DEAR MISS MANNERS: Is it wrong that the first thing that occurred to me while watching the lovely Audrey Hepburn in the opening scene of "Breakfast at Tiffany's" was, "She's eating while wearing her gloves!"?

GENTLE READER: Let us hope that it is exactly the reaction the filmmakers intended you to have. It serves as a tip-off that Holly Golightly, the character that Miss Hepburn plays, is not, shall we say, a lady of refinement, however engaging she may be.

There are so many unintentionally misleading etiquette cues in drama -- not just movies, but plays, opera and highfalutin television -- that Miss Manners cannot be sure this was done on purpose. She hopes so. But in a previous life, as a drama and film critic, she became sadly aware that ignorance of etiquette, especially in historical drama, means that one can never be sure.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: We have a couple of very vocal families of atheists in our neighborhood. I recognize that their personal beliefs are none of my business, and that freedom of religion means freedom to choose non-belief as well. I respect their right to live as they see fit, to refuse donations to charities whose mission they do not support, and so forth.

The problem that I do have is in their response to people of any faith. In our small city, religious organizations frequently host fundraisers in support of their charitable and educational endeavors. These events include dinners, carnivals and so forth, and church members can regularly be found handing out fliers in public areas of the city.

Not content to say, "No, thank you," and move on, my well-educated adult neighbors choose to express outrage at being approached and to mock and insult the intelligence and the beliefs of the volunteers.

I see similar behavior from staunch members of either political party in our town, with people who have a differing point of view being treated like idiots and publicly embarrassed. I find the attitude that freedom of speech and of thought belongs only to those who say and believe the "right" things to be terrifying.

Is there a polite way to intervene and protect the dignity of someone who is simply trying to do what they believe is right, and that they have the legal right to do?

GENTLE READER: If only. Righteousness and rudeness are a popular combination these days, which is odd because there is nothing right about rudeness.

Whatever the cause, rudeness puts its advocates in the wrong. It also damages any cause. Miss Manners doubts that your neighbors want to plant the idea that lack of respect for other human beings is a tenet -- or an inevitable result -- of atheism. But that is what they are doing.

Still, it would be rude of you to chastise them. What you can do in defense of those they embarrass is to say, "I believe that their religion would require them to respect you and allow you to express your beliefs."

(Please send your questions to Miss Manners at her website, www.missmanners.com; to her email, dearmissmanners@gmail.com; or through postal mail to Miss Manners, Universal Uclick, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106.)

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I teach at a very small school in a relatively close-knit society. As a result, most teachers go together and buy a gift for each of our graduates.

This year we are purchasing each of our 24 graduates a voice-activated iPod shuffle, which is going to cost each of us around $50 -- a little more than we have contributed in years past due to the size of this particular graduating class.

In addition, I receive a graduation invitation from each of my students, whose receptions I dutifully attend, even if for only five minutes before heading to the next one.

My issue is with one invitation I received that included a gift list "for ideas for a graduation gift." Most invitations I receive have gracious notes that say something to the effect of, "Your presence and friendship is the gift we treasure most, so no gifts, please."

I know these people to be kind and well-meaning, but I was appalled at what I perceive to be a distinct lack of class and manners. I am interested in your opinion and advice in handling this.

GENTLE READER: You teachers give the graduates expensive presents? Didn't you just give them an education?

Miss Manners will not say that this led to a sense of entitlement, because that is now rampant everywhere. But it does not seem, at least in this case, to discourage panhandling for more, or even sparing those who give without prompting.

It may be too late for you to generalize this and turn it into a lesson for the graduates. But Miss Manners hopes that the lesson that generosity is not always the best way to teach character will not be lost on you kindhearted teachers.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Eulogies have recently been the topic of discussion in our family -- especially who is responsible for writing and/or actually giving the eulogy. I personally do not see the need for them. A funeral is a very difficult place for public speaking, especially when you are close to the deceased (i.e., mother or father).

GENTLE READER: Yes, it is, and therefore it is not the immediate survivors who are expected to deliver eulogies, unless they have volunteered to do so. Their task is to invite others, such as friends and colleagues, who can speak well of different aspects of the deceased's life.

It was not always thus. The "celebration of life" funeral developed when it was no longer common for the deceased to have been well-known enough to the presiding clergy for the eulogy to be left in professional hands.

The newer form is not without hazards. Miss Manners has sat through painful funerals at which the speakers made tasteless jokes or droned on pointlessly, or told self-serving stories to illustrate how highly the person who died had admired them.

(Please send your questions to Miss Manners at her website, www.missmanners.com; to her email, dearmissmanners@gmail.com; or through postal mail to Miss Manners, Universal Uclick, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106.)

DEAR MISS MANNERS: When is one obliged to join a standing ovation? My understanding is that standing ovations are reserved for truly outstanding performances, and that applause while seated will suffice as a show of appreciation for other performances.

However, if one's fellow audience members judge a performance worthy of a standing ovation and rise, is one required to join them? Is it rude to remain seated while others around you are standing?

GENTLE READER: Do you always feel that you have to vote with the majority?

Not a fair question, Miss Manners admits. You vote in private. In public, you want to be polite, surely with her approval.

Aha! Now we are at the heart of the question: Is an ovation a vote, which is to say a sign of high approval of a performance? Or is it a polite gesture, a way of thanking the performers for their efforts, whether or not you thought these were successful?

In theatrical -- and especially musical -- tradition, audience reaction is a judgment, and the standing ovation its most dramatic sign of admiration, short of flinging bouquets or oneself at one's artistic idol. As devoted as Miss Manners is to decorous behavior, she relishes the robust operatic tradition of audience feedback.

But modern American audiences have the notion that wild enthusiasm is owed in return for any effort, and that leaving an auditorium when the piece is over without a huge show of appreciation is like leaving a party without gushing to the hosts.

Not quite. This is true of amateur performances, especially those to which one has been invited by one of the participants. But professionals ought to have the thrill of knowing that a standing ovation is a true triumph. It would be a shame to wake up the next day to find that the same people have posted their dissatisfaction all over the Internet.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I received a beautiful amethyst bracelet and set of earrings as a birthday gift. I remember one of Grandmother Manners' maxims was "Colored stones are vulgar."

Will you please elaborate and provide context for this rule? Does polite society still eschew colored gemstones?

GENTLE READER: It is time to confess that the family suspects our much-beloved Grandmother Manners made that one up.

Of course, we also thought that she made up "A lady never checks her coat at a restaurant," and that obscure rule turned out to be documented in the literature. We may just be bitter about the jewelry we didn't inherit when she condemned it.

Please enjoy your amethysts in good conscience. Miss Manners will square it with Grandmother Manners.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: When my daughter married last year, my ex-wife and I both attended. I brought nobody with me, but my ex-wife brought along her current gentleman-friend.

I disregarded it, out of consideration for the Happy Pair, but I considered it rather tacky of my ex-wife to bring her boyfriend to her daughter's wedding, when she was well aware that I would also attend. Am I being unreasonably sensitive?

GENTLE READER: The sensitivity is understandable and blameless. You are raw from the divorce, but managed to behave well.

However, Miss Manners must tell you that it is unreasonable to think that a divorcee will not go on with her life. She has had to tell many a lady to bear up in the presence of her successor.

(Please send your questions to Miss Manners at her website, www.missmanners.com; to her email, dearmissmanners@gmail.com; or through postal mail to Miss Manners, Universal Uclick, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106.)