I heard that it interfered with the large screen projection. You would think that during the “restoration” it could have been reworked so as to be able to be withdrawn automatically up into the attic just as the movie began (and then lowered automatically at the end of the projection), rather the way the chandeliers are raised and lowered in the Kennedy Center, but that would have probably added a thousand dollars to the cost.
How many seats a theatre had/has affects its existence in a number of ways, and also how history looks at it. During planning, a builder/owner will investigate as to local fire laws that take effect after a given number of seats, and bank financing is often dependent upon costs figured per seat. Insurance also is figured on this basis, as well as taxation, to some extent. From an historical point of view, theatres built before 1950, of less than 1000 seats were usually of lesser architectural intent and interest, and if a theatre had fewer seats near larger theatres, its survival may have been directly affected by the greater number of seats nearby. Today, with multiplex cinemas being the norm, smaller auditoria are the norm, and giving the number of seats helps to put the economic and technical values of a location in perspective vis-a-vis all other cinemas as well as just neighboring cinemas. While it is true that location is a prime determining factor in the success of a theatre/cinema, the number of seats is also critical depending upon the format (films, or live action). Thus, one can glean a number of indicators from the seating capacities, in addition to the identity of a venue in doubt.
In regards to why the acoustics of the Bronx PARADISE and the Houston MAJESTIC were not supposedly as bad as those in the Chicago PARADISE, I cannot be sure, since I have never had the privilege of hearing shows in them, nor have I seen the drawings for them. I suspect that the height and curve of the ceiling is different in both of those huge auditoriums as compared to the Chicago venue, and sometimes only a small difference in dimensions and curves can be a big difference in acoustics. I’m sure you will agree that just because they were by the same architect does not, of course, mean that they had to have the same dimensions, etc. You are probably right that the differing decors and their dimensions were partially responsible for the differing acoustics also. And you are most certainly right about the original aims of the PARADISE; sound movies were still on the horizon when it was designed, and likely they didn’t entirely appreciate the adverse acoustics, or that such would ever really be a problem. As I mentioned, with music, only muddled sound may result, and audiences came mostly to see the silent movie, not judge the sound quality of the music. Sad to think that somehow if only sound films had not come to be, the great PARADISE might still be with us, but then maybe not. The great MARBRO is no longer with us either, good acoustics or not.
Vincent finds it hard to believe that they didn’t have mics in the huge movie palaces, and that is hard to understand from today’s perspective when almost everything is miced. Firstly, movie palaces were mostly built for silent movies, not the live, spoken word. Such speech as one might hear there under normal situations was only choral singing, where the aggregate volume was sufficient to penetrate to the rear of the auditorium. While a few of the largest theatres apparently did have rudimentary mics working off of a rudimentary amplifier, most did not, and so live, spoken word was NOT the norm at all. Few famous opera stars would sing at too large a hall for the simple reason that it could damage their voices if they were expected to project or ‘throw’ to the farthest balcony. This is one reason that few large palaces were then suitable to becoming opera houses. Today, virtually everything is miced, both because of our now customary reliance on technology, and because it lets the producers and sound men have more control over what the audience hears, as well as sometimes making up for the limitations of the acoustics of the hall.
Vincent implies that they over use microphones these days, even for the orchestra, and in some measure he is right. Sound reinforcement is not as pure as the source, no matter how much money is spent on good equipment, but the temptation to have more control and the electronic power to dazzle and even cow the audience is something irresistible to them, but sad to say, this is often abused. We must also not forget the profit motives of the merchants of such who persuade venues that powerful amps and speakers on several planes are essential to versatility, if not verisimilitude. As to lip-syncing to recordings: it is to be expected these days, since it can compensate for an out-of-condition performer, and does not include the noises of the stage, so it is rationalized that the crowd hears a more ‘clean’ sound track. Whether or not such constitutes a truly ‘live’ performance is up to the listener.
“Miking” started with radio, of course, and was largely perfected with the arrival of sound movies, but most theatres were not “miced” until the late Twenties or after that. The arrival of sound depended upon the arrival of practical amplifiers, and Western Electric was the pioneer in introducing sound service to theatres with the first vacuum tubes (called electronic “valves” at the time), and it was not long thereafter that sound ‘systems’ were introduced to theatres on a limited basis. Prior to that, actors were trained to ‘throw’ their voices out into the reaches of the theatre, which is what limited earlier theatres to smaller audiences due to the limitations of the human voice. Many a would-be actor/performer failed on the early stage due to the inability to throw their voice. Early microphones, such as the carbon and the taught-band types were large, heavy and inefficient, and thus introduced much ‘noise’ into the amplifier to mix with the noise created by early amplifiers and speakers themselves. For this reason, there was no such thing as the portable, personal mics that are now clipped to a costume, nor were overhead mics practical until the 30s, and then only in the movie studios on huge boom cranes. With the advent of efficient sound reinforcement and electret miniature microphones in the 1950s, the tradition of the ‘thrown’ voice faded away as performers learned that they could speak in normal volumes and be easily heard anywhere if properly miced. The untoward affect of all this was the presence of ugly speaker clusters in our theatres since no one could hear the people these days without them.
Jon Erickson’s description of the wonderful PARADISE does accurately relay why the theatre failed, but there have been questions about the nature of the acoustics that should be addressed.
The ornamentation and auditorium decorative draperies so usually seen in movie palaces were not just for show; it was essential to absorb and deflect the sound waves coming from the stage and organ/orchestra so that only one sound wave struck the listener. When sound hits an essentially smooth surface —such as the ceiling of an ‘atmospheric’ (stars and clouds) theatre— it is focused by that surface upon a single broad point in the audience, effectively amplifying the sound to those there, but dimming it for those elsewhere. Not only will others outside of that point not hear as much volume, but worse is the echo that develops as the main sound front hits the listener, followed by the delayed sound front reflected off the ceiling a split second later. Many smaller atmospherics had smaller effective reflective ceilings where the flanking false building fronts were closer to the surface and these absorbed or deflected much of the sound. In the over 3,000 seats in the PARADISE, the vault of the ceiling was just too vast to have any ornament or draperies near enough to counteract the reflection(s); remember the laws of physics: the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection/refraction. Thus when the sound front hit the ceiling, it crashed onto the audience mid-floor, AFTER they had heard the other sound fronts from the stage and elsewhere. During music this may just cause muddled sound, but speech can be rendered unintelligible. How could the great architect Eberson miss this fact during planning? I don’t know, since acoustics was not an unknown science even then. It may be that the owner put too much pressure on him for a triumphal spectacular, which he achieved, as opposed to a good concert hall. After all, ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune.’
The ornamentation and auditorium decorative draperies so usually seen in movie palaces was not just for show; it was essential to absorb and deflect the sound waves coming from the stage and organ/orchestra so that only one sound wave struck the listener. When sound hits an essentially smooth surface —such as the ceiling of an ‘atmospheric’ (stars and clouds) theatre— it is focused by that surface upon a single broad point in the audience, effectively amplifying the sound to those there, but dimming it for those elsewhere. Not only will others outside of that point not hear as much volume, but worse is the echo that develops as the main sound front hits the listener, followed by the delayed sound front reflected off the ceiling a split second later. Many smaller atmospherics had smaller effective reflective ceilings where the flanking false building fronts were closer to the surface and these absorbed or deflected much of the sound. In the over 3,000 seats in the PARADISE ( /theaters/344/ ), the vault of the ceiling was just too vast to have any ornament or draperies near enough to counteract the reflection(s); remember the laws of physics: the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection/refraction. Thus when the sound front hit the ceiling, it crashed onto the audience mid-floor, AFTER they had heard the other sound fronts from the stage and elsewhere. During music this may just cause muddled sound, but speech can be rendered unintelligible. How could the great architect Eberson miss this fact during planning? I don’t know, since acoustics was not an unknown science even then. It may be that the owner put too much pressure on him for a triumphal spectacular, which he achieved, as opposed to a good concert hall. After all, ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune.’
AS to organists and organs: snobbery exists in all levels of society, but more so in the arts, where egos dominate. There are those who believe that the Theatre Organ was a crass warping of the ‘classical’ sound of traditional organs, and with their sound effects in addition to a distinctive sound such as the “sobbing” vox humana voice, the Theatre Organ was more than many ‘classicists’ could endure, especially if they saw multitudes going into a theatre to hear its organ while a pitiful few attended classical or church concerts. That theatre instruments were expected to also play the latest ballads of the day also made them declass in the ears of the classically trained ‘elite.’ It boils down to taste, or the lack thereof. The late Ben Hall well covered this matter in his chapter on organs in his landmark book: The Best Remaining Seats: The Story of the Golden Age of the Movie Palace, 1961 and later editions at most libraries, via Inter-library Loan, or at www.Amazon.com
Hello, Organ-ize: It is kind of you to reply to my message, but I will not dwell long on a reply here since it is not good for us to go too far off-topic on the RCMH page. I would have written you directly had you listed Contact information on your ‘Profile Page’ which is accessed for anyone on this site by clicking on their name in blue at the bottom of a comment. You will find my E-mail address in that way.
Just because I am geographically closer to the Minneapolis Civic than you are doesn’t mean that I know anything of its organ — or of the Civic Auditorium, for that matter, sorry to say. That place is about 400 miles from me. You are privileged to be part of that giant Dickinson Kimball installation. There are classical organs of that size in both the Marcus Performing Arts Center and the Cooley Auditorium of the Vocational School here, but no such huge theatre instruments survive (or were ever built here to my knowledge). I am not an “organ nut” per se (architecture is my specialty) but I do enjoy a good concert on a pipe organ, especially by such as Lew Williams who knows how to use the toy counter and percussions to great effect, or Clark Wilson who can make an organ sing.
Organ-ized: Your comment about the ORIENTAL here in Milwaukee is right on the money; it is perhaps unique in its approach to ‘oriental’ as being East Indian, rather than Chinese, Indo-Chinese, or Japanese. There is a group of photos of it here: http://www.cinematour.com/tour.php?db=us&id=4035 but none are of the auditorium, unfortunately. The CT page about it is at: /theaters/443/ and this may help others to learn of its special place in America’s theatres. I must bow to your conclusions about the organ, though I too had heard that it was a twin to the one in the STANLEY, though it is now up to 38 ranks and growing, from its original 28. It is indeed a sweet sound, especially the strings! And you are quite right that it was originally in the WARNER/GRAND here ( /theaters/1903/ ) and while it may have helped re-use the WARNER had it stayed there, it is now ironic, given what happened to the theatre, that it was best that it was removed.
Your story about the STANLEY’s organ is sad to read; greed so often destroys beauty, but at least you have a recording of it before the end. If you track down the author of “Exit”, Robert Headley in the Baltimore/DC area, you might have a wonderful conversation, since he was also often here in Milw. and could no doubt tell you much.
And lucky Baltimore to have the restored HIPPODROME ( /theaters/1264/ )..
Vincent has a point about being in a largely full movie palace and hearing an appreciative audience laughing, cheering, applauding or even singing along to the movie; it IS an exhilarating experience not at all akin to the noise of a sports or rock concert crowd. I last experienced it in 1970 when the shortly-to-be-split former WARNER here in Milwaukee was filled for the movie “Airport” and all 2500 cheered when the old lady slapped the hysterical guy, and laughed as one at other appropriate times. You didn’t feel isolated as a lone viewer as you do nowadays in the multiplex screening rooms regardless of what is showing. Occasionally I can still feel that audience response as when our ORIENTAL has an organ show with a silent film and a stage act, but not otherwise anymore.
Warren writes in his Sept. 24th post on the VALENCIA theatre’s page: “The Stanley Theatre in Jersey City, NJ, now a Jehovah’s Witnesses church, still has cloud machines. I don’t know if they’re used during services, but they are operated during public tours of the building. Visitors are shown a short film in the darkened auditorium.” Just to clarify for those not familiar: The STANLEY in Jersey City is now an Assembly Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and they do give free daily tours at which color postcards of the venue are available, but, no, they do not use the darkened auditorium with the cloud machines during their “services” which are instructional meetings needing bright light to read the Bible. At those times (usually on weekends) they turn on the many metal halide up-lights hidden in the area behind the building facades along the walls of the auditorium. These thousands of watts of light then reflect downward off of the now off-white painted ceiling. They have preserved much of the theatre’s original decor.
Re Jean’s comment: The Witnesses did paint over the original murals which depicted what are to them, pagan scenes not in harmony with Biblical precepts, and since the building is now a place of worship of God and not the silent screen, that was to be expected. True, it may have been better had they merely painted onto boards mounted on hinges in front of the original murals so as to be able to swing the new scenes aside to show the originals to visitors, but in view of all the many other restorations seen inside the building, they are a relatively small loss (and they can be seen in photos). The replacement murals depict famous scenes from the Bible. The Witnesses did “not choose to tear it down” because they bought the long vacant theatre specifically for its features that would lend to its use as an Assembly Hall; to build a new building with that space and seating would have cost many millions more than the largely volunteer rehabilitation that this place received! They have restored/adapted a number of theatres across the country.
Warren writes in his Sept. 24 post: “The Stanley Theatre in Jersey City, NJ, now a Jehovah’s Witnesses church, still has cloud machines. I don’t know if they’re used during services, but they are operated during public tours of the building. Visitors are shown a short film in the darkened auditorium.” Just to clarify for those not familiar: The STANLEY in Jersey City is now an Assembly Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and they do give free daily tours at which color postcards of the venue are available, but, no, they do not use the darkened auditorium with the cloud machines during their “services” which are instructional meetings needing bright light to read the Bible. At those times (usually on weekends) they turn on the many metal halide up-lights hidden in the area behind the building facades along the walls. These thousands of watts of light then reflect downward off of the now off-white painted ceiling. They have preserved much of the theatre’s original decor.
ErwinM: I can’t find the authority I read at the moment, but it said that when wide screen projection was installed, they hacked away the “choral stairways” and balconies from the sides of the proscenium, and removed the draperies in that area as well. I don’t know how much of the auditorium-wide, large scale “drapery treatment” by 20th Century Fox remained from 1937 as shown in a photo in Marquee magazine of 4th Qtr. 1979, but the place was drastically covered over for that re-do. Marquee: www.HistoricTheatres.org
Ziggy: There was an auction or sale of the furnishings after closing according to another source I cannot locate at the moment, but it would probably be difficult to find any of the items today. Likely, you can go to the library and find the ads for such in the papers of summer, 1960, but even if you can still locate the contractor, it is highly doubtful that they will still have anything. I recall reading that the rotunda chandelier was offered to Cardinal Spellman’s residence, but it was just too big for that too! Marquee magazine of 1st Qtr. 1979 is a special issue devoted to the ROXY and a photo there shows the chandelier resting on the famous carpet as it is being dismantled. Something tells me that after so many years of traffic, and having the building’s furnishings hauled out to it, the carpet was in no condition to be saved; and saved for whom, for that matter? Where could it possibly have been placed, much less cleaned, given its size? It is likely that the statues were sold, but to whom? For those determined to find some artifacts, one might search such as www.eBay.com or put an ad in such as the NEW YORKER. Talking to some of the older local antiques shops might also lead to a current owner of some item, but the odds are slim, and prices would be high, no doubt akin to the recent offer of an emblazoned piece of the lobby railing from the NY PARAMOUNT on eBay for only $12,000! (Needless to say, there were no bids for the item, and it was withdrawn.) Best Wishes on your quest.
This is great news, but for those out-of-area who cannot make their computers bring up the site, and get an error message (#80040200) perhaps there is some way you can post a transcript here? It would be a shame to loose this moment of history simply because computers differ.
This is great news for those out-of-area who can listen in on-line, but my computer will not connect and brings up an error panel #80040200. Is there some way you can create a transcript here? That would by-pass the audio requirements of various differing systems.
The closest single-term description of the ROXY’s style is: “Spanish Baroque” though in the late Ben Hall’s 1961 book “The Best Remaining Seats: The Story of the Golden Age of the Movie Palace” (still found in several editions at larger libraries, via Inter-Library Loan, and at www.Amazon.com ) there are chapters devoted to this, obviously the author’s opinion of it as the high water mark of palace construction, and on page 121 begins his description of it as “plateresque”: “an exuberant Spanish grafting of Renaissance details on Gothic forms with Moorish overtones.”
Sad to say, the ROXY disappeared in 1960 before the trend to architectural preservation began, and as brought out in the book, the land under its lobby was owned by the adjacent Taft Hotel, and when new owners of the hotel decided to expand their hotel, they declined to renew the lease on the land, so the ROXY was no doubt doomed from that legal perspective alone, not to mention that attendance was falling off rapidly as it was across the country. Not only had the venerable monument been defaced and altered inside, but it was built as were all palaces with the need of thousands of patrons paying several times daily in order to have enough to warrant it a good investment for its owners, as well as have the funds for upkeep and staff. Yes, perhaps if it had been elsewhere where the land values were less, but still an audience of many thousands to fill its seats, it might have been around to this day, but the few huge palaces still standing are either cut up as is The PARADISE in the Bronx; abandoned: the UPTOWN in Chicago; or barely hanging in there with much different formats: RADIO CITY M.H.) I don’t know of any community that can maintain a 6,000-seat palace outside of NYC, and they are having a rough time of it.
The photo that Bryan Krefft links to does indeed show the clouds as ‘painted’ upon the ceiling of the auditorium, but for those not familiar with the practice, these ‘clouds’ were actually retouched upon the photo negative since the PROJECTED clouds in a real theatre would have been much too faint to show up on the film of that day. And the clouds were not supposed to be vivid, since actual clouds are usually wispy to some degree, and doing them vivid in paint would not only make them unmoving and static unlike real clouds, but it would take a most skilled artist to reproduce wispy clouds in the dim light of a normal atmospheric theatre.
For those not familiar with ‘cloud projection’ let me explain that it was accomplished very much the way the movie was projected: an image is moved across a source of bright light and focused by a lens upon the ceiling. Often it was by means of special ‘cloud projectors’ which were lamp houses having a glass disk painted with clouds, mounted in front of the light on a motor-turned shaft but behind a lens such that the light from the lamp (as much as 500 or 1,000 watts!) would pass through the rotating disk and pass through the images of the clouds and thus cast their whitish image upon the ceiling in a moving way. Just how realistic this looked depended upon the place of mounting in the theatre, and oftentimes the architect failed to provide a proper angle to mount the projector in relation to the ceiling, and the clouds looked too faint our odd in appearance.
In many smaller theatres, the clouds were projected from a special port in the wall of the projection room by means of what was known as the ‘Effects Projector’ which was also used to cast special effects (snow storms, lightning bolts, even clouds of butterflies!) upon the screen. Few of us have seen the results of such projectors since most of them have perished with the palaces, and few of the survivors work any longer or have their hundreds of hand-painted glass slides anymore. A photo of one is on page 201 of the late Ben Hall’s “The Best Remaining Seats: The Story of the Golden Age of the Movie Palace” (1961 and later editions) at many libraries and still at www.Amazon.com . There are few theatres still with operating ‘cloud machines’ the only two I have seen being the wonderful CORONADO in Rockford, Ill. and the PATIO in Chicago. In the recent book about the CORONADO, there is an image of the ‘cloud projectors’ there, and while the imperfectly silhouetted image shows two machines, the woman who wrote the caption mentions it as though it were only one. It would, of course, be silly for the VALENCIA church to return such projections upon its ceiling, since with a chandelier there now, they would hardly be convincing. As I had mentioned once before, had the church also painted an angel on the ceiling with his arm outstretched as though holding up the chandelier, it would have been a lot more convincing and less an insult to the observer, as it would perpetuate some of the illusion of the theatre.
FOR RESEARCHERS: Much information and photos of the GARRICK/SCHILLER can be obtained at the Archive of the Theatre Historical Society of America just outside of Chicago in Elmhurst above the YORK THEATRE ( www.HistoricTheatres.org ). Use the “Archives” link on their site to learn hours and details to make an appointment. If they cannot identify the figures once on the facade of the SCHILLER, then take a photo of them to the “Goethe House” of the Federal Republic of Germany housed in the upper floor of the Central Library building, 813 W. Wisconsin Ave. in Milwaukee (off the rotunda stairs or elevator, not in the library itself) and they will probably be quite able to identify some of their famous nationals. Their phone: (414) 276-7435.
John Eberson was known for some vivid colorations as seen in many of his theatres and as brought out in the piece “Fancy Dress” in the Oct. 1984 issue of INTERIOR DESIGN magazine where a lengthy article and ten color photos of his LOWE’S RICHMOND in Richmond Virginia (now the Carpenter Center for the Performing Arts). In the final paragraph of the article, the restoration architect, Fred Cox, is quoted as saying: “During the restoration there were times that we were a little worried we’d end up with something vulgar, especially as we got down to the original layers of paint and discovered what an eccentric colorist Eberson was. But a funny thing happened as we applied the finishing touches to the interior — it seemed to crystallize, become whole and complete. That was Eberson’s vision.” As was pointed out in the 1930 book AMERICAN THEATRES OF TODAY, the colors used often had to be far more vivid than normal due to the often subdued lighting coming from amber or rose colored lights. We today are used to much higher light levels, but too high a light level in a restoration can make the colors look garish and destroy the subtle ambience designed by the architect. These palaces were to be ‘carriages’ to lands of fantasy, after all, not the duplication of a living room.
John Eberson was known for some vivid colorations as seen in many of his theatres and as brought out in the article “Fancy Dress” in the Oct. 1984 issue of INTERIOR DESIGN magazine where a lengthy article and ten color photos of his LOWE’S in Richmond Virginia (now the Virginia Center for the Performing Arts). In the final paragraph of the article, the restoration architect, Fred Cox, is quoted as saying: “During the restoration there were times that we were a little worried we’d end up with something vulgar, especially as we got down to the original layers of paint and discovered what an eccentric colorist Eberson was. But a funny thing happened as we applied the finishing touches to the interior — it seemed to crystallize, become whole and complete. That was Eberson’s vision.” As was pointed out in the 1930 book AMERICAN THEATRES OF TODAY, the colors used often had to be far more vivid than normal due to the often subdued lighting coming from amber or rose colored lights. We today are used to much higher light levels, but too high a light level in a restoration can make the colors look garish and destroy the subtle ambience designed by the architect. These palaces were to be ‘carriages’ to lands of fantasy, after all, not the duplication of a living room.
Mr. Apruzzese brings out a good exception, and a good point. I am glad that there are palaces somewhere that can still be as they were so many years ago, but I was mostly reflecting on the bigger cities where quiet community standards of years ago no longer exist. Places like Suffern may be the locations to find. Who was it who said that it was all “location, location, location!”?
For those who do view the “mural” above the proscenium referenced by Bryan, note that the clouds shown in the photo are retouched onto it, and were not actually painted on the ceiling, but the horses were real, 3-dimensional full sized statues! ‘Clouds’ were projected as was usual in such theatres.
Your wish for your own movie palace is a wish that others also have for themselves (myself among them!) but I don’t know if you really know what you are asking for. Firstly, you state that you want one “with a great price tag, easy to fix up and start running” but that is a very difficult set of conditions to meet! Of the perhaps two hundred true movie palaces still operating to some degree in this country, perhaps one or two of them can be had for a ‘song,’ as the old saying goes. These are usually BIG buildings often with other attachments such as stores, apartments, etc. and are in prime property tax areas, so the price will higher than even a large multiplex in the suburbs. ALL of them will be over 50 years old and in need of serious repairs (just re-tarring and patching a roof can easily go $50,000!), and all of them will require much more upkeep than would a simple, no-stage cinema of today. The wonderful, very opulent former WARNER here in Milwaukee, for example, has some 800 light bulbs in three colors hidden behind its ornate ceiling grilles which at nearly a dollar apiece plus labor would alone be a challenge to meet, not to mention the repairs needed after being dark for ten years. To start running a movie house demands that you have a credible audience, and movie theatre patronage is declining nationwide in view of videos, the Net, and other entertainments. Plus, these days, people will NOT take public transportation to a movie, since the major group that pays for films, teenagers, want a parking area for their cars and a place to walk to within a short distance of the screen to feed and stuff themselves with junk foods; a cinema-cum-cafeteria is what is wanted these days. And if you open it to kids as the only dependable paying audience, you will find a group that for the most part does NOT share your appreciation for the lavish —but easily damaged— palace that you so adore and have paid to restore. Their parents and grandparents may not have willingly damaged a theatre, but kids today regard anything within their reach as THEIRS to play with or destroy as the whim moves them. You say you will employ a corps of ushers to patrol the place and stop vandalism? Don’t hold your breath about that; if there are ushers these days, they are from the same group that the vandals are from and will do little or nothing to stop them, and do you really want a uniquely zealous usher to be knifed and bleeding on your fancy carpeting simply because he dared to criticize one of the ‘in’ kids who was urinating on your tapestries? The old days of a rapturous, courteous audience are long, long gone. Today you herd the miscreants into the tilt back seats (and hope they don’t slash them), then herd the ‘cattle’ to the ‘trough’ (the refreshments stand that pays for the venue), and then herd them out with strident, raucous music that even they can’t stand (or maybe sweet, oldies that they even more can’t stand), and hope that they don’t trash the place as they leave.
Don’t get me wrong, I adore a movie palace fully as much as you do, and dearly wish I could afford to buy and MAINTAIN one, but it would never work for real movie exhibition as open to the general public these days for the reasons given above. BUT, if somehow I could create a By-Invitation-Only audience that perhaps belonged to a sort of club for cinephiles who would gladly pay an annual membership fee to see vintage movies as they were intended, THEN possibly it would work to make it an operating theatre. Some palaces such as the ORIENTAL here are making it by a slim margin by offering only non-teen features and events that draw the art house crowd, but that crowd is so limited that it caused Landmark films to pay to carve out 2 additional screening rooms under the balcony to meet the bills, and with costs for such as heating so large an uninsulated building rising steeply every year, one wonders how long they will be able to keep the doors open as the 75-year-old boilers teeter closer to failure every year, as witnessed by the carbon-monoxide leak last December. Every old theatre is prone to such problems. If you are wealthy and merely want your own ‘toy’ of a palace where the bottom line doesn’t matter and you have scads of cash to invest, then I can direct you to dozens of once beautiful palaces that the owners would be only too willing to sell, for somewhat more than a ‘song.’
As to grants or other financial aid, again don’t hold your breath. The federal government was the only real source of such money for many years, but the ‘Great Society’ programs of decades past are now largely gone, and if you do manage to find a grant or two, don’t expect it to do more than pay for a very little. Local funds are usually even more scarce, as a local millionaire here found out when he rescued our formerly city-owned PABST THEATER (www.pabsttheater.org) by buying if for a single dollar from the city. He thought he could easily make it pay its way (after the city had contributed some $10 million to its restoration and upkeep since 1974) but is finding the going for a classy, opulent, live-action road house a greater challenge than imagined. No, there are no funds that you can “easily” get, but if you are well off financially such that you would not have to live off of the income of a theatre (if any), then the small grants might be available, especially if the theatre you buy is already, or capable of becoming, a local, state and national landmark (as is the PABST) since what little such money exists these days for such, is earmarked almost exclusively for designated landmarks. If, even after all this, you are serious and have a goodly financial backing, reply so here, and I will E-mail you details on how to locate SMALL sources of POSSIBLE (not necessarily probable) funding, as well as names of possibly available palaces. Yes, we are all fellow “movie lovers,” but more especially lovers of theatres, and appreciate only too painfully the impracticality of our gorgeous by expensive movie palaces of long ago.
According to an item in the local paper, the ORIENTAL has been sold to a local business group:
“The Oriental Theatre building is being sold to an investors group that includes condominium and apartment developer Boris Gokhman.” Reportedly, they plan to keep the current operator, Landmark Exhibition, which is owned by celebrity Mark Cuban, as well as the “Twisted Fork” restaurant on the north end of the building as well as the Landmark Lanes bowling alleys in the basement; what becomes of the vacant offices on the second floor is not known. We hope they will have the resources to complete the many repairs that the Pritchett Brothers, the former owners through their RC Electric company, were unable to continue, though we must be grateful for them for keeping the doors open since 1972!
I heard that it interfered with the large screen projection. You would think that during the “restoration” it could have been reworked so as to be able to be withdrawn automatically up into the attic just as the movie began (and then lowered automatically at the end of the projection), rather the way the chandeliers are raised and lowered in the Kennedy Center, but that would have probably added a thousand dollars to the cost.
How many seats a theatre had/has affects its existence in a number of ways, and also how history looks at it. During planning, a builder/owner will investigate as to local fire laws that take effect after a given number of seats, and bank financing is often dependent upon costs figured per seat. Insurance also is figured on this basis, as well as taxation, to some extent. From an historical point of view, theatres built before 1950, of less than 1000 seats were usually of lesser architectural intent and interest, and if a theatre had fewer seats near larger theatres, its survival may have been directly affected by the greater number of seats nearby. Today, with multiplex cinemas being the norm, smaller auditoria are the norm, and giving the number of seats helps to put the economic and technical values of a location in perspective vis-a-vis all other cinemas as well as just neighboring cinemas. While it is true that location is a prime determining factor in the success of a theatre/cinema, the number of seats is also critical depending upon the format (films, or live action). Thus, one can glean a number of indicators from the seating capacities, in addition to the identity of a venue in doubt.
Hello, Scott,
In regards to why the acoustics of the Bronx PARADISE and the Houston MAJESTIC were not supposedly as bad as those in the Chicago PARADISE, I cannot be sure, since I have never had the privilege of hearing shows in them, nor have I seen the drawings for them. I suspect that the height and curve of the ceiling is different in both of those huge auditoriums as compared to the Chicago venue, and sometimes only a small difference in dimensions and curves can be a big difference in acoustics. I’m sure you will agree that just because they were by the same architect does not, of course, mean that they had to have the same dimensions, etc. You are probably right that the differing decors and their dimensions were partially responsible for the differing acoustics also. And you are most certainly right about the original aims of the PARADISE; sound movies were still on the horizon when it was designed, and likely they didn’t entirely appreciate the adverse acoustics, or that such would ever really be a problem. As I mentioned, with music, only muddled sound may result, and audiences came mostly to see the silent movie, not judge the sound quality of the music. Sad to think that somehow if only sound films had not come to be, the great PARADISE might still be with us, but then maybe not. The great MARBRO is no longer with us either, good acoustics or not.
Vincent finds it hard to believe that they didn’t have mics in the huge movie palaces, and that is hard to understand from today’s perspective when almost everything is miced. Firstly, movie palaces were mostly built for silent movies, not the live, spoken word. Such speech as one might hear there under normal situations was only choral singing, where the aggregate volume was sufficient to penetrate to the rear of the auditorium. While a few of the largest theatres apparently did have rudimentary mics working off of a rudimentary amplifier, most did not, and so live, spoken word was NOT the norm at all. Few famous opera stars would sing at too large a hall for the simple reason that it could damage their voices if they were expected to project or ‘throw’ to the farthest balcony. This is one reason that few large palaces were then suitable to becoming opera houses. Today, virtually everything is miced, both because of our now customary reliance on technology, and because it lets the producers and sound men have more control over what the audience hears, as well as sometimes making up for the limitations of the acoustics of the hall.
Vincent implies that they over use microphones these days, even for the orchestra, and in some measure he is right. Sound reinforcement is not as pure as the source, no matter how much money is spent on good equipment, but the temptation to have more control and the electronic power to dazzle and even cow the audience is something irresistible to them, but sad to say, this is often abused. We must also not forget the profit motives of the merchants of such who persuade venues that powerful amps and speakers on several planes are essential to versatility, if not verisimilitude. As to lip-syncing to recordings: it is to be expected these days, since it can compensate for an out-of-condition performer, and does not include the noises of the stage, so it is rationalized that the crowd hears a more ‘clean’ sound track. Whether or not such constitutes a truly ‘live’ performance is up to the listener.
“Miking” started with radio, of course, and was largely perfected with the arrival of sound movies, but most theatres were not “miced” until the late Twenties or after that. The arrival of sound depended upon the arrival of practical amplifiers, and Western Electric was the pioneer in introducing sound service to theatres with the first vacuum tubes (called electronic “valves” at the time), and it was not long thereafter that sound ‘systems’ were introduced to theatres on a limited basis. Prior to that, actors were trained to ‘throw’ their voices out into the reaches of the theatre, which is what limited earlier theatres to smaller audiences due to the limitations of the human voice. Many a would-be actor/performer failed on the early stage due to the inability to throw their voice. Early microphones, such as the carbon and the taught-band types were large, heavy and inefficient, and thus introduced much ‘noise’ into the amplifier to mix with the noise created by early amplifiers and speakers themselves. For this reason, there was no such thing as the portable, personal mics that are now clipped to a costume, nor were overhead mics practical until the 30s, and then only in the movie studios on huge boom cranes. With the advent of efficient sound reinforcement and electret miniature microphones in the 1950s, the tradition of the ‘thrown’ voice faded away as performers learned that they could speak in normal volumes and be easily heard anywhere if properly miced. The untoward affect of all this was the presence of ugly speaker clusters in our theatres since no one could hear the people these days without them.
Jon Erickson’s description of the wonderful PARADISE does accurately relay why the theatre failed, but there have been questions about the nature of the acoustics that should be addressed.
The ornamentation and auditorium decorative draperies so usually seen in movie palaces were not just for show; it was essential to absorb and deflect the sound waves coming from the stage and organ/orchestra so that only one sound wave struck the listener. When sound hits an essentially smooth surface —such as the ceiling of an ‘atmospheric’ (stars and clouds) theatre— it is focused by that surface upon a single broad point in the audience, effectively amplifying the sound to those there, but dimming it for those elsewhere. Not only will others outside of that point not hear as much volume, but worse is the echo that develops as the main sound front hits the listener, followed by the delayed sound front reflected off the ceiling a split second later. Many smaller atmospherics had smaller effective reflective ceilings where the flanking false building fronts were closer to the surface and these absorbed or deflected much of the sound. In the over 3,000 seats in the PARADISE, the vault of the ceiling was just too vast to have any ornament or draperies near enough to counteract the reflection(s); remember the laws of physics: the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection/refraction. Thus when the sound front hit the ceiling, it crashed onto the audience mid-floor, AFTER they had heard the other sound fronts from the stage and elsewhere. During music this may just cause muddled sound, but speech can be rendered unintelligible. How could the great architect Eberson miss this fact during planning? I don’t know, since acoustics was not an unknown science even then. It may be that the owner put too much pressure on him for a triumphal spectacular, which he achieved, as opposed to a good concert hall. After all, ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune.’
The ornamentation and auditorium decorative draperies so usually seen in movie palaces was not just for show; it was essential to absorb and deflect the sound waves coming from the stage and organ/orchestra so that only one sound wave struck the listener. When sound hits an essentially smooth surface —such as the ceiling of an ‘atmospheric’ (stars and clouds) theatre— it is focused by that surface upon a single broad point in the audience, effectively amplifying the sound to those there, but dimming it for those elsewhere. Not only will others outside of that point not hear as much volume, but worse is the echo that develops as the main sound front hits the listener, followed by the delayed sound front reflected off the ceiling a split second later. Many smaller atmospherics had smaller effective reflective ceilings where the flanking false building fronts were closer to the surface and these absorbed or deflected much of the sound. In the over 3,000 seats in the PARADISE ( /theaters/344/ ), the vault of the ceiling was just too vast to have any ornament or draperies near enough to counteract the reflection(s); remember the laws of physics: the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection/refraction. Thus when the sound front hit the ceiling, it crashed onto the audience mid-floor, AFTER they had heard the other sound fronts from the stage and elsewhere. During music this may just cause muddled sound, but speech can be rendered unintelligible. How could the great architect Eberson miss this fact during planning? I don’t know, since acoustics was not an unknown science even then. It may be that the owner put too much pressure on him for a triumphal spectacular, which he achieved, as opposed to a good concert hall. After all, ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune.’
AS to organists and organs: snobbery exists in all levels of society, but more so in the arts, where egos dominate. There are those who believe that the Theatre Organ was a crass warping of the ‘classical’ sound of traditional organs, and with their sound effects in addition to a distinctive sound such as the “sobbing” vox humana voice, the Theatre Organ was more than many ‘classicists’ could endure, especially if they saw multitudes going into a theatre to hear its organ while a pitiful few attended classical or church concerts. That theatre instruments were expected to also play the latest ballads of the day also made them declass in the ears of the classically trained ‘elite.’ It boils down to taste, or the lack thereof. The late Ben Hall well covered this matter in his chapter on organs in his landmark book: The Best Remaining Seats: The Story of the Golden Age of the Movie Palace, 1961 and later editions at most libraries, via Inter-library Loan, or at www.Amazon.com
Hello, Organ-ize: It is kind of you to reply to my message, but I will not dwell long on a reply here since it is not good for us to go too far off-topic on the RCMH page. I would have written you directly had you listed Contact information on your ‘Profile Page’ which is accessed for anyone on this site by clicking on their name in blue at the bottom of a comment. You will find my E-mail address in that way.
Just because I am geographically closer to the Minneapolis Civic than you are doesn’t mean that I know anything of its organ — or of the Civic Auditorium, for that matter, sorry to say. That place is about 400 miles from me. You are privileged to be part of that giant Dickinson Kimball installation. There are classical organs of that size in both the Marcus Performing Arts Center and the Cooley Auditorium of the Vocational School here, but no such huge theatre instruments survive (or were ever built here to my knowledge). I am not an “organ nut” per se (architecture is my specialty) but I do enjoy a good concert on a pipe organ, especially by such as Lew Williams who knows how to use the toy counter and percussions to great effect, or Clark Wilson who can make an organ sing.
Organ-ized: Your comment about the ORIENTAL here in Milwaukee is right on the money; it is perhaps unique in its approach to ‘oriental’ as being East Indian, rather than Chinese, Indo-Chinese, or Japanese. There is a group of photos of it here: http://www.cinematour.com/tour.php?db=us&id=4035 but none are of the auditorium, unfortunately. The CT page about it is at: /theaters/443/ and this may help others to learn of its special place in America’s theatres. I must bow to your conclusions about the organ, though I too had heard that it was a twin to the one in the STANLEY, though it is now up to 38 ranks and growing, from its original 28. It is indeed a sweet sound, especially the strings! And you are quite right that it was originally in the WARNER/GRAND here ( /theaters/1903/ ) and while it may have helped re-use the WARNER had it stayed there, it is now ironic, given what happened to the theatre, that it was best that it was removed.
Your story about the STANLEY’s organ is sad to read; greed so often destroys beauty, but at least you have a recording of it before the end. If you track down the author of “Exit”, Robert Headley in the Baltimore/DC area, you might have a wonderful conversation, since he was also often here in Milw. and could no doubt tell you much.
And lucky Baltimore to have the restored HIPPODROME ( /theaters/1264/ )..
Vincent has a point about being in a largely full movie palace and hearing an appreciative audience laughing, cheering, applauding or even singing along to the movie; it IS an exhilarating experience not at all akin to the noise of a sports or rock concert crowd. I last experienced it in 1970 when the shortly-to-be-split former WARNER here in Milwaukee was filled for the movie “Airport” and all 2500 cheered when the old lady slapped the hysterical guy, and laughed as one at other appropriate times. You didn’t feel isolated as a lone viewer as you do nowadays in the multiplex screening rooms regardless of what is showing. Occasionally I can still feel that audience response as when our ORIENTAL has an organ show with a silent film and a stage act, but not otherwise anymore.
Warren writes in his Sept. 24th post on the VALENCIA theatre’s page: “The Stanley Theatre in Jersey City, NJ, now a Jehovah’s Witnesses church, still has cloud machines. I don’t know if they’re used during services, but they are operated during public tours of the building. Visitors are shown a short film in the darkened auditorium.” Just to clarify for those not familiar: The STANLEY in Jersey City is now an Assembly Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and they do give free daily tours at which color postcards of the venue are available, but, no, they do not use the darkened auditorium with the cloud machines during their “services” which are instructional meetings needing bright light to read the Bible. At those times (usually on weekends) they turn on the many metal halide up-lights hidden in the area behind the building facades along the walls of the auditorium. These thousands of watts of light then reflect downward off of the now off-white painted ceiling. They have preserved much of the theatre’s original decor.
Re Jean’s comment: The Witnesses did paint over the original murals which depicted what are to them, pagan scenes not in harmony with Biblical precepts, and since the building is now a place of worship of God and not the silent screen, that was to be expected. True, it may have been better had they merely painted onto boards mounted on hinges in front of the original murals so as to be able to swing the new scenes aside to show the originals to visitors, but in view of all the many other restorations seen inside the building, they are a relatively small loss (and they can be seen in photos). The replacement murals depict famous scenes from the Bible. The Witnesses did “not choose to tear it down” because they bought the long vacant theatre specifically for its features that would lend to its use as an Assembly Hall; to build a new building with that space and seating would have cost many millions more than the largely volunteer rehabilitation that this place received! They have restored/adapted a number of theatres across the country.
Warren writes in his Sept. 24 post: “The Stanley Theatre in Jersey City, NJ, now a Jehovah’s Witnesses church, still has cloud machines. I don’t know if they’re used during services, but they are operated during public tours of the building. Visitors are shown a short film in the darkened auditorium.” Just to clarify for those not familiar: The STANLEY in Jersey City is now an Assembly Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and they do give free daily tours at which color postcards of the venue are available, but, no, they do not use the darkened auditorium with the cloud machines during their “services” which are instructional meetings needing bright light to read the Bible. At those times (usually on weekends) they turn on the many metal halide up-lights hidden in the area behind the building facades along the walls. These thousands of watts of light then reflect downward off of the now off-white painted ceiling. They have preserved much of the theatre’s original decor.
ErwinM: I can’t find the authority I read at the moment, but it said that when wide screen projection was installed, they hacked away the “choral stairways” and balconies from the sides of the proscenium, and removed the draperies in that area as well. I don’t know how much of the auditorium-wide, large scale “drapery treatment” by 20th Century Fox remained from 1937 as shown in a photo in Marquee magazine of 4th Qtr. 1979, but the place was drastically covered over for that re-do. Marquee: www.HistoricTheatres.org
Ziggy: There was an auction or sale of the furnishings after closing according to another source I cannot locate at the moment, but it would probably be difficult to find any of the items today. Likely, you can go to the library and find the ads for such in the papers of summer, 1960, but even if you can still locate the contractor, it is highly doubtful that they will still have anything. I recall reading that the rotunda chandelier was offered to Cardinal Spellman’s residence, but it was just too big for that too! Marquee magazine of 1st Qtr. 1979 is a special issue devoted to the ROXY and a photo there shows the chandelier resting on the famous carpet as it is being dismantled. Something tells me that after so many years of traffic, and having the building’s furnishings hauled out to it, the carpet was in no condition to be saved; and saved for whom, for that matter? Where could it possibly have been placed, much less cleaned, given its size? It is likely that the statues were sold, but to whom? For those determined to find some artifacts, one might search such as www.eBay.com or put an ad in such as the NEW YORKER. Talking to some of the older local antiques shops might also lead to a current owner of some item, but the odds are slim, and prices would be high, no doubt akin to the recent offer of an emblazoned piece of the lobby railing from the NY PARAMOUNT on eBay for only $12,000! (Needless to say, there were no bids for the item, and it was withdrawn.) Best Wishes on your quest.
This is great news, but for those out-of-area who cannot make their computers bring up the site, and get an error message (#80040200) perhaps there is some way you can post a transcript here? It would be a shame to loose this moment of history simply because computers differ.
This is great news for those out-of-area who can listen in on-line, but my computer will not connect and brings up an error panel #80040200. Is there some way you can create a transcript here? That would by-pass the audio requirements of various differing systems.
The closest single-term description of the ROXY’s style is: “Spanish Baroque” though in the late Ben Hall’s 1961 book “The Best Remaining Seats: The Story of the Golden Age of the Movie Palace” (still found in several editions at larger libraries, via Inter-Library Loan, and at www.Amazon.com ) there are chapters devoted to this, obviously the author’s opinion of it as the high water mark of palace construction, and on page 121 begins his description of it as “plateresque”: “an exuberant Spanish grafting of Renaissance details on Gothic forms with Moorish overtones.”
Sad to say, the ROXY disappeared in 1960 before the trend to architectural preservation began, and as brought out in the book, the land under its lobby was owned by the adjacent Taft Hotel, and when new owners of the hotel decided to expand their hotel, they declined to renew the lease on the land, so the ROXY was no doubt doomed from that legal perspective alone, not to mention that attendance was falling off rapidly as it was across the country. Not only had the venerable monument been defaced and altered inside, but it was built as were all palaces with the need of thousands of patrons paying several times daily in order to have enough to warrant it a good investment for its owners, as well as have the funds for upkeep and staff. Yes, perhaps if it had been elsewhere where the land values were less, but still an audience of many thousands to fill its seats, it might have been around to this day, but the few huge palaces still standing are either cut up as is The PARADISE in the Bronx; abandoned: the UPTOWN in Chicago; or barely hanging in there with much different formats: RADIO CITY M.H.) I don’t know of any community that can maintain a 6,000-seat palace outside of NYC, and they are having a rough time of it.
The photo that Bryan Krefft links to does indeed show the clouds as ‘painted’ upon the ceiling of the auditorium, but for those not familiar with the practice, these ‘clouds’ were actually retouched upon the photo negative since the PROJECTED clouds in a real theatre would have been much too faint to show up on the film of that day. And the clouds were not supposed to be vivid, since actual clouds are usually wispy to some degree, and doing them vivid in paint would not only make them unmoving and static unlike real clouds, but it would take a most skilled artist to reproduce wispy clouds in the dim light of a normal atmospheric theatre.
For those not familiar with ‘cloud projection’ let me explain that it was accomplished very much the way the movie was projected: an image is moved across a source of bright light and focused by a lens upon the ceiling. Often it was by means of special ‘cloud projectors’ which were lamp houses having a glass disk painted with clouds, mounted in front of the light on a motor-turned shaft but behind a lens such that the light from the lamp (as much as 500 or 1,000 watts!) would pass through the rotating disk and pass through the images of the clouds and thus cast their whitish image upon the ceiling in a moving way. Just how realistic this looked depended upon the place of mounting in the theatre, and oftentimes the architect failed to provide a proper angle to mount the projector in relation to the ceiling, and the clouds looked too faint our odd in appearance.
In many smaller theatres, the clouds were projected from a special port in the wall of the projection room by means of what was known as the ‘Effects Projector’ which was also used to cast special effects (snow storms, lightning bolts, even clouds of butterflies!) upon the screen. Few of us have seen the results of such projectors since most of them have perished with the palaces, and few of the survivors work any longer or have their hundreds of hand-painted glass slides anymore. A photo of one is on page 201 of the late Ben Hall’s “The Best Remaining Seats: The Story of the Golden Age of the Movie Palace” (1961 and later editions) at many libraries and still at www.Amazon.com . There are few theatres still with operating ‘cloud machines’ the only two I have seen being the wonderful CORONADO in Rockford, Ill. and the PATIO in Chicago. In the recent book about the CORONADO, there is an image of the ‘cloud projectors’ there, and while the imperfectly silhouetted image shows two machines, the woman who wrote the caption mentions it as though it were only one. It would, of course, be silly for the VALENCIA church to return such projections upon its ceiling, since with a chandelier there now, they would hardly be convincing. As I had mentioned once before, had the church also painted an angel on the ceiling with his arm outstretched as though holding up the chandelier, it would have been a lot more convincing and less an insult to the observer, as it would perpetuate some of the illusion of the theatre.
FOR RESEARCHERS: Much information and photos of the GARRICK/SCHILLER can be obtained at the Archive of the Theatre Historical Society of America just outside of Chicago in Elmhurst above the YORK THEATRE ( www.HistoricTheatres.org ). Use the “Archives” link on their site to learn hours and details to make an appointment. If they cannot identify the figures once on the facade of the SCHILLER, then take a photo of them to the “Goethe House” of the Federal Republic of Germany housed in the upper floor of the Central Library building, 813 W. Wisconsin Ave. in Milwaukee (off the rotunda stairs or elevator, not in the library itself) and they will probably be quite able to identify some of their famous nationals. Their phone: (414) 276-7435.
Oops! That should be LOEW’S RICHMOND, and the CARPENTER CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS ( /theaters/211/ ).
John Eberson was known for some vivid colorations as seen in many of his theatres and as brought out in the piece “Fancy Dress” in the Oct. 1984 issue of INTERIOR DESIGN magazine where a lengthy article and ten color photos of his LOWE’S RICHMOND in Richmond Virginia (now the Carpenter Center for the Performing Arts). In the final paragraph of the article, the restoration architect, Fred Cox, is quoted as saying: “During the restoration there were times that we were a little worried we’d end up with something vulgar, especially as we got down to the original layers of paint and discovered what an eccentric colorist Eberson was. But a funny thing happened as we applied the finishing touches to the interior — it seemed to crystallize, become whole and complete. That was Eberson’s vision.” As was pointed out in the 1930 book AMERICAN THEATRES OF TODAY, the colors used often had to be far more vivid than normal due to the often subdued lighting coming from amber or rose colored lights. We today are used to much higher light levels, but too high a light level in a restoration can make the colors look garish and destroy the subtle ambience designed by the architect. These palaces were to be ‘carriages’ to lands of fantasy, after all, not the duplication of a living room.
John Eberson was known for some vivid colorations as seen in many of his theatres and as brought out in the article “Fancy Dress” in the Oct. 1984 issue of INTERIOR DESIGN magazine where a lengthy article and ten color photos of his LOWE’S in Richmond Virginia (now the Virginia Center for the Performing Arts). In the final paragraph of the article, the restoration architect, Fred Cox, is quoted as saying: “During the restoration there were times that we were a little worried we’d end up with something vulgar, especially as we got down to the original layers of paint and discovered what an eccentric colorist Eberson was. But a funny thing happened as we applied the finishing touches to the interior — it seemed to crystallize, become whole and complete. That was Eberson’s vision.” As was pointed out in the 1930 book AMERICAN THEATRES OF TODAY, the colors used often had to be far more vivid than normal due to the often subdued lighting coming from amber or rose colored lights. We today are used to much higher light levels, but too high a light level in a restoration can make the colors look garish and destroy the subtle ambience designed by the architect. These palaces were to be ‘carriages’ to lands of fantasy, after all, not the duplication of a living room.
Mr. Apruzzese brings out a good exception, and a good point. I am glad that there are palaces somewhere that can still be as they were so many years ago, but I was mostly reflecting on the bigger cities where quiet community standards of years ago no longer exist. Places like Suffern may be the locations to find. Who was it who said that it was all “location, location, location!”?
For those who do view the “mural” above the proscenium referenced by Bryan, note that the clouds shown in the photo are retouched onto it, and were not actually painted on the ceiling, but the horses were real, 3-dimensional full sized statues! ‘Clouds’ were projected as was usual in such theatres.
My dear naive, but good-intentioned Mr. Terusso:
Your wish for your own movie palace is a wish that others also have for themselves (myself among them!) but I don’t know if you really know what you are asking for. Firstly, you state that you want one “with a great price tag, easy to fix up and start running” but that is a very difficult set of conditions to meet! Of the perhaps two hundred true movie palaces still operating to some degree in this country, perhaps one or two of them can be had for a ‘song,’ as the old saying goes. These are usually BIG buildings often with other attachments such as stores, apartments, etc. and are in prime property tax areas, so the price will higher than even a large multiplex in the suburbs. ALL of them will be over 50 years old and in need of serious repairs (just re-tarring and patching a roof can easily go $50,000!), and all of them will require much more upkeep than would a simple, no-stage cinema of today. The wonderful, very opulent former WARNER here in Milwaukee, for example, has some 800 light bulbs in three colors hidden behind its ornate ceiling grilles which at nearly a dollar apiece plus labor would alone be a challenge to meet, not to mention the repairs needed after being dark for ten years. To start running a movie house demands that you have a credible audience, and movie theatre patronage is declining nationwide in view of videos, the Net, and other entertainments. Plus, these days, people will NOT take public transportation to a movie, since the major group that pays for films, teenagers, want a parking area for their cars and a place to walk to within a short distance of the screen to feed and stuff themselves with junk foods; a cinema-cum-cafeteria is what is wanted these days. And if you open it to kids as the only dependable paying audience, you will find a group that for the most part does NOT share your appreciation for the lavish —but easily damaged— palace that you so adore and have paid to restore. Their parents and grandparents may not have willingly damaged a theatre, but kids today regard anything within their reach as THEIRS to play with or destroy as the whim moves them. You say you will employ a corps of ushers to patrol the place and stop vandalism? Don’t hold your breath about that; if there are ushers these days, they are from the same group that the vandals are from and will do little or nothing to stop them, and do you really want a uniquely zealous usher to be knifed and bleeding on your fancy carpeting simply because he dared to criticize one of the ‘in’ kids who was urinating on your tapestries? The old days of a rapturous, courteous audience are long, long gone. Today you herd the miscreants into the tilt back seats (and hope they don’t slash them), then herd the ‘cattle’ to the ‘trough’ (the refreshments stand that pays for the venue), and then herd them out with strident, raucous music that even they can’t stand (or maybe sweet, oldies that they even more can’t stand), and hope that they don’t trash the place as they leave.
Don’t get me wrong, I adore a movie palace fully as much as you do, and dearly wish I could afford to buy and MAINTAIN one, but it would never work for real movie exhibition as open to the general public these days for the reasons given above. BUT, if somehow I could create a By-Invitation-Only audience that perhaps belonged to a sort of club for cinephiles who would gladly pay an annual membership fee to see vintage movies as they were intended, THEN possibly it would work to make it an operating theatre. Some palaces such as the ORIENTAL here are making it by a slim margin by offering only non-teen features and events that draw the art house crowd, but that crowd is so limited that it caused Landmark films to pay to carve out 2 additional screening rooms under the balcony to meet the bills, and with costs for such as heating so large an uninsulated building rising steeply every year, one wonders how long they will be able to keep the doors open as the 75-year-old boilers teeter closer to failure every year, as witnessed by the carbon-monoxide leak last December. Every old theatre is prone to such problems. If you are wealthy and merely want your own ‘toy’ of a palace where the bottom line doesn’t matter and you have scads of cash to invest, then I can direct you to dozens of once beautiful palaces that the owners would be only too willing to sell, for somewhat more than a ‘song.’
As to grants or other financial aid, again don’t hold your breath. The federal government was the only real source of such money for many years, but the ‘Great Society’ programs of decades past are now largely gone, and if you do manage to find a grant or two, don’t expect it to do more than pay for a very little. Local funds are usually even more scarce, as a local millionaire here found out when he rescued our formerly city-owned PABST THEATER (www.pabsttheater.org) by buying if for a single dollar from the city. He thought he could easily make it pay its way (after the city had contributed some $10 million to its restoration and upkeep since 1974) but is finding the going for a classy, opulent, live-action road house a greater challenge than imagined. No, there are no funds that you can “easily” get, but if you are well off financially such that you would not have to live off of the income of a theatre (if any), then the small grants might be available, especially if the theatre you buy is already, or capable of becoming, a local, state and national landmark (as is the PABST) since what little such money exists these days for such, is earmarked almost exclusively for designated landmarks. If, even after all this, you are serious and have a goodly financial backing, reply so here, and I will E-mail you details on how to locate SMALL sources of POSSIBLE (not necessarily probable) funding, as well as names of possibly available palaces. Yes, we are all fellow “movie lovers,” but more especially lovers of theatres, and appreciate only too painfully the impracticality of our gorgeous by expensive movie palaces of long ago.
According to an item in the local paper, the ORIENTAL has been sold to a local business group:
“The Oriental Theatre building is being sold to an investors group that includes condominium and apartment developer Boris Gokhman.” Reportedly, they plan to keep the current operator, Landmark Exhibition, which is owned by celebrity Mark Cuban, as well as the “Twisted Fork” restaurant on the north end of the building as well as the Landmark Lanes bowling alleys in the basement; what becomes of the vacant offices on the second floor is not known. We hope they will have the resources to complete the many repairs that the Pritchett Brothers, the former owners through their RC Electric company, were unable to continue, though we must be grateful for them for keeping the doors open since 1972!