Salon | Letters to the editor

_______________"STAR TREK: INSURRECTION" REVIEWED BY ANDREW O'HEHIR (12/11/98)

In his review of "Star Trek: Insurrection," Andrew O'Hehir deftly communicates the balance between pleasing the enthusiastic Trek fan base and the general movie-going public. However, I must point out that O'Hehir mistakenly reports that the film is Jonathan Frakes' directorial debut. Indeed, Frakes directed his first film two years ago with the previous Trek installment, "First Contact," and received such favorable reviews that he was locked in to direct "Insurrection."
-- Ravi Jain
Stockholm, Sweeden
Editor's Note: Salon mistakenly reported that "Star Trek: Insurrection" was Jonathan Frakes' directorial debut. The error has been corrected. We regret any confusion this error caused.
I always find it interesting when someone who has obviously never bought into the whole idea behind a franchise criticizes it for fulfilling its self-proclaimed purpose. Andrew O'Hehir's recent review of "Star Trek: Insurrection" is no different. It is readily apparent that O'Hehir does not believe in the basic ideal set forth in all of "Star Trek's " TV shows and movies: that humanity can be better if it so chooses. His reduction of the central tenet of the movie -- that those who forget the lessons of history are destined to repeat it -- to a series of "Seinfeld"-lifted "yadas," is a clear indication of his cynical nature, hence his inability to appreciate mild campiness with a deeper message. His cynicism is matched only by his ridiculous hyperbole in suggesting that most people would rather see "The Waterboy," and that "Star Trek" just barely beats out Psychic Friends infomercials and the impeachment hearings. If this is true, perhaps it is the reason we have to endure these ridiculous impeachment hearings in the first place.
-- Michael D. Mann

_______________GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS (12/08/98)

Now that Home Secretary Jack Straw has overturned Christopher Hitchens' expectations and given the green light to Pinochet's extradition, may we expect Hitchens to provide us a retraction, or at least a re-evaluation, of his essay? On the other hand, if, as Hitchens asserts, Secretary Straw is as "Clintonesque" as he claims -- a Bill Clinton with a British accent, as it were -- what does that say about our president, who has begun releasing documentation related to this case? Could it be that Clinton is capable of doing the right thing? And could it just possibly be that he has, until now, withheld comment because, as is proper, he has been waiting for the British to adjudicate this matter?
But perhaps I am being unfair to Hitchens. He is, after all, a leftist, and so his visceral hatred of Clinton stems, no doubt, from his deeply held political convictions and not, one might assume, from plain old mean-spiritedness. I should remember that Hitchens holds many of the same opinions I do, and forgive him for emitting a continuing stream of vituperation on the subject of the president, vituperation in which he is hardly surpassed by his right-wing counterparts in the press, or, for that matter, by the House Republicans.
Hitchens admits, in his latest offering in Vanity Fair, that he has never met the president, and does not plan to. He has come far indeed from his earlier work, in which he at least interviewed Mother Teresa before eviscerating her in print. On that note, it perhaps escaped Hitchens' attention that, alone of all the world's leaders, Clinton publicly confronted Mother Teresa on her reactionary position on reproductive rights, and, while most of those same leaders were falling over each other in their rush to attend her state funeral, Clinton did not go, sending Hillary Clinton as his representative instead, a nicely nuanced response that managed to make a point without offering insult.
And while Hitchens sheds tears over the victims of Pinochet's murderous regime, he may want to remember, as I do, that Salvador Allende was also brutally criticized by leftists for being too moderate, and that that criticism contributed to the atmosphere that led to his downfall, just as Hitchens' gleeful trashing of Clinton contributes in no small measure to this impeachment circus. Or will he simply wash his hands of the matter, if Clinton is brought down in what amounts to an assassination without bullets? Hitchens can, after all, always go back to England, leaving the rest of us to live in the kind of country the United States will become after the president's downfall -- a country in which, we can be sure, people who hold opinions not in accord with the religious right will not be safe. Perhaps Hitchens feels that is a small price to pay to get rid of a leader he detests, especially when he need not suffer the consequences.
-- Ann C. Davidson
Philadelphia
N E X T+P A G E+| Of breast-obsessed frat boys

_______________"STAR TREK: INSURRECTION" REVIEWED BY ANDREW O'HEHIR (12/11/98)
	In his review of "Star Trek: Insurrection," Andrew O'Hehir deftly communicates the balance between pleasing the enthusiastic Trek fan base and the general movie-going public. However, I must point out that O'Hehir mistakenly reports that the film is Jonathan Frakes' directorial debut. Indeed, Frakes directed his first film two years ago with the previous Trek installment, "First Contact," and received such favorable reviews that he was locked in to direct "Insurrection." -- Ravi Jain Stockholm, Sweeden Editor's Note: Salon mistakenly reported that "Star Trek: Insurrection" was Jonathan Frakes' directorial debut. The error has been corrected. We regret any confusion this error caused. I always find it interesting when someone who has obviously never bought into the whole idea behind a franchise criticizes it for fulfilling its self-proclaimed purpose. Andrew O'Hehir's recent review of "Star Trek: Insurrection" is no different. It is readily apparent that O'Hehir does not believe in the basic ideal set forth in all of "Star Trek's " TV shows and movies: that humanity can be better if it so chooses. His reduction of the central tenet of the movie -- that those who forget the lessons of history are destined to repeat it -- to a series of "Seinfeld"-lifted "yadas," is a clear indication of his cynical nature, hence his inability to appreciate mild campiness with a deeper message. His cynicism is matched only by his ridiculous hyperbole in suggesting that most people would rather see "The Waterboy," and that "Star Trek" just barely beats out Psychic Friends infomercials and the impeachment hearings. If this is true, perhaps it is the reason we have to endure these ridiculous impeachment hearings in the first place. -- Michael D. Mann
_______________GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS (12/08/98)
	Now that Home Secretary Jack Straw has overturned Christopher Hitchens' expectations and given the green light to Pinochet's extradition, may we expect Hitchens to provide us a retraction, or at least a re-evaluation, of his essay? On the other hand, if, as Hitchens asserts, Secretary Straw is as "Clintonesque" as he claims -- a Bill Clinton with a British accent, as it were -- what does that say about our president, who has begun releasing documentation related to this case? Could it be that Clinton is capable of doing the right thing? And could it just possibly be that he has, until now, withheld comment because, as is proper, he has been waiting for the British to adjudicate this matter? But perhaps I am being unfair to Hitchens. He is, after all, a leftist, and so his visceral hatred of Clinton stems, no doubt, from his deeply held political convictions and not, one might assume, from plain old mean-spiritedness. I should remember that Hitchens holds many of the same opinions I do, and forgive him for emitting a continuing stream of vituperation on the subject of the president, vituperation in which he is hardly surpassed by his right-wing counterparts in the press, or, for that matter, by the House Republicans. Hitchens admits, in his latest offering in Vanity Fair, that he has never met the president, and does not plan to. He has come far indeed from his earlier work, in which he at least interviewed Mother Teresa before eviscerating her in print. On that note, it perhaps escaped Hitchens' attention that, alone of all the world's leaders, Clinton publicly confronted Mother Teresa on her reactionary position on reproductive rights, and, while most of those same leaders were falling over each other in their rush to attend her state funeral, Clinton did not go, sending Hillary Clinton as his representative instead, a nicely nuanced response that managed to make a point without offering insult. And while Hitchens sheds tears over the victims of Pinochet's murderous regime, he may want to remember, as I do, that Salvador Allende was also brutally criticized by leftists for being too moderate, and that that criticism contributed to the atmosphere that led to his downfall, just as Hitchens' gleeful trashing of Clinton contributes in no small measure to this impeachment circus. Or will he simply wash his hands of the matter, if Clinton is brought down in what amounts to an assassination without bullets? Hitchens can, after all, always go back to England, leaving the rest of us to live in the kind of country the United States will become after the president's downfall -- a country in which, we can be sure, people who hold opinions not in accord with the religious right will not be safe. Perhaps Hitchens feels that is a small price to pay to get rid of a leader he detests, especially when he need not suffer the consequences. -- Ann C. Davidson Philadelphia N E X T+P A G E+\| Of breast-obsessed frat boys