HARASSED

Bravo to Peter Rainer for eloquently articulating the disingenuousness of “Disclosure” and “Oleanna” (“Hollywood Just Doesn’t Get It,” Dec. 11).

I find it amazing that in the post-Thomas-Hill era we still cannot move beyond the prurient elements of sexual harassment to a more substantive dialogue about the toll this phenomenon exacts on the sexes. This is the reason why I will not be paying my hard-earned dollars to see “Disclosure” or “Oleanna’--they both reek of hypocrisy.

Rainer hits the nail on the head when he states that these movies are “a rant against the destruction of male privilege.” They are a sort of male anxiety writ celluloid. And I fear that as the Great America Power Pie continues to be divided among the historically underrepresented, we will undoubtedly have more movies and novels of this mean-spirited ilk.

A note to Michael Crichton and David Mamet: Sexual harassment is a phenomenon that is still skewed largely in the direction of men as the perpetrators and women as the recipients. So let’s cut the crap and get down to the business of ensuring that our wives, mothers and daughters do not have to experience this sort of demeaning treatment. And maybe then we’ll be able to have these groundbreaking movies and novels about the reversal of male privilege. Or better yet, maybe this phenomenon will no longer exist.

BENJAMIN PERKINS

Los Angeles

*

Thank you for Peter Rainer’s eloquent and insightful analysis of what lies behind the current crop of female sexual harasser movies. Contrary to the implication of the article’s title, Hollywood does get it. The male studio executives greenlighting these pictures have shrewdly tapped into the lucrative well of backlash by the endangered white male.

As women have begun to gain equality, movie roles for women have become increasingly unrealistic, bimboistic and vampish--there’s a direct relationship, and it sells. When women, and thoughtful men like Rainer, learn to exercise their power in the marketplace by voting with their cash, the quality level of movies will improve drastically.

JANE BROCKMAN

Santa Monica

*

If Hollywood is to accept Rainer’s perspective, then blacks must never be depicted as thieves or crooks, gays must never be depicted as overtly sexual and women must never be depicted as power hungry. These are negative stereotypes, and the purpose of film (as all artistic expressions) is to depict life as we want it to be, not as it is.

The truth is that some blacks are crooks, some gays are overtly sexual and, believe it or not, some women are power hungry. The fact that these groups have been at the receiving end of discrimination for so long does not warrant a complete disregard for the truth.

Sexual harassment against women is an inexcusable practice, and undoubtedly occurs more frequently than against men. Yet what often makes art so appealing (and dangerous to some) is its willingness to depict the reality of what many consider to be blasphemous and taboo. Male sexual harassment certainly fits this bill.

JARRET LOVELL

Chatsworth

*

High technology and the illusion of “virtual fantasy” on the screen has finally allowed Hollywood to create a ride rather than a movie.

The technique of excising story in favor of a mood ride was finally perfected in “Jurassic Park,” and is now gradually insinuating itself into many mainstream movies. Witness “Speed”--about nothing but short-term fun. And the same applies to “Disclosure.” I doubt we’ll be huddling in cozy clusters discussing the provocative issues raised in “Disclosure” a year from now, let alone a month or a week from now.

STEPHEN SACKS

Los Angeles

*

Even though over 90% of sexual harassment victims are women, Hollywood has chosen to focus on male victims in its first two serious films on the subject. Typical, considering that this year’s most notable mommy role in a movie was given to a man (“Junior”)!

MARY SHELTON

Riverside

*

As the wise King Solomon said, “There is nothing new under the sun.” While reading Rainer’s article, I was reminded of the ancient, fascinating biblical account of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife (Genesis 39), a 3,000-year-old story of a woman’s sexual quest for an unwilling male, culminating in his wrongful imprisonment.

Hot? New? Evolutionary? The more things change, the more they stay the same!

ELLEN JAFFE

Jerusalem