Readers sound off on L.A. Times’ ‘academy diversity’ proposal: Not diverse enough

Diversity list? Not diverse enough

It is almost appalling that The Times would exclude the Native people of America in its selection of diverse people or races for membership in the film academy [“Our Diverse 100: Opening Doors,” June 4]. You have perpetuated a myth that we no longer need to be considered. The Native community is alive, viable and still here. I don’t expect an apology for your omission, but I hope you educate yourself in the future. Your exclusion is precisely why this issue exists and needs to be changed. As a proud member of the film academy, I intend to work to do just that.

Sonny Skyhawk

Pasadena

Exclusions from Times’ academy diversity project

I was very surprised that Nikesh Patel wasn’t included in this article. Born and raised in London, but of Indian descent, he recently appeared in the PBS series “Indian Summers” (the second season is coming soon). He’s more than equal to the others brought here from England after getting recognition on PBS. P.S. I don’t know this man, but I can recognize good acting and sincere interviews when I see them.

Norma Hayes

Hacienda Heights

::

The Times has been a champion of diversity for many years now. When will it be brave enough to disclose the diversity of its editorial staff and other employees? Do they reflect the demographics of the country?

William Goldstein

Los Angeles

American cast? A genius idea!

Regarding “It Takes Two to Make a ‘Genius’ “ [June 5]. I loved Max Perkins, the editor portrayed in “Genius.” I love Colin Firth and Jude Law and A. Scott Berg. I’m thrilled that the book is being turned into a film. But why is this quintessential story about American literature cast almost entirely with non-Americans? As long as Thomas Wolfe’s famous height wasn’t an issue, couldn’t a real Southerner, Matthew McConaughey, say, have played the part? How ironic that the headline when the story continues on another page is “Look Homeward, Writers.” How about casting directors looking homeward?

Elyce Wakerman

Sherman Oaks

All Kardashian, all the time. No.

So glad Rob Kardashian has been given a reality show [“Quick Takes: Rob Kardashian Gets Reality Series,” June 2]. I can now add his to the list of other Kardashian shows I don’t watch. Congratulations, E!, you are the leader in Kardashian enabling TV. So happy for all included.

Conrad Corral

Cathedral City

Rich history of laughs in variety

Referring to comedy-variety shows [“ ‘Maya & Marty’ Feels Like a Spinoff in Sketch and Approach,” June 2], TV critic Robert Lloyd says, “Such things are invariably hit and miss.” Really? Invariably? Some of us remember “The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour” and “Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In,” “The Carol Burnett Show” and “The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour.” Let’s not lower our standards. First, presidential candidates. Now, comedy-variety shows.

Ray Sherman

Duarte

::

I applaud Lloyd’s tepid critique of “Maya & Marty” (executive produced by Lorne Michaels). But really? We clicked it off halfway through the Jiminy Glick (portrayed by Martin Short) interview skit with Larry David. What was David laughing at? And what’s with the bogus laugh track every second attempting to punch up a humorless script, or lack of? Hit the delete button, Lorne, quick.

Jerry Collamer

San Clemente

‘Off’ portrait of Robert Kennedy

Regarding “Outdoor Art: A Melange of Murals” [June 5]. Something I find disconcerting as an artist is when someone paints a portrait that is just a little bit “off”… (as in most presidential portraits, along with the enormous sculpture of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in Washington, D.C.). Here, I am talking about the portrait of Robert Kennedy on a wall at his namesake school created by Shepard Fairey. Not only does it not capture the look of Kennedy but it is also soul-less.

Lynn Leatart

Sherman Oaks

A girl’s face in the looking glass

Regarding “A Breath of Fresh Air for Disney” [May 30]. The suggestion that the “Alice” movies are part of some women’s empowerment project is a bit of a stretch. Linda Woolverton and her filmmaking cohorts have missed spectacularly what’s crucial to understanding the Lewis Carroll books, that they present the vision of a young girl, a child. I think Carroll would have been completely uninterested in Alice (even his own Alice) as a young adult, feisty or not.

John de Jong

Long Beach

Strong women in a weak movie

Regarding the review “Not Much Value for the ‘Money’” [May 13]. Now that “Money Monster” is disappearing from theaters, done in by poor reviews, I remain mystified as to why of all the reviews I read, not one critic mentioned that the three female characters were more competent and principled than any of the males. None of these women was content to passively stand by her man; each followed her own path.

Virginia Wexman

Los Angeles