I'd just like to voice my disappointment that you chose to publish Graham Hill's "review" of Executive Action
on your otherwise informative and entertaining site. I put "review" in
quotes because the article was more to do with the writer's beliefs in
real life conspiracy theories than with the merits of the film itself.
I won't list my specific problems (and there are many) with the article
as I'm already corresponding via email with Mr. Hill himself.
Others have recently complained about the recent
trend in writers on the site adding their own political commentary to
the subject matter the site is ostensibly devoted to. The irony is that
more often than not I agree with a lot of the commentary and have even enjoyed reading a lot of it, but that is sort of beside the point. I object to it in principle simply because it has nothing to do with the site's supposed raison d'être. I'd have just as big a problem with it if you decided to start writing articles about the weather or sports. The Executive Action
article however was the straw that broke my personal camel's back, as
it were. I'm not saying the subject of politics needs to be totally off
limits. For example the red scare of the fifties and how it affected
Hollywood in later decades, or say the network's battle with The
Smothers Brothers are all fair game, in my opinion.
l
Having said all that, I enjoy the site a lot and
visit it at least once a day, I just think your focus is starting to
veer. If I want political commentary, there are many sites I can visit,
but precious few devoted to film and TV of the sixties and seventies, a
subject of which I am inordinately fond. I also want to make it quite
clear that I have nothing personal against Mr. Hill and again am in
fact having an interesting and friendly correspondence with him on this
very subject. I'm not writing to complain about Hill or even the
article so much as the "focus" issue.
You are of course free to write whatever you want
and I'll (probably) continue to read it, even if it is sometimes with
gritted teeth.
Sincerely,
John Grass
Retro responds: Ouch! John, it was only one article. Ironically, a few weeks ago we published a letter from a reader who complained that we should be covering more political stories, specifically the hot-button world of American cable TV news. As I wrote then, Cinema Retro does not cover the world of politics and never will. However, once in a great while, a columnist or contributor might involve some political opinions in an article that relates to the entertainment industry. You can argue that Graham Hill's article had ties that were too tenuous for you in regard to the connection to Executive Action, but the fact is that we would not have simply printed a piece about his theories on the JFK assassination if it were not have tied in with a film. For the record, we did not endorse or offer an opinion on his theories one way or the other- they remain the author's personal views. Graham has contributed many wonderful interviews and articles, none of which touch on politics in the slightest, aside from the JFK piece. Even that isn't political in the routine sense of the word, as it doesn't deal with contemporary events or policies. As for us veering off course and covering politics too much, we're a bit puzzled. In the years since we opened the web site, we have published thousands of stories and news articles and there have been only a handful of articles that even mentioned politics - and when they did, we always referred to such figures as Presidents Bush and Obama and Prime Ministers Blair and Brown with respect, not sarcasm, and we'll continue to do so. A search of our database reveals only fleeting references to political figures. We did do precisely two stories about contentious news commentators, the latest one being Lou Dobbs, who left CNN. That was big news in the world of American TV, and our article was completely objective regarding Dobbs' controversial reputation. Still, we respect your opinion and thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts in such an intelligent manner. We are grateful that in the rage-filled world of the web, our readers always express their views in a polite and rational manner. Now, un-grit those teeth, John! - Lee Pfeiffer, Editor-in-Chief