Getting in Some Oscar Race Parting Shots

The goings-on surrounding the attempted smear campaign of Ron Howard’s “A Beautiful Mind” should make a portion of the Hollywood community cower in shame (“Oscar Fever Is Pushing the Envelope of Civility,” by Lorenza Munoz, March 16).

This is an industry whose main purpose is to make money by entertaining us. If you have seen “A Beautiful Mind” and for that two or so hours were captivated by its story or performances, cried or laughed or left the theater a little more knowledgeable then when you came in, then that film fulfilled its only obligation to the movie-going public.

Contrary to those whose only purpose in life seems to be destroying someone else’s creation to make themselves look better, when I see something “based” on a true story, I know up front that I am getting an interpretation, a point of view of the author or director. I am not stupid enough to believe that every scene must be an indisputable fact.

The possibility that a paranoid schizophrenic also might have been bothered by fears of a particular ethnic group had no place at all in the film and should come as no surprise, given the pathology of the illness.

But if you want to make pathology an issue, then consider the minds of those in Hollywood who want to influence others by trying to get people to believe that a director’s vision is somehow diminished, actors’ performances somehow stilted and the work of editors and set decorators now lessened because a creative effort, better than their own, did not meticulously stick to facts.

KENNY RICH

West Hills

I don’t mean to belittle the question of whether the film “A Beautiful Mind” plays fast and loose with the facts of John Nash’s life. Nor am I pleased to consider the specter of smear campaigns becoming the norm for future Oscar seasons. But shouldn’t these be secondary issues to the question of whether “Mind” is really as good a movie as it pretends to be?

I hope, but doubt, that all the players crying foul over the film’s bad publicity will consider the possibility that their darling may go home empty-handed on Sunday night, strictly on the merits of the other nominees. If Denzel Washington, Robert Altman or the writers of “Ghost World” win their respective Oscars, it will not be because of some ill spin but because each of them is far more deserving than anyone involved with the overly pat and inauthentic “Beautiful Mind.”

THOMAS EARLHAM

Burbank

I would like to know why Miramax studios has spent so much money advertising “In the Bedroom” and calling Sissy Spacek’s performance “the year’s most acclaimed and powerful performance” while totally ignoring Judi Dench’s performance in “Iris,” which it also released? Dench’s performance was more diverse and complex.

Clearly, the amount spent on publicizing a film and its star is far more important than the performance. I can still remember when John Wayne won his Oscar against Richard Burton’s performance in “Anne of the Thousand Days.” I guess I’ll find a book to read on Oscar night.

DARIA CASE

Sherman Oaks

For a guy who hasn’t made a good movie since “MASH” (1970), Robert Altman’s “short fuse and big mouth” act (“Cinema’s Grouch, Independent and Young at Heart,” by Patrick Goldstein, March 19) is tiresome and boring, much like his latest snoozer, “Gosford Park.”

CARL MOORE

Lomita

How ironic that the place that stands for movies, glamour and, most of all, its loyal fans is closed, restricted and shut down on the most important night of the year for the movie industry (“The Security Rope Will Not Be Velvet,” by George Ramos, March 19).

It seems like a plot from a really bad B movie: “Hollywood gets long-awaited facelift, shuts out shopkeepers, fans and stargazers.” Well, that’s show biz for ya, kid!

FRANCES TERRELL LIPPMAN

Los Angeles

Updating ‘E.T.’

It’s every artist’s right to revisit his past work, but I found the tone so disheartening in Michael Mallory’s article on the “E.T.” re-release (“A New Smile, but the Same Charm, From ‘E.T.’,” March 16). Both the film’s producers and Mallory seemed almost gleeful in their description of how “E.T.” was being transformed to appeal to today’s audience.

Would the palpable joy have been so evident if we were talking about Da Vinci adding a nose ring and a tattoo to his “Mona Lisa”? Or Shakespeare adding the words “dude” or “da bomb” to “Hamlet”?

Somehow filmmakers feel they can make themselves immune from history if they use current technology to update the past. While Spielberg and the producers add that they will preserve the original cut to appease “purists,” one has to ask which version is likely to be shown on cable or resold down the road on DVD’s successor technology?

One only has to look at Spielberg’s own “updating” of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” to resign oneself to that reality. I ask, when was the last time any of you saw the original 1977 theatrical cut of “Close Encounters” on VHS, DVD or in a revival house?

JOE STEMME

Culver City

‘Mirroring Evil’s’ Conceit

People protesting the “Mirroring Evil” exhibition at the Jewish Museum in New York (“A Piercing Look,” by Geraldine Baum, March 16) are missing the point of contemporary art. This art is created to irritate, to shock and to offend. Artspeak, otherwise known as catalog notes, exists to create a bridge between offensive artists and potential buyers by pretending that the act of offending an audience is an expression of the impulse that makes artists superior to ordinary people.

This should be obvious. What else could motivate a curator explaining that artists using Nazi imagery to further their own careers are actually commenting on “how Nazism has been glamorized and commodified”? If contemporary art critics didn’t spend all of their time explaining this type of art to the pathetically offendable non-artists who are its only potential market, why would anyone buy it?

RENEE LEASK

Glendale

Where’s the Music?

The last day of the All Tomorrow’s Parties festival was a joke. I don’t know what Sonic Youth is trying to push on us, but I’m not buying. What I heard on Sunday (“Not All Bands Act Like It’s Party Time,” by Steve Hochman, March 19) was aimless noise, awful vocals and bad poetry.

Non-mainstream music does not have to be bad. There are worthy non-mainstream bands that craft well-thought-out music and songs. I just wish they had been at UCLA on Sunday.

DANIEL CLELAND

Santa Clarita

Your recent article (“Country Radio Is Now ‘Music of the Suburbs,’” by Steve Carney, March 8) about country radio’s rejection of the music from the Grammy-winning “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” soundtrack misses the point. Country radio and folk music have almost nothing to do with each other--they divorced more than three decades ago. All across America, the true home for folk, bluegrass and other roots music has been the network of public radio stations.

That is, except in Los Angeles. KCRW-FM, the powerhouse station for the hipper-than-hip crowd, refuses to program any shows for roots music fans (or anyone over 30), preferring the latest electronica from the U.K. or the next big thing from NYC. KPPC-FM in Pasadena, once home of fine music shows such as “City Billy” and “D-Tuning,” has gone all talk, except for “Prairie Home Companion.” Worst of all, after 30 years of producing “Folkscene,” one of the most respected folk-roots radio shows in the country, Howard and Roz Larman were yanked from the schedule at KPFK-FM more than a year ago.

The recent change in management at the Pacifica station holds a glimmer of hope that the Larmans will return to the air and folk fans might again get a few hours of programming each week. But don’t hold your breath! L.A. media are not friendly to roots music, despite thousands of L.A. music fans who crave a little twang in their diets.

BRUCE KAPLAN

Los Angeles

Should She Feel Honored?

I have one question concerning Lynn Redgrave’s investiture as an Officer of the Order of British Empire (Morning Report, March 20). What empire?

JOSEPH McEVOY

San Clemente