EVERYTHING I NEED TO KNOW I LEARNED AT CROSSROADS

LETTERS

An alumnus speaks out; Hitchens's critics give praise; loving Emily; sizing up Kabbalah; bluffing with nipples; and more

Frank DiGiacomo's article "School for Cool" (March) did not accurately portray the Crossroads School's true academic strengths or the community at large. Outsiders routinely label the school "progressive," but its true strengths are much more traditional: passionate teachers committed to excellence, small class sizes, a rigorous (and often stress-inducing) curriculum, and a belief that the individual matters.

The school was much more about empowering students with a voice and a sense of ownership of their education and much less about the celebrity gossip your article so tastelessly described. While children of Hollywood superstars do attend, the vast majority of the student body is composed of kids from middle-class families that place a high priority on quality education.

AARON PARKER

Class of 1999

San Diego, California

THE PARENTS OF CROSSROADS students remind me of people who will do anything to forget the ordinariness of their own childhood and will lavish large sums of money on their children to give them new, different, and superior experiences.

In this way, Crossroads is no different from any other prep school where the families all come from the same industries, same socioeconomic background, and same prescribed material expectations. Such a homogeneous pool can be its own gilded cage.

KANANI FONG

Fullerton, California

OHIO, WE HAVE A PROBLEM

I WAS ELATED to read "Ohio's Odd Numbers," from the erudite Christopher Hitchens [March]. His analysis of voting irregularities in Ohio is old hat to many of us liberal "nutbags and paranoids" who have been outraged by large-scale voter disenfranchisement and election manipulation for two consecutive presidential elections.

We appreciate your conservative nod of approval, Mr. Hitchens, but does your keen analysis suddenly validate what has largely been regarded as leftist "paranoia" and radical "conspiratorial" claims?

Anyone with a conscience, regardless of party affiliation, must question the current state of our electoral process and demand a systematic change. Our Founding Fathers would be turning over in their graves if they knew of America's complacency in tolerating a voting system plagued with corruption and irregularities.

CORRINA JONES

Atascadero, California

I AM WRITING to commend Christopher Hitchens for his courageous analysis of the presidential-vote count in Ohio "that refuses to add up." I was, for a number of years, a great admirer of Mr. Hitchens's, in part because of his staunch refusal to get caught up in the conceits of our society. But over the past few years, in my view, he has become petulant and arrogant. The final straw was his decision that George Bush should be re-elected, despite all the evidence to the contrary, and that John Kerry, as Mr. Hitchens put it, should not be elected president "of any country at any time." If continuing suspicions about Ohio's vote are borne out, Mr. Bush does not deserve to be president, either.

But while stories of election improprieties in Ohio have been circulating since the election, I certainly don't see the Justice Department launching an investigation. However, when someone of the stature and mind-set of Mr. Hitchens calmly and astutely raises pertinent questions about Ohio, it gives us some hope. This really is a big deal, and I hope Mr. Hitchens's imprimatur is enough to finally get something done. Reports of voter suppression simply cannot and should not be ignored. After all this time of loathing him, I have found that my admiration for Mr. Hitchens has returned.

ARTHUR KINGDOM III

Great Falls, Virginia

FOR ALL THE PEOPLE who still refuse to believe that the 2004 presidential election was stolen, even after reading "Ohio's Odd Numbers," in the plainest language possible, here is what I think happened: Two or three highly technologically savvy people monitored the computerized election returns. When it became clear Bush would not win a key county, one of these technoburglars quickly, anonymously, and remotely hacked into the computerized voting system and switched the vote to favor Bush. This cannot be proved, because finding this deliberate change in thousands of layers of code is akin to finding a needle in the proverbial haystack.

This Republican will go to her grave knowing how Bush won re-election, but this optimist is convinced that computerized voting systems will be changed to restore our faith in democracy.

S. McCUE

New York, New York

THANK YOU, MR. HITCHENS, for your article regarding the voting irregularities you became aware of in Ohio. Many of us are very familiar with what you found. The mystery is why the media are not more interested in investigating the possible voter fraud. If any of the allegations are true, it calls into question our very idea of democracy. I find it mind-boggling that the press can follow stories of election fraud in other countries with major headlines and commentary, but simply turn a blind eye to our own country. It raises this question: Is this silence from fear or is there a more sinister reason? At any rate, it makes conspiracy theories inevitable.

ELISABETH HAM

Tulsa, Oklahoma

THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT EMILY

ALTHOUGH JAMES WOLCOTT failed to mention in his article ["From Fear to Eternity," March] that The Americanization of Emily was produced by my husband, Martin Ransohoff, he might be interested to know that Martin considers this his finest film. The controversial film was, indeed, ahead of its time, and it was actually banned on military bases after it opened.

Although Paddy Chayefsky's message was not anti-war, but anti-glorification-ofwar, it is hard to hold out hope in the current militant mood that this film will be made more available to the most vulnerable among us.

JOAN RANSOHOFF

Bel Air, California

I FIRST HEARD about The Americanization of Emily in 1984 when I was in college. A roommate described the film to me in vivid, precise-dialogue detail. It clearly moved him, so I made a note to find the film and watch it. It took six months of combing TV Guide before I finally saw the title listed. My friend taped it, and we watched it over and over, trying, each time, to analyze and memorize the jagged brilliance of Paddy Chayefsky's writing. It is the only movie I've ever seen that exceeded my expectations. Wolcott's wonderfully written appreciation articulated the many reasons why.

Three years ago, on the night of my 40th birthday, a limo took my wife and me to a small revival movie house. When I entered the theater, 200 people stood up and yelled "Surprise!" Thanks to our friend the actress Dana Delany and her friend the movie executive John Calley (he was Emily's associate producer), we were all about to watch a fresh-struck 35-mm. print of Emily.

For all the years I had taped it, watched it, lent it, and discussed it, I had never seen Emily on the big screen and never heard the laughter it could elicit from a large, unsuspecting audience. It left me dazed and invigorated.

When the film ended, people debated it in the aisles. Many loved it, some hated it, a smattering were just plain bored, but a few were simply mystified, wondering, Why isn't this movie considered a classic? I had no good answer.

Wolcott has ventured a few. Maybe now, if Emily gets the attention it has deserved for so long, the question will become: Why hasn't this movie always been considered a classic?

JOHN McNAMARA

Hollywood, California

WE WERE SURPRISED and delighted to see Mr. Wolcott's piece on The Americanization of Emily. While Mr. Wolcott writes about the delights of this overlooked classic and about rescuing it from obscurity, we'd like to point out that Warner Home Video began its remastering process more than a year ago and has slated the DVD debut of Emily for May 10, 2005.

Having Vanity Fair do such a spectacular story on one of our most treasured classic films is wonderful. Now it will be equally wonderful for your readers, who will no longer have to, as Mr. Wolcott puts it, scavenge, hunt, scan late-night TV listings, or canvass grimy video-rental stores.

RONNEE SASS

Executive director, publicity and

communications, Warner Home Video

Burbank, California

KABBALAH'S MATERIAL WORLD

AS I READ "The Garden of Kabbalah," by Evgenia Peretz (March), I became increasingly uncomfortable with statements such as: "Another [former student] says she was told that if she didn't go on the grand High Holiday trip to New York—which cost about $2,000—her family would be in danger." And "Giving to other causes is actually discouraged." Or "The Centre has kept its financial books closed." And "Rav and Karen are building three houses in Beverly Hills." And, finally, "Karen drives a Mercedes S500."

Kabbalah smells to me like the 21stcentury version of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, but with an all-star cast! People, take your millions and give them to legitimate charities—that will make you nicer!

LINDA MINNIS

Huntsville, Ontario

THE ACT OF BEING nonjudgmental is one of the foundations of Kabbalah; therefore, the realization that this principle was not being utilized in "The Garden of Kabbalah" was a bit unsettling. Religion and philosophy have perennially caused great speculation, denunciation, and—in juxtaposition-acclaim. If any religion or belief system was examined in the manner that Ms. Peretz did Kabbalah, its benefits would appear nonexistent.

As for the commercialization of Kabbalah, it is no more commercialized than Christianity. Kabbalah sells red bracelets, Kabbalah water, books, and candles. Christianity sells crosses, holy water, books, and candles.

In terms of lambasting donations to Kabbalah centers, I ask readers and Ms. Peretz to remember the practice of the Sundaymorning collection plate.

This is not meant to prove one faith is superior to another. Nor is this meant to discredit Ms. Peretz's writing abilities. I simply ask that if people are going to judge Kabbalah they also recognize the parallels it has with their respective belief systems.

MICHAEL JOOSTEN

Boston, Massachusetts

TALES OF HOLLYWOOD STARS and other overpaid executives being suckered by a flavor-of-the-week cult such as Kabbalah are endlessly amusing.

What the Bergs and L. Ron Hubbards and maharishis of the world grasp with surgical precision is that outsize egos like those of Madonna and Roseanne actually believe they are capable of attaining and revealing the Meaning of Life.

DONNA J. ANTON

Hayle, England

IN THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a fraudulent document, made the rounds in Europe. This false manifesto depicted a secret plot by Jews for world domination and led to numerous acts of anti-Semitism on the Continent.

I think that Evgenia Peretz showed a deft hand taking us inside the Kabbalah craze, but her article left me with a few concerns. In the piece, she quotes a former student of the Kabbalah Centre's as saying that the Bergs "are people who want Kabbalah to take over the world." The article raises the possibility that the celebrities following the teachings of the Bergs, Eitan Yardeni, and others have been brainwashed. While Ms. Peretz does try to draw a line between the Kabbalah Centre and Judaism in general, I wonder if that line will be lost on most readers and they will instead see the Kabbalah Centre as a latter-day Protocols.

I wish that the Kabbalah Centre and all the celebrities who are being "converted" to its teachings would keep to themselves. Spiritual enlightenment is a private endeavor, not something to trot before the cameras.

RUTH IE WAHL

Toronto, Ontario

BEYOND THE POKER FACE

THE LAST TIME we played poker at Anjelica Huston's home ["Poker's Wild," by Duff McDonald, March], I walked away with the winner-take-all pot. Which means either (a) I've trained my nipples to stiffen even when I bluff or (b) Anjelica should spend more time looking at her cards and less time gazing at my chest.

MITCH GLAZER

Hollywood, California

STAGE NOTE

IN YOUR GENERALLY WONDERFUL Hollywood Issue, I note that you credited Cate Blanchett's husband, Andrew Upton, with having directed her onstage in a recent Sydney production of Hedda Gabler ["The Fantastics," March].

Talented though Andrew is, the production was actually directed by Robyn Nevin, the artistic director of Sydney Theatre Company, the group which produced the work.

Andrew was responsible for the admirably contemporary adaptation of Henrik Ibsen's text, and the production was a sold-out success. It will be seen with its original castincluding Cate, Hugo Weaving, and Aden Young—at the Brooklyn Academy of Music for a strictly limited season in March 2006.

JO DYER

Sydney, Australia

DON'T BLAME MOORE

THANKS FOR THE PROFILE on Michael Moore ["Moore's War," by Judy Bachrach, March], about which I would like to offer the following comment: Moore did not lose the election for John Kerry, any more than the Dixie Chicks or Dan Rather did—John Kerry lost the election for being John Kerry and for fighting the battle on Bush's turf. When he insisted that the issue was not why

the U.S. went to war but how we went to war, he framed the ultimate question in terms most favorable to Bush: Who is best qualified to implement George Bush's foreign policy—George Bush or John Kerry? Not surprisingly, many Americans voted for Bush.

LEE POOLE

Phoenix, Arizona

MICHAEL MOORE is preaching to the converted. His documentaries lull liberals into thinking that his indictments are going to change the minds of the Bible-thumping, guntoting, gas-guzzling Bush-leaguers who make up our not-so-silent majority.

Moore should make action feature films. Perhaps then he could lure the Bush-leaguers into hearing his message. Having Warren Beatty or Robert Redford play some Charlton Heston-like action hero might be a way to hook them!

DAREN KELLY

New York, New York

WASHED-OUT IN HAUTE COUTURE

THE COVER of your 11th annual Hollywood Issue [March] frightened me. I know your photographers like to make their pictures look painterly, like John Singer Sargent masterpieces, but why does Vanity Fair always insist on making young stars look like cadavers? All that pale skin and bankrupt-soul spookiness is off-putting. How about some sunshine and smiles for your next issue?

HEIDI PARKER

Beverly Hills, California

HOLLYWOOD SPLENDOR

WHILE I VERY MUCH ENJOYED Sam Kashner's essay on Rebel Without a Cause ["Dangerous Talents," March], I have to take issue with the suggestion that either Nicholas Ray or his films have been forgotten or neglected in some way. Ray is considered one of the greatest filmmakers of the 20th century, and his works—not only Rebel but also In a Lonely Place, On Dangerous Ground, They Live by Night, Bigger than Life, Party Girl, and many others—are considered some of the finest examples of paranoid 1950s cinema extant.

WHEELER WINSTON DIXON

Ryan Professor of Film Studies

University of Nebraska

Lincoln, Nebraska

INTERESTING STORY on Nicholas Ray and the making of Rebel Without a Cause. But I must comment on Sam Kashner's interview with Frank Mazzola, erstwhile member of a Hollywood "gang" called the Athenians. The Athenians were an on-campus boys' social club at Hollywood High School in the early 1950s, along with other boys' clubs. I myself was a member of a girls' club.

Mazzola's statement that he was "defending Hollywood" is heady stuff. Even more impressive is his having "two or three fights a night." Wow! I suppose that's true if one takes into account the food fights at noon on the Quad at Hollywood High between rival boys' clubs. But, hey, Athenians rule.

ISABEL RUSHFORTH NUPOLL

Studio City, California

MAIL FOR VANITYFAIR.COM

IN THE BEGINNING of Rupert Everett's article ["Letter from Cambodia," vanityfair.com, February], I couldn't help but get defensive. Why? Well, I am a Cambodian woman, 20 years old and living with my parents, who are originally from Kampuchea. I was leery of Mr. Everett's motives, but once he explained his views on how celebrities can aid my country in need I decided to give the piece a chance and I continued to read. His article turned out to be so moving and heart-wrenching that I wanted to slap myself for even questioning his motives. For the 20 years that I have been living in this world as a so-called Cambodian-American, I realize that I know very little about my country.

My parents have told me stories about their lives in Cambodia, living under Pol Pot, refusing to go along with the genocide, and how my mother lost one of her sisters during the Khmer Rouge while my father was fighting against his own people. As much as I learned from their stories, I didn't really understand the aftermath of what my parents' homeland has gone through. I have heard about the current problems with AIDS and H.I.V. in Cambodia, but I did not know that the disease had spread to so many children.

This article has opened my eyes even wider to the struggle that Cambodians still go through today. It also showed me that celebrities like Mr. Everett and Angelina Jolie have a deeper motivation than just publicizing my people to gain recognition that celebrities are "good" people who do "good" deeds. Thanks, Mr. Everett, for your genuine love for Cambodia.

JOSEPHINE KEO

Bronx, New York

VANITYFAIR.COM IS an amazing Web site! I love the "Roundtable" feature. I have always enjoyed Vanity Fair magazine, and the addition of your Web site furthers my belief that you have the greatest talent.

DENISE WALLIS

Peoria, Illinois

CORRECTIONS: On page 66 of the January issue ("The Devil and Miss Regan," by Judith Newman), we incorrectly stated the reason for Renee Iwaszkiewicz's departure from publisher Harper -Collins. She did not threaten the company with a sexual-harassment suit. We regret the error. On page 396 of the March issue ("Hollywood Portfolio," The Bright Young Things), director Lars Von Trier's nationality was misidentified. He is Danish. On page 291 of the March issue ("Poker's Wild," by Duff McDonald), we brought the Marx Brothers'father back from the dead and placed him in a poker game in 1957. Actually he had died in 1933. The Samuel Marx we should have placed there, a regular at Ira and Lee Gershwin's poker game, was the onetime head of the writing department at MGM.

On page 125 of Vanity Fair's book Oscar Night: 75 Years of Hollywood Parties, we mistakenly identified Tony Martin imitating Maurice Chevalier as Maurice Chevalier.

Letters to the editor should be sent electronically with the writer's name, address, and daytime phone number to letters@vf.com. Letters to the editor will also be accepted via fax at 212-286-4324. All requests for back issues should be sent to subscriptions@vf.com. All other queries should be sent to vfmail@vf.com. The magazine reserves the right to edit submissions, which may be published or otherwise used in any medium. All submissions become the property of Vanity Fair.