Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Taylorology Issue 99
*****************************************************************************
* T A Y L O R O L O G Y *
* A Continuing Exploration of the Life and Death of William Desmond Taylor *
* *
* Issue 99 -- 2012 Editor: Bruce Long *
* TAYLOROLOGY may be freely distributed *
*****************************************************************************
CONTENTS OF THIS ISSUE:
Robert P. Shuler
*****************************************************************************
What is TAYLOROLOGY?
TAYLOROLOGY is a newsletter focusing on the life and death of William Desmond
Taylor, a top Paramount film director in early Hollywood who was shot to
death on February 1, 1922. His unsolved murder was one of Hollywood's major
scandals. This newsletter will deal with: (a) The facts of Taylor's life;
(b) The facts and rumors of Taylor's murder; (c) The impact of the Taylor
murder on Hollywood and the nation; (d) Taylor's associates and the Hollywood
silent film industry in which Taylor worked. Primary emphasis will be given
on reprinting, referencing and analyzing source material, and sifting it
for accuracy.
*****************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************
Robert P. Shuler
In 1922, anti-Hollywood preachers mentioned the Taylor murder in speeches and
writings to bolster their arguments against the motion picture industry.
At that time, the most prominent and vocal anti-Hollywood clergyman in
Los Angeles was Rev. Robert P. Shuler. In addition to his sermons, Shuler
published "Bob Shuler's Magazine" to spread his viewpoint to a wider
audience; the following items were published in his magazine during 1922.
Anti-Semitic references have been left intact for historical purposes.
See Shuler's biographical Wikipedia article at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_P._Shuler
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
THE CLEANEST OF THE UNCLEAN
March 1922
BOB SHULER'S MAGAZINE
A colony of people, mighty in potentiality, the educators of the
childhood and youth of the nation in ideals and standards, the manipulators
of human emotions in America, live in the twin cities of Hollywood and
Los Angeles and are the center of the attention of the whole world today.
They make you laugh and cry. They make you mad and glad. They make you
thrill and they fill you continuously with the food that makes your heart
desire to be good or bad. They are more powerful than all the universities
in the world in their influence over the human soul and will either draw the
heart of the this nation to the high table lands of purity and noble resolve
or they will within a decade or so pull us down into the depths as to "souse"
our very souls in infamy and shameless debauch.
This colony of people is sometimes referred to as "the movie world" and
indeed they are as large as the globe in the reach of their influence.
Out of Hollywood are to be the issues of life in America, if I am any prophet.
Hollywood, with her movie studios and thousands of movie actors and actresses,
is the center of the idealism of America today. There is not another force as
potent unloosed within this broad land as the millions of feet of film that
are traveling out from Hollywood every year.
Then what of Hollywood's "movie world?" The spotted leopard does not sire
a lamb. The poisonous fountain does not send forth sweet waters. Think not
that purity shall be the lesson learned from that textbook that is produced in
the sordid bed of lechery! We hear much talk of a most certainly needed
"clean up" of the unclean film. I come to say, after the most careful and
studious investigation, that you will never clean the film until you clean its
fountain. The very nature of the leopard must be changed. Back of the
sex-full film is the sex-overflowing movie colony of Hollywood. The waters of
the film, vile and unholy, are but the natural products of a fountain that has
suddenly been discovered to be too nasty for human contemplation.
Within the past five years, literally hundreds of movie luminaries have
had their pictures in Los Angeles papers and their names in glaring headlines
that tell the tale of scandal, of free love, of tainted divorce, of looseness
in social relations, of defiance of morality and convention, of blear-eyed
license and shameless lust. Movie beauties are constantly on the pages of
these papers, their nudeness emphasized, their sexual charms brazenly
portrayed, their naked lack of womanly modesty advertised flagrantly to the
whole wide world. If you would know why the smear of slime has been so
pronounced across the face of the picture, pray study for a moment the
character of folk that are behind the picture.
For ten years a big, fat, jolly Pied Piper was followed by a veritable
tide of childish hearts and laughing faces of little boys and girls. The entry
of the Son of God into Jerusalem was not more triumphant than was the entry of
this man into the confidence of American childhood. And then came the
San Francisco booze party, when this hero of little children, clad in his
pajamas, uncorked his booze and amid the noise of jazz proceeded in that
drunken carousal, that dance in night attire and undergarments with women of
his ilk and of his trade, that finally culminated in the death of an actress,
the trials of the comedian and the revelations of sex shame so vile as would
cause a litter of dogs to blush in their kennel. Immediately, the "movie world"
threw the power of its powerful hold upon California and the gold of its purse
into an effort to free their fellow, but while they blocked the way of justice
and saved their comrade from the pen, they were not powerful enough, thank God,
to stay the revelations of impurity that was resultant from those trials.
And while the nation stood aghast before this revelation, another prominent
movie man was discovered dead in his bed by two female satellites who slept in
his apartments with him, a thin curtain separating their bed from his.
Scarcely had this shameful exposure been quieted and smoothed over until
a star committed suicide under circumstances that might have implicated some of
the most renowned in the profession, had not the soft pedal been placed on the
newspapers just in time.
In the meantime a woman killed her paramour in a middle west state and after
a nationwide sensation in the way of a chase and a trial, ending in her release,
she too found her way to the pictures and married her producer. The "movie world"
howled with a vengeance at her entry, though the most studious could not tell why,
since both in life and in the picture produced, she undoubtedly ran true to type.
And through it all, with every daily paper that came from the press, there
ran the purple thread of divorce and scandal, of charge and counter charge,
of shame and perfidy.
But the "movie world" contended that such crimes, such violation of every
sacred principle of human life, such contempt for the sanctity of the American
home, such show of lust and portrayal of the sensual came from the unclean among
them and certain representatives stood out and plead with the public not to judge
the clean by the unclean. Preachers apologetically referred to the fact that we
were wading through a veritable flood of filth that came not from the majority of
the film folk, but from a minority. We were told that these objectionable
creatures were to be put out of the business and we vainly waited for the
hundreds of stars that had been connected with scandal, with shaded divorce action,
with booze parties and dope evenings to receive their "walking papers." Promises
were plentiful. Fulfillment never came.
Then it was that one of the most prominent men in the "movie world" escorted
a beautiful star to her auto, after she had spent, according to her statement,
forty-five minutes in his bachelor apartments alone with him at night, and,
promising to call her immediately upon her arrival home, returned to his own house
to be shot in the back and killed. The whole movie colony arose to do him honor.
At last a clean man had come the way of tragedy among them. The public was
assured by all who knew him, by the newspapers, by the women with whom he was most
intimate, by his servants, by his friends that he was an excellent gentleman,
clean, virtuous, manly, chivalrous, ideal. Here at last the "movie world" had its
opportunity. Finally, there would stand up before all men a blameless dead man
from the film trade and the critics would be punished while the doubting would
be satisfied.
But death has a way of opening up graves, you know, and slowly the dead past
came to life. According to press reports this murdered man was a wife deserter;
a child deserter; a home defamer, as shown by the court records of the divorce
that followed the desertion; a man of affairs with many women and none of them
to his credit. No sooner was he dead than certain world-renowned actresses became
frenzied with excitement. One was hurrying to secure her letters to him for fear
the public would misunderstand the terms of endearment therein. Another was
trying to explain a missive in which was a passionate profession of love and which
was found among his personal effects. Still another was on the anxious seat as to
"dope parties" which it seems this clean man had attended in order to secure
"atmosphere" for his work. We read in the papers about dainty undergarments found
in his apartments, of half-drained whiskey glasses and cigarette stubs, and thus
the tide of revelation rolled on. It appears that he had gone under many names,
had once been a showman with a "beautiful sister" connected with his show, though
there seems to have been no such real sister. A hotel man comes along to tell
about his having spent a week in his hotel under an assumed name with a woman,
supposedly his wife, though his only wife was the deserted woman referred to.
All this and more--and then, more--and then, some more rolled out into the wide
open as a startled public gasped for breath, for this was the "clean man of the
movies," the "ideal gentleman" of the pictures, the "splendid sample of the best"
in the world where the film is born.
But with all the revelation, the movie people stood by their "ideal
gentleman," just as they stood by "Fatty" and the greatest funeral ever accorded
a movie man took place in a prominent downtown church of this city while the
stately service of the Church of England was read over the body of the world's
latest Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde. Enough flowers from Hollywood's "movie world"
to cover the graves of forty men told the story of the high esteem in which that
colony held this man, for he was the "cleanest of their unclean."
Is not this picture amazing? And yet this picture is as true as truth.
Indeed, this man, with all the things that death hath opened its mouth to tell
of him, was undoubtedly one of the very highest-class movie men to be found.
To say that such a man is high class among real men is ridiculous, absurd,
revolting. To say that he was the kind of citizen the nation needs would be to
court the ridicule of all mankind. To say that his life reflected credit on his
nation, his race or himself would be to be openly laughed at. And yet when his
fellow movie comrades proclaimed him a sample of their very best, they
undoubtedly told the truth. Two-thirds of the movie people will today class
under this victim of the assassin's bullet. He was without doubt a cleaner,
higher type gentleman than most of the stars who attended his funeral.
The whole difference is in a conception of what it takes to constitute
a clean man or a pure woman and the "movie world" has served notice on all
humanity that they are not to be judged according to the standards of convention,
of good morals, of decent behavior by which other mortals stand or fall.
They are artists and must be accorded the privileges belonging to artists of
their peculiar "temperaments." Ordinary people should marry and be true
to their marriage vows. Ordinary unmarried women should be chaperoned when
calling at night at the apartments of men. Ordinary girls should not attend
booze parties and dope "sneezes." Ordinary men and women should not live as
cats and dogs live. But the "movie world" is an artistic world and movie folk
are not ordinary folk. And this is why a man who would tail the list among
ordinary gentlemen heads it with emphasis among the gentlemen of the
movie colony.
If Mr. Hays, with his $150,000 salary, can bring the folk behind the
picture to sanity in living their lives he will go many a mile toward
cleaning the pictures and saving the industry from the wrath of an indignant
parenthood, the last of which jobs is in reality the one assigned him.
But so long as such a condition obtains as today obtains among the movie
people, there is little hope of revolution toward safety from within
the industry. The inside of the cup and platter is in a pitiable condition
out Hollywood way. When a wife-deserter, a child-deserter and a man with
as many women intimates as have recently been advertised through the public
press, can go to his grave extolled and magnified, crowned and adored by
a group of people, it is a certain sign that their ideals and standards are
about nil.
And yet American childhood and youth are in their keeping. The parents
of the nation have surrendered their offspring to these people for
the stirring of the very fountains of their lives and the making of the very
goals of their destinies. These are the teachers of the growing, developing,
maturing America of tomorrow.
And these teachers very positively defy the parents of this nation in
their efforts to safeguard their children from the poison flowing from
the products of the "movie world." When we ask for a loaf of censorship,
the movie "money-bags" hurl at us a golden stone, which frightens our
business men to death, and we stand helpless. We are at the mercy of
the unclean and lo, the cleanest of the unclean appears not more clean than
the uncleanest in the ranks of ordinary mortals: men and women, forsooth,
whose characters must be up to their art, their trade or the profession.
For the "movie world" itself hath spoken it.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PAGE MR. HAYS
April 1922
BOB SHULER'S MAGAZINE
It is reported that Adolph Zukor, Carl Laemmle, Hiram Abrams, Louis J.
Selznick, Samuel Goldwyn, William Fox and Marcus Loew have employed Will Hays
at the insignificant figure of $150,000 per annum. In the old saloon days,
when we read the list of brewers, we coined a remark to the effect that
"There is something in a name." In the above transaction, there is something
in a name.
The names of the employers of Mr. Hays speak eloquently for themselves.
Those who know those names will immediately drop all this childish prattle
about the employment of Mr. Hays for the cleansing of the Movies. These
employers are historic in the Movies. Their attitude to cleanliness in
pictures is as well known as the Ten Commandments, though the relation is not
marked. They have been in absolute control of the pictures through a career
of dirt and filth on the screen that has shocked the American conscience to
its center. The names of the men is sufficient guarantee of the fact that,
what ever shall be the duties of Mr. Hays, the making clean of the picture
is not one of them.
But there is the name of Mr. Hays. Few names are as large and full of
meaning. He belongs to the machinery of government in America. He stands in
the front line of leadership in the dominant party within the nation.
His name will secure almost any kind of legislation that the above named
gentlemen may chance to want, and will defeat any bill that might be
antagonistic to their financial interests. Therefore a band of men who claim
that a censorship law would cost them $15,000,000 and who further claim that
a tariff on foreign films would profit them half as much, are not at all
unwise in taking less than one per cent of that amount and expending it in
a name that will prevent the one and give to them the other.
These gentlemen, whose names are so insistently significant, also acted
with characteristic wisdom in selecting a prominent church man. Mr. Hays is
a Presbyterian Elder, leads in public prayer, preaches lay sermons and
belongs to the "moral element." Messrs. Zukor, Laemmle, Abrams, Selznick,
Goldwyn, Fox and Loew have only one element in America to fear in their
successful exploitation of the morals of the American people. That is the
church element. When the preachers "lay off," these gentlemen will roll in
their millions without embarrassment or alarm. The newspapers are very
agreeable, for advertising reasons. All other approaches to the public are
well taken care of. Only the pulpit remains obstreperous. The preacher is
rather a hard man to buy. It is difficult to approach him. And here again
the brains that came down from the gentleman who manipulated the striped,
streaked, speckled calves on his uncle's ranch, work like a well-oiled
machine. The name of a Presbyterian Elder will go far in assisting a people
who sell their wares on the Holy Sabbath and desire to sell pretty rotten
wares at that.
There is one laughable phrase that has come out of the employment of
Mr. Hays. We hear of "the Landis of the Movies." Well, we will wait.
If Hays is to be a second Landis, he will prove it by giving the toe of his
boot to the unclean in the industry. I say, we will wait, for there is apt
to be a mighty scattering among the crowned heads and the wailing of bosses
that cannot be comforted, if indeed, Will Hays is to be "the Landis of the
Movies." The sons of Jacob will have a dumb chill when Hays begins to do
the Landis act. And we will advise our friend among the officials of the
Presbyterian Church to be sure and draw his salary in advance, if in reality,
he intends to Landisize the Movies.
Boy, page Mr. Hays. He is now before the public eye, and the public eye
will not down. If Mr. Hays has come to his kingdom for a campaign of
"the heavy hand" in legislation, while he carries about with him a whitewash
brush, the public eye will find it out. The public eye is now wide open,
thanks to a few corpses and a living "Fatty" Arbuckle, and that public eye
has not an eyelash between it and the Hon. Mr. Will Hays. We have an idea
that the movie Princes (For there were many Princes in Israel) dread American
censorship for the defense of the morality of the childhood and youth of this
nation much more than they dread any other thing living or dead. There is no
ghost that stalks through their nights so frightfully. We are of the opinion
that these same Princes whose names are Zukor, Laemmle, Abrams, Selznick,
Goldwyn, Fox and Loew expect their Mr. Hays to take his grip in hand and
fox trot from Legislature to Legislature and from Senate to House for the
purpose of preventing the people from passing laws that will safeguard public
morals and protect from the salacious and filthy, their sons and daughters.
To be sure, we will wait, but we are already well decided as to where our
waiting will bring us and the revelations that are ahead.
And although we wish Mr. Hays great success in cleaning the unclean,
we doubt the method that we fear he will adopt, knowing his bosses, and we
advise that he wear his rabbit foot just over the left-hind-corner of his
spleen, if he expects the people to go to sleep with a security born of his
having been a Cabinet member, and his still being an Elder in the church.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
April 1922
BOB SHULER'S MAGAZINE
Mr. Carl Laemmle of the movies declares that 99 percent of the picture
people are respectable. If that is true, the little one percent of the
unclean sure produce a stench worthy of a smaller and even more nocturnal
variety. But Mr. Laemmle fails to tell us whether his 99 percent are
respectable according to the movie standards of respectability or the
standards of men and women of ordinary life. We wonder if he counts these
naked stars that we see in the papers constantly as respectable? Do his
divorce queens with their court records belong to this 99 percent? Do his
respectable stars drink booze, smoke cigarettes and visit men at night
unattended by chaperones? In fact there are about a thousand questions we
could ask, for we surmise that Mr. Lamemle has embraced in his 99 percent all
who are out of jail or whose record has not been transcribed by the Court
reporters. We must not forget that the codes of respectability among Movie
people have been amazingly modernized to meet the demands of their
temperamental and artistic natures.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
THE WHITEWASH
April 1922
BOB SHULER'S MAGAZINE
The Eastern Press has spread the smear of slime before its readers in
an exposure of moral conditions among the Movie people of Southern California,
and while there has in a few instances been exaggeration, most of the
revelation has been true and much of it tame when compared with real
conditions.
The Movie defenders have been unique in one thing. They have sought to
"step from under" by making it appear that the attack was being made upon
Hollywood as a community rather than upon the Movie colony that lives in and
about Hollywood. In this they have utterly failed. No one has for a moment
been deceived. Hollywood, outside of her Movie inhabitants, is very much
like any other city in Southern California and all men are well acquainted
with that fact.
And now that the exposure is complete, lacking only the finishing
touches of the next episode which will be along on schedule time, the
processes of the whitewash brush have been inaugurated. The Mayor, elected
by the Christian men and women of Los Angeles and opposed by the united Movie
world, their silver-mounted limousines plowing the streets in a campaign
against him, has graciously come to the rescue of their damaged reputation.
The Chamber of Commerce, always ready to intervene in behalf of revenue, when
only character is imperiled, has made a grand display of purging the Eastern
Press of its slanders on the good name of these pure, gentle, refined and
lovely people. The Police of Hollywood, believed by many to exist for the
one purpose of caring for the Movie folk when they find themselves in
a predicament, has declared how very gentle and law abiding they are.
You have noted that Taylor's murderer has not been caught and agitation is
coming to a slow but sure and certain death. No, that manslaughter will not
be caught. It would be embarrassing, no doubt, to Moviedom were that
murderer caught. The reputation of these people must be saved and that the
Police know full well.
The City Council has spoken. Back in the days when the Christian
manhood and womanhood of Los Angeles made the fight for censorship,
a majority of that City Council gave every outward sign of friendliness to
the Christian forces. I myself talked personally with more than half of
that body. But the heavy hand of the "billion-dollar bosses" fell and the
censorship matter lies snugly somewhere in its grave and the vote of the
City Council is unregistered. It was such a City Council that rushed out,
dripping white, to smear over the lecherous and filthy record of the Movies.
Then it was that this Editor spoke his soul. He handed to the
Newspapers of Los Angeles what he had to say. Usually they are eager for
news, but never for news that reflects adversely upon advertisers of such
large purses. My deliverance never appeared. And it is for this reason and
that the whole world may know that there are men in Los Angeles, at the
very front door of the Movie Industry, who are by God's grace determined
to speak the truth that I publish below in my own Publication my deliverance
on the evening of Feb. 26th, 1922. It was delivered before a packed house,
members of the city administration and also of the Movie Colony being
present, and follows word for word as delivered:
"The city administration of Los Angeles and the Chamber of Commerce,
in giving to the Movie Colony a nice, new glistening coat of whitewash, have
simply invited those who have their eyes and ears open in Southern California
to laugh at them. In asking us to swallow their affirmations, they seem to
take the common herd for a pack of fools. Some day these guardians of our
'infant industry' will awaken to find that the people are not blind, deaf or
even brainless.
"To say that the attitude of the Movie people in public and private
morals, to correct social standards, to the marriage relation and to the
American home has not been altogether pernicious is to court the contempt
of all who know the real facts; while to declare that these folk have as
a group been living wholesome, moral, righteous lives in Southern California
is but to add to the ridiculous absurdity of your defense. These glowing
certificates of purity recently published from the Mayor, the City Council,
the Police Force, the Chamber of Commerce, have value alone as real estate
documents, in my opinion.
"I would suggest to these apostles of 'our billion-dollar industry' that
if they will interest themselves a little more in the character of Southern
California they may not be forced to spend so much valuable time on her
reputation. It might shock the whole community, but it would undoubtedly be
wholesome, if some of these agencies would at least once say a word or two
in defense of the morals of our youth, that have been exploited for gate
receipts by Moviedom for the past five years.
"The divorce record of this Movie colony is enough of itself to shock
the conscience of the nation to its center, while the newspaper display of
nudeness on the part of movie actresses has for many years advertised their
all but total lack of womanly modesty. American virtue does not display
itself in the nude. With their cellars full of booze the movie people have
defied convention and mocked our standards of life. Seventy-five percent
of the cellars of Moviedom are stocked with intoxicants today. Their 'dope'
record is as well advertised as our climate. What other profession dares
demand that its women be permitted to visit unchaperoned the bachelor
apartments of men at night? What other industry will put its money behind
the defense of a 'Fatty' Arbuckle? What other business will eulogize to
heaven a wife and child deserter and a man whose intimate relation with many
women is now public property? Go read their maudlin love notes that tell
the story of looseness almost as clearly as their vampire screen has told
that tale, and then pray tell me why the heads of our city government must
rush to their defense.
"When the Captain of the Hollywood police squad declares that he has
been unable to find any wrongdoing among the Movie people, he gives the
Police Commission of Los Angeles the best reason on earth why his services
should be dispensed with. Where was he New Year's Eve? Such a man is
absolutely undependable or incapable. When the Mayor of this city declares
these people blameless, he advertises that he himself is either grossly
ignorant of conditions or mortally weak. When the City Council votes
the Movie colony a clean bill of health, it confesses to all the world its
spinelessness. The most pitiful thing that has happened in this whole Movie
revelation has been the kneeling down before this golden calf on the part of
our City Administration and the licking of the feet of these
cigarette-smoking stars and wine-drinking beauties by men who ought to stand
for the American home, the morality of our sons and daughters, and the
saving of our nation from wholesale license and a reign of lust."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
EXIT BLUE SUNDAY STUFF
May 1922
BOB SHULER'S MAGAZINE
A world famous movie actress who visited a world famous movie producer
in his bachelor apartments at night and left just before he was assassinated,
stated to the District Attorney of Los Angeles County that as she walked
to the car, the producer in question put his arm around her. In the meantime,
she was loud in her declarations that there was no "affair" between her and
the producer in question. Some folk may be rather shocked at the idea of
a young woman visiting a bachelor gentleman in his apartments at night and
promenading beneath the trees locked in his embrace, but such folk are
simply behind the times. They are old and fogy and moss-grown and fanatical
and long-haired. They are the regular blue Sunday kind. They belong to
the far away dead past, when ladies were modest and virtue absolutely denied
the possibility of a beautiful young woman blamelessly spending an hour in
a bachelor's apartments alone with the proprietor at night. But the movie
has come since then and now we are educated by the film and those who produce
the pictures to where the black of other days has become as white and
glistening as new fallen snow.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
May 1922
BOB SHULER'S MAGAZINE
Miss Marion Hunter, of the Hollywood Studio Club, an institution
recently promoted to salvage girls who have movie aspirations and who are
continuously bombarding the gates of the movie studios, declares that
hundreds of them are scarcely more than 16 years of age, with no chance
on earth to ever get into the pictures. These girls come to Los Angeles and,
failing to get into the pictures, fully ninety percent of them wreck at once.
Thousands of young girls have come to this city to be stars and have become
the most pitiful creatures of the night. Many who have gotten into the
studios have fared no better than those who failed. The mother who is
pushing her daughter toward the movies is in the large percent of instances
simply pushing her into hell. I have come personally to share in sympathy and
helpfulness the pitiful tragedy of more than one girl who came into this city,
urged on by an aspiring mother to believe that she had talent that would land
the family in a mansion and the girl on the highway of fame. Better kiss your
little girl and cut her throat in most instances, foolish mother!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
May 1922
BOB SHULER'S MAGAZINE
If there has been any doubt as to the attitude toward public morals of
the most shining stars of the Movie world, the welcome given "Fatty"
Arbuckle's "vindication" should forever dissipate that doubt. According to
press reports, Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks, Mabel
Normand, (You have doubtless heard of her) and others not less famous are
hilarious. Hollywood's movie people went wild with enthusiasm and rejoicing.
Whether or not a "dog party" has been staged has not been announced at
this writing.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Hail "Fatty," Thy Fame Is Final
May 1922
BOB SHULER'S MAGAZINE
"Fatty" Arbuckle is as I write the best known man in the movie world.
From a standpoint of the advertisement of his wares, he is the most favorably
known. He has gotten before the public in a way to make him tremendously
attractive as a movie star. Today, he outshines all the rest. Many of them
are well known but he is best known. His party, his pajamas, his bedrooms
and bath rooms and ladies going to and fro in his drunken party, his dead
woman and the revelations attending, his dog parties now so well advertised,
his dirty and filthy relation to the unspeakable--all make him the best and
most fitly advertised man in Moviedom, the king of the art, the crowned and
acclaimed monarch of the film. Immediately upon his glorious "exoneration"
he announces that he is now ready to go back into the pictures. Just how he
could be any more ready, we do not understand. Surely he is the final word
in preparedness when it comes to a brilliant future in the films.
Several weeks ago, this writer through a little pamphlet that has
traveled to the tune of multiplied thousands through every state in America,
declared that the Movie people were behind "Fatty" in their sympathies and
with their money. Later, the daily papers confirmed my statement anent the
cash but a quite famous producer denied vehemently my declaration as to the
sympathy of the picture folk. Today Jesse Lasky, who comes nearer speaking
for the movie world than any other man within it, says:
"I am very pleased that Mr. Arbuckle has been acquitted. An acquittal
is what ALL PERSONS connected with motion pictures hoped for and believed
would happen."
So at last the motion picture world, through Mr. Lasky, has spoken.
This famous representative declares that "All persons," not just a few,
"connected with motion pictures" hoped for and expected Arbuckle's
reinstatement. That he is their kind absolutely, most men have known from
the beginning, but that one of their biggest men should acknowledge it is
a frankness we had scarcely hoped for.
This writer does not claim to be a prophet, but mark my work, "Fatty"
as a film favorite is just now starting toward his zenith. He is the kind
of man who will sell in the movie game. His reputation matches in wondrous
fashion the modern film's display of sex, of filth, of dirt, of lust,
of carousal and of slime. It will be the picture plus "Fatty" and that will
produce a mighty total with that public that the Movie masters have doped to
where they are no longer satisfied without a display of the wretchedly vicious.
As to the finding of the jury, it is laughable. Surely, the movie people
think the whole world one mob of fools to talk of that finding as an
"exoneration," a "vindication." We know what it was, all right. When a jury
can consider the evidence of weeks in one minute and write a lengthy letter
of recommendation of the man on trial and be back in the courtroom ready to
report in five minutes, it's time for the public to grab its nose. Especially
is that true when two juries have hung for days on that same evidence, the
last one standing ten for conviction. The Movie folk exercised bad judgment
again. Their jury acted too quickly. They showed their training too well.
They had it too perfectly memorized. You have simply played the fool one more
time. These Jews who own the Movies are great on money making but they are
some mess in dealing with the public mind. Gentlemen, you should have
instructed your jury not to have reported under an hour, whatever happened.
Speed ruined you again.
It is all over and the only mistake made was in not dismissing the case
after the first trial. There has never been the ghost of a chance of
convicting "Fatty" Arbuckle with the money on hand for his defense. The Movie
cohorts came nearly slipping on the second trial, but they learned their
lesson and let no grass grow under their feet on the third. The preparation
lacking for the second was complete in the third. The Jury in their verdict
showed such training as only experts could give. It was truly splendid and
the whitewash dripped to perfection.
There is no need to write concerning the verdict, however, as all sane
people are laughing at that. The interesting fact is that the Movie people
have accepted their own at par. He is to be one of them. They have approved
him. Lasky has announced that they were all behind him from the beginning.
Again, he will become the educator of our children in ideals and standards.
Again, our boys and little girls shall worship at his altars. America,
behold thy big, fat god. Oh land of the Pilgrims, bow down before thy
re-crowned slinger of pies. See him disport himself in his silk pajamas with
his lady friends at his parties. Behold, oh land, where on thy coin is
stamped "In God we trust," the idol, white with the wash that movie gold
could buy.
But the "Landis of the Movies" has spoken. Is his verdict final?
We wait.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CUTE MR. HAYS
June 1922
BOB SHULER'S MAGAZINE
Mr. Hays is speaking very cautiously, you will note, but very surely.
He banned the Arbuckle pictures temporarily. He has since virtually declined
proof offered concerning the deportment of that Star and others like him.
In a recent dispatch he says: "We must not have censorship of the industry.
Our first duty must be to keep the industry free." He further declines
"to be the judge of the morals of those within the industry." He affirms that
"the morals in this industry are just as good as those in any other." Elder
Hays talks indeed just like an old-time brewery attorney. It is all fine if
there were any truth in it or hope for an afflicted public. The fact is,
it is the first gun of the coming propaganda. Mr. Hays has in this interview
given the first signs of the bridle that is in his mouth. Be well assured
the big Jew owners are the drivers.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
June 1922
BOB SHULER'S MAGAZINE
Rev. Geo. F. Dowey of the Third Presbyterian Church of Chicago suggests
that Will Hays organize the Movie producers and their stars into a Sunday
School class, since he is a Presbyterian elder and teach them the ten
commandments. Now we do not wish to disappoint any expectant admirer of
Mr. Hays, but that gentleman has no thought of teaching the Movie folk the
ten commandments. Recently an offer went out of Los Angeles to Mr. Hays
guaranteeing to give to him not only evidence as to the deportment of "Fatty"
Arbuckle, but evidence as to similar deportment of a score or more of the
'greatest lights" of the Movie world, providing he would guarantee to prohibit
their pictures, if their guilt was established beyond a doubt. Mr. Hays was
kind enough to thank the gentleman who made this offer, but his short letter
left no doubt of the fact that the offer would not be accepted. Mr. Hays may
be a very good man, but he is in the hands of men who care less about the
ten commandments than they do about any other thing of any interest at all.
They were willing to temporarily pull "Fatty" Arbuckle off when they found
the public would not permit him on, but they will never agree to a general
policy in line with the dealing.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"THE SINS OF HOLLYWOOD"
June 1922
BOB SHULER'S MAGAZINE
"The Sins of Hollywood" have been suppressed--that is, the book of that
title has been suppressed. It isn't fit to be read, according to the
authorities. Even the United States mails, which now carry some pretty "raw"
literature, are closed to this little volume, we understand.
The great trouble about "The Sins of Hollywood" is that it is true.
This Editor has perused its pages. There is not a story in it but that harks
back to genuine fact. Yes, it is nasty. So are the facts. True, it is
filthy and vile, but so is the life it pictures. I would not for a moment
commend it to any sensitive person. It is shocking. It is terribly frank.
It is in fact the unvarnished story of just what happened. That of itself
ought to ban it forever from the mails and from the center tables of all
decent homes.
"The Sins of Hollywood" is a little volume written by somebody who most
certainly was no stranger to the movie colony. The writer knew the very
inside and his book is the most splendid proof of that fact. At last
accounts he could not be located. According to the newspapers, somebody
wanted to prosecute him. Whoever that somebody was, we are sure he or she
did not belong to the group of celebrities whose first names are given in
the stories published. We understand that those who knew the inside of the
Taylor murder agreed that it was best not to get it into open court, and we
imagine that the stars and producers who are pictured in "The Sins of
Hollywood" are of the same opinion concerning the writer of those stories
and for the same reason. Courts dig a little too deep at times, you know.
In the meantime, "The Sins of Hollywood" is floating about, with its
little red devil on the front cover, and is being read by disgusted
thousands. The reason they are disgusted is that the book contains nothing
new, nor even out of the ordinary. The stories it relates have been known
to everybody "close up" to movie scandal and the author does not even make
them as nasty as they actually were. More than that, any carpenter who
works about the studios can tell a dozen that will eclipse any that are
in the book. The casual reader expected to find at least one new one or one
of the old ones with a new touch or two. That is why students of the movie
"hog-wallow" do not give a rap if the book has been suppressed. They knew
it anyway. And they resent the fact that the writer undertook to doctor
the stories enough to get them through the United States mails.
It so happened that this Editor had a personal "confab" with a very
prominent "studio rat;" in other words, a man who knows the very "insides"
of Moviedom. He had not read "The Sins of Hollywood." I undertook to tell
him of the most outstanding touches. I soon noticed that he was sleepy
or sick. He yawned and looked weary. Finally, he turned to me apologetically
and said: "Why, is that all he wrote? Those are merely the faults of the
movie folk. Webster didn't collect the language that would tell the story
of their real sins." So I have decided that it was altogether wise to
suppress "The Sins of Hollywood," since the author of the book shows in
his writings a disposition to go no further than "Dog Parties," "Paddle
Parties," "Duck Blinds," "Dope Evenings," "Great Lover Stuff" and other
nastiness that is now altogether tame when it comes to dealing with Moviedom.
Certainly, his book is vile, but not one-half as vile as the vileness he
is supposed to depict, if in fact he really meant to draw a nature picture
of the Sins of the Studios.
And even since "The Sins of Hollywood" was suppressed, the photos
owned by Taylor, the murdered producer, were sold at auction. The majority
of them were photos of women in the nude or with just enough on to make
the sex idea emphatic. They were eagerly bought up by Movie luminaries,
mostly women. Their value was in that which they suggested concerning the
dead Taylor--that is, concerning the kind of life he lived. Among the
photos were pictures of some of the most prominent stars and scrawled across
the cards, in their own hands, such sentiment as this: "To Billie--with all
my love." "I love you; I love you; I love you." There is perhaps no more
certain proof of the putrid condition of the Southern California Film Colony
than the fact that Bill Taylor, who collected that bunch of photos from his
lady intimates, was conceded by them all to be the cleanest and most perfect
gentleman among them. Publication of a few of those photos in "The Sins of
Hollywood" would have given to the tame volume something akin to a "kick"
at least.
And to show that "The Sins of Hollywood" was old and out of date and
obsolete when it came off the press, one has but to peruse the daily papers
anent the Valentino scandal, which is right up to date. Valentino, as film
fans know, is "the greatest lover" of the screen. "Oh, the passion of his
kiss!" is the way one leading woman who starred with him is heralded to
have put it. "To be wrapped in his arms is to live love," is another
comment of a much cheaper but just as famous light of the celluloid.
Valentino was married to Jean Acker, at one time also famous as a star, but
more recently driven from pictures by ill health. Without even waiting for
a legal divorce, this "great lover" motors over into Mexico and weds
Winifred Hudnut. "The great lover" is arrested on a bigamy charge and them
comes the revelation in sworn testimony of "pajama parties," "pajama motor
trips," wild life and free love that comes within a neck of going under the
wire a winner over "Fatty's San Francisco love fest," except that no
undertaker was needed.
Valentino's "great love" spree also reminds us that Frank Mayo and
Dagmar Godowsky, both prominent in the Movie world, also slid over to
Tia Juana, Mexico, the most "wide open" place outside perdition, and were
lovingly united in wedlock, before the groom's divorce had been legally
executed. Mayo defends his marriage as "a marriage of love, inspired by the
highest of motives." My only comment is that he sure was choice in
selecting Tia Juana as a fitting place for consummation of such a marriage.
A Los Angeles newspaper assures the public that no less than ten other
such marriages have been recently effected under like circumstances, with
either one or both contracting parties famous in the movie world. All of
which shows you how tame and uninteresting such a book as "The Sins of
Hollywood" really is. Why, some of its stories are as much as sixty days
old and here we are having new movie scandals every morning before breakfast.
Certain it is that any book seeking to portray conditions in the Movie world
should be written not more than twenty-four hours before going to press and
should be published and placed on the book shelves of the stores within
twelve hours after the manuscript is completed. Even this well-written
article will be stale in all possibility before our readers read it, swift
as moves the machinery that brings to the eager public Bob Shuler's Magazine.
Movie vice has broken all speed limits. It is a most difficult thing indeed
to write and publish the account of one nauseating Movie mess before another
scandal completely swallows your story and by processes of comparison makes
your efforts to shock the public appear both tame and lame.
"The Sins of Hollywood" should be a serial. Each day it should recount
the latest. Each morning it should notify the public as to which actor and
actress are living together and as to whether the last ones married were
married to some one else at the time of their marriage. Only such modern
methods in literary production can by any possible process keep pace with
the latest nastiness of Moviedom.
But why continue? Since starting this article, Peggy Joyce has arrived
in town to build a theater. The newspapers are now giving her most of their
space, there being a lull in movie vice since Valentino was acquitted on the
ground that he didn't live with his new wife after wedding her. Peggy is
engaged in giving out long interviews on how women should dress, how brief
their bathing suits should be and how tame are the mandates of convention
in slow America. Peggy Joyce can get more publicity in Los Angeles today
than all the school teachers and preachers within the city combined, which
is of itself a pretty sure sign that something wilder than "The Sins of
Hollywood" will have to be written before the folk go nutty with enthusiasm.
Indeed, it takes the very latest in filth to compete with the daily
papers, and so "The Sins of Hollywood" never had a ghost of a show.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Hays Enters a Confession
September 1922
BOB SHULER'S MAGAZINE
It is never good to say, "I told you so," and so I will not say it.
However, my readers will remember that several months ago when the employment
of Mr. Hays by a half-dozen Jews, who control the movie business, was yet
young, I stated that this gentleman was employed for the purpose of
preventing censorship, securing a tariff on foreign films and fooling the
church folks. I stated then that he had no power whatsoever by which he
could clean up the films or stop the immorality and vice among the movie
cohorts. I affirmed that the very nature of his employers was sufficient
proof of the fact that he was helpless and hopeless in any effort at
renovation, from a moral angle, of the business.
On August 9th the whole community was shocked at the announcement that
Bill Hart and his wife had separated, she at the time within a few months of
becoming a mother. Bill Hart is the idol of American boyhood, the cowboy
actor, the two-gunman, pointed to by movie admirers as the "whitest man ever
in the pictures." The newspapers are now full, as I write, of the sensational
divorce that is promised. Evidently the hour had struck for Hays to speak,
and he spoke.
When asked for a statement of his position on this, another tragedy among
these people who seem to be absolutely unable to live together as man and wife
at all, Mr. Hays states: "This matter is not a thing in any way pertaining to
the purposes of this association and myself. It is a matter in which we have
no concern whatsoever." At last Mr. Hays has stated the cold, cruel fact.
Why he did not deal frankly with the public from the beginning and tell them
the blunt truth to start with, this writer does not know, but at least we
have it. Mr. Hays has not a thing on earth to do with the morals of moviedom,
has never had, and never will have, so long as he remains in the employ of
the Jews that are now paying him his enormous salary. Whether the movie
people deport themselves morally according to the standards and ideals of
American life, "is not a thing in any way pertaining to the purposes" of the
association which he heads, and is not a matter in which he has any concern
whatever, from a standpoint of his connection with the business. This Editor
knew this from the beginning, and hundreds of others suspected it strongly,
but at last all men have it straight, fresh and positive from the lips of
Mr. Hays himself.
Recently Mr. Hays visited Los Angeles and his coming was hailed as the
hour for a mighty deliverance that would give to all fathers and mothers
a sense of security so far as their children were concerned, educated in
idealism as they are being by the films. That deliverance did not come.
Mr. Hays was feasted and worshipped as a god among the movie cohorts, and his
triumphant entry into Hollywood will not soon be forgotten. The Chamber of
Commerce, the position of which organization on moral questions is now
historic, took him under its buzzard wing. The fathers and mothers of little
children listened in vain. And yet Mr. Hays did make a deliverance.
He stated that "Bill Hart was an ideal example of what American home life
can be."
Mr. Hays also stated positively while in Los Angeles that the terms of
his contract gave him no authority whatsoever to deal with the morals of the
movies. "The Sins of Hollywood," a book recently published giving a series
of the most filthy happenings ever recorded in print, has been read by
Mr. Hays and evidence was offered him, while in this city, substantiating
every story in that book, but Mr. Hays very frankly confessed that he could
not do anything with the evidence if he had it. He confessed that he could
not stop the "dog parties" or punish the participants. He confessed that
he had no power whatsoever by which he could compel the movie people to live
decently or get off the films. He stated very positively that his
association with the movie kings was a matter of cold, clean-cut business.
So at last we know where we are "at." When Will Hays accepted $150,000
from the half dozen Jews whose names I have published, he did not accept
a salary. Especially is this true when we consider the circumstances.
The movie people wanted a tariff on foreign films. It meant millions
to them. They wanted national censorship through Congress prevented. Again
it meant millions. They wanted the church people appeased and put to sleep.
Again it meant millions. Mr. Hays, as the leader of the party now in power,
was the one man who could do this work. They had tried Mr. McAdoo, but when
he understood the nature of his work, he had declined. So to Mr. Hays they
went with $150,000 per year. I say emphatically that this amount, under
the circumstances, did not constitute a salary.
If Mr. Hays has a conscience he is to be pitied. Not only has he
deceived the people, even the mothers of the nation, but he has sadly sold
himself. He is a powerless man, save to serve as a hireling his masters.
Already he has served them well. The tariff has been put over. Almost he
deceived the church folk. Had it not been for Dr. Breigleb of Los Angeles,
he would have delivered the Presbyterian Church to his Jew owners. It now
remains for him to prevent censorship and he has earned his money. God pity
him. Will Hays ought to be one of the saddest men in America. Oh, God, how
have the mighty fallen!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
October 1922
BOB SHULER'S MAGAZINE
Mr. Rae D. Henkle has published in the Christian Herald an article on
"The Church or the Theater" which is stunning in its conclusions. However,
that article is not extreme in the least. When he declares that it is war to
the hilt between the church people and the movies, if we are to escape the
certain depravity toward which the ordinary picture trends, he but states
a commonplace fact and it is surprising indeed that we have not awakened to
it sooner. Let any Christian mother's girl attend such pictures as "Wedded
But No Wife," "Twin Beds," "Temptation," "Parlor, Bedroom and Bath," "Broken
Husbands," "The Married Flapper," "A Wide Open Town" and "His Common-Law Wife"
and if that mother's heart is not broken, it will be next akin to a miracle.
Such food has never fostered virtue or nourished purity of womanhood. The
church of God can only save her sons and daughters by giving relentless battle
to such forces and the sooner we whet our swords and get at it, the safer will
be our homes. I have never apologized for fighting the movies just as I have
fought the open saloon. They may approach the destruction of character from
different angles but their common end is sure destruction.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
October 1922
BOB SHULER'S MAGAZINE
Will Hays, who has so marvelously succeeded in making saint-like the
movie cohorts keeps up the good work of giving out interviews on the "high
moral and artistic standards" of the screen favorites. In speaking of his
visit to Los Angeles, he says: "I came away convinced. Nothing is wrong with
the moving picture--except youth." This editor was one among the number who
believed, when Will Hays was employed by his Jew employers, that he had been
duped and that like McAdoo he would resign the moment he saw the light and
understood the facts. I am indeed sorry to confess that I am at last
convinced that Will Hays knew exactly what he was doing. His effort to make
the people of America believe that the movie industry is clean is proof
sufficient of his duplicity. That he deliberately sold himself to these Jews
for $150,000 per annum, such interviews are constantly being quoted from him
would certainly lead one to believe. For Will Hays is no fool. He has been
offered proof as black as night and as foul as hell, proof that would convince
a blind man, born without ears, of the character of the movie crowd. He knows.
He knows their infamous immoralities. For him to assure the public in America
of the purity and cleanliness of this outfit is the most consummate treason,
knowing what he knows. The movies may indeed by young in years, but they are
old in crime. Their youth is not all that is the matter. Their vileness is
ancient history.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MORE LIMELIGHT FOR "SINS OF HOLLYWOOD"
December 1922
BOB SHULER'S MAGAZINE
Ed Roberts, who led the fight against the preachers of Los Angeles when
we demanded the censorship of immoral films, has been indicted as the author
of "The Sins of Hollywood," an 80-page booklet purporting to give the
intimate inside of the slime-like deportment of certain luminous film
favorites. The Federal District Attorney, who pushed the case against
Roberts, it is understood, states that "the matter in the book is obscene not
because of any definite word or phrase, but because the tone and tenor of the
book is such as to produce obscene thoughts." This statement is just a wee
bit laughable in view of the fact that such logic would force this same
District Attorney to proceed against every daily newspaper in this city by
indicting them individually at least once each day.
This prosecutor further says, "That the statements in the book are untrue
goes without saying." That is certainly a most convenient way to dismiss such
a matter, but right there the crux of this whole thing lies. Are the stories
within that book untrue? The author, through his attorney, declares that he
will prove them. Whether he can or not, the general public had heard most of
them before Roberts ever wrote them. The main reason why the book did not
sell about these parts was because the stories were too old. To be sure,
Roberts has a rather tough job on his hands going up against the money and
power of the movie world, but the public will at least await the results with
much interest and not a little well-defined opinion of its own.
The one amusing thing about the whole thing is that Roberts, intimately
connected with the movie people, on the inside of their lives as few other
men in Los Angeles, their defender and champion in the censorship fight,
should suddenly appear as the man who must uncover them in genuine earnest
or take the consequences.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PREACHERS TAKE THE BAIT AS USUAL
December 1922
BOB SHULER'S MAGAZINE
We preachers are great suckers and at the same time we are undoubtedly
the best bunch of men our size in the world. We are so eager to assist
everybody and everything that we walk into the trap almost every time the
triggers are set for us. Recently Will Hays came to town on what he termed
a "strictly business trip." Mr. Hays is in business for a bunch of Jews who
are undoubtedly in business strictly for themselves.
Until a howl went all the way to heaven against the corrupt and vicious
nature of their business, they went quietly forward garnering the shekels from
the most sensual and slimy program ever offered the American public. Then the
storm broke and these sons of Isaac saw that it would be good business to deal
with the people for a while. Censorship threatened like a storm cloud.
So they selected a Presbyterian Elder, paid him $150,000 per year, and
proceeded to proceed. Mr. Hays has already stated that he had no authority
on earth as to the morals of the movie actors and actresses. He has also
stated that he was not employed as a moral guide for the industry. He was
employed to further the business of these Jews and that he has succeeded may
be best shown by his activity and the results in recent censorship contests
in various States and especially in the quieting of the whole matter in
Congress, as well as in the tariff he has secured against foreign films. The
only thing left for him to do is to put the church people to sleep and that is
the task he is now seeking to perform.
So Mr. Hays came to Los Angeles, and through the Church Federation,
gathered together a bunch of preachers and offered them the hook, bait, line
and tackle. From what we hear they swallowed most of it. I was invited to
attend, but I've bit enough in my day. This is in no sense a criticism of
the preachers. I believe in them. They are the best men in this city.
But they are so unsuspecting, so full of trust in deacons and elders and
stewards that they are easy prey.
In the meantime, the newspapers announce that Mr. Hays will decide while
in the city whether "Fatty" Arbuckle is to go back on the screen and also
whether Ed Roberts is to be "sent up" for exposing the immoral conditions
among certain movie celebrities. It is now certain that Congress, the courts,
the preachers, the Republican and Democratic parties and every other factor
are to be used for the business success of the big Hebrews who own the movie
business, if Mr. Hays can put it over.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
December 1922
BOB SHULER'S MAGAZINE
Helen Ferguson and Irene Dalton, two popular Hollywood screen beauties,
had their pictures in the same morning paper the other day, the one standing
behind the pulpit of the Wilshire Congregational Church, preaching the gospel,
as it is preached in that pulpit, while the other was being advertised in
a much more common role for movie actresses, that of being the mistress of
a young blade by the name of Owens of Toledo, Ohio. A few days later we
noted that Will Hays was on his way out here to meet with the pastors so as
to reconstruct Hollywood after the pattern and design which has been so
widely advertised of late. Being one of the advising preachers we make this
suggestion: Bundle up the movie gang that has played the game of sex-filth
first hand and whose names and scandals have been the daily mess we have had
served us for five years on this coast and kick them out of the business.
Take the crowd of actors who have not been the continuous divorce sensations
of California, but who have married each other and lived as decent people
should, and build an industry. You'll never save the industry, Mr. Hays,
unless you save it by beginning with the people who are advertised as your
stars. Helen Ferguson has a tremendous tide set against her in her pulpit
career, so long as Irene Dalton occupies the columns of the same daily paper.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Tragic Plight of Wallace Reid
December 1922
BOB SHULER'S MAGAZINE
The Times of Saturday, Dec. 16th, gives its readers an inside glimpse
into the secret horrors of dope's hellish touch on the movie world.
It contains a story that might have very fitly been added by the author of
"The Sins of Hollywood" to his collection, for the writing of which he is now
under indictment. A few years ago Wallace Reid, as splendid an upstanding
American lad as one would want to see, came to the studios of Hollywood and
entered upon his career as a movie actor. He was clean, straight, moral,
sober, manly. Today he is in a Hollywood sanitarium, under the constant care
of two doctors, who are fighting for his life. He requires two strong male
nurses, according to the Times, to keep him on his bed. He is a wreck.
The Times declares that dope and whiskey are responsible. His
mother-in-law, Mrs. Davenport, declares that "wild liquor parties at the Reid
home" did it. She affirms that this home was converted into a veritable
"road house" by friends. Most people know what a "road house" is. She
further declares: "Party after party in which liquor flowed like water marked
the path." Then came narcotics. Through it all his friends, men and women
alike, caroused at his expense financially, morally and physically. Now that
he tosses upon his bed, trying to break the chains that have bound him,
lingering between life and death, his friends are not near.
Who are the friends that made a "road house" out of the home of this
famous actor? Who are the friends that his mother-in-law declares will never
be again welcomed to his home, if he recovers? Who are the friends that
assisted him on the road of liquor and dope to ruin? Do not for a moment
think that they are the toughs of town, the hop-heads and blighted wrecks of
the underworld. If you will place your finger on the friends who assisted
Wallace Reid to his doom you will have identified quite a number of the
un-named heroes and heroines whom Ed Roberts exposes in "The Sins of
Hollywood." They are the stars and even the producers of more than one famous
picture. They are the bunch that have made Hollywood smell to heaven, until
even Will Hays can scarcely camouflage the stench. Wallace Reid is just
a youth today, but they have ruined him, broken him, blighted him, doomed him.
And what they have done for him, they have done for others.
By all means this city has had enough advertisement of this character.
The hour has come for the City Council to constitute a Commission with power
to dig to the bottom of the tales, the rumors, the gossip and the talk that
has advertised us to the four-corners of the earth. This Commission should
have power to summon witnesses. It should be given a lawyer who has brains
and nerve. It should find whether or not the movie studios are full of booze,
of dope, of sex filth, or whether these stories are untrue. If true, we, for
the sake of the good name of this community, should demand a cleanup.
If untrue, the good name of this city and of the studios should be vindicated
once for all.
We do not wish to comment upon the indictment of Ed Roberts, whose book,
"The Sins of Hollywood," is a revelation only to those who have not been
conversant with current rumor. There are many who think, however, that the
movement against Roberts is simply a notification to him and all others that
we must close our mouths and in the future not criticize the movie people.
We do not say this is true, but undoubtedly the plan is age-old and most
effective. Most men are willing to forego even the privilege of free speech
rather than face indictment in the courts. We are confident that if Roberts
cares to do so, he can literally swamp any court in Los Angeles with
evidence, providing legal technicalities are not resorted to for the purpose
of preventing him.
And this is the very reason why an unbiased Commission, representative
of all classes in this city, should at once be given power to make a full,
open and honest investigation, free from the tangle and barrier of legal
technicalities. Let such a Commission call witnesses and let them testify
under oath as to what they actually know. Thus we will get at the real,
genuine facts and thus alone we can reach them. If the movie people are
genuine they will join me in insisting upon such a Commission. If Hollywood
studios have been maligned, here is the road to vindication. Will Will Hays
join me in such a demand? Let us get at the facts. We whose families are
being reared in this city are sick and tired of such stories as that which
the Times carried concerning Wallace Reid. They are either true or false.
Let's find out which and let's proceed about it like real American men and
women should.
*****************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************
Back issues of Taylorology are available on the Web at
http://www.taylorology.com
For more information about Taylor, see
WILLIAM DESMOND TAYLOR: A DOSSIER (Scarecrow Press, 1991)
*****************************************************************************
