The famed coat of many colors of Joseph of Biblical fame, or the
ever-changing chameleon, can’t pretend to hold a candle to the editors
of the Coast publication “It” for variety and shiftiness of policy.
’Twas only a few months ago that this magazine, together with one or two
others put forth here in Los Angeles were rising up on their hind legs
and mouthing vapid denunciation at “FILM TRUTH’S” policy of getting
right down to fundamentals and digging at the cancerous sores of the
industry. Now comes to hand an issue of “It” thundering against the
shame of many of the movie colony, terming them drug addicts, and
calling for a thorough cleansing of the Hollywood section.
Well, well, well! Even Rip Van Winkle awakened in time. And so it is
with “It.”
To pretend that all the men and women of Hollywood were lily white,
beyond criticism, etc., has been a favored role with every publication
devoted to the industry. FILM TRUTH’S entry into the ring was met with a
holier-than-thou-don’t-dare-to-touch-us greeting by several
publications. We have gone on our well-known way, and now we must
compliment “It” for getting a little vision and editorially announcing
that all is not well with our little colony.
“Two members of the colony carted off to the police station as drug
addicts” is the gist of “It’s” editorial. But why stop at two? And why
have certain publications risen in horror against articles appearing in
a San Francisco paper giving the report of the State authorities that
twenty-five per cent of the registered addicts in Los Angeles are of the
movie colony?
That the use of drugs is widespread in certain quarters has been known
for some time. There is nothing that is new in the fact. It is a beastly
shame that such a cancerous few should smirch the clean majority; that
magnates should expect the public to take its entertainment from such
hands.
At the same time we compliment “It” for finally removing the smoked
glasses and “don’t touch” dictum from its editorial staff. And, might we
gently inquire whether the move was through sincere desire to better
conditions? Or—is “It” after wider circulation, and lacking in faith in
the pulling power of its several really entertaining departments?
While on the topic, we might refer to a certain fan magazine which, with
great fan-fare and blowing of trumpets, announces it will expose
stock-selling, fake motion picture schemes. We respectfully refer the
magazine to almost any one of our issues—and trust it will be as frank
as we have been in such exposés.
Without patting ourselves on the back, we do hug close the thought, as
we see other magazines announce departments and articles that “tell the
truth,” that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
[Open Book Decoration]
------------------------------------------------------------------------