Mailbox
This is the second time in five months that you have printed an Armond White-bashing letter. It's clever to balance Doug Atchison's letter with an opposing viewpoint, but there must be another letter that can serve this purpose. Or is there? Nayman's rant in January revealed to us that he is someone who has read White regularly for years and that White influenced Nayman's "own development as a critic." Oedipus complex, anyone? It's really, really easy to find positive reviews in the mainstream media of movies that White dislikes.
My usual high regard for Matt Zoller Seitz was diminished considerably on reading his review of the Roscoe Arbuckle retrospective at the MOMA ("You're The One For Me Fatty," April 19-25). Seitz compares Arbuckle's acting unfavorably to Chaplin and Keaton; reasonable people can disagree on such judgments, and while disagreeing, I respect his opinion. But I was disappointed that he made no mention at all of Arbuckle's gifts as a director, arguably far superior to Chaplin. And he neglected to mention his patronage, friendship and professional generosity towards Keaton (and others), which Keaton never forgot well beyond Arbuckle's death.
Most egregious, however, was Seitz' handling of the scandal. There is an undertone throughout the article that Arbuckle had committed some terrible deed. Yes, Seitz does say "Arbuckle was tried three times and acquitted after the third," but this is thrown in almost parenthetically. Before mentioning the acquittal Seitz has already begun the damage. He describes, in lurid and exquisite detail, an event that never occurred: the purported crime for which Arbuckle was acquitted. Not only acquitted; the third jury, as I'm sure Seitz is aware, felt compelled to issue an unprecedented public written apology to Arbuckle: "Acquittal is not enough for Roscoe Arbuckle. We feel a grave injustice has been done him as there was not the slightest proof to connect him in any way with the commission of any crime."
But Seitz insists on referring to Arbuckle's "status as a bloody footnote in movie history," and ends writing of the "stench of horror [which] lingers over every chuckle." In this awful ruination of a creative man the only "stench" arose from a vindictive prosecutor, perjured witnesses and Will Hays. I hope Seitz will revisit this and try to "judge Arbuckle's gifts without knowledge of the charges"-he may find them to be considerable.