|
|
 |
Butt HeadsTo the Editor,
--Karin Bartimole Editor's Response: Karin, your concerns are certainly worthwhile. And, yes, this is a new way of paying our bills--previously we had rejected tobacco ads for just those reasons you've cited. Now, however, we feel it's more important to make money--lots and lots of money, so you're right to read us with greater wariness, as you should any publication which depends on advertisers, including the daily newspapers. American magazines, in particular, are currently a terribly stinky brew of advertiser influence on editorial content. As for the Tucson Weekly going easy on tobacco manufacturers, however, you can rest assured that will not happen too often--tobacco is a contemptible sissy addiction, and most of us on the staff are into crack and methamphetamines.
Tibet TussleTo the Editor, James DiGiovanna's belated capsule review of Kundun is an odd mix of political diatribe and begrudging appreciation which I believe unfairly slights both the director Martin Scorsese and Tibet (Tucson Weekly, March 5). While there certainly does seem to exist some sort of "Tibet chic" fad in Hollywood at the moment, the film (including the writing of the screenplay by Melissa Mathison) was actually a project seven years in progress. As for Scorsese, his résumé hardly identifies him as someone who has either jumped on any bandwagon in the past nor needs to at the present. DiGiovanna's stab at Tibet is even more problematic in being both irrelevant to the worth of the movie and an unfair representation of historical reality. DiGiovanna's quote closely mimics the Chinese propaganda concerning Tibet which came out at the time of the "liberation"--how the Chinese army was welcomed with open arms by the poor, oppressed masses of Tibet. There is no doubt that Tibet was not traditionally an egalitarian and democratically governed society. Looking at the world in general in the early decades of this century, one would have found most of the countries of the world to share such a quality. What made Tibet unique was the fact that its religious and political structures virtually overlapped--the Dalai Lama was both the political and spiritual leader. With a young modern-minded Dalai Lama, Tibet at the time of the Chinese invasion (1949) was a country in transition, as were many countries in the post-war world. My support for Tibet--and I believe the support of the famous and not-so-famous--is based not on any idealized version of a Shangri-La, but rather on an appreciation of the many unique and worthwhile features of Tibetan culture and a strong feeling of abhorrence at the unbelievable scope of the oppression and destruction wreaked on Tibet by China with barely a peep from the "civilized" world. Whatever the negative aspects of Tibetan culture which may have existed prior to 1949, the historical record still shows Tibet to have been a nation whose people supported their leader the Dalai Lama and whose Buddhist faith permeated their everyday lives, which had diplomatic relations with its neighbors (India, China, Nepal, Sikim and Bhutan), and which for 1,000 years or more had a history of political independence within the shifting political alliances of the region. Nothing that came before comes close to justifying China's genocidal and ecocidal policies since 1949, which have included the killing by torture, starvation, and execution of over 1 million Tibetans, the destruction of most of Tibet's 6,000 monasteries, the forced sterilization of a large number of Tibetan women, the massive transfer of ethnic Chinese into Tibet, making Tibetans a minority there, and the large-scale deforestation of Eastern Tibet. I have seen the evidence of some of this destruction with my own eyes. Lest DiGiovanna feel such claims come from that vicious Dalai Lama in exile in India, I suggest he consult the reports of Amnesty International, Asia Watch, or the numerous other independent observers. Glib and fashionably iconoclastic assertions about Tibet such as DiGiovanna's are nothing less than historical revisionism a la "There was no Holocaust." Unfortunately, due to China's totalitarian grip on Tibet and Tibet's extreme geographical isolation (it takes more than a month to escape Tibet across the Himalayas into Nepal), it is difficult to speak directly with the Tibetan people and dig up the truth (both literally and figuratively). There is no large constituency of survivors or their relatives to raise their voices in outrage at such callous published claims. That is why we try to help Tibet. It is regrettable that the Tucson Weekly and DiGiovanna, both keen observers of the interface of political and popular culture, have missed the real hidden political story of the film. Why was it that a film by a major American director was initially shown in Tucson on only one screen, only at noon, and with virtually no advertising? What are the implications of a foreign country, China, being able to pressure a major film company, Disney/Touchstone Pictures, to censor the distribution of a film whose theme that country doesn't approve of? All in all, once DiGiovanna's political views on Tibet are excised from his review of the film as an artistic venture, Kundun shows itself to have been an interesting and reasonably well made movie, one which unfortunately hardly anyone knew was playing. --Steven Wind
Regarding James DiGiovanna's capsule review of Kundun (Tucson Weekly, March 5): The most annoying thing about DiGiovanna's trendy secular cynicism is that it keeps him from paying attention to what is going on in his heart. Or maybe he just hasn't been informed as to its location. I am all for a good rip at movies now and then, even when they don't deserve it. Stacey Richter can really make me roll with her critical razor. Intelligent criticism is one thing, very interesting. Humor is another thing, very funny. But what is this thing DiGiovanna did called? Slam-a-Lama? That hideous mentor of maniacal terror, the Dalai Lama is at it again, folks, and boy is he ever unfair to all of those dummies who love him. Be afwaid, be verry afwaid! DiGiovanna should stay awake when reviewing films so that he can review the film, not international politics. --Jewell Starsinger
That said, I should point out another oddity in Mr. Wind's letter. He seems to think I was attacking Martin Scorcese on this point. I wasn't. I was praising him for having the courage to show that monastic rule in Tibet was corrupt and often brutal. Perhaps Mr. Wind didn't actually see Kundun, but this was a recurring theme of the film. Prisoners were shown laboring in chains, a political murder was part of one sub-plot, and the greed and corruption of some officials was strongly highlighted. Further, the Dalai Lama was frequently shown talking about the need for reform, as he actually has done in the real world. In light of this, I don't understand Wind's comment that my statement was "irrelevant to the worth of the movie and an unfair representation of historical reality." Why is it OK for Scorcese and the Dalai Lama to be honest about the political state of Tibet prior to Chinese rule, but if I mention it I'm tantamount to a Holocaust denier? That charge is particularly bizarre, given that I am refusing to deny something, rather than, as Mr. Wind would prefer, burying the unpleasant aspects of Tibet's past. In fact, even Wind seems to agree that things weren't hunky-dory in old Lhasa, but he seems to be saying that's OK given that "in the early decades of this century one would have found most of the countries of the world to share such a quality." Well, maybe Mr. Wind thinks it's OK for Tibet to have political prisoners, forced labor and political assassinations if Hitler and Mussolini and Franco were doing it too, but I don't share that view.
As for "Jewell Starsinger," he/she/it seems to think that political corruption and maltreatment of prisoners is funny in a Looney-Tunes sort of way. I can't agree, but then I have no idea where my heart is.
Gun ShyTo the Editor, I have a solution to the Tucson Rod & Gun Club dilemma. They can build a range on the Tucson Weekly's property. Since the range closed, The Weekly has run no less than five pro-range pieces. That tells me you obviously love the range and you surely wouldn't dare "whine" about the noise. That way you could share the enjoyment of listening to gunfire all day instead of pushing it off to somebody else's neighborhood. What do you think? --Craig Winters Editor's note: The Weekly doesn't own any property, Craig. But if we did, you can bet we'd shoot any whiny-ass yuppie who was to move in next door--decades after we first arrived--and then start complaining about all the explicit nudity and wild parties that have constantly--and quite obviously--gone on here all that time. In other words, we have no sympathy for most of the folks who live near that range, because it was there first. Furthermore, most of our coverage has dealt with the U.S. Forest Service's dishonesty and corruption in trying to shut down this long-time local institution.
Out Of TuneTo the Editor, This letter is to take issue with the lack of local music coverage by the Tucson Weekly. While you continually blast the Star and Citizen for their inept attempts at journalism (with which I agree), you fail to see the disservice Lisa Weeks is doing to the local music scene. Every week we are treated to Weeks' read on the press releases that pass by her desk. "Hey they're from (insert non-Arizona locale here)...they must be cool! They're coming to town...Whoohoo!" She continually ignores the women and men that night after night play and sing their message in Tucson's bars and coffeehouses. It's a message that Lisa just doesn't get. Of course, you have to go out to get it. I go out at least two nights a week to sample Tucson's "home cooking" and it is delightful. I've made some great friends and have experienced some magical concert moments that Weeks could only write fiction about. Perhaps it's the slave-driving TW management whose strict deadlines don't allow her to stay out late enough to see local bands. I don't know. I've known TW publisher Doug Biggers since high school and I seriously doubt this is the reason. I'm sure she has her reasons for ignoring the local scene, so she won't mind if we ignore those columns with her byline. I get more local music news from the ads anyway. --Barton J. King
Cross ReaderTo the Editor, This is a long overdue letter to you and to your staff regarding The Weekly. Most consistently I read Jeff Smith, Rebecca Cook (aptly named), Kevin Franklin and Tom Danehy. Of course, in-between bylines, I also read pertinent articles. Yes, your weekly is opinionated, but that's undoubtedly why your readers read it; it is, also extremely current. I share some of the articles with my son, who lives on the coast. But, forgive me. I dive for your New York Times crossword--primo. At least I have a week to work on it. --Terry G. Borden We Want Letters! Thrilled by our brilliant insights? Sick of our mean-spirited attacks? Need to make something perfectly clear? Write: tucsonweekly@tucsonweekly.com
|
 |
Home | Currents | City Week | Music | Review | Books | Cinema | Back Page | Archives
|
 |
© 1995-97 Tucson Weekly . Info Booth |
|
I've lived in Tucson just under a year now, and have come to
greatly appreciate your presence here as an alternative to the
daily, so-called newspapers in this town. Therefore, I was tremendously
disappointed to see you stoop to selling three full-page ads focusing
on the use of tobacco! Have I simply been blind until now, or
is this a new way for you to pay your bills? I have to wonder
at what cost will this have to your quality of journalism--advertising
does seem to influence the content of the media. I also wonder
where you feel your responsibility lies with the health and well
being of your readers, especially the younger people you appeal
to. Your articles, so often, have concern regarding the health
of our environment and lives, so how do you justify these ads?
I'll be reading you with a greater wariness in the future.
Finally, let me note again that I am aware of the atrocities
committed by the Chinese, and never once denied them. Mr. Wind's
demand that I consult Amnesty International on this is particularly
galling, since I am a long-time member of that organization, have
taken part in many of their campaigns, and donate a sizable portion
of my income to them. I didn't include mention of the abuses of
Chinese rule in my 228-word review because I believed that had
been well covered by everyone from Richard Gere to The New
York Times. If anyone is not aware of these abuses, I would
implore them to give Amnesty International a call, join in their
letter writing campaigns, and maybe even learn about some less
chic and trendy political causes. Even though there aren't any
celebrities stumping for Mordechai Vanunu, he's just as worthy
of our attention as the more colorful, Hollywood-endorsed Tibetans.