Cineworld Cinema - Leicester Square

Ian: Interesting, I can’t say I remember it not filling almost the full width. Wonder if they’ve changed projectors? Perhaps the screen was intended for a future projection upgrade which has been shelved? (Ideal to upgrade to Dolby Vision with Christie 6P laser projection as it already is equipped for Atmos… but the politics around that must be delicate to say the least!)

Of course the problem is the screen “floats” off the wall… and you can clearly see that when entering from the sidedoor. (Visible in your photo “IMPACT SCREEN TO REAR.”)

FanaticalAboutOdeon—Picturehouse Central-and other venues—really show how there is very much a niche market for cinemas featuring “theatrical” trappings—but perhaps not for the “multiplex hoards”!

Would be nice if the Empire Leicester Square fitted tabs—and the Chinese reinstated them for their IMAX screen—but I doubt there is sufficient space. Vertically, from what I can tell, the screen is jammed right up against the rafters. Horizontally, the top of its sides are up against boxed out sections which I assume hide parts of the roof structure.

I do think the IMPACT screen could use losing a few rows, reducing the screen size, and having some sort of proscenium feature with tabs etc.

With regard to tabs and attendant lighting, I ought to credit other West End cinemas where such features are alive and well. NFT One was originally designed with solid panels moving across the screen in place of tabs but these were replaced some years ago with silver satin tabs lit by footlights and very nice they look too. The present Curzon Mayfair’s main screen was designed to be exposed all the time with spotlights projecting spheres of coloured light on the screen, here, too, within a few years tabs were installed and effectively lit by the existing spotlights. The same thing happened at the erstwhile Odeon, St. Martin’s Lane which opened with a “floating” or suspended screen and frame while the wall behind the screen was floodlit before and after performances and during intermissions – about the time the Odeon ceased being “Odeon Disney” and reverted to more traditional, if selective, programming, a track and neutrally coloured tabs lit by spotlights were installed. The recently and beautifully restored Regent Street cinema has silver tabs lit by footlights from day one. The largest screen at the brand new PictureHouse Central has exquisite tabs in turquoise, orange and silver reflective fabric.
All is not lost therefore and, if the will, the budget and the space were there at the Empire, Leicester Square to retro-fit tabs, it would be far from the first cinema to do so.

“my question is, “back in the day,” was the average cinema-goer enthused by cinema interiors” …

Difficult to quantify but I suspect yes to a certain extent. The “roadshow” films had reserved seats, souvenir brochures, and an atmosphere more akin to theatre than cinema. And the way films were distributed through the circuits and regions made the venue more special. There was also very much a heirachy of flea pit through to posh cinemas – and a circle seat at a Palace was the place to be. I (and friends) certainly travelled some distances to get to a good cinema (Embassy Chesham).

But stark truth is – aren’t we just the dying act of the dinosaurs here (myself definitely included)?

I have been a member of the CTA (UK Cinema group)for 4 decades. There are still people there that I met on my first visits, but far fewer new members. The age of the stalls and circle cinema with even one set of screen tabs is largely over. It is great that there are still people who remember the style and glamour of the past – but that is what it is – the past. I try to capture it where I find it (Carlton Westgate take a bow) but I struggle to find the enthusiasm to photograph the average (and they are all average) multi-plex. I wish I had known of the future decimation of the Odeons and ABC’s back in the 1970’s – I would have tried much much harder to record them.

Looking into the future does anyone think there will be a multi-plex appreciation society? I don’t know if the blandness is consumer led or whether it is all todays cinema-goers know and expect, and I deplore the decline in presentation standards exacerbated by digital. At a live screening at the Reel in Grantham recently I had to go find someone to turn the house lights off after the interval, at the SJT in Scarborough last week it was full minute (there was a helpful on-screen clock) before anyone turned on the house lights after act 1 of Hangmen. It is all automated (badly) and showmanship has exited via the fire-escape ladder!

I wouldn’t assume every “man in the street” was aware multiplexes, or sub-divided cinemas like the Empire, only ever have one IMAX screen and, if they must have anything other that “EMPIRE” on the canopy, doesn’t the generic term “cinema” more truthfully describe what’s on offer? By all means have “IMAX” on the front-of-house but not instead of “CINEMA”. Now that IMAX installations are becoming common across the U.K., like Cinerama before it, the name is already becoming diluted – especially as presenting feature films in the format, spectacular though it undoubtedly is, in my experience, reminds the less initiated that it’s far from what they once experienced in Bradford, the Trocadero or BFI IMAX in London. Also akin to Cinerama, travelogue/documentary films can’t sustain a format for ever – at least digital product doesn’t have to be made especially for the system – but I’ve been asked more than once why “Gravity” and “Star Wars – the Force Awakens” had strips of blank screen above and below the actual picture. “Clinical and soulless” comes down to something much simpler i.e. the lack of anything remotely theatrical to subliminally create atmosphere and a sense of occasion – be it screen curtains, artistic lighting (ultra-bright, dimmable LEDs can be used with colour gels – they don’t have to be the three primaries constantly rising, fading and blending “Christmas tree” fashion through the single and secondary hues) or internal architecture offering something other than variations on the black box principle. Look at George Cole’s Empire cinema of 1962 where the arcing ceiling sections and random gold coloured tiles breaking up the monotony of such vast spaces – was it such a dreadful place to watch and hear films? Not in my experience.

The facade is hideous and as I have said before on these pages, whilst I respect the classically informed work of Thomas Lamb, it certainly isn’t to my taste and the facade is the last (visibly) remaining section. The mismatched balcony only serves to make it worse. Better off covering it up again!

That said, the balcony is, as far as I’m aware, only used by the casino as an outdoor section of a bar—so I’m not sure how much of a “copy” of the OLS' balcony it is?

There are many questionable aspects of IMAX’s marketing, but the proof is in the pudding—they do have their own (often patented) technologies and in-house R&D. One has to consider that the IMAX signs alone are effectively worth a substantial sum in terms of advertising—given Westminster Council’s strong presumption of “no adverts.”

IMAX only ever have one auditorium within a multi-screen cinema.

On the subject of “clinicial and soulness”—I’ve often wondered, in a broader and general sense, whether this comes down to the use of old materials/products. For instance, the plaster tiles in Empire 1 were “unique” in the sense that one presumably not find them anywhere else today, but were surely a factory-made product. Stretch fabric wall coverings over acoustic absorption are not “unique”—but certainly technically superior. (Of course, cold cathode lights are “warm” whilst LEDs aren’t—but that’s another story.)

Ian: Thank you for posting links to those nice photos.

It all looks cold, clinical and soulless……………….

Some remarkable photos of the Empire auditorium block under construction in 1927…

This one in particular puts the Screen 1 conversion into context. As the IMAX screen is positioned slightly past the “kink” in the righthand wall, it can be seen how narrowly it avoids the roof structure, with the middle of the screen behind the truss, and the sides ahead of it.

More photos:

Steelwork 1 Steelwork 2

It can be seen that the Coles-designed auditorium ceiling follow(s/ed) the shape of the roof, particularly the curved section adjacent to the booth.

The dome of the Lamb-designed auditorium under construction:

Dome 1 Dome 2

N.B. I am posting this is a matter of interest and to provide a record on this excellent site, rather than as a value judgement of any particular iteration of the Empire Leicester Square, although it goes without saying that the Coles-designed auditorium must stand as the canonical version.

Compared to the BFI Odeon IMAX at Waterloo and the National Media Museum IMAX in Bradford, the Leicester Square installation felt decidedly inferior and the auditorium too shallow. I left with a headache, something I seldom suffer, and I’m afraid “left” is the operative word. While most would either not notice or just accept the LED lighting around the vast, naked screen, it fails to replicate the remarkable, cold cathode system which so attractively bathed the Empire Cinema/One auditorium and recalls Christmas tree LEDs just constantly pedalling through the hues as a gesture by architects as opposed to a lighting designer. The foyer, and facilities at that level, was excellent although the entrance area between the pavement and the stairs was very tacky on my visit. Our views are inevitably somewhat esoteric and I respect those of fellow cinema fans who still enjoy what’s on offer at the Empire. It’s just not for me.

The Screen 1 conversion details are very interesting and appreciated. Sadly it’s all theory to me now as one visit to the IMAX screen was enough. Having loved the Empire Cinema/One since 1971, the present “pretend multiplex” has no charm whatsoever. The only cinema in Leicester Square I visit these days has a 120' black tower.

I have now paid a visit to the Empire LS to see “Star Wars: The Force Awakens.”

A few comments on the “IMAX with Laser” system.

As promised, it is capable of resolving excellent levels of details, freedom from pixellation (end credits, for example), and the colour rendition is outstanding—light sabres, for instance, look very “fluorescent” and “neon-like.”

Black levels are good, though not zero level as IMAX implies.

The caveat is that it feels very much like a “1st generation” system—if not quite out of the prototype stage. It must be stressed that most of these are minor issues, but they are enough to be distracting and signal to the brain “this is not a window onto a fictional reality… it is digital projection.”

There appear to be some minor digital image processing artefacts. Furthermore, a slight dithering was visible, manifesting as very fine grain; and I am not sure if the laser speckling issue has been completely resolved.

The “IMAX with Laser” system uses Dolby 3D (!) glasses (due to patent issues.) Before the main feature, sometimes only one projector was in use and putting on the glasses revealed as such as the image appeared to be visible in only one eye. Unfortunately, closing that eye revealed a surprising level of crosstalk in the other eye.

With the 3D glasses on, at times the extremities of the screen exhibited noticeable colour shift with a distinct purple (IIRC) tint; and the image brightness was insufficient.

In a brief discussion with a member of staff after the film, he expressed the view that the glasses aren’t big enough, and this needs to be fixed. Thus, this lends weight to my contention that the system is still a work in progress.

The laser projection system is punishing in revealing the limitations of the source material—and “Star Trek: The Force Awakens” was largely shot on 35mm.

(I did not like the movie.)

“IMAX with Laser” is, in my view, almost there and if/when niggling points are ironed out it will be excellent. I reiterate that I am being ultra-picky (in view of the grandoise promises made by IMAX)—as it stands this is a spectacular moviegoing experience.

Finally, as the full screen width is now filled, not only is the image even more immersive—but a surprising benefit is, when seated in the middle of the auditorium, the design of the IMAX conversion of Screen 1 looks better proportioned and harmonious.