Some Cinerama films were shown at the Falls Theater in Cuyahoga Falls, OH. Were you planning to to consider this as a separate market or include it in the Cleveland retrospective?
I knew that this was the case with regard to D-150 equipped houses, but I was not aware that Cinerama, Inc. had a similar policy. I guess the fee must have been exorbitant or exhibitors did not in general think it was worth it as I cannot recall very many instances of 70mm non-Cinerama films being promoted this way.
I assume that advertising “Around the World in Eighty Days” as being shown in Cinerama was a local promotional idea. The screen at the Cinema 1 (later the Showcase Cinemas) was not that deeply curved (compared to the Paramount’s) and only 70mm Cinerama films played there; I suppose any 70mm film could have been shown there with minimal distortion. There were a couple cases I have read about, especially in Europe, where a few other films (such as “Song of Norway”) were advertised as being “presented in Cinerama” or “playing on the big Cinerama screen”. I don’t know if the Cinerama, Inc. folks knew about this or if they objected.
I assume that advertising “Around the World in Eighty Days” as being shown in Cinerama was a local promotional idea. The screen at the Cinema 1 (later the Showcase Cinemas) was not that deeply curved screen (compared to the Paramount’s) and only showed 70mm Cinerama films played there; I suppose any 70mm film could have been shown there with minimal distortion. There were a couple cases I have read about, especially in Europe, where a few other films (such as “Song of Norway”) were advertised as being “presented in Cinerama” or “playing on the big Cinerama screen”. I don’t know if the Cinerama, Inc. folks knew about this or if they objected.
I think it is unlikely that this theater was ever called the Harding; the big Harding Theater (operated by B&K) just a few blocks away on Milwaukee opened in 1925 and was demolished in 1963. In addition there was a Harding Theater on E. 55th Street in Chicago that apparently operated from about 1918.
That was my impression; as far as I know, CinemaNow is a legitimate subscription service where one is legally allowed to download films upon paying a fee, like iTunes or similar music downloading sites.
My concern was that the more these services become available, especially with enhancements in picture quality and the inevitable price reduction that comes with competition, more and more people will choose to download movies and watch them on computers and home theater systems that can play downloaded films.
Thus, there becomes increasing less reason to go to a movie theater or have interest in theater preservation. It’s like the 1950s all over again, when the TV wrecking ball hit so many theaters. Matters aren’t helped when the theater-going experience is being so often undermined by audience behaviors (like cell phone use), irritating screen advertising, and other factors that only cause people to think to themselves, “Why should I put up with this when for less than the price of a ticket, I can download a high quality movie file and watch it in the comfort of my home?”
If movie theaters are going to survive, the industry will have to learn how to provide an experience that can’t be enjoyed at home. Cinerama anyone?
I don’t understand all the acronyms either, but for my money, since it really refers to movie downloading, it is almost anti-theater piece of news. It is at least marginally relevant, as this trend may make preservation efforts more difficult.
It was nice to see on the Castro website that they have returned somewhat to the kind of programming that was typical of the 1980s; the screens even look like their brochures of that period.
I don’t follow; why shouldn’t the Mann Chinese 6 have its own page? It is (and was constructed as) a separate theater (though in an adjacent building) with its own entrances and box office, and opened after the Grauman name was restored to the classic Chinese. It isn’t like the two cinemas that were once next to Grauman’s that operated as Grauman’s (Mann’s) Chinese 2 and 3 until they were torn down for the complex next door. The matter isobviously up to the moderators, but I think a separate entry is called for; the headnote could clarify any connection to to Graumann’s Chinese, but I really see very little.
The pictures above appear to be not of Grauman’s Chinese, but of Mann’s Chinese 6 which opened as a part of the Hollywood-Highland complex which includes the Kodak Theater.
I think is possible, if not likely, that the Robert-Morton organ that you noted (above, on October 30, 2007) was actually installed in the East Cleveland Euclid. If so that might shed light on the opening date of of the East Cleveland Euclid. You have an entry on the Doan page that indicates an Austin organ went into that theater in 1919.
This appears to be the third theater named Euclid to have existed in the Cleveland area. The original Euclid Theater seems to have disappeared by 1920 as the Loew’s Euclid was operating on St. Clair near 105th (a seemingly odd name for the a theater at that location). This theater now appears to have opened in the 1920s after Loew’s Euclid became the Doan.
It would then appear that this Euclid Theater had a rather short life, if it opened in 1914 and the Loew’s Euclid was operating as of 1920. It would also now appear that there were actually three theaters in the Greater Cleveland area that were named Euclid. I would guess that the one in East Cleveland probably opened in the late 1920s or early 30s, after Loew’s Euclid became the Doan.
One of the oddest things about this theater is that neither of its names seems to make sense, at least not from from looking back on where it was located over fifty years later. One wonders why Loew’s named the theater Euclid when it was on St. Clair. There is a Doan Avenue in Cleveland, but it does not cross St. Clair, though it does cross Euclid Avenue near the Windemere Rapid Transit station. The area around 105th and Euclid was known as Doan’s Corners, but that area is a considerable distance from 105th and St. Clair which is where this theater was approximately located.
Good question; here’s another ad for the same film which, according to the Imdb was indeed a 1920 release. The Rivest listing for the East Cleveland Euclid indicates it may have opened in that year. If what dave-bronx says in the note above is accurate, then the East Cleveland Euclid may have been at one time a Loew’s operation, perhaps at or soon after its opening. Prior to the mid-1960’s, although Loew’s is most generally connected with its operation of the Ohio, Stillman, and State theaters downtown, the Park at 105th and Euclid, and the Granada on the west side, it may have operated a few other theaters in Cleveland at one time or another; it did operate the Allen for awhile early in that theater’s history.
The thing that so many in Hollywood still don’t understand about 3-D (just as they did not really understand about Cinerama and the best of 70mm photography) is that the technique needs to enhance the immersive or participative quality of the film, otherwise it becomes just a promotional or exhibition gimmick. The right story and director are essential.
For example, consider the original “House of Wax:” the 3-D effects (which admittedly did include some scenes of things thrown at the audience) was principally used to involve the audience in the peculiar world of the film, especially the ambience of the two museums in the film, foggy streets, etc. Similarly, think about “How the West Was Won” – the segments, directed by Henry Hathaway, who understood both the possibilities and limits of Cinerama, outshine the part directed by John Ford, who despite his accomplishments in so many other films, did not like or understand how to use the Cinerama cameras to involve the audience. Or consider “Lawrence of Arabia” and “2001” where Lean in the former used 70mm to immerse the viewer in the immensity and heat of the desert, and Kubrick in the latter, to place us in the vastness of space and the universe.
If spatial dimensionality is really not critical to the story being told, I’d say don’t bother with 3-D. If 3-D films become a repetitive variations on the clunker “Comin' at Ya” then 3-D will fade away again.
Some Cinerama films were shown at the Falls Theater in Cuyahoga Falls, OH. Were you planning to to consider this as a separate market or include it in the Cleveland retrospective?
I knew that this was the case with regard to D-150 equipped houses, but I was not aware that Cinerama, Inc. had a similar policy. I guess the fee must have been exorbitant or exhibitors did not in general think it was worth it as I cannot recall very many instances of 70mm non-Cinerama films being promoted this way.
I assume that advertising “Around the World in Eighty Days” as being shown in Cinerama was a local promotional idea. The screen at the Cinema 1 (later the Showcase Cinemas) was not that deeply curved (compared to the Paramount’s) and only 70mm Cinerama films played there; I suppose any 70mm film could have been shown there with minimal distortion. There were a couple cases I have read about, especially in Europe, where a few other films (such as “Song of Norway”) were advertised as being “presented in Cinerama” or “playing on the big Cinerama screen”. I don’t know if the Cinerama, Inc. folks knew about this or if they objected.
I assume that advertising “Around the World in Eighty Days” as being shown in Cinerama was a local promotional idea. The screen at the Cinema 1 (later the Showcase Cinemas) was not that deeply curved screen (compared to the Paramount’s) and only showed 70mm Cinerama films played there; I suppose any 70mm film could have been shown there with minimal distortion. There were a couple cases I have read about, especially in Europe, where a few other films (such as “Song of Norway”) were advertised as being “presented in Cinerama” or “playing on the big Cinerama screen”. I don’t know if the Cinerama, Inc. folks knew about this or if they objected.
I think it is unlikely that this theater was ever called the Harding; the big Harding Theater (operated by B&K) just a few blocks away on Milwaukee opened in 1925 and was demolished in 1963. In addition there was a Harding Theater on E. 55th Street in Chicago that apparently operated from about 1918.
That was my impression; as far as I know, CinemaNow is a legitimate subscription service where one is legally allowed to download films upon paying a fee, like iTunes or similar music downloading sites.
My concern was that the more these services become available, especially with enhancements in picture quality and the inevitable price reduction that comes with competition, more and more people will choose to download movies and watch them on computers and home theater systems that can play downloaded films.
Thus, there becomes increasing less reason to go to a movie theater or have interest in theater preservation. It’s like the 1950s all over again, when the TV wrecking ball hit so many theaters. Matters aren’t helped when the theater-going experience is being so often undermined by audience behaviors (like cell phone use), irritating screen advertising, and other factors that only cause people to think to themselves, “Why should I put up with this when for less than the price of a ticket, I can download a high quality movie file and watch it in the comfort of my home?”
If movie theaters are going to survive, the industry will have to learn how to provide an experience that can’t be enjoyed at home. Cinerama anyone?
I don’t understand all the acronyms either, but for my money, since it really refers to movie downloading, it is almost anti-theater piece of news. It is at least marginally relevant, as this trend may make preservation efforts more difficult.
Here’s an updated link to the one posted by spectrum on May26, 2009:
http://www.slccfa.org/venue_capitol.asp
Indeed! (However, I would not consider “The Birds,” “Forbidden Planet,” or “War of the Worlds” as B movies).
I agree; what does it have to do with any particular theater, restoration or preservation issue, theater technology or exhibition concern?
It was nice to see on the Castro website that they have returned somewhat to the kind of programming that was typical of the 1980s; the screens even look like their brochures of that period.
I don’t follow; why shouldn’t the Mann Chinese 6 have its own page? It is (and was constructed as) a separate theater (though in an adjacent building) with its own entrances and box office, and opened after the Grauman name was restored to the classic Chinese. It isn’t like the two cinemas that were once next to Grauman’s that operated as Grauman’s (Mann’s) Chinese 2 and 3 until they were torn down for the complex next door. The matter isobviously up to the moderators, but I think a separate entry is called for; the headnote could clarify any connection to to Graumann’s Chinese, but I really see very little.
The pictures above appear to be not of Grauman’s Chinese, but of Mann’s Chinese 6 which opened as a part of the Hollywood-Highland complex which includes the Kodak Theater.
I think is possible, if not likely, that the Robert-Morton organ that you noted (above, on October 30, 2007) was actually installed in the East Cleveland Euclid. If so that might shed light on the opening date of of the East Cleveland Euclid. You have an entry on the Doan page that indicates an Austin organ went into that theater in 1919.
This appears to be the third theater named Euclid to have existed in the Cleveland area. The original Euclid Theater seems to have disappeared by 1920 as the Loew’s Euclid was operating on St. Clair near 105th (a seemingly odd name for the a theater at that location). This theater now appears to have opened in the 1920s after Loew’s Euclid became the Doan.
It would then appear that this Euclid Theater had a rather short life, if it opened in 1914 and the Loew’s Euclid was operating as of 1920. It would also now appear that there were actually three theaters in the Greater Cleveland area that were named Euclid. I would guess that the one in East Cleveland probably opened in the late 1920s or early 30s, after Loew’s Euclid became the Doan.
One of the oddest things about this theater is that neither of its names seems to make sense, at least not from from looking back on where it was located over fifty years later. One wonders why Loew’s named the theater Euclid when it was on St. Clair. There is a Doan Avenue in Cleveland, but it does not cross St. Clair, though it does cross Euclid Avenue near the Windemere Rapid Transit station. The area around 105th and Euclid was known as Doan’s Corners, but that area is a considerable distance from 105th and St. Clair which is where this theater was approximately located.
A 1941 picture of the theater as the Heights:
View link
And an ad from 1947:
View link
Ad from 1959:
View link
It was indeed the Colony Art Theater for while: Here’s an ad for the showing of “La Dolce Vita:"
View link
Ad for stage and screen show at the RKO Palace in 1950:
View link
Cinerama ad in 1956:
View link
Actually, the answer was available here on CT all along – The Doan Theater in Cleveland was formerly Loew’s Euclid.
Good question; here’s another ad for the same film which, according to the Imdb was indeed a 1920 release. The Rivest listing for the East Cleveland Euclid indicates it may have opened in that year. If what dave-bronx says in the note above is accurate, then the East Cleveland Euclid may have been at one time a Loew’s operation, perhaps at or soon after its opening. Prior to the mid-1960’s, although Loew’s is most generally connected with its operation of the Ohio, Stillman, and State theaters downtown, the Park at 105th and Euclid, and the Granada on the west side, it may have operated a few other theaters in Cleveland at one time or another; it did operate the Allen for awhile early in that theater’s history.
The thing that so many in Hollywood still don’t understand about 3-D (just as they did not really understand about Cinerama and the best of 70mm photography) is that the technique needs to enhance the immersive or participative quality of the film, otherwise it becomes just a promotional or exhibition gimmick. The right story and director are essential.
For example, consider the original “House of Wax:” the 3-D effects (which admittedly did include some scenes of things thrown at the audience) was principally used to involve the audience in the peculiar world of the film, especially the ambience of the two museums in the film, foggy streets, etc. Similarly, think about “How the West Was Won” – the segments, directed by Henry Hathaway, who understood both the possibilities and limits of Cinerama, outshine the part directed by John Ford, who despite his accomplishments in so many other films, did not like or understand how to use the Cinerama cameras to involve the audience. Or consider “Lawrence of Arabia” and “2001” where Lean in the former used 70mm to immerse the viewer in the immensity and heat of the desert, and Kubrick in the latter, to place us in the vastness of space and the universe.
If spatial dimensionality is really not critical to the story being told, I’d say don’t bother with 3-D. If 3-D films become a repetitive variations on the clunker “Comin' at Ya” then 3-D will fade away again.