Elia Kazan

* In the 1940s and ‘50s, one couldn’t find an article or a television or radio program in which the views of Allen Weinstein and Richard Dreyfuss would appear (“Perspectives on Elia Kazan,” Commentary, March 17). Dreyfuss’ column would have represented a threat to HUAC, whereas Weinstein’s would be considered “pinko” but not “Red,” and Weinstein would probably have been blacklisted for some of the negative comments about Kazan while supporting him for the award.

The viewpoints were both well-taken in this household, but we have more empathy for those who were hurt than for Kazan, already honored often for his talents.

JERRY ARONOW

West Hollywood

* It’s ironic to watch the “moral debate” over Kazan’s Oscar in a town and an industry where betrayal, fraud, cowardice and deception are a daily (and accepted) routine. If the standards Hollywood seeks to impose (retroactively and at arms’ length) on Kazan were imposed on the corporate practices of Hollywood, the resulting shake-up would make the HUAC hearings pale by comparison.

In a world where Leni Riefenstahl is honored and “forgiven” for glorifying the Third Reich, it doesn’t seem untoward to honor Kazan, one of the great American film and theater directors. Art exacts a price: If Kazan had defied HUAC and been blacklisted, we would not have had “On the Waterfront,” “East of Eden,” “Splendor in the Grass,” “Baby Doll” or “America, America,” and the question of honoring him today would not have arisen. Were these movies worth the price? You decide.

ALAN ORMSBY

Sherman Oaks