Letters to the Editor
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

‘Eat, Drink, and Wait for the Revolution’ and ‘Reign Storm’
Andrew Stuttaford’s two reviews on the monarch movies “Marie Antoinette” and “The Queen” [Arts & Letters, “Eat, Drink, and Wait for the Revolution,” October 20, 2006, and Arts & Letters, “Reign Storm,” September 29, 2006] are brilliant in that they do a great job of promoting good movies plus the reviews also offer brilliant insights into society and culture. Mr. Stuttaford’s bi-optic gems abound:
“Of course, it’s important to understand that this film is not, as Ms. Dunst has admitted, “a ‘Masterpiece Theatre,’ educational Marie Antoinette biopic.”
It is, the actress said, “kind of like a history of feelings rather than a history of facts,” a description which is kind of like nauseating, but is also kind of like right.”
“Oh, don’t worry that this film was booed at Cannes earlier this year. It means nothing. The French aren’t the French unless they have Marie Antoinette to kick around.”
“Watch Her Majesty carefully enough and it’s just possible to detect that the smile, the wave, the small talk, and all the rest of it are acts of will, the work of an actress, a pro … Dame Helen Mirren catches this perfectly. She plays a woman playing the Queen ” …
RUSS CHELAK
Morristown, NJ
‘British Minister: Woman Should Lose Job for Refusing To Remove Islamic Veil’
In regard to “British Minister: Woman Should Lose Job for Refusing To Remove Islamic Veil” [Foreign October 16, 2006], I agree. No one should be allowed to wear a concealing Islamic veil in a public place. This is a security issue. It is not a freedom issue and not a religious issue. It is a common sense measure to reduce the opportunity of Islamist terrorism.
If a security breach occurred, there would be no way to identify a person with a covered face.
CAROL LYONS
Irvington, N.Y.
‘Challenging New York City Schools’
Chancellor Klein writes in “Challenging New York City Schools” [Oped, October 18, 2006] that the current education plan is reforming the New York city school system.
The conclusion here that current reforms are substantial and working to benefit New York City children is noble, but his premises are lacking.
He notes that when the State Department of Education raised its standards, New York City children didn’t do as badly as other children.
Testing less poorly than other kids is no reason to hail these reforms as a success, nor does the argument actually state which reforms are exactly working.
For all we know, this is simply a correlation for which he is trying to prove causation. The evidence is lacking. His argument fails to deliver because of it.
JOSH MASTERS
Oradell, NJ
Please address letters intended for publication to the Editor of The New York Sun. Letters may be sent by e-mail to editor@nysun.com, by facsimile to 212-608-7348, or post to 105 Chambers Street, New York City 10007. Please include a return address and daytime telephone number. Letters may be edited.