Demand Display of Returned Art

All too often, Nazi-looted art from private collectors is too hastily returned without any guarantee those works will ever again be on public view. To Christopher Knight’s statement that “no credible argument can be made for keeping stolen art” (“Wartime Loot Gets a Too-Hasty Boot,” March 8), I would add the phrase “without due compensation for the works stolen.” Monetary compensation, yes, but possession of the great work, certainly not.

In lieu of this, however, any art of this nature returned to rightful owners should at least carry with it a legal guarantee that the work shall remain on public view with a reputable institution in the country to which the work is being returned.

There is certainly international precedent for this. Many countries refuse to extradite foreign citizens charged with crimes in their home countries unless there is a guarantee the death penalty will not be sought.

Returning great art to descendants without such legal guarantees is tantamount to handing that work of art its very own form of a death sentence.

CLAUDE BRICKELL

West Hollywood

Tibet’s Place on the Map

While Don Heckman gave a fantastic review of the Tibetan Gyuto Monks Tantric Choir’s recent performance at UCLA (“Gyuto Monks Create a Dreamlike Experience,” March 11), he did a great disservice to the cause of Tibetan independence from China, by stating that their monastery was originally in “Lhasa, China.”

I’ll guarantee that if you ask any one of those monks or any other Tibetans (not working for the Chinese government) where Lhasa is, they will respond “Tibet!” The irony is that he wrote the article on the 43rd Tibetan Independence Day, which celebrates the 1959 Tibetan Uprising against Chinese occupation in Lhasa, Tibet!

KEN SUN-DOWNER

Idyllwild

‘Terminator’ Script Talk

In her article about “Terminator 3,” (“Rage Against the Machines: ‘T3’s’ Rocky Road,” March 11), Rachel Abramowitz unfairly maligned my client Tedi Sarafian and the script he wrote for “T3.”

The first draft of Sarafian’s script, as mentioned in a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, was good enough to convince Arnold Schwarzenegger to attach himself to the project without James Cameron’s commitment, even though Arnold had said publicly that he would not do the film without Cameron.

Sarafian’s script was also good enough to attract Jonathan Mostow as a director, hot off two successful films. Sarafian’s script was also good enough for Andy Vanja and Mario Kassar to move the project forward by structuring a deal with Schwarzenegger.

I don’t put much stock in whether Sarafian’s script was panned or received a rave on the Internet. Who knows if the people writing about it even read the script?

Reaction on one Web site at this early stage will have little bearing on the quality or success of the film. What Sarafian and his writing accomplished in helping to pull together this sequel is far more important.

JEFF FIELD

Field Entertainment

Los Angeles

A Blast From a Blaster

During the past few months, Dave Alvin--along with pianist Bill Bateman--sat in with the Blasters on several occasions and each time he was generous in his praise, even suggesting that the current lineup is “the best Blasters ever.”

To now see him quoted in print (“Original Blast,” by Richard Cromelin, March 9) as saying that “the name of the band has been besmirched” and that it’s up to him to “redeem the name of the band” is extraordinarily disheartening for those of us who have worked so hard to keep that name alive, and I believe it’s a serious misrepresentation.

Whether Dave thinks his brother deserves to use the Blasters name is between them, but Blasters fans can rest assured that the Blasters legacy is well taken care of every time we hit the stage.

With all due, and well-deserved, respect for Dave, Bill and Gene Taylor, the Blasters today are as strong as they ever were, which is to say the equal of any band in the world. The Blasters don’t need redemption. Long live the Blasters.

KEITH WYATT

Guitarist, the Blasters

Los Angeles

Critiques of the Critics

Is the role of a theater reviewer to write of his or her own opinions or claim to speak for all theatergoers? Daryl H. Miller, in reviewing A Noise Within’s production of “Love’s Labour’s Lost” (“Shakespeare’s ‘Labour’s’ Lost,” March 13), seems to think it is the latter. He states that the play is “a bit of a slog” and seems to find the work unsavable by even the best actors. Miller claims, “The audience gets too little return on its considerable investment of brain cells,” and “Today’s theatergoers are baffled by its elaborate wordplay.”

Miller does not speak for me nor any other audience member. If he doesn’t like “Love’s Labour’s Lost” and finds it overtaxes his brain cells, perhaps The Times should send a different reviewer.

I was fortunate to be in the audience for last Saturday’s matinee and found it to be absolutely delightful. I wasn’t baffled. My brain wasn’t tired. I came away refreshed and grateful that A Noise Within has brought Shakespeare alive to feed minds and souls once again.

PAULA VAN HOUTEN

Glendale

Lesson one of the theater: You will get negative reviews, and you will sometimes disagree with them. Complaining about them in public is not done by grown-ups; it is what separates the men from the boys. Perhaps when Jerry Patch of South Coast Rep says in his Counterpunch article (“Did ‘Lobby Hero’ Critic Have an Agenda?,” March 4) that his complaint about Jan Breslauer’s review of “Lobby Hero” “is not about a negative review,” he is being sincere. Then again, perhaps he is not. (Had the notice in question been a rave, there would be no complaint!)

While Patch never really clarifies his main point, he is quite wrong--and worryingly drifting into theatrical political correctness--with the notion that the critic must respect the talents of the artists. Why? The critic is there to help raise the standards of artistic excellence, a subjective determination arrived at through a wide range of experience and education.

Patch makes the wacky claim that Breslauer should have written a good review because this kind of negative review does the theater no good. The truth is precisely the opposite. One of the key ingredients contributing to higher artistic standards in any community is tough critics. Without them, theaters get lazy, and the public, trained on this awful diet, mistakes mediocrity for excellence.

DOUGLAS URBANSKI

Los Angeles

Finding ‘Once and Again’

I enjoyed Brian Lowry’s article about the fate of “Once and Again” (“A Reality Check for Lovesick Fans,” March 13). Although hardly a fanatic, I have always enjoyed the show and would definitely be among the 6.3 million viewers whenever possible if I could just find it. No wonder the numbers aren’t higher. ABC keeps changing its time slot, pulling it off and putting it on, and I found it again only by accident two weeks ago.

A show has a better shot at gaining, or at least keeping, an audience if it remains in its original time slot throughout the season. Perhaps that is the chief complaint of some of the show’s devotees--in which case, I join in the criticism.

KELLY HOLLIS

Valley Glen

It astounds me that the ABC station serving Roanoke-Lynchburg, Va. pulled “Once and Again” fearing the kiss between two teenage girls (“‘Once and Again’ Pulled Over Kiss,” March 13). While the kiss did happen, in all of its teenage innocence, the sexual tension building between Grace Manning (Julia Whelan) and her teacher (Eric Stoltz) is far more disturbing. So disturbing that I thought after watching the episode, “That’s what the prescreening adult content warning was about.” But alas, I guess homosexuality is a far greater crime than the possibility of statutory rape!

NANCY ROSENBLUM

Los Angeles

Fighting Words

I cannot stress enough how strongly I feel about Fox TV’s choice to program celebrity boxing last Wednesday night. It is an utterly vile, irresponsible and disgusting idea, and the programming “geniuses” behind this should be jailed.

I would also like to direct my ire toward the participants who put themselves on display in this fashion. They are morally bankrupt, and I find their acceptance of the Fox offer to be utterly despicable. No amount of money should be able to sway people into fighting each other on TV. Boxing is just a primitive display of animalism and should have no place in any civilized society.

I am ashamed to be a member of the human race. We need to take a good look at ourselves if we find something “entertaining” about people beating up on each other.

JIM PAPPAS

Torrance