Judge — December 4, 1926 — page 34: what you’re looking at

Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.

Back to the Attack To the Editor of Juvce. Dear Sir: In your September 25 issue of Jupce, in reply to my letter on your editorial by W. M. H., who called the movies “cheap and silly,” you com- ment as follows: “What we have to say to the ‘above facts’ is simply that most of them are not facts at all but opinions which we respectively decline to share The writer asked you to name six pic- tures that were produced since January 1, 1926, that left a bad effect upon the youth of our country, to substantiate your claim that moving pictures are “cheap and are made up of hypocrisy and gross senti- mentality.” Could you do so? No! During the early part of 1926, hundreds of exhibitors all over the country voted for the 104 pictures that made the most money at the box office during 1925. Heading the list of the 104 pictures lected were: “The Ten Commandments,” North of '36,” “Charley's Aunt,” “The Covered Wagon,” “The Freshman” and “The Gold Rush.” Why were these pictures so successful? Was it because they were “cheap and silly” or because they were “made up of hypocrisy and gross sentimentality No! They were selected as the pictures making the most money at the box office during 1925 because they are the kind of pictures that the public want, and which the producers realize are the biggest money makers. The winners are nec sarily the good and clean productions. The motion picture industry stands aloft from the other industries, and any- one connected with it should be proud of the fact. Would that I were connected with it, and I would proudly acknowledge the fact. Samuel H. Krone Brooklyn, N. Y. September 27, 1926. Good Medicine! Jvupce: Your editorial forbearance and patience are highly commendable. After reading the letters published this week in “Judge for Yourself,” I feel pity rise within me for the chronic howler who objects to your humorous sallies against the church and Prohibition. After all who are they to say that youhave asingle- track mind? And who are they to raise their puritanical howls to the skies be- cause you happen to mention the church without nine deep salaams and many loud huzzas? I say pity, because I feel awfully sorry for any human who is so “convention-bound” that his mind is narrowed to the point that these com- munications indicate. Although I don’t know the weekly cir- culation of Jupcr, I feel quite safe in suggesting to the authors of two of these letters that a subscriber or two less would hardly make it financially impossible for Jvpak to continue publication. So say I, hooray for Jupce—it’s good medicine and we all enjoy taking it. Princeton, N. J., Sincerely, October 23, 1926. J.E.D. For Letter Writers Editor, Judge for Yourself. Greetings: ‘The purpose of this im- promptu court, excuse me (column), has used me no little wonder. The title udge for Yourself” seems to suggest ‘ation to emulate “Judge on the Convention, however, dictates an interpretation which may be expressed by the phrase, Judging JupcE. Is it necessary to rehash here the meat so obviously used by His Honor to feed the quasi-intellectural souls of the T. B. M., the Drug Store Cowboy, the Man About Town—including Hi-Hats (thanks, Junior)? I rather imagine the wild sobbing, the wringing of hands in utter despair, the angry gnashing of The Wandering One—Goo’ Lor’, y worsh C’ris’mas night than I’ve had. teeth of outraged knighthood, and con- plaudits and oily praise of the seekers, the eager, even Uoxelike devotion of the Yes Men, all appear in this column for the same reason that this article is written—that sneakin’ sire to get into print. W y not own up to the aspire tion? Let your eyes wander to the pic- ture above. The brickbat hasn't touched the Jupce and he doesn't want the bou- quet. What is one to derive from tha Well, if you don’t the point it doesn’t matter, anyhow. Nevertheless, and in spite of the valorous efforts of this court— beg your pardon, column, it remains that Prohibition distinctly does not prohibit What I mean, we are living too early. We should wait until Aunty Somebody puts the KO on short skirts. Don’t you see, we who write the: ah, er (well, read the second paragraph again), are wasting time, our digestions. and the family tranquillity] on mere nothings whereas we might worry along for awhile on more momentous subjects such as ‘That d_ coal bill,” “The wife's new dre r “How in h—I can Ipay forit.” "Court's Adjourned, Boston, Mass., J. L. October 19, 1926. you mush ’ave had even a You look simply gashly! —Shketch comicbooks.com