The Merits and Demerits of ‘G.I. Jane’

I have been a professional actor for many years and I have seen “G.I. Jane.” I found Kenneth Turan’s review (“Shipping Out With Demi,” Aug. 22) to be mean-spirited and lacking in critical merit.

Rather than focusing on “G.I. Jane,” Turan chose to attack Moore’s entire career, abusing his bully pulpit while failing to provide an objective evaluation of her work in this film. His bias was appalling.

I found the film and Moore’s performance to be exciting and emotionally satisfying--a thoroughly enjoyable experience.

“G.I. Jane” and Moore’s performance deserved to be reviewed on their merits. Such was not the case.

RON SOBLE, Mission Hills

*

Hollywood’s title-writing “geniuses” have goofed on “G.I. Jane,” a film about a female Navy SEAL. As Bill Mauldin or any World War II veteran (including this one) could have informed them, the terms “G.I.” (derivation: Government Issue) and “dogface” were affectionate terms for the ordinary foot-slogging infantryman who completed what the fly boys and sailors started. Never was G.I. used to describe anyone in the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard or Army Air Corps.

JERRY COWLE, Pacific Palisades