Reconstructing the ‘Harry’-Roth Theory

I realize that it is not the function of The Times to settle scores, but I feel compelled to respond to Andrew Christie’s well-written but poorly reasoned response--”Perhaps It’s Time to Deconstruct Woody,” (Counterpunch Letters, Jan. 5) to my Dec. 22 Counterpunch, “That’s Not Woody in ‘Harry,’ It’s Philip.”

Christie implies that my theory--that the lead character in Woody Allen’s “Deconstructing Harry” is inspired by author Philip Roth--is laughably absurd, but he never goes on to substantiate this claim or deal with any of my assertions with any specificity; in fact, he calls my examples of similarity “striking.” He then goes on to misrepresent me. I certainly don’t believe that Allen is never playing himself, simply that he isn’t always playing himself and that if ever a case were to be made for a time where he wasn’t, it would be in “Deconstructing Harry.”

Does anyone really believe that Allen is a profane, alcohol-swilling, pill-popping and virtually friendless misanthrope who hires prostitutes to beat him up and who has finally come to the realization that he is a horrible person? Like him or loathe him, it is an insult to Allen and to logic to even entertain such an idea.

Stunningly, Christie wants us to swallow not just that, but also that Allen can’t help but show us his true self (as if some mystical force compels him to be honest?), and only clings to the idea that it isn’t really him as a means of self-preservation.

He actually implies that Woody’s denials are the only thing standing between him and suicide--seeing how he and “Harry” are one and the same--and yet calls my argument absurd.

Finally, Christie lets his personal animus toward Allen spill over and completely forgoes any facts by attacking my personal motivation for writing the article. He suggests that I, an “undiscovered filmmaker,” am somehow am trying to “score points” with Allen.

It is a baseless and spurious accusation. I propounded a theory and backed it up with facts. And it was just that, a theory. Not a personal attack.

ADAM CARL

Hollywood