<<vile, but probably also culturally pervasive, attitudes about Asians>> It seems to me that the second part of your statement somewhat contradicts the first. There is no justification in judging Griffith by 1994 standards. If so, Kipling, Dickens, Shakespeare and countless others would have to be eliminated from serious consideration. The point I was trying to make in answering the question about Griffith vs. Riefenstahl is that the BULK of Griffith's contributions have nothing to do with racism, whereas the BULK of Riefenstahl's did. I am no apologist for Griffith and I agree with James Card in his new book "Seductive Cinema" that the man has been given far more credit than he deserves for innovations. But, an innovator he surely was. And his personal racism, which is undeniable, does not cancel out his other contributions. Gene Stavis - School of Visual Arts, NYC