Letters

Ford takes issue with my suggestion that Ace has been less than hospitable to women artists, but I stand by that. Ford mentions Tara Donovan (who had one show at Ace/New York), and Teresa Margolies (who had one show at Ace/Mexico City). Since Ford seems interested in splitting hairs, I ask him to take ‰ note of the fact that I refer to Constance Malinson as “one of just five women Chrismas has represented in L.A. over the last 37 years.” That doesn’t seem like very many women artists for 37 years of presenting shows.

Ford defends Chrismas on the grounds that his “tendency to financial manipulation ... seems more than outweighed by his commitment to the art.” That is entirely a matter of opinion, and this infinitely debatable question was precisely the point of the profile. That’s why I gathered as many opinions as I possibly could — I contacted nearly 60 people — and quoted people as objectively as I could. (I would add that were Ford an exhibiting artist, his feelings about the matter might be different.) This was not an op-ed rant; it was a piece of reporting, and all I did was gather information and try to determine whether or not it was true before presenting it to the reader.

—Kristine McKenna

EMBARRASSED, BUT NOT UNTHRILLED

While it’s always a pleasure to see Moving Arts mentioned in Steven Leigh Morris’ theater column, the remark he attributed to “a representative from Moving Arts” at the recent Edge of the World Theater Festival’s Edge Factor roundtable [“Edging Your Bets,” October 24–30] requires some clarification. I am the representative quoted. The subject of the roundtable, as Morris indicates, was whether local theater is “vital” (and if so, to whom), and a portion of the discussion centered on the relationship between local theater and the film-and-television industry. Morris quotes me as having mentioned that the company was “slightly embarrassed when Tori Spelling optioned a one-act produced there.”

I should first make it clear that I was not speaking on behalf of Moving Arts or any of its members, but expressing a concern of my own. In fact, everyone in the company I had contact with was thrilled by Ms. Spelling’s option, myself included. We’re extremely proud of the relationships we’ve built with the Industry, audiences, the theater community and the press. In using the word “embarrassed,” I was expressing concern that Moving Arts’ reference to Ms. Spelling’s option in promotional materials might run the risk of distracting from or overshadowing the work itself. I am pleased to report that that has not been the case.

—Trey Nichols Literary Director, Moving Arts, Los Angeles

ASK WALLY

In “The Doctor of Shirts” [October 24–30], Greg Goldin refers to Prince Charles as His Royal Highness the Duke of Windsor. Charlie is a lot of things: prince of Wales, duke of Cornwall, duke of Rothesay, earl of Carrick, baron of Renfrew, lord of the Isles, prince and great steward of Scotland, but duke of Windsor he is not. That title was given to his disgraced great-uncle, David, erstwhile King Edward VIII, after he abdicated in 1936.

He is, however, a member of the House of Windsor (or, more correctly, Windsor-Mountbatten).

—Joan Kaufman Los Angeles

Congratulations Due

The Association of Food Journalists gave L.A. Weekly contributors two nods of approval in its annual Awards Competition 2003. Michelle Huneven received first-place honors for her restaurant criticism, and she also shared a third-place award with writers Gendy Alimurung, Lou Amdur, Jonathan Gold, Phranc, Nancy Silverton and Anna Thomas for a special section about takeout dining published in June 2003. Kudos to the writers, and to section editor Deborah Vankin.