To the Editor:
Re “The Popcorn Resistance of ‘One Battle After Another,’ ” by Hope Reeves (Opinion guest essay, March 11):
Ms. Reeves argues that Paul Thomas Anderson’s film “One Battle After Another” depicts a fictional group of radicals, the French 75, in ways that fail to capture the Weathermen, the radical group her parents had joined in the late 1960s. Unlike the objectives of the Weathermen, Ms. Reeves says, the aimlessly violent, sex-addled characters populating just wanted to burn the establishment to the ground.”
But is it possible instead that Mr. Anderson’s sometimes bumbling and distracted revolutionaries, committed to a cause but lacking organization, is a sendup or critique of the current left’s excesses and failures? Or does the film portray a political movement that can be seriously unserious, sometimes stoned and sometimes effective, as well as passionate, eccentric and hilarious?
The beautiful thing is that it’s not all that clear. Nor is it clear that the Weathermen did it any better.
Raphael Allison Waban, Mass. The writer teaches a course on the cultural history of the 1960s at Harvard University.
To the Editor:
Like Hope Reeves’s parents, I, too, was a 1960s radical, but my practice and politics differed from those of the Weathermen. While they devoted energy to planting bombs “to bring the war home,” my people and I were out — in factories, shopping centers, coal mines and bus stops — opposing the Vietnam War, racism, sexism and the evils of American imperialism.
While defending her parents’ intentions, Ms. Reeves omits mention of the film’s exciting new politics, represented by the wonderful sensei, played by Benicio Del Toro, who seeks to protect migrants. Mr. Del Toro’s character avoids violent bombast in the face of a violent, lawless government that looks like the one we face today, and he takes what I believe is a far more radical approach than the film’s other revolutionaries.
Page Dougherty Delano New York
To the Editor:
Hope Reeves’s parents may not regret their actions as part of the Weathermen and perhaps if they focus on their own acts, they can justify that conclusion. That doesn’t mean that we need to accept the Weathermen’s self-generated mythology as Ms. Reeves suggests we should in her critique of “One Battle After Another.”
When the Weathermen Diana Oughton, Ted Gold and Terry Robbins blew themselves up in 1970 in a West Village townhouse, the bombs they were building were destined for a noncommissioned officers’ dance at Fort Dix, N.J., an act that would have intentionally risked many civilians’ deaths.
I have no strong opinion on how accurately “One Battle After Another” represents the attitudes of the Weathermen, but I certainly take issue with Ms. Reeves’s exceedingly generous interpretation of the group’s violent ideology and designs.
Ryan McAuliffe New York
To the Editor:
Hope Reeves’s claim that most members of the Weathermen “could articulate what, exactly, was wrong with America and how it needed to change” is debatable.
The Weatherman said that the Vietnam War was immoral and they condemned racism. But those views were hardly unique to 1960s radicals. By 1968, large majorities outside the South opposed both the war and anti-Black racism.
On the latter issue, the United States had made progress and was on a promising trajectory. Then, young radicals — much like today’s overzealous apostles of wokeness — overplayed their hand, alienated huge swaths of the country and provoked a backlash that helped realign American politics in the opposite direction many hoped for.
The Weathermen’s goal of violently toppling the U.S. government was a fantastical notion coming from a tiny group of activists who lacked support even from most of the New Left.
In recent years, many former Weathermen have acknowledged as much in their memoirs. Ms. Reeves quotes her father saying, “To stay silent, to let the capitalist pigs ruin the world, that was not an option.” But there was another approach available.
They could have recognized the significant gains that reformers and activists in the 1960s had already achieved, and committed themselves to patient, sober-minded, long-term strategies.
There are lessons that activists today can draw from the Weathermen — but not the ones Ms. Reeves suggests.
John McMillian Atlanta The writer is an associate professor of history at Georgia State University and the author of “Smoking Typewriters: The Sixties Underground Press and the Rise of Alternative Media in America.”
To the Editor:
Hope Reeves’s essay about “One Battle After Another” really hit a nerve for me. Like the author, I became disenchanted by the film’s madcap violence and gratuitous sexual activity.
I’m a 75-year-old American who is disgusted by the current state of affairs at home and abroad. I wonder why more people aren’t protesting against President Trump’s dismantling of our government, his blatant corruption and the violence of I.C.E. agents, not to mention his racism, misogyny and contempt for anyone who doesn’t kowtow to him.
The war against Iran is beyond comprehension. When we were young, we protested the war in Vietnam and joined with our Black brothers and sisters in their struggle for civil rights. I offer this advice: Be sure to vote, skip “One Battle After Another” and take to the streets to protest —peacefully.
Marguerite Mitchell Abington, Pa.
To the Editor:
Having attended Columbia College in the late 1960s, I saw firsthand the leftist revolutionaries protesting the Vietnam War and U.S. policies. Although their cause was just, the methods seemed questionable at best.
Many seemed to see the armbands, bullhorns and demonstrations as a means to gain popularity rather than as a way to force policy change. And although we withdrew from Vietnam, no long-term lessons appeared to have been learned.
For any veteran of the 1960s, “One Battle After Another” was a delicious sendup of the radical left’s often misguided tactics.
If one wants to effect change, follow the example of the citizens of Minnesota, who ultimately drove out I.C.E. through mutual cooperation. And, most important, all citizens should exercise their right to vote.
Jonathan D. Kaunitz Santa Monica, Calif.
To the Editor:
We are living through a genuine crisis, and what we got was a Hollywood trope. “One Battle After Another” had every opportunity to be the stirring alarm our moment demands — the kind of film that moves people to act. Instead, it settled for spectacle. We don’t need a cartoon. We need an anthem.
Audrey Moira Shimkas San Rafael, Calif.
Time Capsule Questions
To the Editor:
Re “Creating a Time Capsule, Because 2276 Will Arrive Soon Enough” (Weekend Arts, Feb. 27):
The plan for the Semiquincentennial time capsule and its contents is thoughtful and well designed. Now the only question is whether or not anyone will be around to open it.
Will we have poisoned the earth and depleted its resources beyond human sustainability? Will we have survived whatever global conflict seems inevitable, given history and the current state of human affairs? Will an unchecked race to allow A.I. free rein over our lives be our ultimate undoing?
When it comes time to actually bury the capsule, it might be wise for those wielding the shovels to do so with crossed fingers.
Dennis B. Appleton Madison, Wis.
The post ‘One Battle After Another’ Is Just a Movie. Resistance Is Real. appeared first on New York Times.
