Hi Glenn, I’ll respond to your comment. I’m not sure when the last time you were in Rochester was, but it’s changed since “Search for Paradise” showed at the Monroe, that’s for sure! The Manger (formerly the Seneca) Hotel is gone, the Monroe is not what it was, but I guess there’s still hope both for downtown and the Monroe. What great childhood memories though! Thanks for sharing them.
Thanks for listing this theatre Howard. My grandmother used to tell me about going to the movies here, and I remember the closed down theatre building sitting on Clinton Ave. up until is destruction.
Umm, speaking of anyone can make a mistake (including yours truly)….Jim, you probably don’t realize that in your last post you moved the 72nd Street theatre 100 blocks uptown.
Well, I still say that the Pitkin is not one of the “wonder theatres”, and the Jersey is, by virtue of the original ads put out by Loew’s themselves. I’ve made mention of them in a previous post. Now, we can agree that the Pitkin is one of the wonder-ful theatres.
Thanks Divinity! It’s good to know things are still progressing. I’m going to come to the Bronx this summer and see for myself. Even if all I can do is look at the outside at peer through the doors.
Hello again Benjamin! I also remember looking at old copies of the “New York Times” from 1929 (Specifically to find old movie ads) and noticing that the 4 wonder theatres (the 175th Street was not open yet) were always together in the same ad, and usually had a slogan like “Direct from the Capitol!” Anyway, it’s nice reading your comments.
I’ve been inside both. Even though it’s been years since I was in the Stanley (it was still showing movies at the time). I’d have a hard time saying which had the better interior, but I truly believe the Loew’s has the better exterior. I think its “French Baroque collides with Art Deco” 20’s romantic type facade is a marvel! It’s as if Hugh Ferris became the court painter for Louis XIV. What a great thing it would be if the vertical and marquee could be replicated! I hope Jersey City is aware of what a couple of treasures they have in their downtown.
Hi Benjamin, if you’re still wondering what the “wonder theatres” had in common. I almost positive that all these theatres were built with these two things in common:
1) They were meant as a showcase for the new talking pictures, and more importantly
2) They were all meant to get their shows directly from the Capitol on Broadway, making them something of a chain within a chain.
I visited this theatre in the 1970’s when they had a special showing of “Tillie’s Punctured Romance” with live organ accompaniment. I believe the organ was an electronic model with a console built to resemble that of a real theatre organ, and it sounded good! You would have sworn it was an actual pipe organ. I remember the theatre still had it’s original marquee, and the oak doors going to the auditorium had oval glass panels in them. I glad to hear it will be opening again. I’ll have to visit when I go home for the summer.
Thank you, Christian, for that great photograph. I always enjoy seeing the photos of the stage shows these theatres used to have, even if it’s just to see what I have missed (sigh). “Footlight Parade”, by the way, is one of my favorite films!
I agree with Vincent, silent movies require greater concentration and therefore less conversation. It wasn’t until talking movies came along that one could allow ones attention to wander from the screen without losing track of the story. I also believe that people were better behaved in public. Even in my not so very distant childhood, the act of speaking aloud at the movies was considered indescribably rude. Regarding Vincent’s point #1, I think most legit theatres at the turn of the century had very minimal lobby space (there were exceptions of course) and that movie theatre lobbies in the teens and twenties were noted for their expansiveness in comparison with their “legitimate” brethren.
All this talk about the overblown aspects of theatres and stage shows reminds me of a joke I read in a 1920’s joke book. (interesting that movie palaces were such a part of the public psyche that one could publish jokes involving them). Anyway..here goes.
A couple went to the movies on a date. During the presentation the young man got thirsty, so he left his seat and asked the usher if he could direct him to a drinking fountain “Certainly sir” was the reply, “just take the staircase to the left and walk through the art gallery, turn left and proceed down a row of potted palms. Then turn left… ” and so the usher continued. After getting thoroughly lost, the young man finally stumbled into what seemed to be a forest glade with a babbling brook. In desperation he threw himself down to drink from the stream, and somehow found his way back to his seat. Seeing that the picture had started he asked his date “How was the stage show?” She replied “You ought to know, you were in it.”
In other words, if the Roxy (and ocean liners) were still around, they would be a stupendous value, but people don’t want value, they want fast and cheap!
Benjamin, I really enjoyed your comment from January 16th! I got my movie prices from upstate New York where moviegoing is considerably cheaper than in Manhattan. I love your new “quote”.
In the book “We Americans” the author makes an interesting observation as to why movies fell from favor. He doesn’t believe that it’s because of alternative amusements (they always existed in one form or another), but rather because Hollywood has lost it’s way. They no longer produce films that make us feel good about ourselves or that make us WANT to have our lives be like the lives of people up on the screen. Moviegoing has long since ceased to be the communal emotional experience it once was.
I have to admit I agree, and you’re right, the world HAS gone cheap!
Hi BoxOfficeBill, no offense, this is just my opinion, but I thought “Gangs of New York” was one of the most horrible, dull, and worthless films I’ve ever seen. Please again, no offense. I’m sure you loved your Grandfather, and I’ve never met him. My comment is strictly about the movie and not about your family.
Benjamin, as a P.S., I suppose another analogy for the Norma Desmond quote could be “I am a big bargain, it’s just that the rest of the world lowered their standards” ;–)
Hello Benjamin! You’re right, I should have mentioned the years of my grandparents recollections. These prices would have been from the late 1930’s, and would have been typical for Rochester, NY. I think also, if we compared prices then we should compare experiences. Granted, a great many movies from the 20’s and 30’s are pretty bad but suppose a typical theatre seat in a city cost 50 cents, and for that half dollar you get an orchestra, organist, newsreel, travelogue, short subject, feature film, and a stage show. You also get to experience this in a magnificent hall ornately decorated with copies and originals of various works of art. Now, I know that 50 cents was a lot of money 70 or 80 years ago. As a guess I would say it translates into 10 or 15 dollars today. If it were possible to replicate the moviegoing experience of the 20’s and 30’s for 15.00 per person (which, given minimum wage laws and theatre union wages, I assume it’s not possible) I would definitely be more of a moviegoer than I am. I just don’t think I get my 8 bucks worth. To get back to my grandparents, my grandmother remembered going to the Eastman, which was Rochester’s largest and highest class theatre in the mid 20’s. She said you could sit in the balcony for a quarter and after it was all said and done you definitely felt you had gotten your quarter’s worth, and then some!
Back to my great aunt’s hats. You could be right about hand crafted clothing. She married a rich man and had no children. I’m just amazed because catalogues from the same era show very pretty women’s hats for $1.50 and less.
Vincent, in response to the legalized extortion, I agree. I can guarantee that I will never see a Broadway show, simply thinking about how much I paid would keep me from enjoying myself.
I think “The Little Princess” is another technicolor film for Shirley Temple. I agree with you about “The Bluebird”, but it is a fascinating film, in a weird way.
Hi Benjamin, I think the Norma Desmond quote you’re looking for is “I AM big. It’s the pictures that got small.”. This in response to William Holden’s character when he said “You’re Norma Desmond! You used to be in silent pictures! Used to be big!” Regarding prices, it’s hard to say what may have seemed inexpensive to our grandparents without being there to experience it ourselves. A line from the 1933 film “Footlight Parade” has someone saying “It’s a lot better to fill your theatre 4 times a day at 50 cents a head, than to have it half full once a night for 5 dollars per person.”
My grandparents used to recollect going to the movies for 35 cents, and buying a week’s groceries for a family of five for $5.00, yet I had a great aunt who was known for buying $75.00 hats! If the average movie admission today costs $7.00 this would compare to expensive hats costing about $1500.00! This would also mean one could feed a family of five for about $100.00 a week. If I can go by my own grocery bill, this may not be a reasonable amount. I guess one can’t simply compare prices across the board. Some items have increased a great deal, some not as much, and some items (like expensive ladies' hats) don’t seem to exist at all anymore!
Hi Glenn, I’ll respond to your comment. I’m not sure when the last time you were in Rochester was, but it’s changed since “Search for Paradise” showed at the Monroe, that’s for sure! The Manger (formerly the Seneca) Hotel is gone, the Monroe is not what it was, but I guess there’s still hope both for downtown and the Monroe. What great childhood memories though! Thanks for sharing them.
Thanks for listing this theatre Howard. My grandmother used to tell me about going to the movies here, and I remember the closed down theatre building sitting on Clinton Ave. up until is destruction.
Umm, speaking of anyone can make a mistake (including yours truly)….Jim, you probably don’t realize that in your last post you moved the 72nd Street theatre 100 blocks uptown.
Well, I still say that the Pitkin is not one of the “wonder theatres”, and the Jersey is, by virtue of the original ads put out by Loew’s themselves. I’ve made mention of them in a previous post. Now, we can agree that the Pitkin is one of the wonder-ful theatres.
Oops! I mean “and” peer through the doors.
Thanks Divinity! It’s good to know things are still progressing. I’m going to come to the Bronx this summer and see for myself. Even if all I can do is look at the outside at peer through the doors.
Yes, but it was Loew’s, Inc. which got to decide which theatres were “wonder theatres”, not Ben Hall.
Divinity, your frequent updates are very much missed! Do you have any comments for us regarding what’s up at the Paradise?
Hello again Benjamin! I also remember looking at old copies of the “New York Times” from 1929 (Specifically to find old movie ads) and noticing that the 4 wonder theatres (the 175th Street was not open yet) were always together in the same ad, and usually had a slogan like “Direct from the Capitol!” Anyway, it’s nice reading your comments.
I’ve been inside both. Even though it’s been years since I was in the Stanley (it was still showing movies at the time). I’d have a hard time saying which had the better interior, but I truly believe the Loew’s has the better exterior. I think its “French Baroque collides with Art Deco” 20’s romantic type facade is a marvel! It’s as if Hugh Ferris became the court painter for Louis XIV. What a great thing it would be if the vertical and marquee could be replicated! I hope Jersey City is aware of what a couple of treasures they have in their downtown.
Hi Benjamin, if you’re still wondering what the “wonder theatres” had in common. I almost positive that all these theatres were built with these two things in common:
1) They were meant as a showcase for the new talking pictures, and more importantly
2) They were all meant to get their shows directly from the Capitol on Broadway, making them something of a chain within a chain.
I visited this theatre in the 1970’s when they had a special showing of “Tillie’s Punctured Romance” with live organ accompaniment. I believe the organ was an electronic model with a console built to resemble that of a real theatre organ, and it sounded good! You would have sworn it was an actual pipe organ. I remember the theatre still had it’s original marquee, and the oak doors going to the auditorium had oval glass panels in them. I glad to hear it will be opening again. I’ll have to visit when I go home for the summer.
Thank you, Christian, for that great photograph. I always enjoy seeing the photos of the stage shows these theatres used to have, even if it’s just to see what I have missed (sigh). “Footlight Parade”, by the way, is one of my favorite films!
I remember “Hare Do”! I always preferred the Warner Bros. cartoons to any others, even as a kid. Now I have nieces and nephews who just don’t get it.
I agree with Vincent, silent movies require greater concentration and therefore less conversation. It wasn’t until talking movies came along that one could allow ones attention to wander from the screen without losing track of the story. I also believe that people were better behaved in public. Even in my not so very distant childhood, the act of speaking aloud at the movies was considered indescribably rude. Regarding Vincent’s point #1, I think most legit theatres at the turn of the century had very minimal lobby space (there were exceptions of course) and that movie theatre lobbies in the teens and twenties were noted for their expansiveness in comparison with their “legitimate” brethren.
All this talk about the overblown aspects of theatres and stage shows reminds me of a joke I read in a 1920’s joke book. (interesting that movie palaces were such a part of the public psyche that one could publish jokes involving them). Anyway..here goes.
A couple went to the movies on a date. During the presentation the young man got thirsty, so he left his seat and asked the usher if he could direct him to a drinking fountain “Certainly sir” was the reply, “just take the staircase to the left and walk through the art gallery, turn left and proceed down a row of potted palms. Then turn left… ” and so the usher continued. After getting thoroughly lost, the young man finally stumbled into what seemed to be a forest glade with a babbling brook. In desperation he threw himself down to drink from the stream, and somehow found his way back to his seat. Seeing that the picture had started he asked his date “How was the stage show?” She replied “You ought to know, you were in it.”
In other words, if the Roxy (and ocean liners) were still around, they would be a stupendous value, but people don’t want value, they want fast and cheap!
Benjamin, I really enjoyed your comment from January 16th! I got my movie prices from upstate New York where moviegoing is considerably cheaper than in Manhattan. I love your new “quote”.
In the book “We Americans” the author makes an interesting observation as to why movies fell from favor. He doesn’t believe that it’s because of alternative amusements (they always existed in one form or another), but rather because Hollywood has lost it’s way. They no longer produce films that make us feel good about ourselves or that make us WANT to have our lives be like the lives of people up on the screen. Moviegoing has long since ceased to be the communal emotional experience it once was.
I have to admit I agree, and you’re right, the world HAS gone cheap!
Hi BoxOfficeBill, no offense, this is just my opinion, but I thought “Gangs of New York” was one of the most horrible, dull, and worthless films I’ve ever seen. Please again, no offense. I’m sure you loved your Grandfather, and I’ve never met him. My comment is strictly about the movie and not about your family.
It’s really too bad that RCMH can’t be included now that it has gone from “The Showplace of the Nation” to being the “no place” of the nation.
Benjamin, as a P.S., I suppose another analogy for the Norma Desmond quote could be “I am a big bargain, it’s just that the rest of the world lowered their standards” ;–)
Hello Benjamin! You’re right, I should have mentioned the years of my grandparents recollections. These prices would have been from the late 1930’s, and would have been typical for Rochester, NY. I think also, if we compared prices then we should compare experiences. Granted, a great many movies from the 20’s and 30’s are pretty bad but suppose a typical theatre seat in a city cost 50 cents, and for that half dollar you get an orchestra, organist, newsreel, travelogue, short subject, feature film, and a stage show. You also get to experience this in a magnificent hall ornately decorated with copies and originals of various works of art. Now, I know that 50 cents was a lot of money 70 or 80 years ago. As a guess I would say it translates into 10 or 15 dollars today. If it were possible to replicate the moviegoing experience of the 20’s and 30’s for 15.00 per person (which, given minimum wage laws and theatre union wages, I assume it’s not possible) I would definitely be more of a moviegoer than I am. I just don’t think I get my 8 bucks worth. To get back to my grandparents, my grandmother remembered going to the Eastman, which was Rochester’s largest and highest class theatre in the mid 20’s. She said you could sit in the balcony for a quarter and after it was all said and done you definitely felt you had gotten your quarter’s worth, and then some!
Back to my great aunt’s hats. You could be right about hand crafted clothing. She married a rich man and had no children. I’m just amazed because catalogues from the same era show very pretty women’s hats for $1.50 and less.
Vincent, in response to the legalized extortion, I agree. I can guarantee that I will never see a Broadway show, simply thinking about how much I paid would keep me from enjoying myself.
I think “The Little Princess” is another technicolor film for Shirley Temple. I agree with you about “The Bluebird”, but it is a fascinating film, in a weird way.
Hi Benjamin, I think the Norma Desmond quote you’re looking for is “I AM big. It’s the pictures that got small.”. This in response to William Holden’s character when he said “You’re Norma Desmond! You used to be in silent pictures! Used to be big!” Regarding prices, it’s hard to say what may have seemed inexpensive to our grandparents without being there to experience it ourselves. A line from the 1933 film “Footlight Parade” has someone saying “It’s a lot better to fill your theatre 4 times a day at 50 cents a head, than to have it half full once a night for 5 dollars per person.”
My grandparents used to recollect going to the movies for 35 cents, and buying a week’s groceries for a family of five for $5.00, yet I had a great aunt who was known for buying $75.00 hats! If the average movie admission today costs $7.00 this would compare to expensive hats costing about $1500.00! This would also mean one could feed a family of five for about $100.00 a week. If I can go by my own grocery bill, this may not be a reasonable amount. I guess one can’t simply compare prices across the board. Some items have increased a great deal, some not as much, and some items (like expensive ladies' hats) don’t seem to exist at all anymore!