I received two interesting replies to my posting of this theatre’s history:
From David H. came this:
“Thank you for keeping the memory of the Granada alive. The following are facts I remember about the Granada:
The last neighborhood theater to have daily matinees.
Ocassionally featured Polish language films on Monday and Tuesday
Often was the first neighborhood house to feature a film after its downtown run
In the 1940s had a poor sound system, often it was difficult to hear the dialogue
Was famous for its air conditioning, often it was very cold. One summer it had
a large carboard penquin and the word cool covering up most of the vertical
GRANADA sign.
It was part of the Warner Bros. circuit
It did have a small fire in the 1950s or early 60s
On the east outside wall along the alley it had advertisements for future attractions
pasted to the wall.
It had a small lobby with rest rooms just off the lobby. There were two sets of steep stairs to the balcony, one on each end of the lobby.
Because of its(1) location in the popular Mitchell Street shopping area, (2) location on three well travelled car lines which connected to all areas of the city and (3) featuring of films right from downtown, the Granada was a big money maker.
Once other theaters began to get features right from downtown and parking became a problem, south siders abandoned the Granada for the Avalon, Majestic, Paradise and
41 Twin Outdoor.
The great thing about the Granada was that the person who had to be up early to be at work in the factory by 7, could catch a double feature at 4:30 or 5:00 and be home and in bed by 10 whereas other theaters did not open till 6 meaning the filmgoer might not get to bed before 11.
And as with other theaters, different moviegoers pronounced Granada differently. Some said Granada as Gra-nad-a and others Gra-na-da. The same southsiders had different ways of saying Riviera: some said Riv-ee-era and others Ra-vera And of course the Park, some called it Park, others Pork.
Thanks again,
Regards
David”
and from verteran projectionist Paul Dorobialski comes this:
“The reason that the Granada closed is the owner, Mr. Wabazewski, also the owner of Maynard Electric Steel, didn’t wan’t to invest in boiler repairs. So, the last picture that was played was ‘2001-Space Odessey’. When I toured the place in 1972, the power was still turned on at the pole transformer but shut off at the switch inside the building, meaning, for years the sump pump didn’t operate and its sub-basement and basement were flooded. I walked thru the basement with garbage bag waders on.”
It was good of you gentlemen to so expand its history.
“Robbie” and others of the ‘now generation’ are all too eager to believe that currency of use is everything, and among those ignorant of the nature of the semantics of a language merely assume that it is enough for people of their acquaintance to use a slang term, so that it thereby becomes legitimate. In fact, it is history that determines legitimacy and useable currency of a term. Lexicoghraphically, there are two schools of thought on this matter; the ‘libertines’ represented by such as Merriam-Webster Co. see currency as definition and usage, and will accept the utterings of anyone at all as ‘authority’ (to the notorious extent of listing a madame of a bordello as an authority on sexual matters!), whereas more conservative authorities and renowned lexicographers connected with academia regard only educated speech/writings over time as the authority of usage labeling. I may be the last ‘voice in the wilderness’ in this regard, but will opine that it is the position of such authorities as the Theatre Historical Soc. of America that are much more to be respected as standard bearers of non-slang than those involved primarily for a profit motive, and of obviously less than sterling regard for history.
Yes, sad to say, this issue may be moot in a day and age of decaying social standards where newspapers and the Internet are regarded as ‘authorities,’ but I am not so unrealistic as to think that my defending scholarship here will make any headway with the young ‘whippersnappers’ who regard any appeal to history as unprofitable and not ‘with it.’ I am afraid that Robbie’s adduced modern ‘authorities’ are as guilty of the mindless, uneducated ‘monkey-see-monkey-do’ repitition of innanities as are those who so unthinking took up the phrase: “I could care less” in lieu of the correct and logical phrase as it originally was: “I couldn’t care less.” English does not have the luxury of a college of language arbiters as do such as French and Spanish, so it will be in the unwashed hurly burly of unrestricted writings such as these that the lustre of our theatres and their parts will be burnished by academic writings or sullied by slang. More’s the pity. Now I wonder just who was “Pontificating.”
Ken:
The correct term in all English-speaking countries is what they were originally called by the artists who designed them: VERTICAL SIGNS, which, of course, distinguished them from the horizontality of the MARQUEE. Architects and designers of such signs are the authority on how they are termed, since they invented them. I don’t disaprove of slang terms in speech, most of thye time, as long as the connotation is not changed by them, but in writing I think that we all must attain to a higher standard for the written record.
You astutely mention MARQUEE versus CANOPY, and here it is merely a limitation of how the thing is observed: a MARQUEE (in the theatrical sense of the word) is composed three principal parts in most all cases after 1920: (1) the Canopy which is what started it all to protect the patrons and the front entry from rain; (2) the ATTRACTION BOARDS where some means was used with or without lights to advertise the bill of fare; and (3) the NAME SIGN, a horizontal affair of the name of the theatre. I wish I could easily say just where the first true MARQUEE and VERTICAL SIGN appeared, but I do not know. Perhaps you will have the resources and energy to persue such research in England as well as at the Archive of the Theatre Historical Soc. here, but, unfortunately, I do not.
Your British use of the term PIT, of course, dates from the earthen floor days of the Shakespearean theatre such as the GLOBE, and once orchestras came about, they were positioned in what remained of that originally seatless area, and were therefore the new ‘Pits’ and by extension, the ground floor of the theatre became the ‘orchestra,’ for better or worse.
The term STALLS is rather more complicated since it brings in the references to both area of seating level, as well as type of seats. And through the years, with differernt types of theatres in different countries, there are too many exapmles to mention in our short space here to do the subject justice, so as “saps” emplores, I will “call the whole thing off” (to shamelessly borrow from the song)!
Ken was kind to provide this current photo of the facade, but permit me to respectfully disagree with his use of the ersatz terms “blade/fin” for the VERTICAL SIGN. Slang usage does not help us gain respect for our theatres or their parts by designating them in so casual, and even flippant manner. Ken is a veteran theatres buff, and while he may have heard such terms in his London area, it does not follow that they have currency everywhere. Yes, one or two American sign companies of today have resorted to such slang, but they are cases of being more concerned with being ‘hip’ and ‘modern’ than of having any historical accuracy. This is something like using the disparaging British term “flea pit” to describe such as Covent Garden or Radio City Music Hall; it is just juvenile. Ken is too noble to advocate such, so I assume that he was misinformed.
I don’t think that we should jump to the conclusion that the university was being magnanimous in “preserving” any part of the theatre. I am sure that to them it is and always was a strictly dollars and cents issue: this is a large space that we can buy for much less than building a new facility in 1961, and they determined to remove/rework any area and ornament that might interfere with their use of the space for their purposes, and not to remove anything more simply because such unneeded work would have cost them more. Why remove such as the great grilled ceiling when no basketball or student could reach it? After that, it was at best a case of benign neglect. For these reasons, I highly doubt that they will move the organ to the new building, and if a bid comes along to sell it, I am sure that that is what they will do. They are there to make a profit, not to preserve theatres and organs.
I recall reading somewhere that they simply built the sets on the forestage in front of the portal (the stage opening) and of course they would then fly in whatever drop or even the house curtain that would suit their purposes in the background. There was no new rigging in the house (auditorium) itself, thus it was a limited arrangement.
AS to the seats, these were replaced across the country after the War ended when materials and manpower again became available. After all, the old wood-framed seats from the 1920s were getting quite worn by that time, so the seat makers advertised this obvious fact to their profit, and theatre owners were looking to keep their audiences, so they replaced their seats —probably before they realized that the new ‘fad’ of television was going to be more permanent and would soon obviate the use of the new seats, sad to say. By the post-war era, it was all Modernism as the decorative vogue, and we could not expect the seat makers to furnish the original ornate end standards at the same lower cost as the newly mass produced ‘modern’ standards, though the owners could have retained the old ones had they wanted to.
It certainly did; it was a fully equiped theatre in every sense, but as some have noted, the stage opening was more narrow than many producers liked, so they used the orchestra pit elevator as a forestage and later built out to the sides so as to get more space, according to the book “The Best Remaining Seats, The Story of the Golden Age of the Movie Palace” by the late Ben M. Hall. The book is at many libraries and can be ordered as used through such as Amazon.com
RobertR: No, the Theatre Historical Soc. does not have thumbprint pics on DVDs nor many images on-line, but they will send you photocopies of your items of interest from which one can choose the view he wants printed out for himself. They will also send an inventory of the items they have on any one subject, though it is often faster to go there to view what they have BY APPOINTMENT (Archive link at: www.historictheatres.org ). Yes, New Yorkers should have some sort of ready access to remote colletions dealing with their city, but the cost of scanning and imprinting all their many thousands of photos and documents is well beyond the scope of a not-for-profit volunteer organization, really a club if you get right down to it. That is why they, like all non-tax supported institutions, now charge copying and access fees to offset their expenses. While the new Kodak print-to-print photo making machines in such as Walgreens do make better copies than a photo lab can produce, they still cost money, and we all must sympathize with such a group’s predicament in wanting to have greatest availability, and earnest interest to propel it, but not the funds to make such as DVDs and huge web servers to help all comers from far away.
I doubt ActorGuy is desireous of spending money on duplicating the collection on DVDs, but I thought that he might approach a larger institution that can afford to make such DVDs and send them to other institutions, as part of his donation/sale agreement. I guess such is really ‘pie-in-the-sky’ but one can dream. In the final analysis, the only way to preserve records against natural or man-made disasters (the World Trade Center horror leaps to mind; I wonder how many libraries and archives disappeared there?) is to make multiple copies and store them at widely separate locations. If I had my way, there would be a federal law requiring duplication of PRIMARY documents with storage of copies in some location at least a hundred miles away, but as I said above, one can dream. For example, a city water main broke here next to the county’s Historical society, and flooded the basement were hundreds of maps, photos and other documents as well as artifacts were stored. Many of the paper items were ruined, but at least they could have been preserved if copies had been made and stored in another city years before. Pity how we think of broken water pipes, sinkholes, nearby building fires and other disasters only after the fact. How long will New Orleans go on blaming the dikes as unsound when it was remote storage of copies that would have been cheaper and more practical for PRIMARY documents? Let us all learn from that tragedy.
ActorGuy, if you advertise anywhere, you can probably sell the collection off in pieces, which may make money for you, but which will render the collection much less valuable to any institution. If your motive is profit, then you probably will not care who gets the materials, but if it is for the love of this theatre and others, then do consider the viableness and accessability of the materials for generations to come.
One reason I suggested the Theatre Historical Society is that it is devoted to THEATRES, whereas in contrast, other institutions are not so specialized and have to therefore spread their maintenance funds out over a number of collections. Most any institution will accept a collection if for no other reason than to be able to list it on their credits as being part of their documentary base, but that doesn’t mean that they will fully process or accession the items after they have been received by them. The Library of Congress, for example, received a huge collection of trade catalogs 50 years ago, but it has never been fully accessioned or catgaloged due to “lack of funds.” Large institutions tend to have a world-weary disdain for the enthusiasts and their ‘hobbyist’ documents, and therefore may treat your collection slightingly in favor of larger or more popular collections now and later donated to be cared for by scarse funds. Theatre Historical is by no means rolling in funds, but since this is their sole field of interest, it is likely that their assurances as to processing and openness of the collection will have a lot more weight in fact. They will also cross-index to the many other items in their collection about the NY PARAMOUNT, whereas a local institution of other focus may not have much to cross-index to, if they even care to.
Another factor to consider is what record exists for posterity if some disaster should befall New York city. When the hurricanes destroyed many libraries in the south, the records there were often destroyed, and any memories of lost theatres there are now also lost to everyone! A Chicago suburb is far from NYC, and thus more likely to be able to keep such vital history should something happen in Gotham. Those without foresight will poo-poo such a possibility, but realists will not. Examine your motives and think ahead. Should copies on DVD be made of the items so that the DVD copies can be sent to archives in the NYC area? That is something for you to explore, if preservation is more your aim than profit.
“Actor Guy,” you indeed have a treasure there! I am sure that the Theatre Historical Society of American in Elmhurst Illinois would be interested. They have thousands of records of theatres across the nation but could probably find more room. Contact their Executive Director, Richard Sklenar, at: or phone him at their numbers given on their web site: www.historictheatres.org during business hours. Try to give him an idea of the extent and nature of the collection. Their Archive is above the YORK theatre in Elmhurst, about 15 miles west of Chicago and hosts many hundreds of researchers every year.
On the off chance that they cannot accept your gift, or transportation problems loom, it is quite possible that the Theatre Collection of the City of New York at the main Library would also be interested. For both groups it will depend upon space available, and staff resources to catalog and package the collection for preservation. If you encounter such problem, consider retaining portions of the collection until they can accept more. They will probably offer to name the collection after you, but you can be anonymous if you choose.
By the way, I know how you feel finding such a trove in a dumpster. I came upon such regarding an abandoned local feed mill that had several unique buildings from the 1870s, and could only rescue some photos and the like. I am so glad that you had the foresight and determination to save what you could; after I joined the staff of the PABST theatre to reconstruct its history in my native Milwaukee, I was told of how many file cabints of documents and boxers of “old stuff” were discarded during the “restoration” of the 1895 theatre long before I was hired, and so one can only guess at what was lost —and shake one’s head at the shortsightedness and laziness of the city supervisors that allowed the contractors to simply dump all that history rather than rent a semitrailer to hold it until space could be found. I cringe at the thought to this day! More power to you! Jim Rankin, former Archivist/Historian to the Pabst Theater, and member of the Theatre Hist. Soc. since 1976
I believe that what Valencia heard was the recent hyperbole of the chains desperate to lure back the jaded public with a ‘stab’ at some thematic decor, PLUS the potential moneymakers of restaurants, sports and other indoor games so as to create “Family entertainment centers” (playlands) where they can park the kids if they don’t want to watch a movie. It will all be the usual crass grab for one’s pocketbook, of course. No, the thousand-plus seat movie palace with luxurious decor, trained and uniformed ushers, and something resembling quality on the screen, will never return, sad to say, unless TV and videos somehow disappear.
Lance, if you and your friend and others can do it, more power to you! If I had good health and money, I would travel there to volunteer too. Jim Rankin
Thank you “ERD”; it is always my hope to make our beloved subject area clear to all concerned. I was once like “Lance” and others who evidently believe ‘Well, SOMEONE must be able to do something!’ only to grow and realize that these buildings were beautiful, but never practical. They are exhorbitantly costly to run —even when packed with thousands of paid admissions each day as they were designed for!
To amplify the ‘demising’ situation: If a demising agreement exists, it is an instant RED FLAG against any use of the building by a potential buyer of the theatre, as his lawyers will quickly warn him. Any property buyer wants his property investment to be as safe as possible, and any demising will only serve to increase his risks, not decrease them. For example: suppose the roof leaks and water travels down inside the walls of the front of the theatre, damaging superstructure and throwing some of the masonry onto the sidewalk, as water flows into one of the demised stores under other ownership. Who pays for the roof/building repairs? Who is liable for the masonry striking a patron of one of the stores? Who pays for the loss of business from that and other patrons as repair scaffolding blocks the front of the building and stores? Should the new theatre owner agree to pay for any replacement of store contents? The agreement might make it appear that since it is the theatre’s roof, the theatre owner should pay for the repairs, but suppose he doesn’t want to or cannot pay the $50,000 or more for a roof job? He will find himself in court with even greater liability, while his areas of the building may not even be affected.
If the utilities cannot all be realistically separated, who pays for the utilities use in the areas that others occupy? IF it is the theatre owner, does he control the thermostat, and will the tenants be satisfied with his idea of proper temperature? If they are not happy, the new owner could again find himself in court, with all the fees to pay for that even if the court finds the landlord not responsible for the tenants discomfort. If so, the tenant will move out, and the theatre owner will find an idle store possibly soon with squatters inside that will theaten the safety and security of his building, not just the store portion that the undesireables have taken over. If such creatures (as well as four- and six-legged ones) will not leave, the theatre owner has no recourse under law, since he does not own the space and cannot enter it, nor legally turn off the utilities to it. If the former owner has abandoned the space(s), the theatre sits with one or more ugly vacancies next to its front doors that it can do little about, other than petition a court to declare the spaces in receivership, which will still not get him control of the spaces, and will take years to clear up via condemnation proceedings.
So we see that any use of neighboring stores or other facilities may prove more a threat than a bonus to a potential buyer of a vacant theatre. And the reverse is true for the owners of the demised areas: if the theatre leaks and only a very absentee landlord owns the theatre, any leaks or other problems may not be addressed in any timely fashion, and again it may take trips to court to get orders to the theatre owner to stabilize the space from which he is getting no income, and cities are notorious for being very poor landlords! After all, how long can the tenants/store owners fight city hall and win BEFORE they go under financially? The lawyers will be happy to keep the case alive in courts for many years while obtaining their fees, while the occupants of the stores go bankrupt. Such is the evil of law in this system of things. So, I never advise someone to buy a property if they cannot get it free and clear of any other ownerships or encumbrances. To do otherwise is think with one’s heart rather than one’s head, and is just bad business practice that will cost one dearly in the end.
A post script to the previous: for those wanting a to see Mr. Lee shortly before his death, he can be seen speaking lucidly in the 1987 documentary “The Movie Palaces” by the Smithsonian Instution (a division of the federal government), not available for many years, but still to be found in some libraries. Feel free to copy the video tape, since title 17, section 205 of the US Code says that the government has no legal right to make copyright what it publishes, aside from legal or classified documents which this historical tape is not. Thus, the copyright warning at opening is bogus and designed to deceive those ignorant of law. I state this because the video tape is valuable to history, and should not be allowed to disappear from use as the copies in libraries deteriorate. IF repeatedly copied in multiple formats, it may survive for the generations to come. (yes, the Smithsonian has been approached repeatedly to reissue the title, but they have no interest, as befits bureaucrats already paid handsome salaries to do as little as they wish.)
If William cannot find his interview with S.Charles Lee, perhaps some will find the only book written about him of interest: http://tinyurl.com/7vxdu
I have not seen the out-of-print book (though Amazon.com does list nine sources of it) so do not know if it reflects all the “300 theatres” that it claims he designed, but it would at least be a start, even if the woman who wrote it was apparently more a self-appointed architecture critic than a biographer. Click on the link I give here and you should be taken directly to the book’s page at Amazon.com. IF she furnished a list of his projects, it is not evident in Amazon’s write-up.
Lance, your pain at the KING’S situation is palpable, and most all of us here agree with you that the KINGS should be returned to service of some sort, but what sort? That is the crux of the matter, don’t you see. All the enthusiasm in the world will not pay for the huge bills to repair, rehab, and revitalize a huge movie palace for which there is no longer an audience. Movie-going is declining steadily as more and cheaper options of entertainment present themselves, and even much smaller cinemas with comparatively small overhead are finding it a tougher and tougher go these days. It is all well and good to talk about a community performance center or the like, and a mixed use facility does SOUND possible, but what all these proposals lack is a SOUND financial plan, and that is what is needed to reopen the KINGS in any format. I wring my hands too as I see the years march on and the building deteriorate, but I am not going to criticize Brooklyn fathers for not spending more of the fewer tax dollars they have to pay for more than roof repairs —alone totaling many thousands of dollars. If this were a small theatre of less than a thousand seats, it might have worked out as a public project with tax dollars, but the city fathers are not stupid; they know that anything the size of the KINGS will require a large fortune to repair and reopen, and they were not elected to spend the public’s money so lavishly. As with all central cities, the people most in a position to pay taxes have moved out long ago, leaving only those least able to pay taxes for all the many needs, much less vast buildings which no private interests will touch. Does this fact sound an alarm bell for would-be preservationists? It should! Private interests will always take on an expense if they sense that they can make money from it, but they will stay well away from something that appears to cost more than it will ever return. It is part of the cost/benefit analysis that all business must make in order to survive.
I will continue to pine away for the once grand —if not grandiose— KINGS, but I will not imply criticism to any locals or businessmen who have not stepped forward. The neighborhood of the UPTOWN in Chicago may favor returning that huge theatre to use, but the history of it is littered with good-willed individuals and groups that went bust trying to save it. That city has already spent hundreds of thousands trying to stabilize the structure, and they face over a hundred thousand dollars in heating costs yearly to just keep it above freezing while it remains dark and idle. How much more can we expect the dwingling tax base to maintain? For the same reasons as the KINGS, the UPTOWN will not reopen under any private sponsor: it will cost too much to maintain, even if new uses are found. With mounting tragic social causes across the country, we cannot expect philanthropies to spend for buildings ahead of people, and our poor people must be healthy and solvent enough to pay admission to such huge theatres in huge numbers in order to keep a REALISTIC cash flow = the means by which a theatre ‘eats’ (pays its bills.) No, the UPTOWN is no model for the KINGS, for though it is stabilized to an extent, it still has no realistic model for use; how many performance groups are there that can essentially fill a four thousand seat theatre that has millions of cubic feet of space to light, heat and cool?
The stores flanking the KINGS were most likely not rented because the city faced the legal obstacles of what is called “demising” by which a deed restriction would have to be formed to separate the stores from the theatre in order to limit the liabilities of the would-be tenants, and such agreements are difficult if not impossible to reach. In many cases like this, the stores share some of the utilities and systems of the theatre, since they were originally under the same ownership. Who is going to pay to revamp or rebuild such today? New tenants? Why should they if they can go to another storefront nearby and have no such opening costs? How will such tenants be competitive if they must bear such costs that their competitors elsewhere do not have to bear? How will property taxes be assessed if the demising agreement has any loopholes in it? The last thing the city wants is to appear in court to sue one of its own tenants who object to assessments that might reflect some of the idle theatre which the city owns. Do you see the problems that arise?
Let us continue to hope for the KINGS, but not any of us advance lofty ambitions unless we have CONCRETE committments of money and use in hand. Long live the KINGS for anyone who has the audacity and money to reopen it.
Quote:
“Jim, thank you for stepping forward (and jarring my memory). By the way, I absolutely meant no offense with the phrase "bent out of shape”; I should have chosen my own words more carefully and less casually.
For the record, which theater was it that has “decadent” in its description and to which you responded earlier?
posted by stevebob on Oct 25, 2005 at 9:38am"
Sorry, Stevebob, I don’t recall just which theatre I was speaking of when I made the observation. Unfortunately, there are a number of occassions when the word “decadent” has been incorrectly used to describe a theatre. Even the supposedly professional wording of the League of Historic American Theatres (www.LHAT.org) in one of its promotional letters used that word to describe movie palaces, and when I brought that fact to the attention of the woman then in charge, she dismissed my observation about the negative connotation of the word with some sarcastic reply. So, you see, it is an uphill battle. Keep up the fine fight!
Quote: ““So much of the future is not in the U.S.†— highlighting that growth opportunities for exhibitors may lie overseas.“ It appears that miss Redstone was uncharacteristically honest in letting slip the real raison d'etere of the film makers today: sheer profits —in foreign sales where they will find less regulated markets with less competition from electronics. Here in the US, they will use DVDs or whatever other medium comes along, but they have little use for the exhibitors as time goes on. The American exhibitor had best grab his passport and build/rent overseas, for the handwriting is on the wall as regards US cinemas.
It certainly is, and if one will just scroll down a little on the site’s front page, he will see photos of the RIVIERA ‘then’ and ‘now.’ How clever of you to have found this new owner’s site. Now let us hope that the former theatre can survive the neighborhood it is in.
I wonder what the genesis of two balconies in these two movie palaces is? In most cases of such, it was in the Olde South where there was racial discrimination and the upper balcony therefore was the only place that Black people could sit. These were often referred to as “Jim Crowe” balconies, usually having their own entrances, box offices, and staircases separate from the others. This is in distinction, of course, from the many theatres that had a mezzanine below the balcony, and in distinction from the many legit theatres around the world having galleries as opposed to the model of the lone, vast balcony of the movie palace. Since there was no overt segregation in the Los Angeles area that I am aware of, perhaps the additional upper balcony was merely for more general seating?
Well, “stevebob,” this is from “all bent out of shape” over the use of the word “decadent” in regard to theatres, but I thought I was merely pointing out the misuse of a word, just as you justly do here. The first definition you quote for “grandiose” is called the Denotation, and conveys the basic root meaning. Those that follow are called the Connotations, and most every word carries such since they convey Usage and implied meaning within context. As to ‘grandiose’ you are so right, and I had thought of pointing out your careful distinction more than once, but I find that most people just let their ‘eyes glaze over,’ sad to say, at any mention of good English usage. Neither word carries a positive connotation, so if one uses them in regard to theatres, we can only take such one to mean that he dislikes theatres. It is hard being ‘voices in the wilderness’ but maybe a few insightful eyes will take this to heart.
This fine article appeared in the free Milwaukee monthly newspaper “The Bay View Compass” (www.bayviewcompass.com) and even features comments by yours truly in this October 2005 issue:
“A LOOK INSINDE THE AVALON"
by Michael Timm
The 21st century neo-American dream includes sitting on the couch with a remote, controlling your home theater, 6.1 surround sound, and projection screen television in HDTV.
But this age of increasingly personalized, private entertainment follows an American entertainment age as opulent as it was public and as grand as new technologies are staggering.
Poised at one intersection between past and future stands a monument to that lost age, when the movie-going experience was as important as the film shown. It’s a Bay View movie theater built in 1929â€"and a structure worthy of being called a theatreâ€"the Avalon Theatre.
Barczak’s Vision
Though projected clouds have long since fled from the Avalon’s ceiling where electric stars still twinkle on a field of blueâ€"and in some places the sky is literally falling where the plaster has caved inâ€"the Avalon Theatre still bears undeniable charm.
Lee Barczak, who purchased the Avalon in April, will unveil specific renovation plans in the theater at 2473 S. Kinnickinnic Ave. at 6:30pm Thursday, Oct. 20.
Barczak, president of the Greendale investment firm Morgan Kenwood Ltd. who has since organized the Avalon Society, provided a glimpse inside the long-neglected theater at a Sept. 29 Forward Bay View meeting and briefly discussed his vision for the theater which closed in 2000.
“One of the things I think is important is maintaining this kind of architecture,†Barczak said.
Barczak plans to renovate the Avalon as a multi-screen movie house and “multiuse entertainment facility,†while respecting its architectural heritage as a movie palace.
“We’ve gotta have movies here,†said Barczak, “I’d love to see some interesting concerts. I would also like to see us operating with a much more interesting concessions program.â€
He hopes this would include a liquor license to serve alcohol during movies or performances.
When the previous owner applied for a liquor license to make the Avalon more competitive, he drew community ire, in part because residents feared rowdy crowds leaving rock concerts. But Barczak said he envisions performance music that would not draw particularly rowdy crowds. He mentions jazz, blues, or folk as likely.
He has the support of Tony Zielinski, 14th district alderman, who supported a $75,000 grant passed in June to help offset renovation costs.
“I think we’ll get support,†Barczak said, for the liquor license.
Barczak said he intends to make Milwaukee’s first theater designed for talking pictures into “a theater for the whole family.†He’s received feedback diverse in specific wishes (with interest in independent, first-run, and foreign films) but unified in “overwhelming support in terms of bringing the beautiful theater back to its original glory.â€
Barczak also said he has a “commitment for one film festival.â€
A Virtual Tour
“I’ve seen a lot of neighborhood houses like this, and this has a great deal of charm,†said local theater historian Jim Rankin. “It isn’t genius. It just fell together well.â€
The Avalon was designed by Russell Barr Williamson, an architectural disciple of Frank Lloyd Wright who also designed the Eagle’s Club but is more known for his numerous Prairie School houses throughout southeastern Wisconsin and the Midwest.
Milwaukee’s last atmospheric theater (those with interiors designed to make audiences feel they are under open air), the Avalon was once one of six.
Rankin said the exterior façade that originally rose to an apex was struck by lightning. The original Avalon sign was vertical. And at one time, a Paramount style marquee with chasing light bulbs overhung the sidewalk.
Inside, a cozy ticket lobby Rankin calls “a deliberate emotional airlock†opens into the red carpeted grand lobby expanse beneath a wrought iron chandelier, a black twisted column, and false wood ceiling beams beside the curving stair leading up to the unseen balcony. This transition effectively transported movie-goers into another place and time where a variety of architectural styles created a baroque, exotic, transcendent environment.
Portals between the lobby and auditorium were originally draped, possibly in luxurious velvets, Rankin said.
Inside the auditorium, flanked by arcades supporting Spanish Mediterranean style roof tiles, the blue ceiling and its star lights make the neck crane upward.
Shrubbery originally lined the auditorium’s horizon line, and at one point in its history the Avalon was actually known as the Garden because of this attribute.
“They just took a real shrub and sprayed it with glycerin,†Rankin said. He mentions a new, safer technique that could replicate the same effect by spray painting aluminum foil.
The original twinkling lights system was replaced in the 1960s, Rankin said.
The Avalon cost $1 million by the time it was completed in 1929, opening just five months before Black Tuesday.
“Most people didn’t realize how expensive these buildings were. I don’t know what to compare them to. Nothing’s really enormous like movie palaces anymore,†Rankin said.
Costs and Challenges
In 2005, Barczak estimates it will cost $1.2 to $1.5 million just to get the Avalon into a workable condition.
“There’s a lot of structural things that need to be done,†he said. “Our first challenge will be the roof.â€
Repairs will begin shortly on roof damage and several leaks, and he hopes to contract an architect by the year’s end.
The theater’s Wurlitzer pipe organ 2004 was removed and stored by its owner, the Dairyland Theatre Organ Society, when fears that further neglect would cause more serious damage.
It now seems unlikely the organ, damaged by plaster, water, mold and mildew, will return to the theater.
“I would like it but I can’t say it would happen,†Barczak said.
Who will operate the theater may be revealed Oct. 20. Discussion had included Landmark Corporation, which operates Milwaukee’s Downer and Oriental theaters, but Barczak did not yet indicate his final decision.
“They’re interested in the theater. The biggest issue we have with Landmark is we basically have to turn it over to them,†said Barczak, who is concerned about making sure the already risky theater operation would make business sense in the context of the Milwaukee market. “We have to be very careful with how we structure this.â€
Barczak did say his plan will include at least two movie screens, though he did not elaborate on where these would be or if the current main screen would remain intact.
“You cannot survive with a one-screen theater,†he said.
Currently a 1954 Cinemascope screen hangs in the 9,500 square foot, 1670-capacity main auditorium, with 780 seats in the balcony. This screen was placed in front of the proscenium arch over the main stage to accommodate the widescreen films of the 1950s and 60s that attempted to woo audiences away from their television sets. It obscures two twisted columns that flanked the original screen.
Another smaller screen was added in the 1990s and currently occupies the backstage area, with seats transplanted from the main auditorium.
Lack of theater insulation will make today’s heating costs expensive for the Avalon, Rankin said. Electric bills would also be expensive, he estimates.
Transforming the Avalon into live performance space also poses challenges because the Cinemascope screen cuts off part of the stage and affects acoustics. Limited backstage space would also challenge larger performance groups, Rankin said. “It’s designed only for the smallest vaudeville.â€
An American Cathedral
Renovating the Avalon is an enterprise counting on a best-of-both-worlds approach to 21st century entertainment cultureâ€"combining the comforts of a home theater with the experience of seeing a movie publicly in the American architectural equivalent of a cathedral.
It’s something that needs to be done correctly, not fast, he said, with the earliest potential reopening in 2007.
“We want people to be patient,†Barczak said. “This is not a project that is going to happen quickly.â€
Rankin is hopeful, but realizes the perfect storm of challenges on the Avalon’s horizonâ€"no parking, expensive renovations, expensive upkeep and a declining movie-going market.
“Must it support itself or is it a subsidized museum with no parking?†he asks rhetorically. For the Avalon to succeed, he said, “It would be a miracle.â€
It’s a miracle Barczak hopes to accomplish with patience, perseverance and good business sense.
“I’ve always been a movie nut,†Barczak said. “It’s kind of in my blood, my background.â€
And Barczak, a Pio Nono (now Thomas More) High School grad, has historic links to the area.
“I had many a date in this particular theater,†he recalls.
A layer of plaster dust now covers much of the Avalon’s drafty interior, and some of its seats have been ripped out and stacked backstage. But the cavernous space remains capped by the blue vault of artificial sky whose stars still twinkle. Lit harshly by spotlights, the silent auditorium evokes the eerie underwater wreckage of the Titanic, and it’s not hard to imagine Barczak reconstructing the Avalon’s gilded grandeur in his mind’s eye.
“When people come in here,†he says, “I want them to just say, ‘Wow.’â€
Theis newspaper will keep this front page article in their archive for a limited time, but without the 5x7-inch color photo of the Avalon’s balcony ceiling showing a breach caused by rain water. Let us hope that tonight’s press conference reveals successful and artistic plans.
I received two interesting replies to my posting of this theatre’s history:
From David H. came this:
“Thank you for keeping the memory of the Granada alive. The following are facts I remember about the Granada:
The last neighborhood theater to have daily matinees.
Ocassionally featured Polish language films on Monday and Tuesday
Often was the first neighborhood house to feature a film after its downtown run
In the 1940s had a poor sound system, often it was difficult to hear the dialogue
Was famous for its air conditioning, often it was very cold. One summer it had
a large carboard penquin and the word cool covering up most of the vertical
GRANADA sign.
It was part of the Warner Bros. circuit
It did have a small fire in the 1950s or early 60s
On the east outside wall along the alley it had advertisements for future attractions
pasted to the wall.
It had a small lobby with rest rooms just off the lobby. There were two sets of steep stairs to the balcony, one on each end of the lobby.
Because of its(1) location in the popular Mitchell Street shopping area, (2) location on three well travelled car lines which connected to all areas of the city and (3) featuring of films right from downtown, the Granada was a big money maker.
Once other theaters began to get features right from downtown and parking became a problem, south siders abandoned the Granada for the Avalon, Majestic, Paradise and
41 Twin Outdoor.
The great thing about the Granada was that the person who had to be up early to be at work in the factory by 7, could catch a double feature at 4:30 or 5:00 and be home and in bed by 10 whereas other theaters did not open till 6 meaning the filmgoer might not get to bed before 11.
And as with other theaters, different moviegoers pronounced Granada differently. Some said Granada as Gra-nad-a and others Gra-na-da. The same southsiders had different ways of saying Riviera: some said Riv-ee-era and others Ra-vera And of course the Park, some called it Park, others Pork.
Thanks again,
Regards
David”
and from verteran projectionist Paul Dorobialski comes this:
“The reason that the Granada closed is the owner, Mr. Wabazewski, also the owner of Maynard Electric Steel, didn’t wan’t to invest in boiler repairs. So, the last picture that was played was ‘2001-Space Odessey’. When I toured the place in 1972, the power was still turned on at the pole transformer but shut off at the switch inside the building, meaning, for years the sump pump didn’t operate and its sub-basement and basement were flooded. I walked thru the basement with garbage bag waders on.”
It was good of you gentlemen to so expand its history.
“Robbie” and others of the ‘now generation’ are all too eager to believe that currency of use is everything, and among those ignorant of the nature of the semantics of a language merely assume that it is enough for people of their acquaintance to use a slang term, so that it thereby becomes legitimate. In fact, it is history that determines legitimacy and useable currency of a term. Lexicoghraphically, there are two schools of thought on this matter; the ‘libertines’ represented by such as Merriam-Webster Co. see currency as definition and usage, and will accept the utterings of anyone at all as ‘authority’ (to the notorious extent of listing a madame of a bordello as an authority on sexual matters!), whereas more conservative authorities and renowned lexicographers connected with academia regard only educated speech/writings over time as the authority of usage labeling. I may be the last ‘voice in the wilderness’ in this regard, but will opine that it is the position of such authorities as the Theatre Historical Soc. of America that are much more to be respected as standard bearers of non-slang than those involved primarily for a profit motive, and of obviously less than sterling regard for history.
Yes, sad to say, this issue may be moot in a day and age of decaying social standards where newspapers and the Internet are regarded as ‘authorities,’ but I am not so unrealistic as to think that my defending scholarship here will make any headway with the young ‘whippersnappers’ who regard any appeal to history as unprofitable and not ‘with it.’ I am afraid that Robbie’s adduced modern ‘authorities’ are as guilty of the mindless, uneducated ‘monkey-see-monkey-do’ repitition of innanities as are those who so unthinking took up the phrase: “I could care less” in lieu of the correct and logical phrase as it originally was: “I couldn’t care less.” English does not have the luxury of a college of language arbiters as do such as French and Spanish, so it will be in the unwashed hurly burly of unrestricted writings such as these that the lustre of our theatres and their parts will be burnished by academic writings or sullied by slang. More’s the pity. Now I wonder just who was “Pontificating.”
If you learn anything more about this theatre, please share that with us here.
Ken:
The correct term in all English-speaking countries is what they were originally called by the artists who designed them: VERTICAL SIGNS, which, of course, distinguished them from the horizontality of the MARQUEE. Architects and designers of such signs are the authority on how they are termed, since they invented them. I don’t disaprove of slang terms in speech, most of thye time, as long as the connotation is not changed by them, but in writing I think that we all must attain to a higher standard for the written record.
You astutely mention MARQUEE versus CANOPY, and here it is merely a limitation of how the thing is observed: a MARQUEE (in the theatrical sense of the word) is composed three principal parts in most all cases after 1920: (1) the Canopy which is what started it all to protect the patrons and the front entry from rain; (2) the ATTRACTION BOARDS where some means was used with or without lights to advertise the bill of fare; and (3) the NAME SIGN, a horizontal affair of the name of the theatre. I wish I could easily say just where the first true MARQUEE and VERTICAL SIGN appeared, but I do not know. Perhaps you will have the resources and energy to persue such research in England as well as at the Archive of the Theatre Historical Soc. here, but, unfortunately, I do not.
Your British use of the term PIT, of course, dates from the earthen floor days of the Shakespearean theatre such as the GLOBE, and once orchestras came about, they were positioned in what remained of that originally seatless area, and were therefore the new ‘Pits’ and by extension, the ground floor of the theatre became the ‘orchestra,’ for better or worse.
The term STALLS is rather more complicated since it brings in the references to both area of seating level, as well as type of seats. And through the years, with differernt types of theatres in different countries, there are too many exapmles to mention in our short space here to do the subject justice, so as “saps” emplores, I will “call the whole thing off” (to shamelessly borrow from the song)!
Ken was kind to provide this current photo of the facade, but permit me to respectfully disagree with his use of the ersatz terms “blade/fin” for the VERTICAL SIGN. Slang usage does not help us gain respect for our theatres or their parts by designating them in so casual, and even flippant manner. Ken is a veteran theatres buff, and while he may have heard such terms in his London area, it does not follow that they have currency everywhere. Yes, one or two American sign companies of today have resorted to such slang, but they are cases of being more concerned with being ‘hip’ and ‘modern’ than of having any historical accuracy. This is something like using the disparaging British term “flea pit” to describe such as Covent Garden or Radio City Music Hall; it is just juvenile. Ken is too noble to advocate such, so I assume that he was misinformed.
ActorGuy has not contacted me, and since he gives no contact information, it appears that he does not want anyone to contact him.
I don’t think that we should jump to the conclusion that the university was being magnanimous in “preserving” any part of the theatre. I am sure that to them it is and always was a strictly dollars and cents issue: this is a large space that we can buy for much less than building a new facility in 1961, and they determined to remove/rework any area and ornament that might interfere with their use of the space for their purposes, and not to remove anything more simply because such unneeded work would have cost them more. Why remove such as the great grilled ceiling when no basketball or student could reach it? After that, it was at best a case of benign neglect. For these reasons, I highly doubt that they will move the organ to the new building, and if a bid comes along to sell it, I am sure that that is what they will do. They are there to make a profit, not to preserve theatres and organs.
I recall reading somewhere that they simply built the sets on the forestage in front of the portal (the stage opening) and of course they would then fly in whatever drop or even the house curtain that would suit their purposes in the background. There was no new rigging in the house (auditorium) itself, thus it was a limited arrangement.
AS to the seats, these were replaced across the country after the War ended when materials and manpower again became available. After all, the old wood-framed seats from the 1920s were getting quite worn by that time, so the seat makers advertised this obvious fact to their profit, and theatre owners were looking to keep their audiences, so they replaced their seats —probably before they realized that the new ‘fad’ of television was going to be more permanent and would soon obviate the use of the new seats, sad to say. By the post-war era, it was all Modernism as the decorative vogue, and we could not expect the seat makers to furnish the original ornate end standards at the same lower cost as the newly mass produced ‘modern’ standards, though the owners could have retained the old ones had they wanted to.
It certainly did; it was a fully equiped theatre in every sense, but as some have noted, the stage opening was more narrow than many producers liked, so they used the orchestra pit elevator as a forestage and later built out to the sides so as to get more space, according to the book “The Best Remaining Seats, The Story of the Golden Age of the Movie Palace” by the late Ben M. Hall. The book is at many libraries and can be ordered as used through such as Amazon.com
RobertR: No, the Theatre Historical Soc. does not have thumbprint pics on DVDs nor many images on-line, but they will send you photocopies of your items of interest from which one can choose the view he wants printed out for himself. They will also send an inventory of the items they have on any one subject, though it is often faster to go there to view what they have BY APPOINTMENT (Archive link at: www.historictheatres.org ). Yes, New Yorkers should have some sort of ready access to remote colletions dealing with their city, but the cost of scanning and imprinting all their many thousands of photos and documents is well beyond the scope of a not-for-profit volunteer organization, really a club if you get right down to it. That is why they, like all non-tax supported institutions, now charge copying and access fees to offset their expenses. While the new Kodak print-to-print photo making machines in such as Walgreens do make better copies than a photo lab can produce, they still cost money, and we all must sympathize with such a group’s predicament in wanting to have greatest availability, and earnest interest to propel it, but not the funds to make such as DVDs and huge web servers to help all comers from far away.
I doubt ActorGuy is desireous of spending money on duplicating the collection on DVDs, but I thought that he might approach a larger institution that can afford to make such DVDs and send them to other institutions, as part of his donation/sale agreement. I guess such is really ‘pie-in-the-sky’ but one can dream. In the final analysis, the only way to preserve records against natural or man-made disasters (the World Trade Center horror leaps to mind; I wonder how many libraries and archives disappeared there?) is to make multiple copies and store them at widely separate locations. If I had my way, there would be a federal law requiring duplication of PRIMARY documents with storage of copies in some location at least a hundred miles away, but as I said above, one can dream. For example, a city water main broke here next to the county’s Historical society, and flooded the basement were hundreds of maps, photos and other documents as well as artifacts were stored. Many of the paper items were ruined, but at least they could have been preserved if copies had been made and stored in another city years before. Pity how we think of broken water pipes, sinkholes, nearby building fires and other disasters only after the fact. How long will New Orleans go on blaming the dikes as unsound when it was remote storage of copies that would have been cheaper and more practical for PRIMARY documents? Let us all learn from that tragedy.
ActorGuy, if you advertise anywhere, you can probably sell the collection off in pieces, which may make money for you, but which will render the collection much less valuable to any institution. If your motive is profit, then you probably will not care who gets the materials, but if it is for the love of this theatre and others, then do consider the viableness and accessability of the materials for generations to come.
One reason I suggested the Theatre Historical Society is that it is devoted to THEATRES, whereas in contrast, other institutions are not so specialized and have to therefore spread their maintenance funds out over a number of collections. Most any institution will accept a collection if for no other reason than to be able to list it on their credits as being part of their documentary base, but that doesn’t mean that they will fully process or accession the items after they have been received by them. The Library of Congress, for example, received a huge collection of trade catalogs 50 years ago, but it has never been fully accessioned or catgaloged due to “lack of funds.” Large institutions tend to have a world-weary disdain for the enthusiasts and their ‘hobbyist’ documents, and therefore may treat your collection slightingly in favor of larger or more popular collections now and later donated to be cared for by scarse funds. Theatre Historical is by no means rolling in funds, but since this is their sole field of interest, it is likely that their assurances as to processing and openness of the collection will have a lot more weight in fact. They will also cross-index to the many other items in their collection about the NY PARAMOUNT, whereas a local institution of other focus may not have much to cross-index to, if they even care to.
Another factor to consider is what record exists for posterity if some disaster should befall New York city. When the hurricanes destroyed many libraries in the south, the records there were often destroyed, and any memories of lost theatres there are now also lost to everyone! A Chicago suburb is far from NYC, and thus more likely to be able to keep such vital history should something happen in Gotham. Those without foresight will poo-poo such a possibility, but realists will not. Examine your motives and think ahead. Should copies on DVD be made of the items so that the DVD copies can be sent to archives in the NYC area? That is something for you to explore, if preservation is more your aim than profit.
“Actor Guy,” you indeed have a treasure there! I am sure that the Theatre Historical Society of American in Elmhurst Illinois would be interested. They have thousands of records of theatres across the nation but could probably find more room. Contact their Executive Director, Richard Sklenar, at: or phone him at their numbers given on their web site: www.historictheatres.org during business hours. Try to give him an idea of the extent and nature of the collection. Their Archive is above the YORK theatre in Elmhurst, about 15 miles west of Chicago and hosts many hundreds of researchers every year.
On the off chance that they cannot accept your gift, or transportation problems loom, it is quite possible that the Theatre Collection of the City of New York at the main Library would also be interested. For both groups it will depend upon space available, and staff resources to catalog and package the collection for preservation. If you encounter such problem, consider retaining portions of the collection until they can accept more. They will probably offer to name the collection after you, but you can be anonymous if you choose.
By the way, I know how you feel finding such a trove in a dumpster. I came upon such regarding an abandoned local feed mill that had several unique buildings from the 1870s, and could only rescue some photos and the like. I am so glad that you had the foresight and determination to save what you could; after I joined the staff of the PABST theatre to reconstruct its history in my native Milwaukee, I was told of how many file cabints of documents and boxers of “old stuff” were discarded during the “restoration” of the 1895 theatre long before I was hired, and so one can only guess at what was lost —and shake one’s head at the shortsightedness and laziness of the city supervisors that allowed the contractors to simply dump all that history rather than rent a semitrailer to hold it until space could be found. I cringe at the thought to this day! More power to you! Jim Rankin, former Archivist/Historian to the Pabst Theater, and member of the Theatre Hist. Soc. since 1976
I believe that what Valencia heard was the recent hyperbole of the chains desperate to lure back the jaded public with a ‘stab’ at some thematic decor, PLUS the potential moneymakers of restaurants, sports and other indoor games so as to create “Family entertainment centers” (playlands) where they can park the kids if they don’t want to watch a movie. It will all be the usual crass grab for one’s pocketbook, of course. No, the thousand-plus seat movie palace with luxurious decor, trained and uniformed ushers, and something resembling quality on the screen, will never return, sad to say, unless TV and videos somehow disappear.
Lance, if you and your friend and others can do it, more power to you! If I had good health and money, I would travel there to volunteer too. Jim Rankin
Thank you “ERD”; it is always my hope to make our beloved subject area clear to all concerned. I was once like “Lance” and others who evidently believe ‘Well, SOMEONE must be able to do something!’ only to grow and realize that these buildings were beautiful, but never practical. They are exhorbitantly costly to run —even when packed with thousands of paid admissions each day as they were designed for!
To amplify the ‘demising’ situation: If a demising agreement exists, it is an instant RED FLAG against any use of the building by a potential buyer of the theatre, as his lawyers will quickly warn him. Any property buyer wants his property investment to be as safe as possible, and any demising will only serve to increase his risks, not decrease them. For example: suppose the roof leaks and water travels down inside the walls of the front of the theatre, damaging superstructure and throwing some of the masonry onto the sidewalk, as water flows into one of the demised stores under other ownership. Who pays for the roof/building repairs? Who is liable for the masonry striking a patron of one of the stores? Who pays for the loss of business from that and other patrons as repair scaffolding blocks the front of the building and stores? Should the new theatre owner agree to pay for any replacement of store contents? The agreement might make it appear that since it is the theatre’s roof, the theatre owner should pay for the repairs, but suppose he doesn’t want to or cannot pay the $50,000 or more for a roof job? He will find himself in court with even greater liability, while his areas of the building may not even be affected.
If the utilities cannot all be realistically separated, who pays for the utilities use in the areas that others occupy? IF it is the theatre owner, does he control the thermostat, and will the tenants be satisfied with his idea of proper temperature? If they are not happy, the new owner could again find himself in court, with all the fees to pay for that even if the court finds the landlord not responsible for the tenants discomfort. If so, the tenant will move out, and the theatre owner will find an idle store possibly soon with squatters inside that will theaten the safety and security of his building, not just the store portion that the undesireables have taken over. If such creatures (as well as four- and six-legged ones) will not leave, the theatre owner has no recourse under law, since he does not own the space and cannot enter it, nor legally turn off the utilities to it. If the former owner has abandoned the space(s), the theatre sits with one or more ugly vacancies next to its front doors that it can do little about, other than petition a court to declare the spaces in receivership, which will still not get him control of the spaces, and will take years to clear up via condemnation proceedings.
So we see that any use of neighboring stores or other facilities may prove more a threat than a bonus to a potential buyer of a vacant theatre. And the reverse is true for the owners of the demised areas: if the theatre leaks and only a very absentee landlord owns the theatre, any leaks or other problems may not be addressed in any timely fashion, and again it may take trips to court to get orders to the theatre owner to stabilize the space from which he is getting no income, and cities are notorious for being very poor landlords! After all, how long can the tenants/store owners fight city hall and win BEFORE they go under financially? The lawyers will be happy to keep the case alive in courts for many years while obtaining their fees, while the occupants of the stores go bankrupt. Such is the evil of law in this system of things. So, I never advise someone to buy a property if they cannot get it free and clear of any other ownerships or encumbrances. To do otherwise is think with one’s heart rather than one’s head, and is just bad business practice that will cost one dearly in the end.
A post script to the previous: for those wanting a to see Mr. Lee shortly before his death, he can be seen speaking lucidly in the 1987 documentary “The Movie Palaces” by the Smithsonian Instution (a division of the federal government), not available for many years, but still to be found in some libraries. Feel free to copy the video tape, since title 17, section 205 of the US Code says that the government has no legal right to make copyright what it publishes, aside from legal or classified documents which this historical tape is not. Thus, the copyright warning at opening is bogus and designed to deceive those ignorant of law. I state this because the video tape is valuable to history, and should not be allowed to disappear from use as the copies in libraries deteriorate. IF repeatedly copied in multiple formats, it may survive for the generations to come. (yes, the Smithsonian has been approached repeatedly to reissue the title, but they have no interest, as befits bureaucrats already paid handsome salaries to do as little as they wish.)
If William cannot find his interview with S.Charles Lee, perhaps some will find the only book written about him of interest:
http://tinyurl.com/7vxdu
I have not seen the out-of-print book (though Amazon.com does list nine sources of it) so do not know if it reflects all the “300 theatres” that it claims he designed, but it would at least be a start, even if the woman who wrote it was apparently more a self-appointed architecture critic than a biographer. Click on the link I give here and you should be taken directly to the book’s page at Amazon.com. IF she furnished a list of his projects, it is not evident in Amazon’s write-up.
Lance, your pain at the KING’S situation is palpable, and most all of us here agree with you that the KINGS should be returned to service of some sort, but what sort? That is the crux of the matter, don’t you see. All the enthusiasm in the world will not pay for the huge bills to repair, rehab, and revitalize a huge movie palace for which there is no longer an audience. Movie-going is declining steadily as more and cheaper options of entertainment present themselves, and even much smaller cinemas with comparatively small overhead are finding it a tougher and tougher go these days. It is all well and good to talk about a community performance center or the like, and a mixed use facility does SOUND possible, but what all these proposals lack is a SOUND financial plan, and that is what is needed to reopen the KINGS in any format. I wring my hands too as I see the years march on and the building deteriorate, but I am not going to criticize Brooklyn fathers for not spending more of the fewer tax dollars they have to pay for more than roof repairs —alone totaling many thousands of dollars. If this were a small theatre of less than a thousand seats, it might have worked out as a public project with tax dollars, but the city fathers are not stupid; they know that anything the size of the KINGS will require a large fortune to repair and reopen, and they were not elected to spend the public’s money so lavishly. As with all central cities, the people most in a position to pay taxes have moved out long ago, leaving only those least able to pay taxes for all the many needs, much less vast buildings which no private interests will touch. Does this fact sound an alarm bell for would-be preservationists? It should! Private interests will always take on an expense if they sense that they can make money from it, but they will stay well away from something that appears to cost more than it will ever return. It is part of the cost/benefit analysis that all business must make in order to survive.
I will continue to pine away for the once grand —if not grandiose— KINGS, but I will not imply criticism to any locals or businessmen who have not stepped forward. The neighborhood of the UPTOWN in Chicago may favor returning that huge theatre to use, but the history of it is littered with good-willed individuals and groups that went bust trying to save it. That city has already spent hundreds of thousands trying to stabilize the structure, and they face over a hundred thousand dollars in heating costs yearly to just keep it above freezing while it remains dark and idle. How much more can we expect the dwingling tax base to maintain? For the same reasons as the KINGS, the UPTOWN will not reopen under any private sponsor: it will cost too much to maintain, even if new uses are found. With mounting tragic social causes across the country, we cannot expect philanthropies to spend for buildings ahead of people, and our poor people must be healthy and solvent enough to pay admission to such huge theatres in huge numbers in order to keep a REALISTIC cash flow = the means by which a theatre ‘eats’ (pays its bills.) No, the UPTOWN is no model for the KINGS, for though it is stabilized to an extent, it still has no realistic model for use; how many performance groups are there that can essentially fill a four thousand seat theatre that has millions of cubic feet of space to light, heat and cool?
The stores flanking the KINGS were most likely not rented because the city faced the legal obstacles of what is called “demising” by which a deed restriction would have to be formed to separate the stores from the theatre in order to limit the liabilities of the would-be tenants, and such agreements are difficult if not impossible to reach. In many cases like this, the stores share some of the utilities and systems of the theatre, since they were originally under the same ownership. Who is going to pay to revamp or rebuild such today? New tenants? Why should they if they can go to another storefront nearby and have no such opening costs? How will such tenants be competitive if they must bear such costs that their competitors elsewhere do not have to bear? How will property taxes be assessed if the demising agreement has any loopholes in it? The last thing the city wants is to appear in court to sue one of its own tenants who object to assessments that might reflect some of the idle theatre which the city owns. Do you see the problems that arise?
Let us continue to hope for the KINGS, but not any of us advance lofty ambitions unless we have CONCRETE committments of money and use in hand. Long live the KINGS for anyone who has the audacity and money to reopen it.
Quote:
“Jim, thank you for stepping forward (and jarring my memory). By the way, I absolutely meant no offense with the phrase "bent out of shape”; I should have chosen my own words more carefully and less casually.
For the record, which theater was it that has “decadent” in its description and to which you responded earlier?
posted by stevebob on Oct 25, 2005 at 9:38am"
Sorry, Stevebob, I don’t recall just which theatre I was speaking of when I made the observation. Unfortunately, there are a number of occassions when the word “decadent” has been incorrectly used to describe a theatre. Even the supposedly professional wording of the League of Historic American Theatres (www.LHAT.org) in one of its promotional letters used that word to describe movie palaces, and when I brought that fact to the attention of the woman then in charge, she dismissed my observation about the negative connotation of the word with some sarcastic reply. So, you see, it is an uphill battle. Keep up the fine fight!
Quote: ““So much of the future is not in the U.S.†— highlighting that growth opportunities for exhibitors may lie overseas.“ It appears that miss Redstone was uncharacteristically honest in letting slip the real raison d'etere of the film makers today: sheer profits —in foreign sales where they will find less regulated markets with less competition from electronics. Here in the US, they will use DVDs or whatever other medium comes along, but they have little use for the exhibitors as time goes on. The American exhibitor had best grab his passport and build/rent overseas, for the handwriting is on the wall as regards US cinemas.
It certainly is, and if one will just scroll down a little on the site’s front page, he will see photos of the RIVIERA ‘then’ and ‘now.’ How clever of you to have found this new owner’s site. Now let us hope that the former theatre can survive the neighborhood it is in.
I wonder what the genesis of two balconies in these two movie palaces is? In most cases of such, it was in the Olde South where there was racial discrimination and the upper balcony therefore was the only place that Black people could sit. These were often referred to as “Jim Crowe” balconies, usually having their own entrances, box offices, and staircases separate from the others. This is in distinction, of course, from the many theatres that had a mezzanine below the balcony, and in distinction from the many legit theatres around the world having galleries as opposed to the model of the lone, vast balcony of the movie palace. Since there was no overt segregation in the Los Angeles area that I am aware of, perhaps the additional upper balcony was merely for more general seating?
Well, “stevebob,” this is from “all bent out of shape” over the use of the word “decadent” in regard to theatres, but I thought I was merely pointing out the misuse of a word, just as you justly do here. The first definition you quote for “grandiose” is called the Denotation, and conveys the basic root meaning. Those that follow are called the Connotations, and most every word carries such since they convey Usage and implied meaning within context. As to ‘grandiose’ you are so right, and I had thought of pointing out your careful distinction more than once, but I find that most people just let their ‘eyes glaze over,’ sad to say, at any mention of good English usage. Neither word carries a positive connotation, so if one uses them in regard to theatres, we can only take such one to mean that he dislikes theatres. It is hard being ‘voices in the wilderness’ but maybe a few insightful eyes will take this to heart.
This fine article appeared in the free Milwaukee monthly newspaper “The Bay View Compass” (www.bayviewcompass.com) and even features comments by yours truly in this October 2005 issue:
“A LOOK INSINDE THE AVALON"
by Michael Timm
The 21st century neo-American dream includes sitting on the couch with a remote, controlling your home theater, 6.1 surround sound, and projection screen television in HDTV.
But this age of increasingly personalized, private entertainment follows an American entertainment age as opulent as it was public and as grand as new technologies are staggering.
Poised at one intersection between past and future stands a monument to that lost age, when the movie-going experience was as important as the film shown. It’s a Bay View movie theater built in 1929â€"and a structure worthy of being called a theatreâ€"the Avalon Theatre.
Barczak’s Vision
Though projected clouds have long since fled from the Avalon’s ceiling where electric stars still twinkle on a field of blueâ€"and in some places the sky is literally falling where the plaster has caved inâ€"the Avalon Theatre still bears undeniable charm.
Lee Barczak, who purchased the Avalon in April, will unveil specific renovation plans in the theater at 2473 S. Kinnickinnic Ave. at 6:30pm Thursday, Oct. 20.
Barczak, president of the Greendale investment firm Morgan Kenwood Ltd. who has since organized the Avalon Society, provided a glimpse inside the long-neglected theater at a Sept. 29 Forward Bay View meeting and briefly discussed his vision for the theater which closed in 2000.
“One of the things I think is important is maintaining this kind of architecture,†Barczak said.
Barczak plans to renovate the Avalon as a multi-screen movie house and “multiuse entertainment facility,†while respecting its architectural heritage as a movie palace.
“We’ve gotta have movies here,†said Barczak, “I’d love to see some interesting concerts. I would also like to see us operating with a much more interesting concessions program.â€
He hopes this would include a liquor license to serve alcohol during movies or performances.
When the previous owner applied for a liquor license to make the Avalon more competitive, he drew community ire, in part because residents feared rowdy crowds leaving rock concerts. But Barczak said he envisions performance music that would not draw particularly rowdy crowds. He mentions jazz, blues, or folk as likely.
He has the support of Tony Zielinski, 14th district alderman, who supported a $75,000 grant passed in June to help offset renovation costs.
“I think we’ll get support,†Barczak said, for the liquor license.
Barczak said he intends to make Milwaukee’s first theater designed for talking pictures into “a theater for the whole family.†He’s received feedback diverse in specific wishes (with interest in independent, first-run, and foreign films) but unified in “overwhelming support in terms of bringing the beautiful theater back to its original glory.â€
Barczak also said he has a “commitment for one film festival.â€
A Virtual Tour
“I’ve seen a lot of neighborhood houses like this, and this has a great deal of charm,†said local theater historian Jim Rankin. “It isn’t genius. It just fell together well.â€
The Avalon was designed by Russell Barr Williamson, an architectural disciple of Frank Lloyd Wright who also designed the Eagle’s Club but is more known for his numerous Prairie School houses throughout southeastern Wisconsin and the Midwest.
Milwaukee’s last atmospheric theater (those with interiors designed to make audiences feel they are under open air), the Avalon was once one of six.
Rankin said the exterior façade that originally rose to an apex was struck by lightning. The original Avalon sign was vertical. And at one time, a Paramount style marquee with chasing light bulbs overhung the sidewalk.
Inside, a cozy ticket lobby Rankin calls “a deliberate emotional airlock†opens into the red carpeted grand lobby expanse beneath a wrought iron chandelier, a black twisted column, and false wood ceiling beams beside the curving stair leading up to the unseen balcony. This transition effectively transported movie-goers into another place and time where a variety of architectural styles created a baroque, exotic, transcendent environment.
Portals between the lobby and auditorium were originally draped, possibly in luxurious velvets, Rankin said.
Inside the auditorium, flanked by arcades supporting Spanish Mediterranean style roof tiles, the blue ceiling and its star lights make the neck crane upward.
Shrubbery originally lined the auditorium’s horizon line, and at one point in its history the Avalon was actually known as the Garden because of this attribute.
“They just took a real shrub and sprayed it with glycerin,†Rankin said. He mentions a new, safer technique that could replicate the same effect by spray painting aluminum foil.
The original twinkling lights system was replaced in the 1960s, Rankin said.
The Avalon cost $1 million by the time it was completed in 1929, opening just five months before Black Tuesday.
“Most people didn’t realize how expensive these buildings were. I don’t know what to compare them to. Nothing’s really enormous like movie palaces anymore,†Rankin said.
Costs and Challenges
In 2005, Barczak estimates it will cost $1.2 to $1.5 million just to get the Avalon into a workable condition.
“There’s a lot of structural things that need to be done,†he said. “Our first challenge will be the roof.â€
Repairs will begin shortly on roof damage and several leaks, and he hopes to contract an architect by the year’s end.
The theater’s Wurlitzer pipe organ 2004 was removed and stored by its owner, the Dairyland Theatre Organ Society, when fears that further neglect would cause more serious damage.
It now seems unlikely the organ, damaged by plaster, water, mold and mildew, will return to the theater.
“I would like it but I can’t say it would happen,†Barczak said.
Who will operate the theater may be revealed Oct. 20. Discussion had included Landmark Corporation, which operates Milwaukee’s Downer and Oriental theaters, but Barczak did not yet indicate his final decision.
“They’re interested in the theater. The biggest issue we have with Landmark is we basically have to turn it over to them,†said Barczak, who is concerned about making sure the already risky theater operation would make business sense in the context of the Milwaukee market. “We have to be very careful with how we structure this.â€
Barczak did say his plan will include at least two movie screens, though he did not elaborate on where these would be or if the current main screen would remain intact.
“You cannot survive with a one-screen theater,†he said.
Currently a 1954 Cinemascope screen hangs in the 9,500 square foot, 1670-capacity main auditorium, with 780 seats in the balcony. This screen was placed in front of the proscenium arch over the main stage to accommodate the widescreen films of the 1950s and 60s that attempted to woo audiences away from their television sets. It obscures two twisted columns that flanked the original screen.
Another smaller screen was added in the 1990s and currently occupies the backstage area, with seats transplanted from the main auditorium.
Lack of theater insulation will make today’s heating costs expensive for the Avalon, Rankin said. Electric bills would also be expensive, he estimates.
Transforming the Avalon into live performance space also poses challenges because the Cinemascope screen cuts off part of the stage and affects acoustics. Limited backstage space would also challenge larger performance groups, Rankin said. “It’s designed only for the smallest vaudeville.â€
An American Cathedral
Renovating the Avalon is an enterprise counting on a best-of-both-worlds approach to 21st century entertainment cultureâ€"combining the comforts of a home theater with the experience of seeing a movie publicly in the American architectural equivalent of a cathedral.
It’s something that needs to be done correctly, not fast, he said, with the earliest potential reopening in 2007.
“We want people to be patient,†Barczak said. “This is not a project that is going to happen quickly.â€
Rankin is hopeful, but realizes the perfect storm of challenges on the Avalon’s horizonâ€"no parking, expensive renovations, expensive upkeep and a declining movie-going market.
“Must it support itself or is it a subsidized museum with no parking?†he asks rhetorically. For the Avalon to succeed, he said, “It would be a miracle.â€
It’s a miracle Barczak hopes to accomplish with patience, perseverance and good business sense.
“I’ve always been a movie nut,†Barczak said. “It’s kind of in my blood, my background.â€
And Barczak, a Pio Nono (now Thomas More) High School grad, has historic links to the area.
“I had many a date in this particular theater,†he recalls.
A layer of plaster dust now covers much of the Avalon’s drafty interior, and some of its seats have been ripped out and stacked backstage. But the cavernous space remains capped by the blue vault of artificial sky whose stars still twinkle. Lit harshly by spotlights, the silent auditorium evokes the eerie underwater wreckage of the Titanic, and it’s not hard to imagine Barczak reconstructing the Avalon’s gilded grandeur in his mind’s eye.
“When people come in here,†he says, “I want them to just say, ‘Wow.’â€
Theis newspaper will keep this front page article in their archive for a limited time, but without the 5x7-inch color photo of the Avalon’s balcony ceiling showing a breach caused by rain water. Let us hope that tonight’s press conference reveals successful and artistic plans.
Gustave, Uptown is a neighborhood of Chicago, therefore the college is there.