Good--by Oscar
To those who saw Laurence Oliver’s “Hamlet” last term it
was probably no surprise to learn last week that the picture
had won the Acadmey award “oscar” for the best picture
produced in 1948.
The English-made version of Shakespeare’s great trag
edy easily surpassed anything produced in this country last
year. Perhaps, as many think, “Hamlet" reached the highest
degree of perfection ever achieved by any motion picture
director in any country.
That any picture made outside the “film capital of the
world" should walk away with Academy honors may seem to
some incongruous. Yet, it has been increasingly apparent to
those who have bothered to study and evaluate motion pic
tures since the war that European, and particularly British,
producers have been giving their films a certain quality and
polish not found in Hollywood productions.
Why haven't Americans kept pace?
One big reason—CASH. American companies have discov
ered they can make more money at the boxofflces by stressing
quantity rather than quality.
Hastily produced shoot-’em-up gangster pictures and
maudlin love stories “draw” very nicely. Wh.y, they apparent
ly reason, spend a lot of time and money on good pictures when
they can feed the gullible American public on mediocre fare
at a great profit to themselves.
Therefore, the problem rests with Mr. Average Guy.
As long as he continues to attend the “movies" indiscrimi
nately, with little or no regard for the types of pictures he’s
viewing, good old Mr. A. G. will continue to play the leading
role in keeping the quality of American motion pictures at
an extremely low ebb.
And the foreign producers will undoubtedly continue to
trot off each year with the Academy awards.
Same Old Stand
By Tom Murquis
This title up above me here is
apt to be a little misleading. It
really isn't the same old stand.
About the only thing that's the
same is the picture and the by
line. I couldn't find a sponsor for
American Airlanes so I’m broad
casting on a different frequency
as of now.
YVliat the ed
itor and 1 had
in mind for this
space is sort of
a general forum
where tile read
er can get his
two cents worth
in. Not about
anything' seri
ous, however.
That remulns in
tiie province of
letters to the
editor.
If you’ve heard a good joke
lately that is printable, or a
poem, short, or any other item
you think would he of general
interest, then send it along.
Any item submitted will bo
appreciated. If there is enough
reader response then we ought
to have a pretty fair column. If
not if I have to do all the work
—well, you’ll have only your
selves to blame. And I'll proba
bly be without a sponsor again
at the end of the term.
Here is a sample of the type of
thing1 you might submit:
Two Emeraldites had just come
off second best in an argument
with the editor.
Mike: "We’ve got to use psy
chology on that guy."
Ed: “Yeah, CHILD psycholo
gy
I'd been cramped up for about
15 hours in the narrow confines
of the seat the Greyhound com
pany had allotted me. I’d been
there so long I thought I'd been
born there in a sitting position.
Anyway we hit this place by the
name of Dunsmuir, and I, along
with a couple fellow sufferers,
got off to try and unwind some
of the kinks.
I was doing a few set-ups
when I happened to notice, on
the set motion, a little sign thaV
had been placed in a spot con
templated to attract the atten
tion of all persons who were do
ing set-ups. The sign showed a
shiny Greyhound bus cruising
through scenic surroundings. Be
low the picture, in the best ad
vertising poetry, appeared these
words:
Greyhound seats have been sci
entifically engineered for YOL'lt
complete riding comfort. Foam
rubber cushions float you on air,
making your trip as restful as a
trip on a cloud.
That is no compliment to any
cloud I ever saw. Anyway I
(Please turn ta pane eight)
Thf Orfgon O\n v Emfrai.o. published d:\ily during the college year except Sundays,
Mondays, holidays, and final examinatinn periods In the Associated students, University of
On-eon. Subscription rates: $.1.0(1 per term and $4.00 per year. Entered as second-class matter
at the oust office. Futgene, Oregon. _
BU I. \ ATKS. Editor
VIHi;II. TIVKKR. ltusine»s Manager
Associate Editor*: June Goetr.e, Boblee Brophv, Diana Dye, Barbara Hey wood
Advertising Manager: Joan Minnaugii
BOB KEED. Managing Editor
Assistant Managing Editors: Stan Turnbull. Don Smith
HOB TWEEDEl.l.. City Editor
Assistant I'm Editors: Ken Met/ler. Ann Goodman
DEBAR I'MK.\ 1' EDI l'r'KS
Tom King. Spoils hiiitor
i\min Lu-.k.sou. Women’s Kiluor
Waiter l.»oila, reowuv r.uuor
Watren C ollier, i'hiet Nitflit Editor
NEWS EDITORS
t hink llrcll. Hnl I'oleni.in. Steve l.uy, Vic Fryer, Done Meehan-.
I.'PPKR BUSINESS STAFF
Helen Sherman, Circulation Mgr.
I've Overheck. Xat'l Adv. Mgr.
Bill Lemon. Sales Marr.
Leslie Tooze. Ass’r x,”r
\ irgitua Million, Ass t auv.
Tack Schnaidt, Ass't Adv. Mgr.
Donna Brantian, Ass't Adv. Mgt,
Cork Mobley. Ass’t Adv. Mgr.
410 of 'Em Missing
Dr. Dull, Dr. Wright Top List
Of Outstanding UO Profs
By Larry Lau
Wednesday afternoon we spent
taking an informal poll of as
many juniors and seniors as we
could lay our
hands on (31
to be exact),
asking their
opinion of their
professors. We
quizzed 23 men,
8 women from
all schools. The
results are re
vealing . . . also
libelous!
We asked
them to name the professor or
professors they thought were
OUTSTANDING or had EXCEP
TIONAL ability. We also ashed
them to name the professor or
professors they thought were
POOR or who COULD NOT
TEACH. We asked them NOT to
list the ones who were just “o.k.”,
the “good Joes,” and “fairs.”
After consultation with the
powers-that-be, we have been
persuaded that to publish the
“Poor” list would be in bad taste
We can, however, throw orchids,
where they deserve to be thrown.
Mr. Professor, if your name is
missing . . . well.
There are approximately 480
on the University of Oregon fac
ulty. The students polled listed 43
of them as OUTSTANDING.
Over half named Dr. Gordon
Wright of the history depart
ment. Nearly half named Dr.
Paul Dull of the political science
department.
Six of the BA staff made the
team. In the order of frequency,
they are, Burrell, Marshall, Zie
barth, Wood, Morris, Daniels.
Two men from the political sci
ence department were mentioned.
They were, Dull and Dean. Two
men from the history department
received votes, Wright and Clark.
Four men in the .journalism
school were tapped. In the order
of balloting, they were, Price, Sa
bine, Millican, Weigle. Four men
were named from the English de
triment. They were: Mundle,
Ernst, Bailey, McCloskey. Two
men, Johnson and Combellack,
were named from the language
department. Three men, Clark,
Dahlberg and Montgomery, were
named from the speech depart
ment.
In the science field, four men
were named: Sordewold, Sig
erseth, Huestis, Heyman. In the
psychology department, Dr. Les
ter Beck polled approximately
one-fourth of all the total votes.
Rosen was also named. In sociol
ogy, Foskett and Moore were the
only two.
In the PE school, Hughes, Hoy
man, and Bennett were named.
Three from the music school,
Dietrich, Alton and Green re
ceived ballots. Two men from the
school of education were named,
Eiserer and Wood. In addition,
“Big Jim” Stovall, geography,
Cressman, anthropology, Robin
son, drama, and Burris of the
philosophy department were also
named.
The poll was hot meant to be
scientifically accurate. Professors
are supposed to be immune from
criticism. We claim nothing for
it, except that it is some sort of
indication of the way students
feel about certain professors, and
of their lack of feeling for others.
The “onion” list is a beauty.
The BA school again heads the
list. The comments run from the
unprintable even if we could
print them, to the “he’s a farce,”
a “braggart,” “stupid,” a “waste
of time” type of comment. Al
most every school and every de
partment had its share of “duds.”
We suspect they know who they
are. There are 28 of them. Two
of them (both in the BA school!
received the lion’s share of the
ballots.
This leaves approximately 410
on the faculty who excited com
ment neither way. If it were pos
sible to poll the entire campus,
perhaps the trend would change.
We doubt it.
We started this whole darn
thing because of an editorial in
Tuesday's Register-Guard titled,
“Can College Teachers Teach?”
It was only a fair editorial, as ed
itorials go, but in it, University
of Oregon students were roasted,
(Please turn to page eight)
New Secretary Is No Pacifist
The United States had a new
secretary of defense this week
when Louis A. Johnson was
sworn in to replace the retiring
secretary, James V. Forrestal.
Upon this man's shoulders
might depend the welfare of this
nation should a third world war
materialize at any time in the
near future.
The last one caught the coun
try in a deplorable state of pre
paredness. Would the new secre
tary be likely to let such a thing
happen again ? The Portland
Oregonian thinks not.
Here’s what they said in an
editorial about Johnson last
Tuesday:
The record will snow mat tne
United States was far from be
ing- ready for war when attacked
by Japan. It also is of record that
Louis A. Johnson in his prewar
position of assistant secretary of
war. strove anxiously against that
official inertia in high places
which afforded our savage enemy
the impetus of almost unre
strained initiative.
It seems to America that these
factual evidences of the previous
alertness of Mr. Johnson lend
emphasis to his accession to the
vital post of secretary of national
defense. Such men, tried and
competent, are needed on guard
in the hazardous present if we
ar? to avoid war, with honor, or
to wage war, if need be to the
victory.
In 1939 and 1940, with the war
clouds rumbling nearer, Louis
Johnson, as assitsant war secre
tary, was invaluable in the mo
bilization of industry. A combat
veteran of World War I. and an
ex-national commander of the
American Legion. he helped
plan the expansion of our di
minutive army.
WITH RETIRING SECRETARY of Defense James V. I-orres ml
(left) looking on, Louis B. Johnson takes oath as new defense secre
tary, administered by Chief Justice Fred Vinson before a large crowd
in court of the Pentagon building, Washington. (AP Wire Photo)
Then too, he was foremost
among the advocates of long
range bombers as primary in
struments of national defense. It
is reasonable to assume that as
defense secretary he will expe
dite rather than retard the
strength and significance of the
air force. It is to be hoped that
somehow he will bring reconcil
iation to the somewhat antipa
thetic armed services.
Once targeted, in pre-Pearl
Harbor days, for his zeal in pre
paredness, none save pacifists
and communistic fellow travelers
now will raise voice against such
policy when the defense secre
tary invokes it. This time, if
there is to be another war, we
shall not—though our role is non
aggressive—be disposed to wait
until we have seen our dead.
The appointment of Louis A.
Johnson to the key post of de
fense is in the nature of national
insurance against either surprise
or defeat. Our foe, as Secretary
Johnson has appraised him, will
strike America with “fifty Hiro
shimas” if we relax our vigi
lance. This patriot is a realist.
We need them.