Re Chris Lee's article ["Eli Roth: I Barely Survived Tarantino," Aug. 16]: Isn't it interesting how Eli Roth claims that he can "take" the insults directed at him personally and then immediately proceeds to (attempt to) defend his work based on his own "strong art-history background," claiming that the works of the authors and painters with whom he's familiar (none of whom he names) contain "far more violence" than anything he's done?

As if violence were merely red paint (or, in his words, "blood"), an objective quality devoid of context, intent, style, nuance or any other artistic consideration apart from quantity?

Sam H. Franklin


Copyright © 2019, Los Angeles Times
EDITION: California | U.S. & World