I find it curious that a person who has orange hair, sings like a penguin in heat, speaks in a fake voice and hangs out with wrestlers is "interestingly eccentric" while Madonna, Sheila E. and Dale Bozzio are simply "bimbos" and that's that.
Next time, instead of complaining about Madonna (we got the message) and stereotyping artists without a valid reason, why not do a story on intelligent women in music both talented and attractive (Stevie Nicks, Donna Summer, The Bangles).
Or better yet, a profile on bimbo journalists. You could start with yourself, Johnson.
First, someone must take Johnson gently by the hand, sit her down in a comfortable chair on a mountaintop, and tell her that rock music is not an art form. Rock music is not being defiled by "bimbos."
Connie should be left on the mountaintop for three weeks, and then someone must come tell her that "bimbos" have actually been around for about as long as mountaintops, and for about the same reason: They provide a nice view.
Connie thinks that Madonna's sexy image reinforces "the notion that women's only purpose and pleasure in life is to serve men." Maybe it does. And like Connie, I worry about people who are of that notion.
For each one of those people though, there are about 10 million of us enlightened, self-respecting males who simply enjoy titillation.
What a let down!
Calendar's March 10 cover ("Black Themes, White Composers," by Martin Bernheimer) looked like a fun Aunt Jemima assemblage; a sort of Black Yenta convention.
Instead it was just an attention getter for another Bernheimer assault on another new opera.
It's just awful to have a newspaper that trivializes important events.
Thanks for Don Sullivan's level-headed examination of the creation of a national theater by American National Theatre and Academy ("An Instant National Theater?," March 3).
Last year, with the same sort of wave of the hand, Roger Stevens and Denver's Donald Sewell struck a deal to declare the training program at the Denver Center for Performing Arts as our national conservatory. While it will undoubtedly be a fine program, the notion that it will be the national training program is ludicrous, for the same reason Sullivan outlined.
More ludicrous, however, and revealing of ANTA's lack of contact with the real world of American theater, was Roger Stevens' announcement of the conservatory in the New York Times as our "first" serious training program on a national scale!
Those of us who have taught at venerable institutions like Carnegie Tech or Yale, or relatively younger programs like Juilliard or CalArts, were bemused, to say the least.
It is an interesting question, of course, to ask why the national training program is not connected to the national theater, but then that would assume that ANTA's operation is something more than the manipulation of grandiose labels.
If ANTA's leadership had ever ventured out of its black-tie stratosphere and built a genuine national base, perhaps by now it would have been.
Sullivan's statement that "The Federal Theatre died because it was perceived as a national pipeline for the Roosevelt Administration's view of the universe and the perception was probably correct" must certainly be challenged.
Perceived by whom? And for what reasons? These questions are valid, particularly in light of Sullivan's coda--"We don't want an American National Theater to be even a semi-official organ of propaganda." Is that his perception of the Federal Theatre?
If so, I refer him to a recorded unmatched in the annals of the American Theater. During its short spectacular life (August, 1935, to June, 1939), the Federal Theatre had as many as 185 producing units in 28 states, playing to a combined weekly audience of 500,000. It presented almost 1,000 productions (astounding in their variety, form and content).
As for Sullivan's snide claim that it served only as a "pipeline" to spread the Administration's views, even a cursory glance through the vast number of production titles (from "A Christmas Carol" to "Ah, Wilderness!") reveals the absurdity of that charge.
No, Dan, the Federal Theatre died because of the unrelenting efforts of men like Martin Dies, chairman of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, who accused it of being "communistic."
PEGGY PHILLIPS BUCCI
WHYS & WHEREFORES
It would not seem unreasonable to expect the reviewer of the American Ballet Theatre's "Romeo and Juliet" to be familiar with the text on which it was based ("Ballet Theatre Tries MacMillan 'Romeo & Juliet,' " by Martin Bernheimer, March 8).
Bernheimer concludes his review (March 8): "Wherefore art thou, Mikhail? Wherefore are thou, Gelsey?"
Of course, these questions are meaningless, since "wherefore" means "why," not "where." Embarrassingly, Bernheimer seems to be unaware that in the most famous line of the play, Juliet is asking, "Why are you Romeo?"
THE REAL PRINCE
Frank D. Lanterman is a high school for developmentally disabled (retarded) and multiply handicapped young people ages 14 to 22. On Feb. 25, Lanterman students (along with all handicapped students in L.A. City Special schools over the age of 10, and many of the county special education students) boarded buses and rode to the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium where we were treated to a concert given by Prince and his band.
Prince performed for more than an hour and 15 minutes. All of our students loved it. They clapped for as long as they could and have spent the time since singing songs and talking about that special performance.
I understand there is currently some controversy surrounding Prince--is his music appropriate, is he arrogant, are his bodyguards mean? If you ask our special students what they think of Prince they will tell you, "Prince was out of sight!!"
Lanterman High School
In his article on "Peyton Place: The Next Generation" ("Reunion of Sin and Sex at 'Peyton Place,' " March 10), Donald Chase refers to Joan Collins' role in "Dynasty" as a Captain ess of Industry. If Mondale and Ferraro had been elected, would he refer to our vice-president ess ?
May I suggest that in using archaic terminology, Chase has made a perfect ess of himself?
ON THE ROCKS
I think that Calendar should be corrected and renamed--or better still, be rewritten. As it stands now, it is a Rock Music advertisement--there is reading material in it. It is disgusting. It has gone down the drain; can it be salvaged?
I find it simply amazing that the entertainment industry, which has roundly condemned the blacklisting of performers during the 1950s, has acquiesced in the blacklisting of entertainers who perform in South Africa.
What happened to Hollywood's vaunted civil libertarians? It seems obvious that what is at work is the typical cowardly liberal double standard.
A blacklist inspired by a right-wing U.S. Senator is to be deplored, but a blacklist initiated by blacks, left-wingers, and the United Nations is to be given moral authority.
It is indicative of John Wilson's own biases that he failed to bring up this obvious hypocrisy. It is also amazing that he quotes the statements of Ghana's U.N. Representative without indicating that Ghana is one of the most grinding dictatorships on the African continent.
LANCE T. IZUMI
Hollywood members of the Screen Actors Guild's national board have passed an anti-blacklist motion. See Outtakes, Page 40.
STATE OF CHICAGO
Surely Suzanne Muchnic was joking when she suggested in "Gallery Serves Up Divergent Fare" (Feb. 25) that Judy Chicago's historic project "The Dinner Party" was purported "to honor distinguished women throughout history by interpreting their vaginas as ceramic dinner plates."
I found Muchnic's article unnecessary harsh and very far off the mark. What Muchnic seems to object to most of all is the theme of birth. I saw many aspects of birth, terror being only a small part of the theme. Yet Muchnic focused on terror and garishness, which was truly not a dominant part of the show.
What we all come away with from the show is that feminism in such a blatant, repetitious display has become passe. We are ready for Chicago's next less-political example of her many talents. But just because one may object to her hard-core feminism, doesn't mean they need to tear a talented visionary to shreds.
In my junior and senior years at the University of Pittsburgh, I was a member of its all-men musical group the Cap and Gown Club. The lead dancer was an underclassman named Gene Kelly. As a member of the men's chorus I recall appearing behind him in several numbers.
It seems I have been mistaking these many years the Gene Kelly about whom Paul Rosenfield wrote so entertainingly in The Times ("Hollywood Honors the Man Who 'Danced Joy,' " March 9) as the Gene Kelly I performed with since--according to Rosenfield--his Gene Kelly studied economics at Penn State, a school, by the way, we at Pitt thought of with considerable condescension.
GEORGE F. HARRINGTON