Kazan: The Character of the Man, the Quality of the Work

Patrick Goldstein’s article on Elia Kazan (“A Fateful Decision, Damaging Fallout,” March 16) draws an analogy between him and Bill Clinton. In each case, we are asked to apply the principle that the character of the man is not to be judged when evaluating his work. This is an old and valid principle: see also Wagner, Shelley, Marlowe, Eliot, Pound, etc., etc.

Clinton’s presidency and Kazan’s art stand apart from and above the philanderer and the snitch, respectively. But the comparison between the two is faulty. The principle that distinguishes them can be discovered by asking: Who was harmed by their actions? In Clinton’s case, the answer is nobody, except for the as-yet-unrevealed damage to his family. In Kazan’s case, what he did effectually ruined the careers of many Hollywood artists, and the fallout is still evident.

A better comparison to Kazan would be Dennis Rodman. A genius when at work on the basketball court but a certifiable loony off it, his most recent whim, that of abruptly leaving the Lakers while on a winning streak, has clearly harmed the team (see Bill Plaschke’s column in the same issue of The Times). If his antics were confined merely to tattooing his body and cross-dressing, he could be dismissed as a harmless, amusing eccentric, but his behavior, like Kazan’s, has adversely affected many other people. Both are morally culpable.

CHARLES KAPLAN, Los Angeles

*

I suspect that when scenes from Kazan’s films are inevitably screened during the Academy Awards presentation, all of the schoolyard epithets of “snitch” will be quickly forgotten, and the focus will be on a body of work that was heartfelt (“A Tree Grows in Brooklyn”), visionary (“A Face in the Crowd”) and personal (“America, America”).

Kazan was making “politically correct” films generations before that phrase was even coined. Movies like “Gentleman’s Agreement,” “Pinky” and even “Baby Doll” tackled bigotry and injustice before it became fashionable in Hollywood--or Washington.

The man is a colossus of American popular culture whose influence extends far beyond his own work. With Brando, he changed film acting forever. His casting of James Dean in “East of Eden” didn’t just create a star, it started a myth. Without the blueprint of the Dean icon, what image would Elvis have used? Without Elvis, would rock ‘n’ roll have ever taken root?

All the attempts to deny his greatness and airbrush him out of the history books during his lifetime will only be looked upon with shame in generations to come.

FRED JANSSEN, Long Beach

*

Patrick Goldstein’s March 15 article on the upcoming cliffhanger of how the Oscar audience will respond to Elia Kazan’s lifetime achievement award left me shaking my head at his naivete.

Audio sweetening is commonly used in live events, not just sitcoms, and certainly for every important live awards show. The sound mixer is ready to add laughs, applause, etc.--whatever is needed--to cover bad jokes or awkward moments. The Kazan award is both.

There will appear to be applause for Kazan because the academy is producing the telecast. They will not allow any other outcome. Further, as to Abe Polonsky’s hope of seeing people sitting on their hands--it’ll never happen. The director will be ready with shots of Kazan’s family, academy board members and Kazan advocates. They will be clapping, the soundtrack will be filled with applause, Kazan will appear grateful and unbowed, and every reporter present will dutifully tap out doltish nonsense about how Kazan has been “forgiven” by everyone, and how the silly old blacklist victims had failed.

MIKE COSTON, Los Angeles

*

I believe that Lainie Kazan is richly deserving of a special Oscar for her lifetime achievement and I am appalled that there are some who may spoil her acceptance of that honor on Sunday.

PAUL SERCHIA, Los Angeles