a critique. It’s not like he’s been trying to hide the fact. If he was trying to hide it, he wouldn’t have agreed to shadow Altman during the filming of “A Prairie Home Companion.” (And if Altman thought he was stealing, he wouldn’t have agreed to having Anderson around.)

“That is the worst idea ever. Every time I hear someone say, “I didn’t understand what the frogs meant”, or any other critique of that film, I just want to throw very large, heavy objects at them. Like monuments and quarries. ”

But I tell you, yea verily, should anyone tell you that they understand what the frogs meant, they are full of turkey giblets, aye, and their brains are pure cotton candy, for surely the movie had absolutely nothing whatsoever to say about the human condition except that weak talent likes to steal from Robert Altman, and that you should trust nobody who, when stuck for an ending of a movie, throws a rain of frogs at the screen.

That is the worst idea ever. Every time I hear someone say, “I didn’t understand what the frogs meant”, or any other critique of that film, I just want to throw very large, heavy objects at them. Like monuments and quarries.