The whole ‘Ken Livingstone: Boon or Bane’ is an intriguing discussion…but not germane to what I was getting at. Which was that when you disassociate yourself from urban living spaces, you end up with a mighty mess down the road, part of which is the decimation of cultural landmarks such as movie palaces.
I can think of three examples of this, from personal experience: Hamilton, ON…Norfolk, VA…and Buffalo, NY. Often this is the result of the notion that ‘Cities are Bad’. People develop the peripheries of the cities (more money to be made, everything is ‘new’) and the core dies. And to bring back a city core is a daunting prospect.
You know…sometimes peoples' observations here are so revealing. (And I don’t mean that in a complimentary way.)
It fascinates me that just as so many are proprietorial about film in general, there’s also a tendency to feel the same way about a movie palace and what it ‘should’ be showing. A theatre that is fighting its battles towards full restoration. So many of these proffered opinions are, given the commenters aren’t dealing with the issues that the Friends of the Loew’s are dealing with, not in the least bit qualified ones.
Nostalgia is one thing. The business of trying to resurrect a facility to be a standalone, one that can thrive to the best of its abilities in a modern context is another. The two might not be mutually exclusive…but I suspect they’re less aligned than certain posters might be willing to admit.
Regarding my comment about the state of cities in the world, the prejudice against them, here’s a starter article; I’m sure there tons online dealing with the subject. (Google the title of the book, ‘The Endless City’) This is an interesting puzzle piece.
Al, this is my point: there wasn’t the post-WWI surge, the wherewithal to make this ‘encroachment’ an issue. The default setting (‘Redevelopment, redevelopment, redevelopment!’) was never established. So it never became the issue it did, on these shores.
And…
And while I know this isn’t a political forum, and I’ve had no intention of injecting into the discussion contentious conjectures, maybe we’re all adult enough to be able to venture off the safe path…if only for a moment or two. So…
America was predicated on the idea of ‘not being somewhere else’. Of ‘a new start’. Of ‘leaving everything and everybody else behind’. Of isolationism. To me, having lived there, having visited there since my childhood, having family there for decades now, my belief is that there are certain values extant at the DNA level. Most of them aren’t even discussed. They’re unconscious ‘self-evident truths’.
One of these truths is that, aside from those instances that afford chest-thumping, parade-inducing, flag-waving pride, the past is not generally revered. Heritage is not generally held in high esteem. There is far more a tendency in the US (most certainly in comparison with many European situations) to bulldoze and redevelop than there is to cherish heritage, to respect the past, to integrate it with the future. The most simplistic examples I can think of are a) movie theatres and b) sports stadiums. But here’s a very good one, one not so ‘simplistic’: Grand Central Terminal in NYC. That it was ever deemed suitable for demolition is proof-positive of this mindset…and not just on the part of myopic developers.
Take a look at media: there is so much of an emphasis placed on new tv shows. New music. New movies. Take a look at the marketplace. Everyone wants ‘New! New! New!’ There is far more value placed on ‘next year’s model’ than last year’s…unless we start to get into nostalgia…and here’s where the paradox occurs, one that brings into play the endemic American tradition of celebration. (My critical observations aside, nobody does ‘celebration’ like the US.) America is an acquisitional society. It consumes at a rate like no other. And in this consumption, it tends to look forward, not back. Honestly, if this wasn’t the case, you’d see far less of a decimation of movie palace heritage than you do. (And just to forestall any rebuttals to this suggestion, I’m not saying that in other cultures all theatres have survived. I’m merely saying that renewal has far more cachet in the US than in other cultures.)
What’s made this mindset all the more potent is the entrepreneurial spirit in the US, the ideology of innovation, of sticktoitness, of dreaming a dream and pursuing it. Given these two aspects, a general tendency to regard ‘new’ as being better than ‘old’, and a general drive to affluence…‘progress’…should what we see in American cities relating to this subject -the sad loss of cultural heritage- be so surprising?
Having lived in the UK myself for years, I can tell you that the difference between the US and UK is quite simple: they never underwent a post-WWII boom. Period. Whereas America expanded rapidly, the UK had rationing through the early 50s. So really, the notion that things were ‘protected’ from happening as they did Stateside is a bit of a misconception. More to the truth, they simply never had the ‘chance’ to make some of the bad decisions their American cousins did, because they were simply too busy re-building and recovering…and repaying their war-debts.
There is a general anti-city bias the world over; except in those countries where there is no option, the megalopolises must be mega-populated out of need. This anti-city bias means that people don’t really care all that much about the effects of rampant redevelopment or its sister, neglect. Cities in these situations are begrudged necessities. This, in the end, leads to landmark building such as those you mourn in Philadelphia being lost. When people don’t respect those centers where culture had once thrived…things die. What these people -and I’m talking about the regular populace as well as politicians- grasp too late is that cities are for people. That we were meant to live in them, thrive in them. But in our ‘cocooning’ world, people have been shirking cities. But I’ll tell ya; in the end, suburban life is a betrayal of mostly everything that we once believed Life should be about. Eventually, people come to realize that cities are not bad, in fact they drive the engine of the world we want to live in. They’re not only ‘acceptable’, they’re absolute necessities. And this realization is a real stinker when it’s finally made.
“Every other country in the world I can think of retains its cities as being its main population centers while safeguarding its rural and coastal areas as just that.
…
Truly, people living in foreign countries must be scratching their heads when they look at us!"
Considering how, in this discussion initiated by an item about luxury movie houses, you’ve fixated on Philadelphia and its sad movie palace history, these portions of your last post really indicate that you need to concertedly look beyond your borders. Spending some time online Googling recent news items dealing with the -globally consistent- prejudice against cities, how increasing population densities within urban areas is a key to best utilizing all manner of resources yet is fought at ever turn, will undoubtedly disabuse you of some of your clearly parochial perceptions.
“The post WWII “white flight†to the suburbs of American cities had more to do with the demise of movie palaces than any other element.”
Well…I beg to differ…but for now, I’m going to continue preparing this much-threatened ‘essay’ of mine, an attempt to stimulate further discussion, rather than respond to your post, Al.
“At the same time, I don’t see how I can blame myself for how the Mayfair Theatre building is now. And when I blamed others for its demise, show me one instance where I was unfair — and off the mark — in my doing so. I’m all ears.”
Honestly, I have no frame of reference for the Mayfair. It’s not even on my radar.
As I previously stated, you’re concentrating on one particular portion of this whole situation. I don’t know how to respond to you on this level because I’m not conversant with your specifics. Additionally, my curiosity is piqued primarily by the overall set of circumstances that has led to the need and popularity of this very site. I have my own heartbreaks I could regale with…including a death during a demolition…but so what? I’m much more interested in gaining understanding as to how we got her in a larger sense.
Um…putting aside your suggestion in your third paragraph as something other than a dismissive gesture…I’ll respond by saying this: you and I are looking at the same situation, but in entirely different ways.
We’re both in front of this enormous vista.
(I won’t bother to describe it, because quite frankly, doing that just mires this whole exercise in greater rhetoric, narrows the perspective all the moreso.)
Now, while you’re addressing a particular part of this ‘mess’, concentrating on what has most intimately injured you, fussing over a particularly personal element…
…I’ve stepped a few dozen paces back and I’m more interested in the bigger picture.
Honestly, I sympathize completely with your experiences in Philly. It’s not that I don’t have my own version of that. In fact, I’m in the early stages of constructing a website that deals with the celebration and tragedies of cinema history in my neck of the woods. But really; sometimes these ‘discussions’ remind me of a guy sitting in a bar endlessly bewailing a lost love. Someone he shared something with, once upon a time. Decades ago. I question the value of railing against time and tide. I don’t think it brings the guy at the bar any relief…and I’m not sure it helps anyone here that I’ve been reading the travails of.
Bottom-line to me, as I carry on with my analysis: ‘Movie Palaces: What Went Wrong?’, is that we’ve all been complicit in things ending up this way. Directly, indirectly, actively, passively…we’re all part of the very big, very complex reason why so many of our single-screen ‘cathedrals of film’ are gone…and have been made so in such ignominious ways. To adopt an ‘Us vs Them’ mindset, to believe that all of ‘this’ happened at the hands of some bad men… I mean… Come on.
Anyway. I hope at some point you find some peace, and that out of the Philadelphia darkness, some light appears. (And that it’s not a train at the end of the tunnel that you’re finally seeing.)
Well, then. as it appears there seem to be several different conversations going on here…tangentially connected at best…I’m going to withdraw to try to carve out my essay…which of course, as much as it will refer to a bigger picture, it will end up being a mere portion of an even bigger tableau than even that.
After all, is there a more compelling, more intoxicating, more infuriating a topic than Change (and the unwitting parts we’ve all played in it) ?
Some very cogent points you’ve made Al, I’m still digesting them.
I do have to say that your observations about exhibition are dead-on…but we’re still only looking at the situation from a modern perspective. And I suspect that most people here aren’t interested in how things are now…most of the strident opinions expressed here are made by people who are NOT die-hard cinema-goers, they’ve pretty much given up on the medium…they’re more interested in remembering a time long-past. But in order for today’s circumstances to have been created, the past sixty years need to be properly understood. Not just this time-frame’s worth of cinema-going history, but everything attached to Life over these six decades. Because nothing that’s happened to single-screen theatres, to the very basis of cinema-going has happened in a vacuum. Everything is inextricably connected.
TheatreBuff1: I’m sad that you’re -seemingly- not going to take up the challenge and suggest ways we might not have ended up this way, where we are now, with movie palaces rarities. Not because I’m sure things couldn’t have ended up any other way than the way they have, but in the exercise of trying to determine what could have been done differently, you might have gained a better understanding of the contributing factors.
I accept that your focus is on Philadelphia. And honestly, I’m additonally saddened by what you’ve indicated about the past history, the unfolding of the ‘pillaging’, and the current state of affairs. But to me, you’re ignoring the big picture. You’re focusing on ‘the crime’ and ignoring why ‘the crime’ took place in the first place. In a nutshell, you’re barking up the wrong tree…but that’s understandable; it’s a familiar tree, and you’re clearly happy with the rut you’ve made underfoot, it’s a comfortable place. : )
So; instead of waiting for someone, anyone out there to accept my challenge, I’m going to present a few paradigms myself, as an exercise of wanting to fully understand and appreciate the cause-and-effect machinery that has left most North American cities with a paucity of ‘cinema treasure’ heritage. Not here, not now, because this essay deserves whatever preparation and execution I can bring to it.
But I have to tell you: your ‘Titanic’ analogy lost me entirely. First, I don’t get what the ship represents…and secondly, what does it matter what you’ve ‘learned’ if you’re going to die? There are no lessons learned that will be carried on for ‘the next time’. Instead, all there really is to do is to listen to the band play…and complain about the damned iceberg.
Seriously; if you think that ‘Atonement’ was one of the ‘worst pictures of 2007’, then I’ve got a list of about fifty flicks that were FAR ‘worse’. No…make that 100.
“Atonement-Imagine how scary it was to pay $8.50 for this piece of crap.”
Um… Actually, I paid more than that, it was well worth it, I would have paid more, I would have been happy to have seen it win Best Picture at the Academy Awards…and I’ll admit it’s a HUGE pet peeve of mine for someone to be lazy and not differentiate between declaring they don’t like something and that something is ‘crap’. (I hardly think that a film nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars as well as being the winner at the BAFTAs can be, in any way, categorized as ‘crap’. It might not be what you liked, but really, you should be more careful when you spew.)
Is there any point in me looking forward to hearing yours, or anyone else’s propositions as to ‘How We Might Not Have Ended Up in This State, Cinema Treasures-wise’, or should I assume that people are more content to moan and sigh than to imagine a better way?
And as for what you’re referring to regarding ‘unifying people to a cause’…give me some examples. Not from the 40’s when film could -arguably- be seen as an effective way to unite nations during war, but NOW. In today’s world, with today’s values, today’s mindset, today’s isolationist, cocooning ways.
TheaterBuff1: I’ll admit, I’m fascinated by your polemics. Your comments such as “I’m not against individualism…”, and the such. And I appreciate that you’ve seen a city you love, decimated, changed, re-done in an image not at all desirous.
But I think perhaps the time has come to see the other side from you, given how much time and energy you’ve expended on declaiming. No, not ‘the other side’ as in ‘those responsible’. I refer to-
Well, allow me to issue this challenge, to you and anyone else bemoaning the current state of affairs regarding cinema-going: if you view today’s circumstances as ‘unsatisfactory’, tell us, in as much detail as you’re able, what ‘satisfactory’ circumstances would look like…and more importantly, provide the details as to how this would have, could have happened. Yes, I’m requesting some ‘alternative history’. Not just ‘This sucks, I wish it wasn’t like this!’ Put your money where your mouths are and provide a detailed scenario where you’re content with things not having changed the way they have.
I’m very curious about all this because much of what you say not only raises one or more eyebrows, but quite often, I’m speechless. (For example, the notion that any nation can generate ‘unity’ through watching movies in a single-screen theatre is…well…I’ll be kind and leave the space blank. To me, if that’s what it takes, the show’s over already.) I’m very much curious as to how much Those Who Frown would be willing to sacrifice in terms of what’s currently available to them in order to have preserved a bygone era…and moreover, whether they can acknowledge how interwoven everything is when discussing things-cultural, things-societal. (For example, the strident environmentalists out there who decry the used of the automobile, who maintain the need for mass transit, seem hard pressed to provide an ‘alternate history’ where the automobile was not at the center of our world, but rather, some magnificent means of moving people around ‘en masse’, wherein all urban and suburban planning was done around *this( paradigm, rather than that of the highway, road and street…and the myriad knock-on effects this shift would have had, in toto.)
I’m very much looking forward to how you might suggest we might not have reason to even be gathering at this site, our cathedrals of cinema never having gone away at all.
LMHG: From past discussions on the subject of ‘Why I hate going to multiplexes’, I think we’ve determined that what keeps you away is not the ferris wheels or the merry-go-rounds (or even the movie choices), but the behaviour of the patrons. Correct?
Expecting people to be as awestruck by the old ‘cathedrals of cinema’ experience is about as reasonable as expecting you or your kids to have the same general perspective and priorities and Life values as your parents or grandparents.
“But right now the way I see it, with few exceptions, we’re not going to see the great theaters again unless another Great Depression hits the U.S. — followed up with a leader with the stature of an FDR to lift us out of it once more…”
…and you can remove expectations…and reduce awareness of the world and Life in general…bring back true isolation practices…and people are prepared to go backwards. Good luck with that.
Are you actually serious in this comment? That not only do you believe that were all the factors lined up as you suggest (a fantasy if I ever heard one), but that people in general would want this? Do you put so much value on ‘what used to be’ that you can envision a return to those times? Your ‘great moviegoing experience’ only existed when it did because of the contemporary context: the movie palaces, the other entertainment options available, and most importantly, in general, a much simpler Life lived.
A ‘Great Depression’ wouldn’t provide the necessary backdrop. A cataclysmic event might…but honestly, if that were to happen, I hardly think that a ‘great moviegoing experience’ is going to be anywhere on the agenda.
Oh, wait; your suggestion was a late April Fool’s Day joke, right? : )
Al:
LMAO!
As the Brits would say: “What are you like?!?”
The key to making cities work is density. Only then can utilities and everything else be delivered cost-effectively.
And when you’ve got people living in cities…loss of things like movie palaces becomes less likely…because people are using them! What a concept!
The whole ‘Ken Livingstone: Boon or Bane’ is an intriguing discussion…but not germane to what I was getting at. Which was that when you disassociate yourself from urban living spaces, you end up with a mighty mess down the road, part of which is the decimation of cultural landmarks such as movie palaces.
I can think of three examples of this, from personal experience: Hamilton, ON…Norfolk, VA…and Buffalo, NY. Often this is the result of the notion that ‘Cities are Bad’. People develop the peripheries of the cities (more money to be made, everything is ‘new’) and the core dies. And to bring back a city core is a daunting prospect.
You know…sometimes peoples' observations here are so revealing. (And I don’t mean that in a complimentary way.)
It fascinates me that just as so many are proprietorial about film in general, there’s also a tendency to feel the same way about a movie palace and what it ‘should’ be showing. A theatre that is fighting its battles towards full restoration. So many of these proffered opinions are, given the commenters aren’t dealing with the issues that the Friends of the Loew’s are dealing with, not in the least bit qualified ones.
Nostalgia is one thing. The business of trying to resurrect a facility to be a standalone, one that can thrive to the best of its abilities in a modern context is another. The two might not be mutually exclusive…but I suspect they’re less aligned than certain posters might be willing to admit.
Regarding my comment about the state of cities in the world, the prejudice against them, here’s a starter article; I’m sure there tons online dealing with the subject. (Google the title of the book, ‘The Endless City’) This is an interesting puzzle piece.
Al, this is my point: there wasn’t the post-WWI surge, the wherewithal to make this ‘encroachment’ an issue. The default setting (‘Redevelopment, redevelopment, redevelopment!’) was never established. So it never became the issue it did, on these shores.
And…
And while I know this isn’t a political forum, and I’ve had no intention of injecting into the discussion contentious conjectures, maybe we’re all adult enough to be able to venture off the safe path…if only for a moment or two. So…
America was predicated on the idea of ‘not being somewhere else’. Of ‘a new start’. Of ‘leaving everything and everybody else behind’. Of isolationism. To me, having lived there, having visited there since my childhood, having family there for decades now, my belief is that there are certain values extant at the DNA level. Most of them aren’t even discussed. They’re unconscious ‘self-evident truths’.
One of these truths is that, aside from those instances that afford chest-thumping, parade-inducing, flag-waving pride, the past is not generally revered. Heritage is not generally held in high esteem. There is far more a tendency in the US (most certainly in comparison with many European situations) to bulldoze and redevelop than there is to cherish heritage, to respect the past, to integrate it with the future. The most simplistic examples I can think of are a) movie theatres and b) sports stadiums. But here’s a very good one, one not so ‘simplistic’: Grand Central Terminal in NYC. That it was ever deemed suitable for demolition is proof-positive of this mindset…and not just on the part of myopic developers.
Take a look at media: there is so much of an emphasis placed on new tv shows. New music. New movies. Take a look at the marketplace. Everyone wants ‘New! New! New!’ There is far more value placed on ‘next year’s model’ than last year’s…unless we start to get into nostalgia…and here’s where the paradox occurs, one that brings into play the endemic American tradition of celebration. (My critical observations aside, nobody does ‘celebration’ like the US.) America is an acquisitional society. It consumes at a rate like no other. And in this consumption, it tends to look forward, not back. Honestly, if this wasn’t the case, you’d see far less of a decimation of movie palace heritage than you do. (And just to forestall any rebuttals to this suggestion, I’m not saying that in other cultures all theatres have survived. I’m merely saying that renewal has far more cachet in the US than in other cultures.)
What’s made this mindset all the more potent is the entrepreneurial spirit in the US, the ideology of innovation, of sticktoitness, of dreaming a dream and pursuing it. Given these two aspects, a general tendency to regard ‘new’ as being better than ‘old’, and a general drive to affluence…‘progress’…should what we see in American cities relating to this subject -the sad loss of cultural heritage- be so surprising?
Having lived in the UK myself for years, I can tell you that the difference between the US and UK is quite simple: they never underwent a post-WWII boom. Period. Whereas America expanded rapidly, the UK had rationing through the early 50s. So really, the notion that things were ‘protected’ from happening as they did Stateside is a bit of a misconception. More to the truth, they simply never had the ‘chance’ to make some of the bad decisions their American cousins did, because they were simply too busy re-building and recovering…and repaying their war-debts.
There is a general anti-city bias the world over; except in those countries where there is no option, the megalopolises must be mega-populated out of need. This anti-city bias means that people don’t really care all that much about the effects of rampant redevelopment or its sister, neglect. Cities in these situations are begrudged necessities. This, in the end, leads to landmark building such as those you mourn in Philadelphia being lost. When people don’t respect those centers where culture had once thrived…things die. What these people -and I’m talking about the regular populace as well as politicians- grasp too late is that cities are for people. That we were meant to live in them, thrive in them. But in our ‘cocooning’ world, people have been shirking cities. But I’ll tell ya; in the end, suburban life is a betrayal of mostly everything that we once believed Life should be about. Eventually, people come to realize that cities are not bad, in fact they drive the engine of the world we want to live in. They’re not only ‘acceptable’, they’re absolute necessities. And this realization is a real stinker when it’s finally made.
“Every other country in the world I can think of retains its cities as being its main population centers while safeguarding its rural and coastal areas as just that.
…
Truly, people living in foreign countries must be scratching their heads when they look at us!"
Considering how, in this discussion initiated by an item about luxury movie houses, you’ve fixated on Philadelphia and its sad movie palace history, these portions of your last post really indicate that you need to concertedly look beyond your borders. Spending some time online Googling recent news items dealing with the -globally consistent- prejudice against cities, how increasing population densities within urban areas is a key to best utilizing all manner of resources yet is fought at ever turn, will undoubtedly disabuse you of some of your clearly parochial perceptions.
America is not that unique. Seriously.
“The post WWII “white flight†to the suburbs of American cities had more to do with the demise of movie palaces than any other element.”
Well…I beg to differ…but for now, I’m going to continue preparing this much-threatened ‘essay’ of mine, an attempt to stimulate further discussion, rather than respond to your post, Al.
“At the same time, I don’t see how I can blame myself for how the Mayfair Theatre building is now. And when I blamed others for its demise, show me one instance where I was unfair — and off the mark — in my doing so. I’m all ears.”
Honestly, I have no frame of reference for the Mayfair. It’s not even on my radar.
As I previously stated, you’re concentrating on one particular portion of this whole situation. I don’t know how to respond to you on this level because I’m not conversant with your specifics. Additionally, my curiosity is piqued primarily by the overall set of circumstances that has led to the need and popularity of this very site. I have my own heartbreaks I could regale with…including a death during a demolition…but so what? I’m much more interested in gaining understanding as to how we got her in a larger sense.
Um…putting aside your suggestion in your third paragraph as something other than a dismissive gesture…I’ll respond by saying this: you and I are looking at the same situation, but in entirely different ways.
We’re both in front of this enormous vista.
(I won’t bother to describe it, because quite frankly, doing that just mires this whole exercise in greater rhetoric, narrows the perspective all the moreso.)
Now, while you’re addressing a particular part of this ‘mess’, concentrating on what has most intimately injured you, fussing over a particularly personal element…
…I’ve stepped a few dozen paces back and I’m more interested in the bigger picture.
Honestly, I sympathize completely with your experiences in Philly. It’s not that I don’t have my own version of that. In fact, I’m in the early stages of constructing a website that deals with the celebration and tragedies of cinema history in my neck of the woods. But really; sometimes these ‘discussions’ remind me of a guy sitting in a bar endlessly bewailing a lost love. Someone he shared something with, once upon a time. Decades ago. I question the value of railing against time and tide. I don’t think it brings the guy at the bar any relief…and I’m not sure it helps anyone here that I’ve been reading the travails of.
Bottom-line to me, as I carry on with my analysis: ‘Movie Palaces: What Went Wrong?’, is that we’ve all been complicit in things ending up this way. Directly, indirectly, actively, passively…we’re all part of the very big, very complex reason why so many of our single-screen ‘cathedrals of film’ are gone…and have been made so in such ignominious ways. To adopt an ‘Us vs Them’ mindset, to believe that all of ‘this’ happened at the hands of some bad men… I mean… Come on.
Anyway. I hope at some point you find some peace, and that out of the Philadelphia darkness, some light appears. (And that it’s not a train at the end of the tunnel that you’re finally seeing.)
stares at screen
Well, then. as it appears there seem to be several different conversations going on here…tangentially connected at best…I’m going to withdraw to try to carve out my essay…which of course, as much as it will refer to a bigger picture, it will end up being a mere portion of an even bigger tableau than even that.
After all, is there a more compelling, more intoxicating, more infuriating a topic than Change (and the unwitting parts we’ve all played in it) ?
“Shallow crude entertainment that looks classy.”
LMAO
Well, maybe that’s what the general movie-going public craves when it dresses up.
Some very cogent points you’ve made Al, I’m still digesting them.
I do have to say that your observations about exhibition are dead-on…but we’re still only looking at the situation from a modern perspective. And I suspect that most people here aren’t interested in how things are now…most of the strident opinions expressed here are made by people who are NOT die-hard cinema-goers, they’ve pretty much given up on the medium…they’re more interested in remembering a time long-past. But in order for today’s circumstances to have been created, the past sixty years need to be properly understood. Not just this time-frame’s worth of cinema-going history, but everything attached to Life over these six decades. Because nothing that’s happened to single-screen theatres, to the very basis of cinema-going has happened in a vacuum. Everything is inextricably connected.
‘Atonement’ wasn’t sold as a ‘Jane Austin’ (sic) novel', it was an adaptation of an Ian McEwan novel.
And honestly, a way-too-literate piece of film for the mainstream American filmgoing audience.
It that makes me sound like a snob…I am. But then I’m also a ‘writing for the masses’ novelist, so go figure. “I calls ‘em as I sees 'em.”
TheatreBuff1: I’m sad that you’re -seemingly- not going to take up the challenge and suggest ways we might not have ended up this way, where we are now, with movie palaces rarities. Not because I’m sure things couldn’t have ended up any other way than the way they have, but in the exercise of trying to determine what could have been done differently, you might have gained a better understanding of the contributing factors.
I accept that your focus is on Philadelphia. And honestly, I’m additonally saddened by what you’ve indicated about the past history, the unfolding of the ‘pillaging’, and the current state of affairs. But to me, you’re ignoring the big picture. You’re focusing on ‘the crime’ and ignoring why ‘the crime’ took place in the first place. In a nutshell, you’re barking up the wrong tree…but that’s understandable; it’s a familiar tree, and you’re clearly happy with the rut you’ve made underfoot, it’s a comfortable place. : )
So; instead of waiting for someone, anyone out there to accept my challenge, I’m going to present a few paradigms myself, as an exercise of wanting to fully understand and appreciate the cause-and-effect machinery that has left most North American cities with a paucity of ‘cinema treasure’ heritage. Not here, not now, because this essay deserves whatever preparation and execution I can bring to it.
But I have to tell you: your ‘Titanic’ analogy lost me entirely. First, I don’t get what the ship represents…and secondly, what does it matter what you’ve ‘learned’ if you’re going to die? There are no lessons learned that will be carried on for ‘the next time’. Instead, all there really is to do is to listen to the band play…and complain about the damned iceberg.
Ah… Now I understand… : P
long: Don’t apologize for your opinion. However…
Seriously; if you think that ‘Atonement’ was one of the ‘worst pictures of 2007’, then I’ve got a list of about fifty flicks that were FAR ‘worse’. No…make that 100.
Seriously.
“Atonement-Imagine how scary it was to pay $8.50 for this piece of crap.”
Um… Actually, I paid more than that, it was well worth it, I would have paid more, I would have been happy to have seen it win Best Picture at the Academy Awards…and I’ll admit it’s a HUGE pet peeve of mine for someone to be lazy and not differentiate between declaring they don’t like something and that something is ‘crap’. (I hardly think that a film nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars as well as being the winner at the BAFTAs can be, in any way, categorized as ‘crap’. It might not be what you liked, but really, you should be more careful when you spew.)
LOL!
Thanks for that, Al! Nicely put.
So.
Is there any point in me looking forward to hearing yours, or anyone else’s propositions as to ‘How We Might Not Have Ended Up in This State, Cinema Treasures-wise’, or should I assume that people are more content to moan and sigh than to imagine a better way?
And as for what you’re referring to regarding ‘unifying people to a cause’…give me some examples. Not from the 40’s when film could -arguably- be seen as an effective way to unite nations during war, but NOW. In today’s world, with today’s values, today’s mindset, today’s isolationist, cocooning ways.
WGTRay: Oh, I understood the point. I was speaking to the much larger issues presented.
TheaterBuff1: I’ll admit, I’m fascinated by your polemics. Your comments such as “I’m not against individualism…”, and the such. And I appreciate that you’ve seen a city you love, decimated, changed, re-done in an image not at all desirous.
But I think perhaps the time has come to see the other side from you, given how much time and energy you’ve expended on declaiming. No, not ‘the other side’ as in ‘those responsible’. I refer to-
Well, allow me to issue this challenge, to you and anyone else bemoaning the current state of affairs regarding cinema-going: if you view today’s circumstances as ‘unsatisfactory’, tell us, in as much detail as you’re able, what ‘satisfactory’ circumstances would look like…and more importantly, provide the details as to how this would have, could have happened. Yes, I’m requesting some ‘alternative history’. Not just ‘This sucks, I wish it wasn’t like this!’ Put your money where your mouths are and provide a detailed scenario where you’re content with things not having changed the way they have.
I’m very curious about all this because much of what you say not only raises one or more eyebrows, but quite often, I’m speechless. (For example, the notion that any nation can generate ‘unity’ through watching movies in a single-screen theatre is…well…I’ll be kind and leave the space blank. To me, if that’s what it takes, the show’s over already.) I’m very much curious as to how much Those Who Frown would be willing to sacrifice in terms of what’s currently available to them in order to have preserved a bygone era…and moreover, whether they can acknowledge how interwoven everything is when discussing things-cultural, things-societal. (For example, the strident environmentalists out there who decry the used of the automobile, who maintain the need for mass transit, seem hard pressed to provide an ‘alternate history’ where the automobile was not at the center of our world, but rather, some magnificent means of moving people around ‘en masse’, wherein all urban and suburban planning was done around *this( paradigm, rather than that of the highway, road and street…and the myriad knock-on effects this shift would have had, in toto.)
I’m very much looking forward to how you might suggest we might not have reason to even be gathering at this site, our cathedrals of cinema never having gone away at all.
LMHG: From past discussions on the subject of ‘Why I hate going to multiplexes’, I think we’ve determined that what keeps you away is not the ferris wheels or the merry-go-rounds (or even the movie choices), but the behaviour of the patrons. Correct?
Expecting people to be as awestruck by the old ‘cathedrals of cinema’ experience is about as reasonable as expecting you or your kids to have the same general perspective and priorities and Life values as your parents or grandparents.
Do you?
“But right now the way I see it, with few exceptions, we’re not going to see the great theaters again unless another Great Depression hits the U.S. — followed up with a leader with the stature of an FDR to lift us out of it once more…”
…and you can remove expectations…and reduce awareness of the world and Life in general…bring back true isolation practices…and people are prepared to go backwards. Good luck with that.
Are you actually serious in this comment? That not only do you believe that were all the factors lined up as you suggest (a fantasy if I ever heard one), but that people in general would want this? Do you put so much value on ‘what used to be’ that you can envision a return to those times? Your ‘great moviegoing experience’ only existed when it did because of the contemporary context: the movie palaces, the other entertainment options available, and most importantly, in general, a much simpler Life lived.
A ‘Great Depression’ wouldn’t provide the necessary backdrop. A cataclysmic event might…but honestly, if that were to happen, I hardly think that a ‘great moviegoing experience’ is going to be anywhere on the agenda.
Oh, wait; your suggestion was a late April Fool’s Day joke, right? : )
My bad.
If you want to see a great take on an elite experience in movie-viewing, check out the Commodore in Portsmouth, VA.
Great food, great films…and great prices.