Captain Billy's Whiz Bang, July 1921 · page 12 of 68
Captain Billy's Whiz Bang #22 — page 12: what you’re looking at
What you’re looking at
This page contains two satirical items targeting Hollywood figures of the era (likely 1920s). **First item:** Mocks an engaged couple—Katherine (a film actress earning $240,000/year) and Morrell (a San Francisco man with unnamed salary "X"). The satire suggests the wealth disparity is absurd: even Morrell's savings over two years won't buy basic groceries compared to Katherine's income. The joke implies her earning power dwarfs his. **Second item:** References a recent scandal involving a prominent male film actor (described as a "heavy"—a serious dramatic actor nearing fifty). He was arrested with another man after a detective watched them through a keyhole. The passage criticizes "male sissies" infiltrating Hollywood's artistic community, framing his arrest as socially ruinous. The satire criticizes both Hollywood's obscene salaries and moral scandals, while using homophobic language typical of the era's tabloid culture.
📄 Transcribed text from this page (OCR, searchable)
Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.
10 Captain Billy's Whiz Bang her pictures because the sunlight has a way of making light hair stand out conspicuously, and thus detracts from her own person. Every week or so a San Francisco man named Morrell comes south, and they say he visits Katherine. The couple are engaged, it is said, and when her two-year contract is up, intend to marry and quit business for good. Friends say they are both saving carefully toward that day. The arithmetical problem is this: If Morrell earns “X” salary and Katherine $40,000 per picture or about $240,000 a year, how much salt and pepper will Morrell’s savings buy two years from now? How many steaks and cream puffs can Katherine buy? * * * In a recent issue we dealt somewhat with the male sissy whose devastating inroads have made themselves particularly felt in this Egyptianesque hotbed of art, near art and the no end of things for which poor art is blamed—Hollywood. Our readers will recall that some months ago a very noted “heavy” of the films, a man nearing the fifties and with a wealth of apparent masculine comeliness, was arrested in company with another male person after a perfectly inquisitive detective had watched them through a keyhole of the film star’s home. Broken in the prime of life, an object of scorn and with others fearing to be seen in his company, even for