My art, your trash: The June 19 Riverfront Times did a poorly written cover article about me and the movies I make [Eddie Silva, "Bloodwork"]. First, the article greatly misrepresented me and my team. We came off like mean-spirited, nasty pornographers with a mission to offend. The article did this by zooming in and focusing on a small handful of very violent acts that were pulled from the context of a few movies I've made. Not only did this make it seem as if we sit around focusing on porn and gore, but it left out the things that really matter to us: the teamwork we display when we make a movie and the genuine support we show each other as we each try to make our artistic voices heard. In the article, Mr. Silva lovingly detailed some very nasty stuff in lurid through-the-keyhole detail. He did not give a context for these scenes. He did not detail what each of those movies was about or why we made each of those projects. He did not even seem to understand what genre each movie was in. As a result, the reader did not understand what we do or who we are -- they just got a faceful of porn and violence.
I also [object to the printing of] such adult material in a free paper that can be picked up and read by anyone, of any age. Children read that story. My movies are marketed to a specific audience that is forewarned of the content. Your paper is free and distributed on a mainstream level. Including adult material in that article was astoundingly irresponsible. The RFT has become a trashy tabloid masquerading as a newspaper. Your fist-in-the-air, defiant-but-uneducated "journalism" is an embarrassment to this community. As I told Mr. Silva, it will be a very long time before I allow another St. Louis journalist into my home or onto one of my movie sets. The RFT has proven that the St. Louis media lacks the maturity to objectively and intelligently write about what I do.
Red-Hot and Wrong
The only mystery is you: I wish to respond to Jill Posey-Smith's RFT review of In Soo ["Paradise Regained," June 12]. In particular, I wish to suggest that Posey-Smith was unprofessional in her vicious swipe at the neighboring restaurant, Shu Feng. It is painful to see warm, talented people treated hatefully. Why your writer commented on Shu Feng, since the review concerned with In Soo, we don't know. Worse, it seems pretty clear that Posey-Smith never visited Shu Feng. We patronized the old Shu Feng for many years -- since their first month of operation. We are pretty serious foodies, and we patronized the new place and thought it even better than the old. Posey-Smith writes: "... allow me to remind you that In Soo is actually Shu Feng, restored after a hellish year-long interim during which it had apparently been abducted while an imposter Shu Feng, inferior in all respects, sprang up in its place. This dark period in St. Louis gastronomy, known as the Era of the False Feng, had rather taken on the aspect of an X-File." If she had done her homework, she would have learned -- as is widely known -- that there was no Shu Feng abduction at all. The new Shu Feng people bought the place, name and all. There is no mystery at all about the sale or the use of names, as Posey-Smith's red-hot prose suggests. There is a mystery as to why a reporter would be so badly informed. There is a mystery as to why a journalist would make such stupid comments. There is a mystery as to why the issue needs to get mentioned in the first place. I think Posey-Smith should be given a vacation -- a long vacation.
Thomas C. O'Brien
He's no Don Imus: I lived in Overland for eighteen years and, up until now, thought that their police and politics were a joke [Bruce Rushton, "Squeal Like a Pig," June 12]. But this is hilarious. What a joke of a city. I'm glad I moved out a year ago. Reading the article was almost as good as listening to Howard Stern.
Don't Smack Jack
Your dog's ugly, too: You're a jerk -- and a poorly informed one at that [D.J. Wilson, "Sudden Death," June 26]. "KMOX personalities and callers tripped over each other trying to pump up the importance of the Cardinal broadcaster." Sorry, but no embellishments were necessary. Buck was a legend precisely because it was his elusive skill that made the summers so memorable, that magically brought the events to life for listeners hundreds -- or even thousands -- of miles away from the ballpark. He didn't just describe the game, he taught us about the game. I think it telling that only a single reader remarked that Buck didn't really do anything. After all, someone has to anchor the bottom of the learning curve. "In covering Buck's death, the station promoted itself to the hilt. Buck died at 11:08 p.m. June 18, and Joe Buck came on the air to announce the death at 11:20 p.m., the same numerals as the station's frequency. It was Joe Buck, son of Jack Buck, telling the news to John Carney, son of Jack Carney." Did you know that on the day that Jack Carney died in 1984, Jack Buck took the mic and spent hours listening to callers reminisce about the senior Carney? Joe Buck did, and the reason his first call that night was to John Carney was because he thought Carney might want to return the favor. I've long enjoyed the fact that the RFT covers stories that get completely overlooked by the mainstream media. But you guys seem to go out of your way to undermine your own credibility. Chipping away at Buck is one example. I don't need you or anyone else to explain to me how the deaths of Buck and Kile were so profoundly different.