I am writing in response to the Michael Gates Arts (article) which appeared in the March 28 issue. The article in question was yet another display of the appalling lack of judgement upon the part of the Collegian editors.

Upon reading Mr. Gates' article, which concerned his views on the Academy awards nomination, I was bemused, irritated, and shocked by an article that someone in authority found -- for some unfathomable reason -- to be news worthy.

The article, while certainly a critique and certainly concerned with the Oscars, seemed more like idle sarcasm than a serious review of the year's premier motion pictures.

At no point did Mr. Gates demonstrate knowledge of the art of cinema, nor even a keen interest in motion pictures. People may not like Roger Ebert's movie reviews, but at least before he reviews a movie he views the movie.

As Mr. Gates so readily admits, he, in a considerable number of cases, failed to do that.

In light of these obvious shortcomings, why would an Arts editor, presumably interested in the enlightened presentation of the arts, allow such an outrageous, indeed offensive, article to be printed?

Either he/she is also unconcerned with the arts or is in desperate need of a larger, more dedicated staff.

In any case, the article was a grave injustice to the fine, uplifting performances of the actors and actresses as well as to the serious nature of some of the year's best films (i.e. Rain Man, Mississippi Burning, and Dangerous Liaisons).

The worth of these films was never once addressed by Mr. Gates.

The effectiveness of their plots and performances was never once analyzed. Why so, Mr. Gates?

These films touched the soul with their shockingly realistic view of the human animal. They are outstanding because we, the audience, are moved, are touched. Perhaps, Mr. Gates, what you found disconcerting is not these pictures mediocrity, but their eye-opening affinity to modern society.