Judge, 1925-01-24 · page 32 of 36
Judge — January 24, 1925 — page 32: what you’re looking at
What you’re looking at
The page contains a cartoon and film reviews from an early 1920s Judge magazine. **The Cartoon:** A man in winter clothing confronts a woman in a bathing suit and skis. She responds that the editor will use any thin excuse to feature a bathing suit in a winter issue. This satirizes the magazine's editorial practice of including cheesecake imagery regardless of seasonal appropriateness or context—poking fun at both the editor's priorities and the publication's own editorial choices. **The "Hot Footage" Reviews:** A film critic discusses several movies including adaptations of books ("So Big" with Colleen Moore, "The Narrow Street" with Matt Moore). The critic humorously admits to deliberately not reading source material to remain "unbiased," while complaining about other viewers' expectations that film adaptations match their imagined versions. The reviews critique both the films' quality and audiences' unrealistic expectations about adapting literature. The overall tone is satirical self-awareness about entertainment industry practices and consumer expectations.
📄 Transcribed text from this page (OCR, searchable)
Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.
“Whassa big idea, Mabel?” “Oh, the editor will use any thin excuse to get a bathing suit in a winter number.” Hot Footage (Continued from page 19) play the part of just a big boy lover. I am grateful only for the thrilling scene in which a man (not in the cast) skiied all over the snow with remarkable dexterity. I was agreeably disappointed with “So Big.” I expected a dull and uninteresting picture and with Col- leen Moore as Selina, I anticipated so heavy a frost that I sat through the first few feet in my galoshes, ear mufflers and other heavy-weather toggery, convinced that so sprightly a flapper could do but indifferently by the character. Indeed I went to see the picture only that I might keep faith with my ‘gentle readers, knowing so well that they would expect me to tell them what I thought of it. Ahem! I still be- lieve that Colleen is miscast, though I think she did very well with a very difficult character—for her. The realism of the picture is strictly in the atmosphere of the book. I didn’t read the book. That’s why I say this. I believe that I am the only intelligent person this side of the Pyramids who didn’t read it. A reviewer must be careful to keep his mind unbiased. That's why I didn’t read “So Big.” So I think that if you haven't read the book and are unprejudiced. about Selina and all the others, you'll like the picture. But I’m afraid that if you read the book and have precon- ceived notions you'll either be sorry that you read the book or—no, I mean you'll be sorry you saw the. picture. Most people who read books that are later done into pictures expect to see the picture reproduced exactly as they have visualized the book. It’s a good idea. Only the producer De Acton | VALENTINE would be forced to make countless versions. . . . My one feeling against the fillum is that too much time was spent on the youth of Selina. The drama to me seemed to come in the mother’s defense of her son: So Big after he had attained majority and the privilege of his sex to mess with sex stuff. The book is a clear sermon on motherhood and so much did I get from this splendid woman who gave so much to her son that now, when it is almost too late, I have a feeling that I would like to become a woman. . n “Tue Narrow Street” Matt Moore does a characterization of an absent-minded, bashful bachelor that is funnier than anything he has hitherto done on the screen. To be sure there is little else in the picture to stifle the insistent yawn. There are to my mind more arid spots in it than there are in the Sahara. comicbooks.com