‘Soldiers’ Stirs Discordant Reactions

As a former Navy medical officer during the Vietnam era while at Great Lakes Naval Hospital in Illinois, I tended the wounds of many soldiers brought to us from the battlefield. James E. Caccavo’s commentary on “We Were Soldiers” (“Knee-Deep in the Blood, Sweat and Soul of Vietnam,” March 4) was 100% on the mark. After seeing the movie Sunday, I could barely sleep, since the vivid scenes brought back many unpleasant memories.

MICHAEL L. FRIEDMAN

Torrance

*

I must respectfully disagree with Caccavo’s contention that the movie “takes no political stands.” With romantic music accompanying every battle (except when the Vietnamese come rushing from their caves, when we hear primitive jungle drums), constant scenes of soldiers at prayer, the portrayal of protagonist Hal Moore as nothing short of perfect, and the film’s presentation of war as an inevitable event requiring only obedience and bravery from its participants, “We Were Soldiers” dismisses by omission any moral or political questions about Vietnam or any other war. This in itself is certainly a political stand. The film tells us war is brutal, soldiers brave and all we can do is pray and salute the flag. Questioning our leaders is not an option.

DAN BREZENOFF

San Pedro

*

It is too bad your movie review on “We Were Soldiers” was written by an individual who just doesn’t get it (“Battle Saga at War With Itself,” March 1). In his closing lines, Kenneth Turan demonstrates his terrible lack of understanding: “We cannot forget what this film prefers to avoid knowing, that bravery and self-sacrifice without a reason are not cause for celebration but rather one of the saddest, one of the most regrettable of human activities.” Nonsense.

Americans--indeed, the vast majority of people everywhere--understand that performing their duties as best they can, day in and day out, is critical to our nation and human society. When those duties involve great risk and sacrifice, yet are still accomplished, we celebrate the individuals as heroes.

Turan thinks a soldier’s duty is only reasonable if Turan approves of the national political context.

ANTHONY L. PAULO

Bakersfield

*

The fundamental disservice a movie such as this does to our children is to push the fantasy that war is a proper endeavor for young men, and an inevitable instrument of foreign power. In that way, it psychologically prepares boys and young men for the next war that the old men decide they must fight.

PAUL COX

Berkeley

*

Genuine Artistic Talent

Calling “An American in Paris” “another songfest along the Seine” and comparing it to the hodgepodge called “Moulin Rouge” with people who can’t sing or dance is at best absurd! (“Musical Upset at the Oscars?” by Tom O’Neil, March 6)

“An American in Paris” had the artistry of Gene Kelly, Leslie Caron and Oscar Levant, to name a few. In other words--no, in exact words--real, genuine, authentic, original, spectacular and lasting talent. That is something you can never match or compare to anyone else--and why would you want to?

FRANCES TERRELL LIPPMAN

Los Angeles

*

Smoking in Movies

In his insightful analysis of Hollywood’s addiction to tobacco (“Ad Banned, but Smoking on Screen Isn’t,” March 5), Patrick Goldstein wrote that a top Warner Bros. corporate publicist called the University of California at San Francisco School of Medicine to ask if the university knew that its funds were being used to support Prof. Stanton Glantz’s campaign against smoking in movies. Goldstein neglected to point out that Glantz’s campaign is supported by outside funding sources, not by the university.

It’s laughable that a mega-company like Warner Bros. complains to a university about being picked on by a single professor. It ought to rechannel its energy to figure out how to produce films without enticing our youth into a deadly addiction.

RONALD M. DAVIS

Detroit

*

I have no objection to Sissy Spacek smoking in “In the Bedroom.” What I do object to are the two clear depictions of the Marlboro pack on camera. This is not artistic license. It is blatant advertising. It adds nothing to the film that would not have been served by a generic pack.

FRED GRANNIS

Duarte

*

Three Chords and Truth

“Three chords and the truth” were the stuff that Harlan Howard was made of (“Harlan Howard, 74; Prolific Songwriter,” March 5). He was like a big heart that steadily pumped fresh blood into the veins of country music. Now his heart has stopped beating, and all of country music has skipped a beat.

Though we mourn, we must be transformed by his simple formula. In a world that has gone from New Wave to New Age to New Rage in a matter of decades, we must return to his three-chords-and-the-truth philosophy. “Two turntables and a microphone” makes a clever ditty, but it is simply not enough to capture the hearts and souls of the post-9/11 generation.

BRUCE L. THIESSEN

Sacramento

*

Kelly and the Censors

In his review of “Gene Kelly: Anatomy of a Dancer” (“‘Gene Kelly’ Retraces Steps of an Illustrious Career,” March 5), Lewis Segal states that George Balanchine’s original choreography for “Slaughter on Tenth Avenue” was never considered censorable. However, it should be clarified that when Kelly’s turn came to shoot the sequence in 1948 for “Words and Music,” MGM censors would not allow the ballet’s original scenario, with pimps and dance hall girls, into a musical revue for the whole family. Kelly relayed this very fact to his biographer Clive Hirschhorn, who is interviewed in the film.

Additionally, Segal seems to have misunderstood a sequence analyzing the differences between Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly. At no time does the film either attempt to “exalt Kelly at the expense of Astaire,” or state that Kelly was the first to dance in the rain, on skates, etc. In fact, the documentary celebrates their differences and makes the point that comparing the two men is futile; they were too dissimilar both physically and stylistically.

ROBERT TRACHTENBERG

Director

“Gene Kelly: Anatomy of a Dancer”

*

Here’s Johnny

Why is everyone waiting for a sound bite, a snippet, a kernel of wisdom from Johnny Carson? (“Much Has Changed Since Carson Was King,” by Brian Lowry, March 6). He isn’t Edward R. Murrow or Walter Cronkite. He’s a comic. He had his run, but he ended up a bitter, grumpy man. He could have endorsed Jay Leno and passed him the torch, but he chose to sulk in Malibu. If Johnny wants to weigh in on the Koppel-Letterman imbroglio or the state of TV, fine. If not, that’s fine too. We’ll somehow make it one way or the other.

DAVID PEREZ

Irvine

*

“The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson” was and still is a breath of fresh air in television’s “vast wasteland.” If you doubt this, just pick up a copy of some of the old shows at your local video store. Television has changed in many ways since Carson left the air. But is it really better? To many of us, Johnny will always be king.

RON ESTES

Studio City