Letters to the Editor - January 06 2005

?Curt Holman: I found myself agreeing slightly more with F. Feaster during your ?film exchange (Flicks, “Film 2004,” Dec. 30), but then I hit on this blast of ?awesomeness: “This year I feel I saw more creativity and thematic richness in ?two TV series: the sitcom ‘Arrested Development’ and the crime drama ‘The Wire.’ ?Lately I’ve been catching up on the year’s films for Top 10 list consideration, ?and I find myself saying, ‘But I want to watch the shows!’”

I guess by Feaster’s “Don’t go there,” I can assume that she is one of those anti-TV cinesnobs. For the record, I know several of these cinephiles who are/were anti-TV and I told them to check out the first season of “The Wire” on DVD and it blew their heads off. The third season of “The Wire” is the year’s most exhilarating artistic achievement. We all need to pray that HBO renews it for a fourth season.

“Arrested Development” may actually be in more danger as even its Best Comedy Emmy did nothing to jolt its ratings. I think season two ratings are actually down a bit from season one. Why are all those “Simpsons” viewers changing the channel?

-- Rob Meisch, Marietta

br>?Wanting the same thing
In Steve Fennessy’s diatribe against the Dylan chronicles and his interviewers, he commits the same mistakes he accuses others of, wanting answers to stupid questions (Vibes, “Idiot wind,” Dec. 30).

Who cares if Dylan did drugs, had a motorcycle accident, is still married, or just did an ad for Victoria’s Secret? All those questions belong in some confessional daytime talk show. Plenty of people have done all of the above but none have written songs like “Desolation Row.” It’s the music, man, not the bullshit.

-- Rocio Rodriguez, Atlanta

br>?Any insight, please
Oh, Steve Fennessy, get over yourself, already. Your indictment of the recent interviews with Bob Dylan read like a classic case of interview envy (Vibes, “Idiot wind,” Dec. 30). News flash: The peanut gallery can always do it better. Perhaps we won’t get a true sense of the life and times of Mr. Dylan until he agrees to submit to your undoubtedly laserlike and insightful inquiries (which will win you that long-deserved Pulitzer Prize, natch), but in the meantime, those of us who have been waiting for any insight at all into the mind of a cultural giant will enjoy the current situation as one of the glass being half-full rather than half-empty.

-- Tom Baker, Dunwoody

?It’s my voice
Even as someone who is considered and considers herself to be “right wing,” I agree with the points put forth in Thomas Bell’s article “Ask Not!” (Cover, Dec. 30). I can’t imagine what would become of our country without your voice and the voices of artists and reporters to bring light to or opine about both sides of the story. Those voices continue to make me proud to be an American, even when I disagree with what the voice says.

And I disagree with people who have problems with artists and actors using their pulpits to try to influence public opinion. Lately, those people who have the problems seem to be Republicans and I assume that those problems stem not from the activity of voicing the sentiment but from the sentiment relayed. Everyone should have an opinion and does have a voice.

The one thing that I don’t see in that article and that I didn’t hear often when people discussed the Dixie Chicks or Michael Moore is my voice. I don’t have a pulpit or a soapbox like a movie screen or auditorium, so when I espouse my views, there is a much smaller audience.

I will continue to fight for everyone’s right to voice their opinion in whatever manner they see fit, and use my small voice against those who would use censorship.

The issue for me is that I watch movies to take a moment away from the very serious issues facing our country or my life. I listen to music to unwind. If I ask the radio station not to play the music of an artist who has used their pulpit to state an opinion with which I vehemently disagree, then I am not trying to censor them — I am using my voice.

So, I am proud to keep reading your paper even when I disagree, and look forward to debating you with the weapons at my disposal if I think you have gone too far — supporting your advertisers or picking up the next copy. And I will do it doubly so when you help protect against censorship or corruption, because your paper does that so well.

It isn’t my form of censorship, it is the way I make my voice heard.

-- Mary Heather Hanley, Atlanta

Worth the effort
I can understand the rushing to reach a deadline, the little shortcuts you may have to take in getting a story to print, but when it comes to incorrect details like mentioning in your review of The Life Aquatic that Henry Selick’s underwater wildlife was “computer-animated,” well, there’s just no excuse (“Wacky waterworld,” Dec. 23).

You should be more vigilant in getting your facts right, as Selick’s creations were all done in stop-motion, a la Nightmare Before Christmas. All the creatures were puppets, moved incre-mentally frame-by-frame, believe it or not. No computers were used. Tedious, yes, but worth the effect that Wes Anderson was looking for.

-- Ward Jenkins, Decatur ?

animation director, Primal Screen


Quite a coach
?Great article on Coach Pinholster (Humbug Square, “The coach,” Dec. 9). ?I played for him on the Oglethorpe baseball team (before Billy Carter took over) ?and for one year on the JV basketball team. Coach Pinholster certainly had his ?and someone else’s share of gumption, but I think his success was founded in ?relentlessness, persistence, discipline, the narrowness of focus and absence ?of doubt that good coaches utilize (whether or not they feel it). He was quite ?a coach. ?

-- Stephen Figler, Cambria, Calif., ?

(Oglethorpe University, 1964)?