Misled by Statistics or ‘Human’ Error?

Re Robert W. Welkos’ article “Why ‘Being Human’ Misfired” (May 17):

His portrait of why the film is failing to reach audiences is revealing of the business machinations of Hollywood, but not very telling about the movie.

Welkos explains that when National Research Group asked people how they’d like to see a movie about a man searching for his place in the world, “only 2% of males over 25 said it was their first choice of a film to watch this weekend while 1% of males and females under 25 said it was their first choice.”

That’s it, case closed. The film “Being Human” is doomed to arrive stillborn in the imagination of the public because overnight polls have shown conclusively that the audience tracking scores are under “minimum.” “In other words,” as an anonymous studio marketing source declared to Welkos, “people just didn’t like what they saw.”

Well, as Mark Twain said, “There’s lies, damned lies and then there’s statistics!” I went to see “Being Human”--and I liked what I saw. Robin Williams’ performance as the five wandering Hectors moved me in a way he hasn’t since playing the memorable Dr. Oliver Sacks character in “Awakenings.”

After viewing the movie, I tried to reconcile what I had read with what I had seen with my own eyes. I began to wonder about this no-man’s land we seem to be selling ourselves on, a place where being human doesn’t seem to count for much anymore.

ERIC L. VOLLMER

Los Angeles

Welkos got it all wrong. The failure of Robin Williams’ non-movie had nothing to do with bad advance hype and everything to do with word of mouth. A lot of us Williams devotees told our friends and neighbors: “Don’t waste your time or money by punishing yourself trying to make sense out of ‘Being (sub) Human.’ Politely put, it’s a dud.”

MARJORIE BRUNK-FIELD

Manhattan Beach