All Finked Up
All Finked Up
A few thoughts on Nikki Finkes article on industry excesses [Really Big Packages, April 2228]. Im managing director of a small Scottish production company currently going into pre-production on a remake of the 1949 Ealing comedy classic called Whisky Galore (in the U.S. it was called Tight Little Island). Our budget will be similar to Sideways, using some of the best U.K. talent both in front of and behind the camera. For anywhere outside the L.A. studio system, ours is quite a high budget. I suppose its the way of the world, but the extravagances that youve highlighted in your article drive me up the wall. We could probably have made our film from the expenses of the CEOs youve mentioned.
We enjoy your articles; theyre really well-written and informative, and we look forward to reading them each week. It must make the human subject matter uncomfortable reading them (if theyve got any room for a conscience left in their egos!). Please keep up the good work; we dont have a magazine like yours in the U.K.
I have been a faithful and admiring reader of the L.A. Weekly for a long time. Accordingly, it is with dismay that I say that I have never seen an article so unworthy of the paper as Nikki Finkes attack in the May 1319 issue on Arianna Huffington and numerous others of the presumed rich and famous. The jealous hostility and animus leap off the page in a blinding flash of green and bile.
But perhaps Finkes article itself is just some sick hoax, contrived by Ms. Huffington to gain sympathy; or was conceived as an educational parody on trash journalism at its worst.
Robert H. Powsner
Point Reyes Station
My God, what is Nikki Finkes intention . . . to be the Ann Coulter of media commentary?
She is the most shrill, defensive, nasty, mean-spirited, tactless, generally unpleasant columnist I have ever read.
Good luck keeping her on a leash. She is so deeply self-serving she comes across as someone who would have no problem putting out your eye if it served her purpose.
The Not in Our Name Crap?
Marc Cooper [Back to Iraq, May 2026] understands that the Bush administration has plunged us and the Iraqi people into a well of blood a half-trillion dollars deep and bears heavy moral responsibilities for unleashing this whirlwind of death and destruction. Cooper ultimately throws up his hands and concludes that he can offer no workable alternative. Along the way, he stresses that the Not in Our Name crap wont cut it either . . . we dont atone for the sins of the Bush administration by abandoning the Iraqi people and pretending that the resistance that would come to power is anything but fascist.
Those of us who are active with the Los Angeles Chapter of the Not In Our Name project are very curious about what crap Mr. Cooper has in mind. Perhaps this is an acronym for a new rallying cry such as Conscientious Resistance to Armed Provocation. Or maybe he just assumes that our views are senseless or shallow. We wonder if he has actually read our Statement of Conscience or Pledge of Resistance, which are posted at www.notinourname.net.
As the crisis in Iraq steadily deepens, some people hold out hope for a cure in which all parties can be left in a position that will be no worse than where they were at the beginning of 2003. No one wishes that 1,600 American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives and $500 billion or so of American taxpayers money have all been wasted or, worse yet, applied to yield disastrous consequences. Geez, would America look bad! Such fervent wishes, however, hardly provide the basis to continue policies that are demonstrable failures. Have we learned nothing from Vietnam?
The American people do have a moral obligation to the Iraqi people (and the rest of the world) to atone for the damage that has been a direct consequence of the Bush administrations unprovoked and unilateral actions in Iraq (especially since we apparently re-elected the man). It should be perfectly obvious that the first steps must be clearly to renounce (indeed, to punish) the Bush administration and to discontinue the most blatant and abrasive part of that policy the U.S. military occupation of the sovereign nation of Iraq. Though not undoing the wrong, that would at least stop throwing fuel on the fire.
Beyond atoning for our nations policy of military and clandestine terrorism, the American people should also atone for our individual and collective apathy and greed. We are a very wealthy nation. A decent level of carefully considered generosity toward our poorer brothers and sisters around the world (and not merely the Iraqis, whose economic infrastructure we have destroyed) would not only produce substantial peace dividends but also re-assert our own national morality as an end in itself.
An expedited withdrawal of U.S. occupation forces from Iraq will not magically eliminate the instability and violence our policies have unleashed. Regardless of what the U.S. does, things may get a lot worse in Iraq and in the Middle East in general (and I would not pretend otherwise). But, as the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate under U.S. military occupation, it is not enough to simply decry the lack of a happy alternative, as Cooper has done. Each day that America waits to bring all of its troops home only deepens the ultimate tragedy. Americans must clearly renounce the Bush policies of pre-emptive war and occupation. That display of conscience is, I guess, the Not in Our Name crap.
for Not in Our Name Los Angeles
The Disneyland Memorial Orgy illustration in Paul Krassners column [May 1318] is well-drawn, and even a little arousing. But you know what? Im not having it. Disneyland back in the day was BRILLIANT: twinkly lights, fireworks, mermaids in the submarine lagoon, and the Count Basie, Duke Ellington and Buddy Rich big bands on the same night, all for the $1.50 admission price. It was so much happier and more wholesome than Southern Californias new E-ticket thrill ride: the Freeway-Chase-Which-Ends-in-a-Shooting. I appreciate irreverence, but Snow White and Mickey cant be faded!
Matt Reid Cohn
My daughter picked up your magazine, which I do not subscribe to, and opened it up to the Paul Krassner cartoon of Disney characters. She handed me the paper, crying. You should be ashamed of yourself for publishing this in a giveaway magazine. I wonder if Disneyland has seen your cartoon yet and what their view will be?
Its a No-Go
What the hells happened to the L.A. Weekly?
Overnight, it seems, youve changed. Something drastic has happened. Perhaps someone (or something) has taken you over. And just like when the pod people took over in Invasion of the Body Snatchers, no one says anything or pretends not to notice.
The great writings still there, thank God, but your new format in a word sucks!
Theres an old expression you might have heard (or maybe not). It goes something like this: If it aint broke, dont fix it.
So why did you fix the L.A. Weekly? Was the old one broke?
Why the small type? Why the new font? Why the cluttered layout? Why the superimposed Z-Channel logo on top of the Neighborhood Movie Guide?
But most of all, why, oh why, have you taken to ordering people to go to certain plays, movies and concerts? Has an alternative publication suddenly decided to become an Orwellian voice of authority? Are you single-handedly trying to usher in the age of Big Brother? Or have you simply decided that mere recommendations, mere Picks of the Week, are not enough anymore? Now, in this wonderful new century of ours, the morons and simpletons of this city need more than gentle urging or suggesting to see a particular event they need to be TOLD what to do! They need to be told to GO!
GO, you have plastered all over your publication. GO! And this monosyllabic command to us mindless peons is so vital and necessary, apparently, that it precedes the title of the film or play, creating such interesting new hybrid titles as GO UGLY and GO CRASH. And, I suppose, if you recommended the Go-Gos, GO GO-GOs.
Well, heres an order for the L.A. Weekly. Ready?
GO FUCK YOURSELVES!
Despite your recent Theater in Exile cover and your awards for outstanding achievements on the stage, the recently diminished space devoted to capsule theater reviews comes across as a hypocritical move, amounting to an abdication of your responsibility to adequately assess the quality of local productions. Now, one is hard-pressed to know if the single-sentence summary is the telegram version of a critics opinion or a line lifted from a press release.
Reverse course, please.
In a review of The Threepenny Opera [The Scum Also Rises, May 1925], the wrong character was credited with singing The Jealousy Duet. The performer was Rebecca Metz, as the character Lucy. Also in the issue, an item in the Politics listings stated that Bob Avakian would attend a reception at the Central Library on May 23. In fact, the author was not present at this celebration of his memoir, From Ike to Mao and Beyond: My Journey From Mainstream America to Revolutionary Communist.
The Los Angeles Press Club released more nominations in its Southern California Journalism Awards contest, and two L.A. Weekly entries were on the list. Joe Donnelly is in the running for Best Sports Feature, and Howard Blume was nominated for Best Signed Commentary.
Other news: the post-election cover depicting George W. Bush in satanic garb, designed by Shelley Leopold and illustrated by Shepard Fairey, was included in the Design and Art Direction annual as a historical record of great creativity.
Get the This Week's Top Stories Newsletter
Every week we collect the latest news, music and arts stories — along with film and food reviews and the best things to do this week — so that you'll never miss LA Weekly's biggest stories.