BIG FISH TO FRY
Landing a one-on-one interview with a director so enigmatic, imaginative and
generally elusive as Tim Burton [“You
Ain’t From Around Here, Are Ya, Boy?,” December 19–25], you would think
that the fresh minds of L.A. Weekly would’ve been able to assign a reporter
with more tact and direction than Dave Shulman. What did I learn about Burton
that I didn’t already know? His first date was at a Clockwork Orange/Deliverance
double feature at a Van Nuys drive-in — not exactly hard-hitting investigative
stuff we’re talking about. Shulman’s sophomoric subconversational style and
constant references to himself (the fan) throughout the piece was such a waste
of your readers’ time (and seeing how Burton reacted in the article, his time
too). Next time, get a high school intern to do the interview. At least they
would have the enthusiasm and respect to spend more than five minutes putting
an article together.
West Los Angeles
WELCOME TO THE STATES, LAND OF THE INSECURE
We have a friend from Australia we have known for over 20 years. He has come
to the U.S. many times. He just had an experience very similar to the one depicted
in your story [“Coffee,
Tea or Handcuffs?,” December 19–25] and was sent back to Australia by U.S.
Customs. He got a new stamp on his visa. (He was never told previously he needed
anything other than what he had when he entered.) He then had to pay for another
flight to return, this time to San Francisco, where he was again questioned
but allowed in. I think you should expand this story and get it out to the AP,
etc. We are horrified at how he was treated, and he had the same experience
with seven guards watching TV while he and a few others were sitting up after
24 hours of flying. Thanks for the good article.
In the story about Sue Smethurst, she seemingly had a temper tantrum in the
airport which you missed in your article. I am not sure that the oversight was
on purpose, but if I wanted to slant the article to make “homeland security”
or “airport security” look bad, I would leave out the part where she has the
tantrum and throws her sandwich and coffee against the wall while being detained
for not having the correct visa. Just thought I should bring this to your attention.
Mikulan responds: I did in fact mention this incident and cited an official
description of it as a “tantrum.” I also solicited the Customs and Border Protection
bureau’s perspective of Ms. Smethurst’s attitude (“abusive”) — all of which
appeared in the article.
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
Because I started at L.A. Weekly as sales manager
in 1980 and wound up as chairman of the board in 1993, I am in a unique position.
I know a lot about the Weekly on many levels. I am writing both to add
an additional perspective and to correct some of the inaccuracies of your special
issue on the 25th anniversary of the paper.
When I arrived at the Weekly, it was a year and a half old and struggling
financially. The Weekly and The Reader were both publishing about
48 pages a week and were ferocious competitors. Jay Levin, who was founder and
president of the Weekly, had hired me and David Cohen, then associate
publisher, to replace the sales staff with more competent, professional and
motivated people who “got” what the Weekly was all about. The hiring
was done with Jay’s active collaboration. Jay understood that a first-class
sales staff with strong leadership is the difference between life and death
at a free newspaper — and he was relentless in seeing that we built one.
Your piece [“In the Beginning,” December 12–18], while acknowledging that
Jay was the visionary and the vitality and the core of the paper’s soul in that
first decade, dismisses Jay’s astute business sense in launching the Weekly
and, with the help of many other creative and hard-working people he consciously
gathered around him, making it into a permanent fixture in the L.A. media landscape.
The “consensus” your writer cites in her strange comment is nonexistent in that
it excludes and runs counter to the opinion of the core business staff of the
Weekly at the time. Consequently, your piece glosses over Jay’s grasp
not only of the Weekly’s place in the geography of L.A.’s rapidly changing
history, but also how, concretely and specifically, he made the Weekly a
As just one of numerous examples, Jay foresaw the financial and editorial
value of Best of L.A. special issues early on and understood better than anyone
else the absolute short- and long-term gain from beating our competitor, The
Reader, to the street and with a higher-quality product. Under tremendous
deadline pressure, he used his management and catalytic skill to lead and motivate
the entire newspaper staff, getting all departments to work well with one another
24/7 under stressful but very often fun conditions. Best of L.A. became a major
element in the Weekly’s financial picture. Jay was a relentless competitor
who knew how to win. He demonstrated another side of his grasp of the publishing
business a few years later with L.A. Style magazine by audaciously upping
the sales price at the eleventh hour by over 50 percent and getting it.
Jay also was described in your piece as “socially inept” and as a manager
who did not “know how to deal with employees.” In my experience, the opposite
captures the truth. Throughout the paper and not just in the editorial department,
Jay hired a fascinating, diverse, creative and innovative group of employees,
whom he managed with respect even if he did not always agree with ‰ their points
of view. Jay was seen by me and by most others as a man of exceptional honesty
and integrity, someone who cared about his staff, who protected them when possible,
who was tolerant, open-minded, and who nurtured aspiring, talented young people
in a variety of vocations. And when the Weekly was sold, Jay gave the
employees a bonus out of his own money.
Jay, like all of us, has his weaknesses as well as strengths and has made
his share of errors. However, in summary, your article inexplicably and weirdly
denigrates his accomplishment at running a complex, paradoxical but viable business.
Best wishes for continued success.
—Karen L. Fund
Your article on West Hollywood’s strong rent-control
Fathers and Renters: Why West Hollywood still matters” [December 12–18],
states that the city of West Hollywood is a “progressive government at work,”
but the reality of what 20 years of strong rent-control laws has left us with
is quite different.
Twenty years later, we now know that we are left with crumbling and deteriorating
apartment buildings that landlords and owners refuse to properly maintain due
to the low rents the city forces them to charge. We’re also left with virtually
no new fair-market apartments built in the city of West Hollywood. Developers
would have to be crazy to invest and build in such a hostile climate.
Additionally, rent control has trapped people living in West Hollywood in
their crumbling apartments until they die. It has also basically forced landlords
and tenants to treat each other with incredible hostility. We are left with
an overcrowded situation, with many poor people living here who cannot afford
to patronize our own businesses, and those that do want to come here and shop
have no place to park.
It would also be useful to know that the people who wrote West Hollywood’s
strong rent-control laws didn’t do it out of any “progressive higher mission,”
but rather for their own selfish reasons of paying undermarket rent. Decades
later, many of the original rent-control supporters are still living in their
undermarket rent-controlled apartments, and yes, many of them are millionaires.
Is it any wonder that no other community that I know of has modeled its cities
on West Hollywood’s experiment and model of failure?
WE STAND CORRECTED
Marc Cooper [“The
Killing Years,” December 12–18] misidentifies one of the “Jesuit martyrs”
(the six priests massacred at Central American University in San Salvador in
November 1989). Mr. Cooper refers to “Juan Ramon Medrano.” The priest’s name
was Juan Ramon Moreno Pardo.
In our interview with author Alexandro Jodorowsky in the Comics issue
[“In the Heart of the Universe,” January 2–8], Jodorowsky was cited as an
almost-85-year-old when in fact he is an almost-70-year-old. (Oh, to be young