A New Supervisor in Town
Hillel Aron's story on the race to replace L.A. County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky filled our mailbags last week (“Is Sheila Kuehl or Bobby Shriver Less Bad at Handling $26 Billion?” Oct. 17). Writes Mitch Lippman, “Since when does L.A. Weekly make the L.A. Chamber of Commerce POV prominent? Don't we want the supervisor in the 3rd District to be more Zev-like than someone who entered public service because he didn't want to cut his hedge?
“Let's support Sheila Kuehl's experience and compassion not Shriver's boyish, manic mannerisms.”
Of Kuehl dissing Shriver, Hvcaulfield notes, “She's funny. Like a boxer at a prefight press conference, she's trying to get in early blows, posture and intimidate. She's pretending not to know anything about Shriver. I'm almost certain that she knows that he is the oldest in his family. So the gist of the jab is that she is trying to tell Shriver that she doesn't know or care about him or his family. When, of course, his family is the thing that she is most afraid of.”
Meanwhile Sonjahernandez circles back to the near-mythical shrubbery that launched Shriver's political career. “I live in Santa Monica, and I can tell you Shriver did not run for city council because of his hedges. He ran to represent people who had no voice against arrogant, lifelong bureaucrats. And he did change the culture at City Hall.”
Hell Hath No …
Amy Nicholson's review of Brad Pitt's latest vehicle divided readers (“Fury Is Your Typical 'War Is Hell' Movie,” Oct. 17). Writes Lee Scott Theisen, “What a travesty this so-called review is! The reviewer obviously has no knowledge of the genre, or the intent of the director and actors, and no ability as a film critic. The review is a joke.”
Kim Robillard writes, “Amy Nicholson's review does a fairly good job describing the film as a kind of PTSD fever dream, which it is. And that, I believe, is the best thing about it: How war essentially turns us into animals, concerned with nothing more than killing each other off to survive.
“But when Ms. Nicholson writes that this film 'makes the fatal mistake of so many war movies … dividing the battlefield so that our deaths are lofty and the enemies' mean nothing,' she leaves out the most important scene in the movie, the dinner scene and its aftermath. This scene is all about seeing the war from the enemies' point of view — from the eyes of two frightened German women, hiding in a village overrun by American troops consumed with carnal lust and revenge. In these moments, we can view our actions in World War II the same way soldiers have been viewed in other wars throughout history: as brutish thugs to be feared and avoided.”
You Write, We Read
Please send letters c/o L.A. Weekly, 3861 Sepulveda Blvd., Culver City, CA 90230. Or email us at ReadersWrite@laweekly.com. Full names and contact info preferred.
Advertising disclosure: We may receive compensation for some of the links in our stories. Thank you for supporting LA Weekly and our advertisers.