It's been awhile since I've written a letter to Salon, but I couldn't resist.

I've read the letters here, and the sheer ignorance of the majority of the posters boggles the mind. Okay, we all know this guy is a scumbag but even scumbags get it right once in awhile.

If you actually READ what he's saying, he's NOT saying that those crafty Canadians and "icky brown" (to quote one snarky poster) people from Mexico want to merge with the US and take us over - evil laugh. What he's saying is that the governments of the US, Canada and Mexico (at the bidding of the large corporations) are making his happen without most people even being aware of it. It has nothing to do with what the PEOPLE of any of these countries WANT - it's what the CORPORATIONS want. Get it? An earlier poster gave the URLs to two clips on thsi which basically confirm what he was saying. I suggest all the naysayers here take a look and re-evaluate their assumptions on this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hiPrsc9g98

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H65f3q_Lm9U

Don't underestimate the power of big corps and secretive governments, people, just because you're too lazy to do some research, or don't like the messenger.

For Buffalonian and all the others who think this "would be a good thing" - you're still missing the point. ATTENTION SALON READERS:

We will NOT get Canada's wonderful healthcare - they'll get ours, but it makes $$$ for big corporations.

Mexico will not get our labor and environmental laws - our standards will be lowered, again, because it's cheaper for big business that way.

This is all about lowering standards, not raising them. It's about making BIG $$$$$ for the very few, not "raising all boats". Just look at the world economy today, guys. It's not like everyone around the world is suddenly unionizing, enjoying wonderful social benefits, getting kick-ass pay raises and getting strict enviromental protections. What a bunch of dorks - can you READ? Can you do a little THINKING? Just a little? It's about the UAW agreeing to cut some workers' salaries in half to "stay competitive". it's about looking the other way while China chugs along as a gross polluter. It's all about making more money for those who already have too much, it's not about making the world a better place. That might be a nice fantasy on many of your parts, but I think if you check the reality (WalMart replaces GM as America's largest employer - minumum wage and no benefits replacing union pay and good benefits, high tech jobs getting exported, and these big corporations setting up their headquarters offshore so they don't have to pay taxes) you'll find that that's not how it's working out.

First Bergman on Monday, and now Antonioni on Tuesday — this is the passing of the last of the greatest generation of filmmakers. Only Godard is left from that era. And who can replace them? Sure, the next generation (Scorcese, Coppola, Herzog, Bertolucci, etc.) has some great talents, but Bergman and Antonioni... it's hard to define how important and influential they were. Theirs were truly unique, visionary talents that profoundly changed cinema, though sadly those changes fell out of favor long ago to be replaced by the George Lucas/Spielberg-inspired school of non-stop sfx. (Though I give creddit to Spielberg for trying in this past decade to get serious again and move beyond B-movies). And what of the most recent generation? Oh, I know — I'm going to get flamed by people telling me that movies are better now that ever, but it's going to take a lot to convince me that Michael Bay will be remembered in the same way as Bergman or Antonioni.

As for Bergman, the first foreign film I saw as a teenager was "Fanny and Alexander", and it changed me forever. It opened up a whole new world that I hadn't realized existed, and probably led to my interest in film as a career. It's still one of my favorites of his films, along with "Through A Glass Darkly", "Persona", "Cries and Whispers", and "From the Lives of Marionettes". Though Bergman rarely showed the kind of visual virtuosity that you saw in someone like Antonioni or Tarkovsky, he revealed the emotional states of his character better than anyone — with such precision and accuracy. He's possibly the greatest director of actors of his era.

It's interesting that he and Antonioni have died so close together because they are, in a way, opposites on the scale. I hope Salon writes a similar piece on Antonioni tomorrow. I'm glad to see that this eulogy for Bergman showed up today. I waited yesterday, and was disappointed that nothing appeared. It's truly sad that he's gone. Hard to believe.

Polanksi. Sorry for the omission. I'm sure that name will inspire some ire, bit c'mon — "Repulsion", "Rosemary's Baby", "The Tenant". He's younger than both Bergman and Antonioni but was still a part of that 50s/60s era for his most influential work (though he's still making films today).

It's sad also to read all these letters trashing Bergman. Reverse snobbery is perhaps worse than the kind it chooses to criticize. But in reality, you needn't be a snob to appreciate any of the 60s great filmmakers — just awake. It amazes me how people are willing to listen to obscure bands and read esoteric literature, and yet when it comes to film claim that anything more stimulating than Tarantino (blech!) is snobbish and high brow.

For shame, Andrew.

Although I'm glad you wrote this piece on Bergman, and he deserved it, Antonioni was every bit as well-regraded and important then, and now, as Bergman.