Letters to the Editor

The director replies

Seven years ago, when pre-production for my feature film Zeitgeist was just starting, I knew there would be a time when the literary aspects of this film would be lost on critics whose puritanical attitudes would effectively prevent them from noticing anything else. I just didn’t think it would happen at Metro Times.

In her review of my film Zeitgeist (“Laughoholics Anon.,” Metro Times, April 2-8) Anita Schmaltz either chose to ignore, or did not have a literary background sufficient enough to recognize, the Orwellian influences throughout this film. The contributions of Dostoyevsky and the parallels between Zeitgeist and Melville’s Moby Dick, both stories of one man’s obsession, were also lost on Schmaltz. Zeitgeist was heavily influenced by the collective works of Kubrick, Kurosawa and Ford, with a dash of Scorsese. Yet, as with most psudeointellectuals, Schmaltz summarily dismissed this film as “... primarily and primally for those who just don’t get enough T.A. ...” This is as damaging as it is inaccurate.

Detroit-area filmmakers need to get a fair shake from Detroit-area publications. Schmaltz has perpetuated an artistic and cinematic crime with her heavy-handed dismissiveness, lack of perception and lack of understanding. She ought to be ashamed. —Christopher Dinnan, pitbullfilmworks.com

Fun with language arts

Jeremy Voas, I read your cute definitions about the war (Screed, Metro Times, April 2-8). I think you should have included at least one more:

Liberalism: A disease that causes an individual to suffer severe mental disorders caused by a traumatic childhood experience or by neglectful parents. Can be cured by enlightenment and knowledge. In those cases where treatment fails or is refused, the individual remains brain-dead for the rest of his/ her life span. Contagious to those with weak minds, poor upbringings or who lack proper judgment. Also see Democrats.

Seek professional help. —Jeff Bonnell, Roseville

Who is unfair?

I find it curious that you had an article complaining about the “lack of fair reporting” in the American media and were disgruntled by most news channels not having anti-war voices, while your magazine has been nothing but anti-war propaganda (“Air war,” Metro Times, April 2-8). Where are your pro-war voices?

If you are protesting the war because you don’t want innocent Iraqis killed, how many articles did you run since the late 1970s protesting the deaths of innocent Iraqis at the hands of Saddam?

I nearly cried when I read Jack Lessenberry say that Al-Jazeera was fair and balanced (Politics & Prejudices, Metro Times, March 26-April 1). Your newspaper is full of propaganda and is anything but fair and balanced. Have you devoted any time to interviewing the majority of Iraqi exiles who support the war? I am an exile myself and I salute George Bush for this war. This war could never kill as many people as Saddam has and would continue to do.

I suggest you educate yourself instead of giving the status quo liberal anti-war propaganda. —Asaf Ahadi, Madison Heights

Missing research

Serene Dominic writes: “When Americans are questioning whether pre-emptive strikes against onetime-ally dictators is in direct violation of international law, it seems frivolous to focus our attention span on (insert snarl) popular music” (“Iraq and roll,” Metro Times, March 26-April 1). No, Serene, it doesn’t just “seem” frivolous, it is frivolous. What is the use of an alternative media source such as Metro Times when all we are given are poorly researched rants about poor-quality anti-war pop? Would it really have taken Dominic so long to do any research instead of simply writing a knee-jerk “music sucks” rant?

Dominic dismisses the Dixie Chicks for backtracking and seeking easy applause in London, but there seems to be little difference between a play for “easy applause” from the stage and a bitchy little inconsequential rant like Dominic’s piece. —Brandon Hayes, [email protected], Ann Arbor