Boyd Theatre
1908-18 Chestnut Street,
Philadelphia,
PA
19103
1908-18 Chestnut Street,
Philadelphia,
PA
19103
44 people
favorited this theater
Showing 351 - 375 of 514 comments
Howard
I saw Man Of La MAncha at the Boyd aka SamEric and I remember the screen being curved even tho it was ont he stage. Was this the original Cinerama screen than? Years later when I went back and saw GWTW in 70mm the screen was large, but the flat screen that remained for years.
Mike
The 66' curved IMAX screen at the NY Museum of Natural History Lefrak Auditorium retracts into the stage revealing the full proscenium and stage which includes a “regular” screen. It has been operating in this fashion since the 1970s. This venue is theatre #11020 on this site. There were also plans a few years back to be able to “fly” a deep curve screen forward of the proscenium at the Imperial in Montreal. AFAIK, these plans have not yet been implemented. And, of
course, in Seattle, the opposite is accomplished: the retractable screen is the “regular” screen which sits in front of the deep-curve Cinerama screen. For a very short period in 1956, the Philadelphia Fox used a roll-a-way screen for the presentation of the dual-projector Thrillarama process. The 72-foot wide curved screen
sat in front of the stage and was installed (and removed) overnight. The installation “kit” also included screen curtains.
I fully agree with you that the mobile screen to be in front of the proscenium could not go upward as there’s absolutely no way that this could be possible while preserving that beautifully ornate ceiling at the same time. It would have to come up from below floor level therefore. And to be sure, the cost of this wouldn’t come cheap.
One possible way of meeting this cost, though, would be if the Boyd were to consent to go digital. For as I’m sure you’re aware there are several digital equipment manufacturers at this moment who are offering to fully finance both new projection plus screen costs, while at the same time there’s not a single digital theater anywhere in all Philadelphia — a major east coast U.S. city — at this moment. And the major reason why seems to be that because there’s several variations of digital, and which are not compatible, nobody knows yet which one will prevail or fall by the wayside. While no doubt, given how the Boyd is Philadelphia’s one and only movie palace to speak of, and in a choice location at that, all the digital equipment manufacturers would be falling all over one another to be the one chosen to equip the Boyd. At least as it all stands right now.
At the same time I need not have to tell you that Philadelphia at the present moment is home to many live performance venues as it is. Meaning that the Boyd’s one big advantage in addition to its being this is that it is a world class movie palace, and again I must emphasize, Philadelphia’s ONLY one. And as such it must be able to live up to this to the fullest degree. It cannot risk being second to anyone in terms of its over all screen size and so on.
On the other hand, as a live performance theater the Boyd has to be unique in relation to Philadelphia’s other live performance venues now in existence. Hence the invaluableness of its lavish architecture that many of those other competing live performance venues could not even aspire to begin to have, whether it be the Kimell Center, the Tower Theater, the Trocadero and so on. In brief, there are some types of live performances or special Philadelphia showings for which only the Boyd’s beautiful interior decor will do — the same as it is when it comes to certain films.
And how to position the Boyd to best handle both of course is the big challenge. For in the end it must be able to do both. And needless to say the two goals must not be in conflict with one another. At all times the transitions must be smooth and totally professional.
When the “Sameric” as it was then named, closed in 2002, there was a sign in the Grand Lobby leading to the historic auditorium which proclaimed “Philadelphia’s largest movie screen.” Having seen numerous movies there, I can attest to the fact that the screen was large enough to truly excite any cinema lover. I say “was” with some hesitation because I understand the screen is still there, but we no longer see it since the Fire Curtain was lowered a year ago. The screen could not be reused, and its removal will happen when major work starts. In the meantime, the Fire Curtain with its triangles and original paint colors, is much more fun to look at than the screen, which became torn & written on after the theater closed.
I have seen screens in front of proscenium arches, though I think only in places still used as daily moviehouses. There needs be a place for the screen to go, whether in the floor or the ceiling. It won’t be the ornate ceiling. And, it would be expensive, complicated, and take some room, no doubt, for it to go into the floor.
Fortunately, the Arch is wide and big enough for a very large movie screen. It wasn’t wide enough for Cinerama, but for other format films, 35 mm- incuding Scope, and 70 mm, the Arch will house a screen big enough to impress film audiences. I’ve seen movies in numerous historic movie palaces from Boston to California, and Europe, too, so I do believe I can say that the screen will be appropriate.
And, I’m not saying that we have no appreciation for an even larger screen. I love the Uptown in D.C. and can only imagine that the Boyd with its Cinerama sized screens (at least two different sizes says Vince Young above) compared. However, the Boyd can have a movie screen within the Arch that people will very much enjoy. And, perhaps in the future, people can figure out an affordable way to have an even bigger screen present itself, if that’s what they want! As you say, the critical need is the survival of the last movie palace.
Howard, to give credit to William Harold Lee, when he made certain changes to the Boyd Theatre’s interior, he took special care not to destroy the theater’s original proscenium arch designed by Paul G. Henon, and which you think so highly of. Rather, he chose to place the wide Cinerama screen in front of it, as I’m sure he felt it would have been beneath him to destroy the work of a fellow master architect.
Now with that said, in your April 19, 2005 post above you spoke of the possibility of introducing a fly-up screen, in the instance you cited within the proscenium arch. But many are saying that for a theater that size a movie screen within the proscenium arch would be too small. And clearly W.H. Lee felt this way when he made the decision to place the screen in front of the proscenium arch so that narrowness wouldn’t be a problem. So what I’m suggesting is, why not have a fly up screen that, when it’s brought down, is to be brought down in front of, rather than within, the proscenium arch? For that way you’ll have the best of both worlds — the full visability of the beautiful proscenium arch when live performances are held there, plus the proscenium arch not playing a restrictive role when movies are exhibited there.
For the way I see it, these days especially, epics don’t come along very often, while I feel it would belittle the Boyd for it to exhibit less than that. So it makes perfect sense for the Boyd to present live performances as well as it now heads into the future. And the beauty of its proscenium arch will certainly play well to that. At the same time Philadelphia needs to have a movie palace in place for when the epics do come along. And the Boyd, of course, IS the only movie palace left. So with that, I hope you will give some thought to the fly up screen in front of the proscenium arch idea. Also, it’s rather obvious that you’re never going to be exhibiting movies plus having live performances in the course of the same day. So it’s not like you’ll ever have to switch from a live performance set-up to a movie exhibition set-up while the audience is sitting there watching. Which, in turn, opens the way to all sorts of possibilities regarding what it would take to go from the one set-up to the other.
The Cinerama screen, the circular marquee, and Ben Hur were all products of their time, half a century ago, as movie palaces sought to survive in the TV era. We’re in a different era now. The Boyd, with its original Art Deco features restored, will once again entertain audiences.
Yes, but since 1971 the Boyd has never seen a repeat anywhere near as successful as Ben Hur, meaning that the number one reason why people come out to movie theaters is to see the movie, not the architecture, however beautiful it might well be. And as much as I fully agree with you that the Boyd Theatre’s original proscenium arch is beautiful, I’m just stating the simple straightforward, and sad to say, unchangeable fact. People do want the theater’s architecture to be beautiful, on a subsconscious level at least, if not the conscious. But not to the point that it stands in the way of enjoying the movie itself. And whether you and I agree on that or not is not going to change how it is.
And up to a certain extent, if they’re designed especially well, movie palaces DO stand proudly on their own. Which, of course, is true of all great architecture. The Parthenon at the Acropolis in Athens, Greece, which had been built over a hundred years before the birth of Alexander the Great and more than three-hundred years before the birth of Christ, stood perfectly intact straight up until the time the Turks used it for storing gunpowder in the 1700s during the Ottoman Empire occupation. And in more recent times we can see a mark of great architecture quite similar in the Holme/Pennypack Theatre designed by William Harold Lee in Northeast Philadelphia that, despite its many many years of various abuses, has held up very strong, and continues to despite the abuses it’s still suffering today. Like the enlightened ancient Greek architects, William H. Lee was gifted with the rich understanding of “built to last” and incorporated it into his work. And leave it only to fickle man to be able to undo it. As was the case when one of his masterpieces, the Victoria Theatre in his hometown of Shamokin, Pennsylvania was torn down to be replaced by, of all things, a Rite Aide. Can you imagine?!
But let it be said that wherever W.H. Lee’s work still remains, the owners of such are extremely lucky and should regard it with the utmost respect. For W.H. Lee’s work is such that it will return the favor in kind — as was proven with the Boyd Theatre when Ben Hur fared so well there.
As for your saying that movie palaces don’t “ape their neighbors,” surely you’re not trying to tell me they should stand out like sore thumbs! For what I was saying is that Center City Philadelphia is home to much great architecture, not simply the Boyd, and that the Boyd should league itself with this as much as possible. Which doesn’t mean imitation, per se, but it does require harmonization. In an orchestra the oboe is a totally different instrument than the violin, but it doesn’t mean the two should clash therefore. For if the two do, the audience will just get up and walk out, all demanding their money back as they do. Need I say more?
The Cinerama screen was taken down in 1971, revealing then & ever since then, the beautiful Proscenium Arch. Fortunately, the auditorium was designed very wide, so that a large Cinemascope screen entertained audiences since 1971.
Buildings especially movie palaces, do stand proudly on their own. They don’t try to ape their neighbors. The original marquee will blend with the rest of the Boyd architecture, exterior and interior.
W.H. Lee designed both Center City Philadelphia’s Goldman Theater (in combination with David Supowitz) and the Palace, which, though not as large as the Boyd, would qualify as being movie palaces if they were still standing today. Sadly, both were demolished, being viewed strictly as businesses at the time of their closing and unable to keep pace as such.
Meantime, as for the Boyd and its long and evolutionary history, to the best of my knowledge its highest peak came with the showing of Ben Hur not that long after W.H. Lee made various changes to it. And most who attended Ben Hur at the Boyd at that time (including me) came away with strong memories of the theater as well as the film. And would it have been the same if not for Lee’s several major alterations?
The theater’s original proscenium arch, while no doubt architecturally impressive, was not designed with the foresight of wide-screen Cinerama, which must be taken into account when looking at a theater as a whole by today’s standards and more innovations yet to come. A theater’s architecture by all means should enhance the movie going experience, but not to the degree that it gets in the way of it. The thing that patrons come to a theater first and foremost for is to see a movie in the best possible way. And it’s a clearcut case where the larger and wider the screen the better. I doubt if there’s many theater patrons who would dispute that.
Had it not been W.H. Lee’s alterations I would probably be saying that the Boyd Theatre’s original proscenium arch should be preserved at all costs. But since that alteration was made, and it proved to work out well, little sense would it make to bring the theater back to what it originally was now, at least in terms of how its screen should be.
As for the circular marquee that W.H. Lee introduced to the Boyd’s exterior and whether that should have been kept intact or the theater’s original marquee reintroduced, that decision should be based totally on the architectural trends taking place all around the Boyd Theatre at this point in time. Particularly the architectural trends occurring around the Boyd Theatre at this point in time most likely to endure. The theater must be able to harmoniously and complementarily blend with all that surrounds it rather than clash and appear confrontational. And if what most if not all that surrounds it is residential, or trending more and more in this direction, then it should lean towards being an artistic complement to that, and look as little business-like as possible.
The Boyd was built, and viewed from the start, as a downtown showplace movie palace, not a “large-sized nickelodeon” Hollywood stars regularly arrived with the films. Alexander Boyd intended it to be the flagship of a movie circuit empire. He probably had to sell it to Warner Bros because the national studio also was purchasing the Stanley Co theaters, and he couldn’t compete against a nationwide firm- same problem many companies have today.
When the Boyd reopens with many of the magnificient Art Deco features that it originally had, people will once again enjoy its true glory!
As to W. H. Lee, he was a great theater architect who didn’t get to design a downtown Philadelphia movie palace. Much of the Boyd was simplified in 1953, a common post-WW2 trend, but that didn’t make it better. Many remember a huge curved screen in front of the Proscenium Arch, but that-like the 3 orchestra projection booths- likely was built for the specifications of the Cinerama company. I’ve always liked the circular marquee, but it seems more appropriate for a 1950’s Penn Center building. The original French Art Deco marquee will fit better at the Boyd.
I know I’m going to really get shot down for my saying this, but on a smaller scale I feel there’s a core to the Boyd Theatre that ranks every bit as much as “high art” as does Notre Dame Cathedral. But it’s hard to see that clearly in that throughout its history it has had to function as a business. Without motion pictures having the full recognition of being art, it had no other choice but to exist and function as such. And imagine if you will, what Notre Dame Cathedral would look like if the only way it could exist was as a business. For such is what the Boyd Theatre was put through all these many years.
And not to condemn anybody too much for this mistreatment, I think a lot of it had to do with many seeing film itself as not being something of permanence. For many years film was seen as a “disposable medium” in league with paper towels and tin cans and candy wrappers and so on, as something that cannot keep for very long, and therefore it must be worth not trying to keep. So how much could a building that is specifically designed to exhibit films be worth therefore? For that is pretty much how many looked upon theaters all throughout that period.
However, motion picture technology has come a long long way since then, and the digital revolution needless to say is fast transforming the art of filmmaking into a very permanent medium indeed! Which I feel should put movie theaters in a whole new light now, but full awareness of this has not caught on just yet. We’re still thinking of movie theaters the same old way we once did, as buildings that exhibit temporary things. But now that there’s digital technology, what motion picture is there that cannot be classified as a work of permanence provided it’s in digital form?
And I feel that the advent of digital should revolutionize the spirit that goes into motion picture creation as well. For it’s now possible to make a movie that we can know for sure will look and sound the same a thousand years from now as it does now. As media goes, it is now a more immortal medium than say sculpture, or painting or great architecture itself. And many have not quite caught onto that yet.
As for the Boyd Theatre, it went through many various stages of evolution. In the beginning, it was viewed as little more than a large-sized nickelodeon. In fact, the man who it was named for didn’t even think all that much of it and didn’t hold onto it for very long. But later, master architect William Harold Lee greatly reworked it, completely transforming it into the magnificent movie palace we so fondly remember today. But with film itself not seen as all that permanent a medium, I’m sure many “experts” thought this extravagant addition was overblown. Thus in the Sameric years it was watered down a bit and brought more in line just to be a business once more. And was run strictly as such. And like I say, we can’t fully condemn the “experts” at the time for this mistreatment, since it was during a stretch of time when it was very difficult, and costly, to keep motion pictures a thing of permanence. And what good is a movie theater in itself if not for that which it exhibits? (Just as what good is an art museum in itself if not for the paintings and sculptures it displays?)
Up until now it seems that whenever we applied the term “movie palace” we were only speaking figuratively, not seriously meaning that a movie palace is up there with Versailles, Buckingham and so on. But now that the digital revolution is starting to transfer the motion picture medium into a thing of permanence why can’t we start to say, “Why not?”
My two cents.
I started going to the theatres in center city in 1977. Seeing a movie at the Fox or SamEric was sometime better experience than the actul movie. Seeing the first Star Trek @ the Fox was unbelievable, but the movie was OK(at best). The SamEric did get some of the big movies and it was still an event to go there. Around the time of Quest for Fire, the SamEric showed 2001. The way it was ment to be shown, 70mm, 6 track Stereo. The Saturday I saw it there, the orchestra leval was closed, so you had to sit in the balcony.
There is nothing like seeing a movie, in an old theatre.
Hi, here I am to address your points.
<But please don’t say that this or that movie is not art because the big studios don’t see it that way and are blind to this fact.>
I wasn’t trying to imply this. Generally speaking, all I mean to say that art is subjective. (Andres Serrano’s controversial work being an example.)
<Don’t give the big studios far more power to dictate what is reality than what they rightfully deserve.>
Again, “rightfully deserve†is relative. What do the studios deserve? As a business in a [relatively] free market they deserve to exploit their properties to the fullest. If said films contain any elements of artistic merit the studios deserve [a portion of] credit, because they had the choice to greenlight the project or pass on it. What percentage of credit? Well that’s debatable.
In my own way, I don’t reward the studios for making crap by withholding my attendance. I won’t consent to be patronized or bamboozled by publicity hype; I am selective of the films I patronizeâ€"as well as the actual venues. Nine times out of ten I refused to see a film that was conveniently playing in my neighborhood multiplex because the screen were too small, the projection and sound barely attended to. I guess I considered it a badge of honor to travel to a venue like the Boyd.
<It’s bad enough that too often they act as filters in exchange for what it takes to get a film produced and distributed, very oftentimes ruining what would have been art otherwise.>
Very true. But that is the nature of the beast. Everyone makes their deals with eyes wide open. (There are too many overpaid lawyers making sure of it.)
<But what is very beautiful about certain films is how they made it through the big studio filtering process with that which is art still fully intact, movies that have a timelessness especially.>
How true! I find it even more amazing that so many got through the system relatively unscathed; although I truly believe that cinema would’ve matured much sooner without the Hays office interference. What Kazin and Brando achieved in the 50s probably would have happened much earlier.
<And rather than what is timeless being subjective, only time itself can determine what is timeless, of course. And the same with regard to what is majestic, or credible or accurate.>
Well you’ve got me there. People will be listening to Beethoven and the Beatles for centuries. I doubt if history will be as kind to Porky’s and Cannonball Run.
<When it comes to business, all business is just for the moment only.>
If you define “moment†as many generations this is true. As long as they hold the copyright(s) they control the content and distribution. Then again look what happens when some films fall into public domain: colorization or terrible prints being passed off as a resemblance to the original.
<The big studios who fortunately failed to get their way, wanted to cast Shirley Temple as Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz because she was the hottest child star at that moment. And had it not been for a business technicality, Temple would’ve gotten the part, and The Wizard of Oz would be relatively worthless today.>
This may be heresy — but I think Wizard could have been just as good; or at least as interesting with Temple. Of course we can recast all the films in our minds but it’s an academic point.
<As for science fiction films taking on timelessness, it has happened, but it’s extremely rare. I can list certain sci-fi films of the past that have certain scenes that are timeless — The Fly, War of the Worlds, The Day the Earth Stood Still, etc. — but not necessarily consistently timeless throughout.>
In theory I agree with you that those films cited (and many others) contain thoughtful themes and scenes of greatness trapped within dated, formulaic format. I’d say that about any genre.
<But in contrast, when you take a film like Ben Hur, what elements can you find in that movie that would only have made sense back in the late 1950s when it was released but that totally fail to connect with today’s audience in terms of their making much sense now?>
I don’t mean to rag on Ben Hur, I really like the film… but it is (by compassion to the execution of contemporary films) very dated in styleâ€"mostly the dialogue and acting, which seems hammy to the current generation. Hell, it seems hammy to me too. ;) But unlike the kids, that doesn’t get in my way of enjoying it. I also think its pace (which never bothered me) is well out of step with today’s films… Gladiator being an example of current fast-paced “epics.â€
<Certain films of the past that are being promoted as epics today, such as Star Wars, are only being propped up by the big studios to seem as such. For take that propping up away and I feel it would be revealed just how very dated and stale they are as opposed to being “timeless.”>
Come on, Ben Hur was promoted to death too. I would absolutely say that Star Wars is a timeless filmâ€"far moreso than Ben Hur in the way it influenced an entire generation; not just movie patrons. That doesn’t mean I think Star Wars is better; more artistic etc. But if timeless means it lives through the ages, I have no doubt that it will be considered a classic.
I was just showing some silent films to my eight year-old daughter, and of course she remarked that the acting was so theatrical, the sets so fake, etc. 15 minutes later she was hooked and completely immersed in their unique world. Silents are timeless AND dated! It’s not a mutually exclusive concept. (Of course, there’s nothing inherent about silent films per se that make a classic.)
<For there has to be the true underlying artistry to make a film timeless, and that’s not something that can be bought.>
It can’t be bought on command, but if they finance a project and step away from interference in production, the results can be similar. In 1965 MGM gave Kubrick about 10 million based on a sketchy outline (it may have even been verbal; I’d have to check) and look at the result.
<And the Boyd Theatre, despite the rough times it suffered when it was the Sameric, survives as art.>
Is that high art or low art? Personally, I’m a huge fan of Deco — but it was not considered high art by any means at the time it originated. My feeling is that the Boyd should be preserved because it’s a swell-looking building that reflects innumerable happy memories of the patrons who passed through its doors. But Notre Dame Cathedral it ain’t. ;)
Here in LA The Wiltern theater, a deco classic, exists to host live rock shows. Although I feel these have lesser aesthetic value than movies, I wouldn’t try to convince the audience of that. Because it wasn’t torn down, they are experiencing their own happy memories there. Perhaps, in a few decades The Wiltern may be cited for demolition… and the people who grew up with it as a rock venue will protest just as loudly as we who grew up in the Boyd.
It’s been very invigorating to discuss this subject with you; please feel free to have the last word.
I am not in disagreement with you in the least in how you say the big studios view their output. What you say is both true and a sad commentary on the big studios. But this is not to say that a great deal of movies do not fall in the category of being art, or that those who direct them and all else to help bring them about on the creativity end of things do not see them as being art. Call it the other reality, for lack of a better way of putting it. But please don’t say that this or that movie is not art because the big studios don’t see it that way and are blind to this fact. That is, don’t give the big studios far more power to dictate what is reality than what they rightfully deserve. It’s bad enough that too often they act as filters in exchange for what it takes to get a film produced and distributed, very oftentimes ruining what would have been art otherwise. But what is very beautiful about certain films is how they made it through the big studio filtering process with that which is art still fully intact, movies that have a timelessness especially. And rather than what is timeless being subjective, only time itself can determine what is timeless, of course. And the same with regard to what is majestic, or credible or accurate.
When it comes to business, all business is just for the moment only. The big studios who fortunately failed to get their way, wanted to cast Shirley Temple as Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz because she was the hottest child star at that moment. And the big studios of today are no different regardless of what that almost blunder taught. And had it not been for a business technicality, Temple would’ve gotten the part, and the movie The Wizard of Oz would be relatively worthless today. But little can business recognize this, or appreciate it, since it does exist just for the moment.
As for science fiction films taking on a timelessness, it has happened, but it’s extremely rare. I can list certain sci-fi films of the past that have certain scenes that are timeless — The Fly, War of the Worlds, The Day the Earth Stood Still, etc. — but not necessarily consistently timeless throughout.
But in contrast, when you take a film like Ben Hur, what elements can you find in that movie that would only have made sense back in the late 1950s when it was released but that totally fail to connect with today’s audience in terms of their making much sense now?
Now in all fairness, we don’t always know what’s going to hold up as an epic over time at the time it’s first released. And certain films of the past that are being promoted as epics today, such as Star Wars, are only being propped up by the big studios to seem as such. For take that propping up away and I feel it would be revealed just how very dated and stale they are as opposed to being “timeless.” For there has to be the true underlying artistry to make a film timeless, and that’s not something that can be bought. Rather, this is something beyond the studio’s control and on a far higher plane of reality. The big studios can block the release of what is art, but they can’t dictate what is and isn’t art.
And the Boyd Theatre, despite the rough times it suffered when it was the Sameric, survives as art. As I see it, it is a great work of art that was simply put to bad use for a time, totally due to business for the moment. But business for the moment comes and goes. But art, if it’s true art, endures because it exists on a much higher and far more solid plane of reality. And because the Boyd Theatre IS the last movie palace still standing in Philadelphia, I feel it deserves now to move up many notches in terms of its being recognized art for all times sake, rather than just a business of the moment.
I respectfully disagree with the post about what the Boyd should and shouldn’t have screened. This is my perspective (and I work in entertainment…) It’s all a business. The artistic side of cinema is (I hate saying “just”) a by-product of the merchandise made by those who bankroll & distribute movies. Please believe me when I say that the general studio perception is that movies are no more important than selling shoes.
Sure, they make all kinds of self-aggrandizing public statements to the contrary. That’s just the surface. (ex: One of the key reasons the new Superman movie took so long to get into production wasn’t about who was “right†for the role, or writing the best script… all the fighting over how much junk they could merchandise. At one point Peter Guber wanted Superman to fight Polar bears for no reason except to make stuffed animals.)
Now, all the statements about criteria are totally subjective. (Although I’d agree that any movie with Streisand is landfill.) I saw all the aforementioned films there and found that many of them could be considered epic â€" and on what scale is “epic” defined? By how many extras that can fit on the screen, or…? IMO historical accuracy has nothing to do with proportion or aesthetics. How the West was Won is certainly an epic — but it’s pretty darn inaccurate, historically and in dialogue.
I am at a total loss as to see how a science fiction film can even be expected to contain historical accuracy. Perhaps you meant believability? In that case the Star Wars films aren’t even science fiction, they are fantasies. Nobody expects the future to look as they do. (Least of all Lucas.) Blade Runner — an epic IMO — is true science fiction; many of its details are becoming a reality. That’s scary… but wholly irrelevant to how entertaining it may be or why it deserves the biggest screen possible.
Back in the day when MGM was making “prestige” adaptations of the classics, those films were expected to put butts in theater chairs just as much as their standard fare.
BTW, don’t get the impression that I am fronting for big business. I left the world of commercials to make independent, personally satisfying films. But be realistic — no studios make movies solely for their artistic value. Cinema can be art… and I’d wish it were more so… but that is not the reality.
All of the above named movies were good movies in and of themselves, but very few merited being exhibited at the Boyd. And to be sure, the Boyd Theatre’s importance as a movie palace was very much undermined when they were shown there. With Ben Hur having proven itself as having been the perfect type of movie for the Boyd, it should have also set the stage for what type of movie should, and should not, be shown there. But in the years following Ben Hur, the Boyd Theatre was classified too much as a “business” for this to have been possible. Imagine, for instance, how much the Philadelphia Museum of Art would have to compromise if it were categorized as a “business.” It wouldn’t be long in coming that it would become a total mess. Which is exactly what did happen in the Boyd Theatre’s case following Ben Hur.
There has to be certain criteria that determines what film is an epic, and what isn’t, with Ben Hur having been a clearcut example of what is. And the number one criterium is a timelessness. For instance, if done properly, Ben Hur could be shown at the Boyd Theatre today with all the power and impact it had when it premiered there in 1959. But we could hardly say this of The Rose, Quest For Fire and so on seen on the immediately above list. Next, the movie in question should have a certain majesty to it. For instance, It’s a Wonderful Life may well have a timeless quality to it, but as films go it is hardly “majestic.” Third, although it heavily ties in with timelessness, the movie must have an historically accurate credibility. In the case of Return of the Jedi as a good example, not only did it totally lack historic credibility at the time it premiered, but it was doubtful that any who watched it at the time of its premiere seriously believed it was an accurate insight into what the future would hold, given how that was what was being depicted.
Needless to say, it isn’t very often that the true epic comes along. But when it does, there should be the special theater in place just for it. And here in Philadelphia the Boyd is that theater. But to be sure, the Boyd Theatre cannot possibly live up to that challenge if it’s classified just as a “business.” It tried to following Ben Hur, but it wasn’t able to do it. But heading into the future it can accomplish this goal if it acquires a much higher status than simply being a business. Businesses are just for the here and now. But movie palaces, if they’re run properly, are for all eternity. And such, the Boyd Theatre proved with the showing of Ben Hur, it has it in it to provide.
Listed below are the dates I saw other 70mm film presentations at the Original Boyd/Sameric Theatre. I only went to this theatre when I knew the film was showing at the original theatre and not one of the added on “shoeboxes."
1. "The Rose” 1/20/80
2. “The Empire Strikes Back” 6/21/80
3. “Raiders of the Lost Ark” 7/25/81
4. “Quest For Fire” 5/1/82
5. “Return of the Jedi” 7/9/83
6. “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom” 8/4/84
7. “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade” 7/15/89
Which was the last time I ever traveled from Lancaster to Center City to see any films.
Thanks, Dennis, and Mike.
“Philadelphia” had its premiere in the historic Boyd, then known as the Sameric, but its actual run was at Sam’s Place I and II, where I saw it.
“Star Wars Episode IV”, in its original run in 1977, did not play at the Boyd/Sameric Theatre. It opened at Eric’s Place Theatre. During the 1997 Special Edition reissue, Star Wars Episode IV finally did play at the Boyd, then known as United Artists Sameric 4 Theatre.
“Empire Strikes Back”, “Return Of The Jedi” and “Star Wars Episode I” all opened at the Sameric (Empire Strikes Back), Sameric 3 (Return Of The Jedi), and United Artists Sameric 4 (Star Wars Episode I).
3 more great movie that opened at the Sameric were: ROCKY III, ROCKY IV, and Philadelphia
From my records are the following reserved seat engagements at the Boyd:
10/20/67-1/17/68 – “The Happiest Millionaire"
1/24/68-8/13/68- "Doctor Dolittle"
11/6/68-2/11/69 – "Star!"
2/12/69-3/25/69 –"War and Peace” the Continental Releasing Corp. 2 Part Russian film.
6/25/69-8/26/69 – “BenHur” Reissue Showing
11/12/69-3/17/70 –“Goodbye Mr. Chips"
12/13/71 – 6/20/72 – "Fiddler on the Roof"
12/14/72 – 4/3/73 – "Man of La Mancha"
70MM Regular Engagements:
6/26/74-9/24/74 – "That’s Entertainment"
11/8/79-2/14/80 – "The Rose"
And there were also: "Close Encounters of the Third Kind"
"Star Wars”“Empire Strikes Back”“Quest For Fire”, “Raiders”, “Return of the Jedi”, “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom,” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.”
The Sameric in it’s golden days, played all the “biggies.”
“2001” did not premiere at the Boyd. It had its premiere at the Randolph Theatre on May 22nd, 1968 and played its Cinerama roadshow engagement at the Randolph through Dec. 17, 1968. It was replaced with the Cinerama roadshow engagement of “Ice Station Zebra” on Dec. 18, 1968 which continued until Feb. 25, 1969. During this time
“Doctor Dolittle” was playing on roadshow at the Boyd from Jan. 24, 1968 to Aug. 13, 1968. “Doctor Dolittle” had replaced “The Happiest Millionaire” which had a roadshow engagement at the Boyd from Oct. 20, 1967 to Jan. 17, 1968. “2001” replaced the 70mm roadshow engagement of “Gone With The Wind” which played at the Randolph from Oct. 10, 1967 to May 21st, 1968. “Gone With the Wind” then moved over to the Midtown Theatre from May 22nd, 1968 to July 30th, 1968.
Yes, I remember watching “Cinerama” at The Boyd for the first time. What an experience when that screen opened up from the little postage stamp of Lowell Thomas announcing, “This is Cinerama!” And then taking that amazing roller coaster ride for the first time. I also remember seeing “La Dolce Vita” at The Boyd.
The Randolph page says 2001 played there. So, the local premiere was at the Boyd, but the run was at the Randolph? Do you have a date for the premiere being at the Boyd? We are working to document the Boyd’s history.
I am very interested in information regarding the premiere of 2001: A Space Odyssey at the Boyd. If any readers would care to share memories, photos & souvenirs (such as the 3D postcards sold in the lobby during intermission) PLEASE CONTACT ME DIRECTLY. I’d really appreciate it. Thanks to all.
To avoid spam filters, write BOYD in the subject line. Thanks!
Because of limited availability, until March 6, 2006 only, Friends of the Boyd are offering you original CHAIR BACKS from 1928 from the Boyd!
These original chairs are from the Balcony since the chairs from the orchestra floor were replaced in 1953. These are the BACKS only, which are WOOD in the back with UPHOLSTERY in the front, NOT THE ORNATE ENDS or sides or armrests.
The WOOD on the back has what realtors call “character.” The top layer of UPHOLSTERY is RED, interwoven with BLACK, and we think it dates from the 1953 Cinerama remodel. View link If you strip that away, there’s a layer of ORANGE upholstery. Finally, there’s the original Opening Day 1928 ART DECO upholstery as seen in our Auditorium photo gallery.
View link
Naturally, the original upholstery doesn’t look new, and is darker than the photo, but on some or all the chairs, there’s a little bit of original upholstery at the sides that’s brand new looking. Of course, you don’t need to strip to the original upholstery. You could leave the red upholstery in place. You might want two chairs, strip one, and then decide to display one or both.
There’s also a bit of METAL at the sides of each chair back, which is how they connected to the rest of the chairs.
Since they are only backs, they aren’t for sitting on. They are SOUVENIRS of the historic Boyd Theatre! They can be displayed, on the floor, or on a big shelf. We convey these chairs “as is” with no guarantees.
$25 DONATION to Friends of the Boyd FOR EACH chair, in advance or at the time of pickup of chairs, and you need pick them up from a Center City Philadelphia location that we will specify (not the Boyd).
The tax deductible donations will be used for our mission of a comprehensive Art Deco restoration of the Boyd, and a program of film, organ, tours, and exhibits of the Boyd’s history.
New chairs in the Boyd will again look like 1928 chairs, including new Art Deco upholstery. New chairs may be wider since people are bigger, and for many such reasons, these backs won’t be used again. The surviving ornate ends will be reused.
If you want one or more chair back, then email us SOON. Email address is at the very bottom of our website, www.FriendsOfTheBoyd.org
Remember, we can only make this offer until March 6.