Stanley Theatre
2932 Kennedy Boulevard,
Jersey City,
NJ
7306
2932 Kennedy Boulevard,
Jersey City,
NJ
7306
25 people
favorited this theater
Showing 26 - 50 of 144 comments
Does anyone happen to know what the mythological paintings that were originally in the vault over the staircase looked like? Or what stories they were of? I’m writing a paper for a class about the transformation of this building, so any information that anyone remembers would be much appreciated!
Also, someone mentioned that there used to be statues around. I hadn’t seen any of them in the old photographs (though I haven’t seen that many old photographs) so if anyone remembered more details about these too, that would be fantastic.
As someone who has attended services at this theatre for many years, I can tell you that it is a sight to behold.
A nice link to a couple of small photos of the outside of the theatre is this:
View link
So for those who state that it is not a 100% restoration, keep in mind the theatre had been vacant for years, and it was in extreme disrepair. Had not Jehovah’s Witnesses stepped in to restore it, it would have no doubt been demolished. I know individuals who volunteered their time to help restore this magnificent theatre, and I remember hearing horror stories of the conditions, including water damage and rats! In addition, they had to remove many, many coats (over ten) of paint on the original brass doors. The painstaking work they had to undergo is incredible. Among the many stories I have heard is that the original chandeliers, many which were damaged and broken, had to be restored, so the volunteers literally had to study old books on the lighting, bulbs, etc. for these historic pieces, so they could restore and replicate them.
It looks like an Italian Villa when you walk in the auditiorium; the lobby itself is incredible. The clouds and stars that appear as the lights are turned off are breathtaking. I loved the brass doors and original Ticket Booth as I peered inside to look!
The volunteers had certain guidelines per the New Jersey Historical Society; namely, that things had to be restored to their original appearance, generally speaking. I do know they found some historical treasures during their renovation, such as finding the lovely tapestry that appears on the wall on the bottom floor as you enter the restrooms, behind a wall when it was knocked down! I am sure there are many more interesting experiences.
I also remember the tiny, ornate, illuminated lights on each seat at the end of each row, which was designed originally for those entering the theatre late, in the dark, so they can find their seats. I had photos of these seats, as well as the rest of the theatre, that I had taken many years ago, but unfortunately they are gone :(
It is remarkable what Jehovah’s Witnesses have done to restore such an historical masterpiece. It is no wonder they received recognition and applause from the New Jersey Historical Society for their magnificent contribution to this historic theatre.
I encourage all of you to take the tour; you will be amazed and delighted!
Yes, I was wrong to call it a 100 percent restoration; but if you could have seen it in the 1970s, you would appreciate ANYTHING that was done to renovate it. Most people would have given up on the building. In my opinion is comes very close to being a complete restoration. Also, anything that was changed could be easily brought back to what it was originally, except for the non-original chandeliers which I guess are missing and gone forever. I wonder what a brand new replicated curved glass chandelier would cost these days?
Inside the entrance there are two walls filled with historical photographs showing this theatre as a cinema. How many churches do you know of that have a display of what was at the site before there was a church?
The restoration is perfect; and do not have to let the public in, never mind for a free tour — with a demonstration of the clouds and stars on the ceiling! How many atmospheric Brenographs are working these days? 2 or 3, maybe. They are to be commended in using them, even though such effects have very little to do with worship.
I for one an tickled pink that the theatre was fully restored, and that I can show it to friends for free, with the clouds and stars—even! I am Catholic BTW.
A tip of the hat to sugar and HowardBHaas.
Sugar has an excellent point about the tours. The last that I heard, the church that owns, restored,and wonderfully maintains the former United Artists movie palace in Los Angeles no longer offers tours. I’ve already stated above that the JWs should have our gratitude for making the Stanley so available to see, and indeed, for free. Yes, I know we won’t change Schmadrian’s mind, but everybody else- enjoy your free tour and the lovely set of postcards.
Mr. Schmadrian: Your comments ARE biased.
The JW’s bought the Stanley to use as a church, not as a sight-seeing tour. They needed an Assembly Hall and the Stanley was at the right price so they bought it AND restored it.
They are under NO obligation to let other people go in (free) and tour the place. You entered it knowing it had been bought by the JW’s and not some theatrical agency. They dont HAVE to mention anything other than the reason why they bought it.
The fact that it used to be a theatre is not important to anyone but theatre lovers like yourself and, therefore, needn’t be mentioned.
Be thankful that you could see it again when it could easily have been destroyed and stop griping about them not mentioning things that you already know anyway.
I myself, would go just to see the beauty of the place, the architecture. I dont care if it used to be a theatre, an old palace or a brothel; it IS a beautiful place to see and words are not necessary and they wouldnt change the beauty of the place.
“Shortly I hope to tour the Stanley Theatre and I am grateful to the volunteers who do this willingly, often without training. I am grateful to the owners for their allowing access and their care of the restoration, none of which is their obligation to the public. THANKS!”
Yes, thanks to the volunteers who do it ENTIRELY as a means to have a chance to a) show how much they worship their god, and b) show how proud they are of all the work they did at the Stanley on behalf of their god. (i.e. self-congratulating gloating)
Don’t think for a second that this is an altruistic gesture on their behalf. It ain’t. If it was, there’d be a cinematic aspect to the tour. There isn’t. This is a preening, ‘this is how much we will do for our faith’ gesture.
I may not have much time for organized religion, but this isn’t me being dismissive (I had a JW canvasser at my door yesterday, and we had a congenial exchange), this is me wanting to label something appropriately. Maybe others' thankfulness at this building being restored removes their objectivity. Such is a hallmark of need.
As a volunteer tour guide of restored building in Australia I was fasincated by the comments. Our group of volunteer tour guides came with differeing backgrounds, lives, personality and education etc. We were given a booklet with info on the complex to use for the tours. Some of the guides had a history with the building and its restoration, and along with their zest, made the tour a memorable experience. Others struggled to remember what was in the booklet…but did the best they could, as volunteers do.
Then I toured the British Musuem and got 2 volunteer tour guides. I noted they both worked from the same book but were like chalk and cheese, one had a real personality and made it WOW!
Shortly I hope to tour the Stanley Theatre and I am grateful to the volunteers who do this willingly, often without training. I am grateful to the owners for their allowing access and their care of the restoration, none of which is their obligation to the public. THANKS!
Odd question: are/were there any passenger elevators in the Stanley to whisk the audience up to the balcony — a la Radio City and the Roxy? or were elevators strictly a New York thing? Come to think of it, which movie palaces do have elevators?
Over the entrance these words are posted: Tours Daily Monday-Friday 8 am-5 pm. I think the building is used for religious services all through the weekend. My friend Jeff and I went on Good Friday a couple of years ago without calling ahead. There were lots of people in the offices, but someone still took the time out to give us the tour.
Having said all that, Warren’s right. Maybe it would be safer to call ahead and make sure.
Question about touring this place: What exactly do you have to do? Should I call to arrange a tour (it might just be me alone or maybe my wife and daughter if I can get them interested.) This might sound silly but I don’t want to appear dorky trying to figure it out by just stopping by on a weekend to get a tour. But I’d love to get a look around this place.
I feel its nice for people to tour and see the different styles of movie palaces such as the Stanley theatre. However, the wonderful experience of seeing a movie and then a stage show is missing. Unfortunately in today’s modern world it has become too expensive to do this. Now with DVD’s, cable and sattlelight tv, that former type of presentation would not have enough of an audience to make it profitable on a regular bases.
HowardBHaas: Clearly, we part company when it comes to access to former palaces. Because at the one end, we have a fully restored facility that functions as it once did, and at the other, a facility that’s no longer used in that capacity…and in fact, during its public access, passively denies that it was ever really enjoyed in any other form.
There’s no question that architecturally, The Stanley is a marvel to walk through. As would any other church based in a wholly-refurbished 80 year old former movie palace. But within my value system, I’m not so sure that there’s much enjoyment to be had when the ‘cord’s been cut’. In fact, I’m not so sure I’d want to visit other theatres that had undergone similar transformations, where the building’s heritage is denied. Maybe this seems to smack of ‘cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face’. But then it’s been seven weeks since I was at the Stanley and the visit still makes me nauseated. I don’t need to repeat that experience. I’d prefer to put my time and energies into supporting places like the Loew’s Jersey or Kings.
As with all other Cinema Treasures visitors, I die a little every time a palace is destroyed. (My home town now has no history left to it. Well…there’s The Tivoli on James Street, but that’s almost a foregone conclusion.) And these old ‘cathedrals’ will continue to be demolished, as hardly anything lasts anymore. (Good Lord, look at the debacle of NYC’s Grand Central Terminal! That alone proves how relentless ‘progress’ is. And how often it’s mentally vapid.)
So maybe this is why I flinch at your comment “We certainly would not want them to discontinue their wonderful and free tours because people start griping.” Frankly, I reserve the right to ‘gripe’. And seriously, if they reacted to criticism in this way, by denying the general public opportunities to ‘enjoy’ The Stanley for different reasons than for worshipers…then I’d question the sincerity of their ‘good Christian fellowship’.
PastRespects:
I appreciate what you’re suggesting, here. What it comes down to though, is that we’re talking about a group’s religion and their place of worship. Of everything, they take the most pride in the work they did for their god. As an indication of their faithfulness, their dedication. That supercedes any other elements, such as the fact that there had been fifty years worth of cinematic history that came before their restoration, and proper respect is due the heritage of the building. (Which is why they don’t address either element.)
To me, what we experienced there wasn’t just one tour guide’s slant on things. The JWs see being there in that building, under the circumstances they’ve found themselves in, as an act of providence on the part of their god. There are no representations of anything cinematic in the entire building. No nostalgia gallery, no mementos, nothing. So I doubt very much that they’d be welcoming of any suggestion to change the focus of the tours…which, as they stand, are self-congratulatory.
We certainly would not want them to discontinue their wonderful and free tours because people start griping. Anybody contacting them could take the approach “People are thrilled with the restoration and upkeep and the regular wonderful tours. You might get even more people interested in this great place if you could mention a bit of the entertainment history and maybe even have a display….”
Could a representative from Cinema Treasures contact a rep from the Stanley and extend some education about the issues Schmadrian raises? Maybe a compromise could be met…
I’ve also taken the tour of the Elgin-Winter Garden in Toronto. Fantastic theater. But, that’s different. The state’s preservation organization saved that theater from demolition, restored it,and still own and operate it- for theater. The Stanley was bought and reused by a church, as their meeting place, not for theater.
That said, as I may have said above, I’d be happier if the Stanley had a theater display and mentioned more on their tour. Still, I’d be thrilled if various movie palaces nationwide still in threat of demolition received new ownsership and TLC by churches no matter if they verbally ignore the history. Too many are still being demolished.
PastRespects:
I appreciate everything you’re saying here. But we’re talking apples and oranges.
I don’t think I’ve taken issue in any of my posts with anything the JW have done in terms of restoration. Not at all. How could anyone, once they’ve seen the place?
No, my issue is the lack of respect for the heritage that allowed them to take over the building in the first place; no cinema history, no Stanley, no JW church on that location. You’d think, by extension, that the fact that it was a renowned cinema for years was only incidental to their God giving them the chance to express their faith by restoring it.
In contrast, this past weekend, my NYC host and I took the Elgin and Winter Garden tour in Toronto. Formerly known as Loew’s Yonge, this ‘only working double-decker theatre in the world’ (and an atmospheric in The Winter Garden, to boot) has tours of the facility that pay respect to its nearly 100 years of history. There’s a real sense of ‘rightness’ to the Elgin/Winter Garden tour…whereas thinking of the Stanley’s still leaves me queasy…and entirely disinterested in ever going back. (I’d much rather spend my time across the street at the Jersey.)
In reply to Schmadrian, my husband and I have both been on the Stanley tour in the mid 80’s. We now make our living as historic preservation contractors. Five years prior, I had never heard of preservation. My lack of knowledge could very possibly have been taken as insensitivity, as Schmadrian commented about the Stanley Theater guide.
Preservation is a field all its own – like learning a new language. Preservation is as much about creating an atmosphere as it is restoring a building. The Stanley restoration was more about perfect timing than any desire to promote the theater industry. It was in the perfect location for the perfect price at the perfect time. Who can fault that? There were no claims of a restoration with specs and guidelines.
The work we do involves so many aspects other than the physical bricks and mortar. Local citizens and passersby will stop with unsolicited stories of their memory of the property. Some are thrilled with our work. Others irritated. For example: An elderly lady stopped by while we were renovating a one-room schoolhouse and demanded to know why we didn’t put the tin roof back on the school. I told her the specs called for shingles. She said a couple phrases about respecting the past and drove off in a huff. I called the architect over the project and inquired and he said that, in fact, the shingles were original. The tin was added as a quick fix for a leaky roof years later. I could never have changed that lady’s memories with a spec sheet. She had a right to those memories but I couldn’t change the roof.
So many times what one person thinks was authentic really wasn’t. If the Stanley had been restored using public money then they would have had to go by National Register standards for rehabilitation, it would have been different. Maybe that is at the root of the frustrating experience you mentioned….
Here is a 2007 photo:
http://tinyurl.com/3xjeql
Mr. Schmadrians statement that “the restoration was less about the theatre than it was about their god” is exactly the point for the Jehovah’s Witnesses. For them the Stanley fills a need, a need for a very large assembly. At the time when they were looking for property the Stanley was suitable and available at a bargin price. As I understand, much more affordable than obtaining land and building a new structure in the area.
To me the more remarkable story is not the preservation of the Stanley itself, but that so many JW’s would give so freely of themselves to painstakingly restore, and maintain this building, volunteering their labor and skills with no monetary compensation…and they make it free to the public (the tour guides are also volunteers).
After reading about Schmadrian’s tour, I realize how lucky we were to have that particular guide in 2005. She said practically nothing about religion and the faith, aside from pointing out some murals depicting scenes from the Bible. But she was very expert about the chandelier, the stars and clouds on the ceiling, the very large restrooms – in other words, the physical condition of the building itself. I’m sorry Schmadrian didn’t have the same happy experience I had at the Stanley.
There is a really old church on the corner of 20th St and 6th Avenue in Manhattan that dates to the 1800’s. The congregation dwindled and the curch was abandoned. It sat empty for years until, in the early 80’s, the church was turned into a disco called The Limelight. The church was saved! It was cleaned up and restored where appropriate. The crucifixes and the altar were removed though the beautiful stained glass windows remained and were now lit from the outside so that you could see them clearly from within at night. What an incredible dance space! Dancing under the stained glass gaze af saints! Some people found it disrespectful. I certainly did not. I spent many a fun evening there. It WAS a church that was decommissioned and now found an alternate use and was saved from demolition. Today, some 20 odd years later, the disco is now called Avalon and is still very much with us. The early controversy died down rather quickly. I say Hooray!
Back to the Stanley……
When the JW’s saved The Stanley, they did an incredible thing. They saved this building from destruction. Do I wish that someone other than a religious institution had done it. Yes, but only if the other organization was as determined to restauration as the JW’s were. There are many examples of Churches saving palaces: The Hollywood in Manhattan, The Metropolitan in Brooklyn, The Valenica and The Elmwood in Queens and, of course, Loew’s 175th Street masterpiece. I’m sure there are many others, but these might be the best examples.
I understand that they changed the JW’s changed the serpents heads in The Stanley into roses. Do I like it? Absolutely not! But what I wouldn’t give to have a slightly altered Roxy Theater in Manhattan! How I wish a church had stepped in and saved that greatest of all theaters from destruction even if they had to have a few alterations.
Hopefully, someday, the good lord will tell the JW’s to sell The Stanley and use the proceeds to help the poor and be like their brethren in plainer worship structures. Get them out of the buildings and back to door to door! Then, maybe we can have two Movie Palace/Performing Arts Centers in the gentrifying Journal Square!
To me it’s pretty simple. Kudos to Jehovah’s Witnesses for restoring the building. (And I really, really want to make clear here that none of what I’ve expressed has ANYTHING to do with religion. My religious views are entirely separate from the issue at hand.) The efforts, once you’ve seen the Before and After photos, and viewed the building, are staggering. (My previous experience in this regard is the Elgin/Winter Garden complex in Toronto. Google it, go to the site, see something similar.) There is no question that they’ve done a truly exemplary job. (I don’t even take issue with the painted-over murals or the ‘serpents heads’ on the lit exit signs that were changed to roses.) What I take issue with is…
Well, I’ll leave it to a friend of mine with whom I shared all of this to express (in no uncertain terms) the hard-line viewpoint: he saw it as pure opportunism.
They now have an incredible facility in which to worship. One that, in our tour guide’s own words, is diametrically opposed to the standard for Kingdom Halls, which is one of simplicity. If you take a look at the photos I have in the Picasa album, you can imagine how glorified their worship must be to them, while they’re there. It’s magnificent.
However… This building is (after the admitted work that was done by the JWs) a glorification of entertainment. You can’t eradicate that; the place was built to enhance the experience of movie-going, period. And in taking over The Stanley, they’ve transferred this glorification to that of their god. Which is fine. But to me, there is something decidedly distasteful about not ‘rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.’
This has nothing to do with the endless comments about the faith, made by the tour guide…but here’s the thing: I’m willing to bet that almost all the tours cater to movie palace lovers. (Jehovah’s WItnesses can access the facility during services.) So doesn’t common courtesy, doesn’t manners, doesn’t respect indicate an approach a little more informed than entirely ignoring the heritage that made it possible to have this wondrous opportunity laid before them?
What I’m railing against smacks of insensitivity, it smacks of intolerance. Two issues the Jehovah’s Witnesses have been combating for decades, since its inception. I’m not expecting them to continue showing films once a month to placate the filmgoers amongst us. (Although it makes me sad that no film will ever be seen there again.) But I would expect anyone who has taken over stewardship of such a building, who has taken the opportunity to restore it for their own purposes, to show respect to the traditions and history that made it all possible in the first place. Something, ANYTHING would have been better than the unadulterated silence that they proffered regarding why that building was there in the first place.
If we don’t have time or inclination in today’s world for respect…then we’re truly lost.