Letters to the editor:
[email protected]

Statehouse Clarification

I am writing in response to your article which appeared in your July 8th edition, "Statehouse Scrap." The legislation to which you refer was proposed by the Political Animals Committee of Tennessee (PACT). PACT asked me to be its House sponsor for the bill in 1998. Because of my relationship with the bill, I would like to clarify statements that were mistakenly made in the article. As the bill was originally written and passed on the House floor, it did not contain any wording that would allow animals from shelters to be sold for research. However, the bill came before the Senate body, one of the amendments the senate added was: "if the dog's owner does not appear to redeem the dog within three (3) days, the dog shall become the property of the shelter or facility and the animal shall be either adopted, humanely destroyed, or used for medical research."

Because the amendment changed the bill, it would have been necessary for the bill to be returned to the House for consideration of the new Senate amendments in order to have become law. I never had the opportunity to oppose the amendment, nor did the House ever see the bill again because of the adjournment session. The bill therefore was dead.

I have known Vicky Crosetti for several years, and I know that she would be unequivocally opposed to such an amendment. She and the members of PACT gained the respect of legislators due to the professional manner in which they lobbied this bill as well as the Spay/Neuter bill.

Tim Burchett
Senator, 7th Senatorial District

Zak's Eyes Shut?

I've never been especially impressed with Zak Weisfeld's movie reviews, and I didn't give much weight to his glib and superficial review of Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut when I read it [Vol. 9, No. 29]. Having finally seen the film, however, I'm so astonished by Mr. Weisfeld's lack of insight and failure to grasp even the most basic ideas in the film that I feel compelled to respond. Stanley Kubrick explored themes of human free will and the often contrasting realities that lie beneath surface appearances throughout his career—and Eyes Wide Shut continues in this vein. Bill Harford may be a very successful young doctor, but he is sleepwalking through his life (hence, the movie's title—get it, Zak?). Not a very reflective guy, he's unaware not only of his wife's inner life and the potential turmoil beneath the surface of his "happy" marriage, but he's also alarmingly out of touch with himself. He's content to accept the appearances of things around him as reality without much thought. Following his wife's revelation of a sexual fantasy, Bill begins a journey of self-awareness, structured in a classic literary style with a series of vignettes.

There are many fascinating elements at play during the journey—the various portrayals of female sexuality in relation to men: the woman whose father has died, the prostitute, the costumer's daughter, the women at the highly ritualized orgy (in the latter case, Zak laments that the nude women "seem little more than props"—I wonder if it occurred to him that, since their role at the orgy was to serve for the pleasure of men, this was precisely Kubrick's intent). Following this immersion, Bill revisits each of these scenes the following day (the orgy is "revisited" in the form of a conversation), each time revealing a somewhat different "reality" than the one Bill has previously accepted the night before. The use of the failed-medical-student turned jazz pianist as Bill's link to the underworld (i.e. subconscious) is also an intriguing element. Ultimately, what Kubrick presents the viewer is a classic morality tale regarding free will—one can only "choose" good when evil is an option; monogamy is a meaningful choice only when infidelity is a possibility.

Zak seems to have missed all of this and more, choosing instead to chide Kubrick for having lived in England and not gotten out more at night. Zak himself seems to be in need of a refresher trip to New York City, however—his accounting of the scene of Bill "...accosted by a gang of young toughs..." on "...the streets of Greenwich Village" was way off. Only someone who's spent too much time in Knoxville would mistake a group of frat guys for "young toughs" or mistake what was clearly mid-town Manhattan for Greenwich Village. And only someone who really doesn't get it would accuse a movie called Eyes Wide Shut, inspired by a novella called Traumnovelle ("Dreamnovella"—get it, Zak?), of not being realistic enough. I'm not ready to declare Eyes Wide Shut a masterpiece or anything, but it is certainly one of the most interesting films in recent years. The cinematography is, as always with Kubrick, stunning. And, unlike many others, I found Cruise and Kidman's performances totally credible (Nicole's performance at the opening party sequence is... well, pure intoxication). Open your eyes and wake up, Zak—the readers of Metro Pulse deserve better.

Ashley Capps
Knoxville

Special Bonus Letter!

Gosh darn it, we do love getting mail from our readers but we just can't print it all. Sometimes the missives are unsigned, run too long, don't relate to any of the issues we usually cover, or verge on the loopy. Rather than let these bits of personal expression go unread, we will now start posting them here. Enjoy!

WUOT's Public Interest

While revealing disagreement about the nature and content of WUOT programming, the recent letters to this column attest to the deep concern of public radio listeners and supporters about the station's future. The proper forum for such a debate should probably be a citizen's advisory board representing the station's listeners. Such a board could ensure that the station serve the public interest by thoughtful diversity of its programming .

According to Corporation for Public Broadcasting data, WUOT received $132,296 in Federal funding in 1996 and continues to receive Federal funding. That taxpayer subsidy implies that dissatisfied listeners need not sit by passively while the station's current administrators dictate programming policy.

When station director Regina Dean, supported by Sammie Lynn Puett and UT president Joe Johnson, eliminated "Segue," "Radio Reader," "Fresh Air" (since reinstated) and "Alternative Radio," a group of over 60 "concerned citizens and public radio supporters" filed a petition in 1996 with the FCC alleging, among other things, that the station's delinquency in "recognizing and responding to the diversity of its listening audience" violated its public interest mission. That petition was denied. In 1998 a group of over 60 citizens filed another petition alleging underrepresentation of women and minorities on WUOT's full-time staff.

These petitions, as well as the recent public clamor over the proposed elimination of "Live at Laurel," demonstrate that the public can indeed raise its voice on these matters. When properly directed, that voice can influence the station's policies.

Michael Kaplan
via e-mail