Christopher Reeve Letter to Washington Post

Tom Shales's review of "Rear Window" [Style, Nov. 21] is not so much a critique of our production but an excuse for an astonishingly vitriolic attack on me. Mr. Shales makes it clear that my optimism about new therapies and a potential cure for spinal cord injury paralysis nauseates him. However, my state of mind is irrelevant in a review of the film.

It is regrettable that Mr. Shales seems not to have understood that it was not our intention to remake the Hitchcock film "Rear Window." We titled our film "Rear Window" to avoid any accusations of plagiarism because part of our plot involves a disabled man who spies on his neighbors and concludes that a murder has been committed. I was not trying to imitate Jimmy Stewart, nor was Daryl Hannah trying to be Grace Kelly. And we felt that getting to know the lead character as he goes through rehab would be informative to the audience.

Mr. Shales apparently has lost the ability to watch a program with an open mind and no prior bias. In fact, he predicts in his article about me that the remake of "Psycho" will be "fat and witless" and "cinematic sacrilege." How can someone write such scathing remarks in advance and still call himself a professional critic?

CHRISTOPHER REEVE
Bedford, N.Y.