Hollywood and Clinton
In response to “Miss Marmelstein Goes to Washington,” Commentary, May 19:
Jonathan Yardley has mistaken the fresh breeze of new faces and new ideas to be a Hollywood hurricane that threatens to blow his “weary and complacent” capital to bits. Just because someone has a fabulous voice or can act, produce, direct, or--heaven help us--use all these talents at once, does not render her brain-dead on other subjects of importance. Barbra Streisand and other public figures could be a major force in helping to unite this country for the betterment of all nations. Check your weather report again, Mr. Yardley--maybe the stars will shine after all!
SHIRLEY McKERNAN
Los Angeles
* Yardley’s essay reveals both his prejudices and his ignorance of Barbra Streisand’s life. The lowest form of criticism is to ridicule the intelligence and motives of those with whom you disagree politically. One has to wonder whether Yardley considers the conservative fervor of Charlton Heston and Arnold Schwarzenegger equally laughable.
Yardley betrays his ignorance when he calls Streisand’s current activism her “first throes of political passion.” Streisand has been active in liberal causes since the outset of her career: She sang at the White House for President Kennedy in 1963, performed at Lyndon Johnson’s inaugural, endorsed Eugene McCarthy for President in 1968 and performed at a fund-raiser for George McGovern in 1972. Newcomer indeed!
What Yardley’s “perspective” most sings of is sour grapes: The Democrats are in power and Hollywood’s heavyweights helped put them there. But could there be a more sinister motive in his singling out of Streisand? It’s telling that he chose to resurrect a relatively unknown stage character Barbra created 32 years ago as the centerpiece for his essay. Could the reason be that the name Marmelstein is so resoundingly Jewish? I’d like to think not.
JAMES SPADA
Los Angeles
Spada’s biography of Barbra Streisand was published in 1981.
* I initially disagreed with Yardley’s assessment of Hollywood going to Washington because I feel that sometimes Hollywood turns people’s attention to matters less than politically expedient; and the unfortunate truth may be that many Americans are more likely to pay more attention to celebrities than their government. Then I remembered that the last time Hollywood went to Washington was in the form of Ronald Reagan and he left quite a mess. You are right, Mr. Yardley!
BRIAN HURST
North Hollywood
* Yardley’s comments on Hollywood’s potential political influence was fascinating, if for no other reason than its blatant invective and snide commentary regarding his primary targets, Barbra Streisand and the so-called Hollywood liberal establishment.
He accuses “La Barbra” of “terrorizing any persons unfortunate enough to find themselves in her path.” He then goes on to impugn her (or apparently anyone in Hollywood’s) ability to think clinically or objectively.
Did Yardley voice any such concern over the past influences of Hollywood right-wingers Louis B. Mayer, Bob Hope, Frank Capra, John Wayne, Walt Disney, Charlton Heston, or most recently, Arnold Schwarzenegger? One is left with no other conclusion than it is Streisand’s particular political views, her sex, and perhaps her Jewish heritage that make her a target of derision.
Yardley’s writing is oh so typical of the character assassination and stereotyping done by hack political pundits who maintain that somehow they are more qualified to express their views on our system and our society than our artists, no matter how clearly that artist’s superior talent and high intelligence might be demonstrated. I would like to remind Yardley that it is the Streisands of this world whose work sets standards of excellence, giving people not only entertainment, but a thoughtful and heartfelt view of life on this planet, while his own meager efforts wind up as lining for garbage pails and bird cages.
BARNEY ROSENZWEIG
Los Angeles
* In response to Danny Goldberg’s “Slashing at Hollywood: East’s Snobbery Turns Ugly,” Opinion, May 23:
It’s hard to disagree with the inherent hypocrisy of criticism directed at Hollywood by the press, but as Virgil Thomson, the composer, once said, “Criticism is the only antidote to paid publicity.”
When was the last time members of the Hollywood elite really stood up on an issue to help the country if it did not involve self-congratulatory posturing and dilettante musing on everything from the environment to feminine and minority rights to AIDS to the drug epidemic? Rather, we are treated to a stream of caustic explanations on how so-called issue movies or TV programs help the American public confront and discuss these issues.
Given the recent reports exposing Walt Disney’s role as an FBI informer to Bill Clinton’s affinity for the Hollywood (funding) elite, Goldberg hardly makes a case for getting journalists to lay off. After all, if they don’t take Hollywood to task on its own hypocrisy, who will?
STEVE MEANS
Los Angeles