Editor: It's good to see The Sun promoting the importance of the filmmaking industry to Maryland's economy. Your June 24 editorial ("Hollywood on the Monongahela") and Eric Siegel's June 16 article ("Maryland Filmmaking at a Crossroads") have placed a much-needed spotlight on the industry. However, I'd like to clarify a few points.
The assumption that the TV movie "Cobb's Law" was shot in Pittsburgh instead of Baltimore because of union restrictions is not what my experience shows. During our March meeting in Los Angeles with the production manager of the film, Scott Harbinson of IATSE promised, "IATSE will match any deal you get from any other city." That is the positive attitude coming out of the union merger one that I think will bring Maryland's film
industry a great deal of work in the future.
In addition, promoting the importance of only the filmmaking industry gives the wrong impression of its impact on our economy. Marylanders employed by the communications industry know that feature films provide only a small part of their income. The main source of jobs and revenue in the industry come from corporate and commercial work which, combined, total more than half a billion dollars per year. Feature films receive the greatest attention, but the other parts of the industry keep Marylanders working and our industry on its feet.
I agree with your editorial that the state should take the lead in forming private-sector investment groups willing to put money into made-in-Maryland films. I invite any qualified investors and/or banks to contact the Maryland Film Commission.
The writer is director of the Maryland Film Commission.
Not so 'Handy'
Editor: I have to totally disagree with Ellen James Martin in regard to hiring policemen, firemen, wood shop teachers and other people in a quest for a repair person or a "handy man."
Even though she makes many valid points, it is against the Maryland home improvement laws to provide services to the homeowners without a license. Second, the "handy person" has no insurance to protect the homeowner, is not bonded and, in most cases, does inferior work. Third, the repair person will always request cash as payment, thus never paying taxes. In other words, the "handy man" has become a nuisance to the home-improvement industry and is leaving a bad taste for the legitimate contractors.
Paul E. Gerkens.
Editor: I am appalled that the telephone companies of America would allow recorded solicitation to invade the homes of the public, especially between 6 and 9 p.m.
These hours are normally spent enjoying quality time alone or with loved ones. To be rudely interrupted by a phone call from a non-person is not worth the tape it has been recorded on.
Americans are bombarded enough by persuasive solicitation through television, newspaper advertising and billboards, to name a few. Do we honestly need it to enter our homes through that wonderful invention, the telephone?
I say nay. Furthermore, what right do the telephone companies have in being the facilitators through which ''telephone entrepreneurs'' find their way into the homes of the public, without the consent of the public?
I find telephone solicitation to be offensive and thoughtless.
Editor: How can the General Assembly be accused of ''picking a fight'' with the governor because they assert their independence?
The Program Open Space funding was established with its own funding source to save and develop green areas and parks throughout the state. It is no different than Social Security being established to protect workers when they retire.
Because a government cannot or will not spend only what it collects is no justification to steal designated funds. The governor and state legislature were elected to make tough decisions and provide a certain quality of life in this state. I am glad that the legislature cares about green spaces and the environment as an important element of that quality.
Albert R. Svehla Jr.
Editor: Naomi Wolf's outraged femininism ("Wolf Vs.'Beauty Myth'", June 23) rings hollow to me for two reasons.
One, over the years I have hired many people of both sexes. Some were very conscious of their handsome looks, while others would not be considered attractive (at least not in the way Naomi Wolf views such things). But not once has a candidate's relative ''beauty'' entered my mind while making a hiring decision. The same goes for facilitating promotions. Such considerations are strictly of the past, and I know of no administrator who clings to them.