Page 2
University Daily Kansan Thursday. Sept. 17, 1953.
University Daily Kansan Thursday, Sept. 17, 1953 LITTLE MAN ON CAMPUS by Dick Bibler
"Sometimes I think we shouldn't have required courses."
Movies Are Bigger Than Ever-tory—and a first effort of which any novelist can be proud. . .
Wide Screen - Where's The Man's Head, Mommie?
Lawrence and student movie-goers had their first look-see at a widely hailed new gimo of the film industry last week when George Stevens' "Shane" was shown on the Jayhawker theater's newly installed wide screen.
And to this rear aisle squatter, the whole thing was a resounding flop. The picture area spread the Teton mountains or Brandon de Wilde's preocious face across half of the theater front, all right, but the image was blurred, distorted, and generally irritating.
There's several reasons for this, the most obvious being that "Shane," a western brought close to perfection, was not filmed to be shown on wide screens. When a movie made for the regular-sized screen is stretched sideways until it screams, there must be distortion and blurring even on the adapted print.
Secondly, we doubt that the shallow depth of the Jayhawker is suited to the technique. With all seats fairly close to the screen, the effect of that huge picture looming before one is comparable to sitting on the front row before a conventional screen.
In Kansas City we observed another disastrous effect of projecting conventional films on the wide screen. Whenever this is done, since the resultant image is disproportionate, either the top or bottom of the picture is lopped off: so we witness Fred Astaire's new musical "Band Wagon," with dancers prancing madly away—only you couldn't see their feet.
Not until "The Robe"—actually filmed for wide screen—makes the rounds this fall can a fair evaluation of the wide screen technique be made.
"Shane" was a marvelous picture. We only wish we could have seen it as it was meant to be seen. —Jerry Knudson
Short Ones
That new registration and enrollment procedure really is streamlined. We heard of a salesman who unwittingly stepped into the wrong door of the Union and was enrolled in five home economics courses before he knew what was going on.
There have been so many reports on the Kinsey report that we're somewhat confused. Now all we need is a Report of the Reports on the Kinsey Report.
- * *
After all the rough and tumble of new student orientation week, one bright young freshman said, "Well, that wasn't so bad. Now where's my degree?"
We hope that all new students found somebody in the know to get them straightened out on the score before they went to enroll with the help of their faculty advisers.
This increase in the Union fee looks foreboding. It must mean they plan to lose a lot of money from some other source. Could they be planning to close the Hawk's Nest during convocations?
Daily Hansam
NEWS STAFF
Executive Editor Clarke Keys
Managing Editors Ken Coy, Rozanne
Jenkins, Shirley Platt, Chrisha Morelok
News Editor Melva Gaston
Society Editor Velma Gaston
Sports Editor Don Tice
Sports Editor Ed Howard
News-Editorial
Adviser ... Calder M. Pickett
EDITORIAL STAFF
BUSINESS STAFF
Business Manager ... Gordon Ross
Adv. Promotion Mgr ... David Riley
Retail Adv. Mgr ... Ed Smith
National Adv. Mgr ... Jane Meafault
Administrative Rev ... Ben Reilly
Classified Mgr ... Ann Ainsworth
Business Adviser ... Gene Bratton
Editorial Editor  Mary Bet
Editorial Assistants  Jerry McKinnon
Tom Skewner
1956 Candidate or Not, Stevenson Remains Key Figure On U.S. Scene
"Stevenson is politically dead. The funeral's over."
So says Sen. Wayne Morse, the wild man of current American politics whose convictions led him to bolt the Republican party, establish a new filibuster record, and face almost certain future defeat.
Senator Morse continues: "I am still strong for Stevenson and I think he is the county's best hope for 1956. However, I have no illusions concerning the possibilities of his getting the nomination again."
Speculation—not all of it as blunt as Senator Morse's—has been rampant this summer on the future fortunes of Adlai Stevenson and the Democratic party itself. The hashing over the whys and wherefores of the Democratic defeat are ended, and party leaders are looking to the future.
Just what part does Mr. Stevenson play in that future? Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., has aptly described the immediate post-election position of the defeated candidate thus: "Never in American history has any presidential candidate succeed so remarkably in losing the election and winning the electorate."
But one group now adheres to Senator Morse's line. These analysts point out that there is an unprecedented friendship in Congress between the northern and southern wings of the Democratic party and look to a border-line figure to finish cementing the rift that developed during the Fair Deal.
Specifically, they're booming W. Stuart Symington, junior senator from Missouri who is non-controversial on Civil Rights and the liberal tenets of the party, and who also possesses an impressive administration background: former secretary of the Air Force and head of the National Security Resources Board and the Reconstruction Finance Corporation.
Southern and some northern Congressmen are reported to be casting around for someone like
(1) They recall with a lack of enthusiasm Mr. Stevenson's selection of northern liberals and ADA'ers as campaign advisers.
Senator Symington to nose out Mr. Stevenson in 1956 for a number of reasons:
(2) They still resent his by-passing established party organizations to rely on the so-called "amateurs."
(3) They point out that although he polled more than 27 million votes—third largest for any candidate in history—he failed to carry his own state.
(4) They say that during the campaign he ignored rural areas in order to concentrate on labor and liberal groups in cities.
(5) And the biggest factor against Mr. Stevenson, they conclude, is the loss of his "political virginity." They say to remain in the public eye, in the next three years as a private citizen he must either take stands—and alienate more conservative members of the party—or be silent and forgotten.
So the arguments go—or so they went, rather, until Mr. Stevenson returned from his global tour. The defeated candidate was earnest, jovial, confident. Through a number of national magazine articles, he had demonstrated a discerning grasp of the world's basic problems. Now a fairly heavy schedule of appearances—on radio, TV, and at dinners, indicate that Mr. Stevenson intends to strengthen his position as titular head of the party.
And the dopesters are dealing with Mr. Stevenson's political personality as a static value—they are not reckoning with, can not compute, those attributes of integrity, vision, and sense of responsibility that he possesses which are attractive to so many people.
Whatever the outcome of the American political scene during the next three years, one thing is certain: the man from Illinois isn't about to be forgotten. —Jerry Knudson.
BOOKS:
Dr. James Havnes Holmes, a liberaI American clergyman, has written an appreciation of his friend, the late Mohandas K. Gandhi in My Gandhi (Harper).
Ten years before he met Gandhi, the author was hailing the Indian leader as "the greatest man in the world." That was in 1921 when Gandhi was still little known as a world figure.
Holmes, in his book frankly nominates the "Mahatma" for deflation. He compares his influence with that of Jesus, Gautama, and the saints.
"Gandhi falls as naturally and
seems to have been more of a villain"
the saviors of wars gone," he writes.
The book is not a biography, although it quotes liberally from other Gandhi biographies. It is intended to be merely "a personal portrait."
The book is dedicated to Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, whom it calls the "greatest and noblest of modern statesmen."
New Gandhi Biography Deifies the Peacemaker
Holmes finds it amazing that India should have produced "these two great men"—Gandhi and Nehru—in one age. . .
In 1744, apple-cheeked Augusta Fredericka of Anhalt-Zerbst rode eastward to Moscow to marry a halffit. There was nothing then, except perhaps an unusual determined set to her chin, to suggest that she would one day be known as Catherine the Great.
Rebel Princess, Evelyn Anthony's first novel (Crowell), is a story of the years that transform a story-eve Geer into an iron-handed American autocrat.
They were wild and bloody years, in a semi-barbary court whose reigning empress and nephew-heir were both mad. Catherine, like another great woman—Britain's first Elizabeth—lived often enough in the shadow of the block in the days before she was born. Also also like Elizabeth she had enough shrewd determination to insure her life.
Miss Anthony chose to write this book as a novel because the form enabled her to interpolate incidents suggested but not confirmed by the record. For the most part, however, Rebel Princess is personalized bis-
The Strange Bedfellows of Montague Ames by Norton Parker (Hermitage). The amazing adventure of a worried man whose Super Ego and Id materialized one night in a taxi on Fifth Avenue, and came to live with him. Montague Ames, left only with his Ego to support him, found his Freudian other selves entertaining at first, but finally had to fight desperately to subdue them. Parker spins this wonder-tale with ease and gusty humor. His comedy and neartragedy animate the universal pattern of psychic impulse which is part of all of us. But any profound implications to one side, it is a deftly amusing book.
Wart-torn Indo-China—An exotic part of the world to most—becomes real as the background of a novel by a French author, Jean Hougron, called Reap the Whirlwind (Farrar, Strauss & Young).
Hougron is a fine story-teller and the spell of his yarn is left unshaken by Elizabeth Abbott's translation.
Dr. Georges Lastin, a French docor who sought a new life in Indo-China, provides the central theme around which is ode a story of French colonialism, five French nationalism, murder and kidnapping by Communist rebels.
Lastin, as the village doctor,
found a new life in his work, and in
the love of a young Annamite woman. . .
Chinese Communist Version Of Korean War Doesn't Jibe
1. June 25, 1950. The United States instructed Syngman Rhee to invade North Korea. June 7 of the same year. United States aggressors directly participated in the war.
2. The Peoples Republic of Korea counter-attacked. Within o n e month time 90 per cent of lands in South Korea were liberated.
States aggressors employed forces 20 times that of Korea's that landed at Inchon. The fire of war neared the Yalu river.
Here are the captions from a dozen Chinese Communist cartoons that give the Communist version of what happened in Korea.
Hongkong —(U,P)— Whose history book do you read?
5. Between Oct. 25, 1950, and May,
1951, Sino-Korean units staged five major offensives forcing the enemy to areas south of the 38th parallel.
4. Oct. 25, 1950, people of China inaugurated resist-America, aid-Korea campaign. They crossed the Yalu river and fought side by side with Korean Peoples Army.
6. Armistice talks began in Kaeson July 10, 1951.
8. Our forces invented iron and steel-like underground fortifications. The enemy dared not to advance an inch.
9. Between Oct, 1951, and October, 1952, the enemy hid within their trenches, a raid to stage another large-scale assault. The War ended a stage of stalemate.
7. Between May 22, 1951, and end of October of the same year United States's sides "Summer Offensive" and "Autumn Offensive" met their shameful defeats.
10. January, 1952, the enemy staged surprise attacks against our country in Korea.
11. In October, 1952, the enemy staged a large-scale offensive at Shangkanling Rang. Resulted in dreadful defeat. Twelve months of Korean war since Chinese people participated, the initiative in Korean battlefield into our side's hands. The war gradually moved southward.
12. Under the great efforts of our side's position of supporting righteousness and the peace-loving people of the entire world, Korean armistice talks arrived at an overall agreement and was formally signed July 27, 1953.