Moving Picture World (Jan-Feb 1927)

40S MOVING PICTURE WORLD February 5, 1927 Press Agents to Guy Fowler “What Of It,” Asks One, “If We Do Rely On Sex Appeal ?” Another Says “But, We Don't ” With Sketches by The Plaintiff NCE upon a time a fool man started an argument with a woman and won it. But all good fairy stories start with “once upon a time.” In Moving Picture World last week it was gently contended that the girls who handle picture publicity depend considerably on the thing called sex appeal. It was admitted, i f course, that they have ability. The principal assertion in the article was that men, in the same positions, could not get equal consideration from editors, nor would they expect it. In short, the yarn was one of those sudden ideas which come to a trade paper writer who is casting about for a subject. The replies are arriving. The first two take the original article as their objective, but they employ a flank attack that is altogether disconcerting. One admits that the fair p.a.’s use sex appeal in their profession and naively asks, “What of it?” The other issues a general denial on the grounds that when a girl carries a brief case her sex appeal vanishes. The answers then, follow, the first coming from Miss Paula Gould, of Warner Brothers. I read your article on Pulchritudinous Press Agents in Moving Picture World, and I wish I might agree with you in everything you say about me and my girl friends. When you say we have ability, and know how to write a trade or fan or newspaper story I agree with you wholeheartedly, and I am sure Beth O’Shea, Virginia Morris, Hortense Schorr and Eve Bernstein will concur with me in my learned opinion. We couldn’t hold our jobs if we didn’t! There are too many beautiful stenographers and clerks in the film organizations for a boss to care whether his press agent is attractive or not. When, however, you say we are the lucky owners of sex-appeal, and “it,” and everything else that makes for the downfall (?) of the stronger sex, I am afraid you are either flattering or gently kidding us. I agree with you that we are young. I again agree with you that wre wear good clothes. They don’t always come from Paris or Fifth Avenue (don’t you think we’re smart to create that imported impression?) Of course, our hose are sheer, but so are every other woman’s nowadays. Why limit this phase of feminine adornment to the half dozen feminine press agents in the picture industry? I again agree with you that we are good conversationalists. Why shouldn’t we be? Haven’t we been taking lessons for years andyears from our bosses, directors of exploitation and advertising and publicity, the greatest salesmen in the business? But I must take exception to your statement that we possess “Sex-Appeal.” Sex-appeal, I grant you, is in the eye of the beholder, and how can any man think a girl attractive, no matter how pretty her face, how beguiling her form, how smart her chatter, if she comes into his lordly presence heavily laden with a brief-case ? Is there, I ask you, anything romantic about a brief-case? And surely, a background of romance is essential for that lucky female who wishes to be classed as the possessor of “it”? Think about it for a moment. ... A brief-case. Ergo, I cannot agree that the girl press-agents sell their stuff through sheer sex-appeal Would that we could ! Ability to write a good story, yes. Ability toconvince you that the story is a good one, and worth publishing, yes. But sell you a story on the strength of our sex-appeal? Never! Simply because, with that darn brief-case in our hands, sexappeals vanishes into thin air the moment we leave our offices ! And from Miss Beth O’Shea, of Fox Filmsr comes this : It’s a little difficult to determine whether your article on “Press Agent Pulchritude” is meant to be a charge, a complaint or a compliment, but, though you’ve clouded the issue as to your own particular reaction, it’s evident that you believe we girl press agents are more or less proud possessors of the well known and much discussed “It.” To all of which we might reply briefly, “Well, what of it?” Because, since you don’t come right out and say we have no right to use that quality in lubricating the way of our copy through formidable editorial barricades, what argument do you leave us in self-defence? If I read between your lines correctly, however, I believe I do detect an implication that we’re not playing the game according (Continued on page 458)