Set the Record Straight on ‘Maya Lin’-- Yet Again

In Jack Mathews’ review of “Maya Lin: A Strong Clear Vision,” the winner of the 1994 Academy Award for best feature documentary, he perpetuates a falsehood about me and the academy documentary committee that I thought was laid to rest eight months ago in Counterpunch.

Contrary to the review, “ ‘Maya Lin’: Fit for the Discovery Channel” (Calendar, Nov. 10), the facts are that I am a former chair of the academy documentary committee, like my predecessor Norman Corwin, not an “abstaining chairwoman,” with its innuendo of influence; that I was asked to serve as chair in 1992, because the academy board of governors ruled that the chair had to be a documentary filmmaker; that in 1994, I declined the request of the academy president to serve as chair; and that in 1994, I was not a member of the documentary nominating committee and had nothing to do with its proceedings.

*

Mathews’ criticism of me and the committee is puzzling. It appears to blind him to the work of the most eminent documentary cinematographers in the field--Don Lenzer, Erich Roland and Eddie Marritz--who worked for five years on this film.

It appears to narrow his vision by framing his review solely in the context of “Hoop Dreams” and the committee. These are separate issues--the committee’s non-nomination of “Hoop Dreams” and the merits of the Oscar winner. Apples and oranges. Most critics have made this distinction in their reviews of “Maya” and have been notable in their praise: “Two thumbs up!” from Siskel and Ebert, 3 1/2 stars from the New York Post and USA Today, high praise from the New York Times’ Paul Goldberger and the Washington Post’s Linton Weeks.

Are documentary filmmakers in the academy supposed to retire from competing for the Oscar if they give service as chair? Would Mathews object to my documentary colleagues accepting appointments to the chair in the future?

The academy documentary committee (whose members include Oscar-winning editors, directors, actors and writers) is insulated from the very parochialism Mathews charges because it is made up of a diverse group (more than 40 members) who vote by the democratic principles of secret ballot and one person, one vote--a process very different from most film festivals that vote by consensus through small blue-ribbon committees. The chair and the committee are reconstituted every year with a mix of continuing and new members that mitigates against the influence of any one person. No one member, including the chair, has any influence over any other member because, in what really counts--individual secret balloting--no one, including the chair, has more weight than anyone else.

Mathews might be surprised to learn that I was approached by a photographer at the Monica theater, where the film is playing, who said, “You can say that an African American who grew up in South-Central and played basketball saw both ‘Hoop Dreams’ and ‘Maya Lin’ and that ‘Maya Lin’ deserved the Oscar.”

A final note: Regarding the headline for the review, it would be an honor for “Maya” to show on the Discovery Channel, but after its current theatrical run in cities across the United States, it will be going first to PBS.