Hi folks, I posted about the Boyd a while back and just discovered this thread. If anyone has personal photographs of Philly theaters [not found in published books] I’d love to see them! Just for kicks… I live in LA now with countless memories of Northeast & downtown theaters. Thanks. please email pix to
<But please don’t say that this or that movie is not art because the big studios don’t see it that way and are blind to this fact.>
I wasn’t trying to imply this. Generally speaking, all I mean to say that art is subjective. (Andres Serrano’s controversial work being an example.)
<Don’t give the big studios far more power to dictate what is reality than what they rightfully deserve.>
Again, “rightfully deserve†is relative. What do the studios deserve? As a business in a [relatively] free market they deserve to exploit their properties to the fullest. If said films contain any elements of artistic merit the studios deserve [a portion of] credit, because they had the choice to greenlight the project or pass on it. What percentage of credit? Well that’s debatable.
In my own way, I don’t reward the studios for making crap by withholding my attendance. I won’t consent to be patronized or bamboozled by publicity hype; I am selective of the films I patronizeâ€"as well as the actual venues. Nine times out of ten I refused to see a film that was conveniently playing in my neighborhood multiplex because the screen were too small, the projection and sound barely attended to. I guess I considered it a badge of honor to travel to a venue like the Boyd.
<It’s bad enough that too often they act as filters in exchange for what it takes to get a film produced and distributed, very oftentimes ruining what would have been art otherwise.>
Very true. But that is the nature of the beast. Everyone makes their deals with eyes wide open. (There are too many overpaid lawyers making sure of it.)
<But what is very beautiful about certain films is how they made it through the big studio filtering process with that which is art still fully intact, movies that have a timelessness especially.>
How true! I find it even more amazing that so many got through the system relatively unscathed; although I truly believe that cinema would’ve matured much sooner without the Hays office interference. What Kazin and Brando achieved in the 50s probably would have happened much earlier.
<And rather than what is timeless being subjective, only time itself can determine what is timeless, of course. And the same with regard to what is majestic, or credible or accurate.>
Well you’ve got me there. People will be listening to Beethoven and the Beatles for centuries. I doubt if history will be as kind to Porky’s and Cannonball Run.
<When it comes to business, all business is just for the moment only.>
If you define “moment†as many generations this is true. As long as they hold the copyright(s) they control the content and distribution. Then again look what happens when some films fall into public domain: colorization or terrible prints being passed off as a resemblance to the original.
<The big studios who fortunately failed to get their way, wanted to cast Shirley Temple as Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz because she was the hottest child star at that moment. And had it not been for a business technicality, Temple would’ve gotten the part, and The Wizard of Oz would be relatively worthless today.>
This may be heresy — but I think Wizard could have been just as good; or at least as interesting with Temple. Of course we can recast all the films in our minds but it’s an academic point.
<As for science fiction films taking on timelessness, it has happened, but it’s extremely rare. I can list certain sci-fi films of the past that have certain scenes that are timeless — The Fly, War of the Worlds, The Day the Earth Stood Still, etc. — but not necessarily consistently timeless throughout.>
In theory I agree with you that those films cited (and many others) contain thoughtful themes and scenes of greatness trapped within dated, formulaic format. I’d say that about any genre.
<But in contrast, when you take a film like Ben Hur, what elements can you find in that movie that would only have made sense back in the late 1950s when it was released but that totally fail to connect with today’s audience in terms of their making much sense now?>
I don’t mean to rag on Ben Hur, I really like the film… but it is (by compassion to the execution of contemporary films) very dated in styleâ€"mostly the dialogue and acting, which seems hammy to the current generation. Hell, it seems hammy to me too. ;) But unlike the kids, that doesn’t get in my way of enjoying it. I also think its pace (which never bothered me) is well out of step with today’s films… Gladiator being an example of current fast-paced “epics.â€
<Certain films of the past that are being promoted as epics today, such as Star Wars, are only being propped up by the big studios to seem as such. For take that propping up away and I feel it would be revealed just how very dated and stale they are as opposed to being “timeless.”>
Come on, Ben Hur was promoted to death too. I would absolutely say that Star Wars is a timeless filmâ€"far moreso than Ben Hur in the way it influenced an entire generation; not just movie patrons. That doesn’t mean I think Star Wars is better; more artistic etc. But if timeless means it lives through the ages, I have no doubt that it will be considered a classic.
I was just showing some silent films to my eight year-old daughter, and of course she remarked that the acting was so theatrical, the sets so fake, etc. 15 minutes later she was hooked and completely immersed in their unique world. Silents are timeless AND dated! It’s not a mutually exclusive concept. (Of course, there’s nothing inherent about silent films per se that make a classic.)
<For there has to be the true underlying artistry to make a film timeless, and that’s not something that can be bought.>
It can’t be bought on command, but if they finance a project and step away from interference in production, the results can be similar. In 1965 MGM gave Kubrick about 10 million based on a sketchy outline (it may have even been verbal; I’d have to check) and look at the result.
<And the Boyd Theatre, despite the rough times it suffered when it was the Sameric, survives as art.>
Is that high art or low art? Personally, I’m a huge fan of Deco — but it was not considered high art by any means at the time it originated. My feeling is that the Boyd should be preserved because it’s a swell-looking building that reflects innumerable happy memories of the patrons who passed through its doors. But Notre Dame Cathedral it ain’t. ;)
Here in LA The Wiltern theater, a deco classic, exists to host live rock shows. Although I feel these have lesser aesthetic value than movies, I wouldn’t try to convince the audience of that. Because it wasn’t torn down, they are experiencing their own happy memories there. Perhaps, in a few decades The Wiltern may be cited for demolition… and the people who grew up with it as a rock venue will protest just as loudly as we who grew up in the Boyd.
It’s been very invigorating to discuss this subject with you; please feel free to have the last word.
I respectfully disagree with the post about what the Boyd should and shouldn’t have screened. This is my perspective (and I work in entertainment…) It’s all a business. The artistic side of cinema is (I hate saying “just”) a by-product of the merchandise made by those who bankroll & distribute movies. Please believe me when I say that the general studio perception is that movies are no more important than selling shoes.
Sure, they make all kinds of self-aggrandizing public statements to the contrary. That’s just the surface. (ex: One of the key reasons the new Superman movie took so long to get into production wasn’t about who was “right†for the role, or writing the best script… all the fighting over how much junk they could merchandise. At one point Peter Guber wanted Superman to fight Polar bears for no reason except to make stuffed animals.)
Now, all the statements about criteria are totally subjective. (Although I’d agree that any movie with Streisand is landfill.) I saw all the aforementioned films there and found that many of them could be considered epic â€" and on what scale is “epic” defined? By how many extras that can fit on the screen, or…? IMO historical accuracy has nothing to do with proportion or aesthetics. How the West was Won is certainly an epic — but it’s pretty darn inaccurate, historically and in dialogue.
I am at a total loss as to see how a science fiction film can even be expected to contain historical accuracy. Perhaps you meant believability? In that case the Star Wars films aren’t even science fiction, they are fantasies. Nobody expects the future to look as they do. (Least of all Lucas.) Blade Runner — an epic IMO — is true science fiction; many of its details are becoming a reality. That’s scary… but wholly irrelevant to how entertaining it may be or why it deserves the biggest screen possible.
Back in the day when MGM was making “prestige” adaptations of the classics, those films were expected to put butts in theater chairs just as much as their standard fare.
BTW, don’t get the impression that I am fronting for big business. I left the world of commercials to make independent, personally satisfying films. But be realistic — no studios make movies solely for their artistic value. Cinema can be art… and I’d wish it were more so… but that is not the reality.
I am very interested in information regarding the premiere of 2001: A Space Odyssey at the Boyd. If any readers would care to share memories, photos & souvenirs (such as the 3D postcards sold in the lobby during intermission) PLEASE CONTACT ME DIRECTLY. I’d really appreciate it. Thanks to all.
To avoid spam filters, write BOYD in the subject line. Thanks!
Hi folks, I posted about the Boyd a while back and just discovered this thread. If anyone has personal photographs of Philly theaters [not found in published books] I’d love to see them! Just for kicks… I live in LA now with countless memories of Northeast & downtown theaters. Thanks. please email pix to
Thanks!
Hi, here I am to address your points.
<But please don’t say that this or that movie is not art because the big studios don’t see it that way and are blind to this fact.>
I wasn’t trying to imply this. Generally speaking, all I mean to say that art is subjective. (Andres Serrano’s controversial work being an example.)
<Don’t give the big studios far more power to dictate what is reality than what they rightfully deserve.>
Again, “rightfully deserve†is relative. What do the studios deserve? As a business in a [relatively] free market they deserve to exploit their properties to the fullest. If said films contain any elements of artistic merit the studios deserve [a portion of] credit, because they had the choice to greenlight the project or pass on it. What percentage of credit? Well that’s debatable.
In my own way, I don’t reward the studios for making crap by withholding my attendance. I won’t consent to be patronized or bamboozled by publicity hype; I am selective of the films I patronizeâ€"as well as the actual venues. Nine times out of ten I refused to see a film that was conveniently playing in my neighborhood multiplex because the screen were too small, the projection and sound barely attended to. I guess I considered it a badge of honor to travel to a venue like the Boyd.
<It’s bad enough that too often they act as filters in exchange for what it takes to get a film produced and distributed, very oftentimes ruining what would have been art otherwise.>
Very true. But that is the nature of the beast. Everyone makes their deals with eyes wide open. (There are too many overpaid lawyers making sure of it.)
<But what is very beautiful about certain films is how they made it through the big studio filtering process with that which is art still fully intact, movies that have a timelessness especially.>
How true! I find it even more amazing that so many got through the system relatively unscathed; although I truly believe that cinema would’ve matured much sooner without the Hays office interference. What Kazin and Brando achieved in the 50s probably would have happened much earlier.
<And rather than what is timeless being subjective, only time itself can determine what is timeless, of course. And the same with regard to what is majestic, or credible or accurate.>
Well you’ve got me there. People will be listening to Beethoven and the Beatles for centuries. I doubt if history will be as kind to Porky’s and Cannonball Run.
<When it comes to business, all business is just for the moment only.>
If you define “moment†as many generations this is true. As long as they hold the copyright(s) they control the content and distribution. Then again look what happens when some films fall into public domain: colorization or terrible prints being passed off as a resemblance to the original.
<The big studios who fortunately failed to get their way, wanted to cast Shirley Temple as Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz because she was the hottest child star at that moment. And had it not been for a business technicality, Temple would’ve gotten the part, and The Wizard of Oz would be relatively worthless today.>
This may be heresy — but I think Wizard could have been just as good; or at least as interesting with Temple. Of course we can recast all the films in our minds but it’s an academic point.
<As for science fiction films taking on timelessness, it has happened, but it’s extremely rare. I can list certain sci-fi films of the past that have certain scenes that are timeless — The Fly, War of the Worlds, The Day the Earth Stood Still, etc. — but not necessarily consistently timeless throughout.>
In theory I agree with you that those films cited (and many others) contain thoughtful themes and scenes of greatness trapped within dated, formulaic format. I’d say that about any genre.
<But in contrast, when you take a film like Ben Hur, what elements can you find in that movie that would only have made sense back in the late 1950s when it was released but that totally fail to connect with today’s audience in terms of their making much sense now?>
I don’t mean to rag on Ben Hur, I really like the film… but it is (by compassion to the execution of contemporary films) very dated in styleâ€"mostly the dialogue and acting, which seems hammy to the current generation. Hell, it seems hammy to me too. ;) But unlike the kids, that doesn’t get in my way of enjoying it. I also think its pace (which never bothered me) is well out of step with today’s films… Gladiator being an example of current fast-paced “epics.â€
<Certain films of the past that are being promoted as epics today, such as Star Wars, are only being propped up by the big studios to seem as such. For take that propping up away and I feel it would be revealed just how very dated and stale they are as opposed to being “timeless.”>
Come on, Ben Hur was promoted to death too. I would absolutely say that Star Wars is a timeless filmâ€"far moreso than Ben Hur in the way it influenced an entire generation; not just movie patrons. That doesn’t mean I think Star Wars is better; more artistic etc. But if timeless means it lives through the ages, I have no doubt that it will be considered a classic.
I was just showing some silent films to my eight year-old daughter, and of course she remarked that the acting was so theatrical, the sets so fake, etc. 15 minutes later she was hooked and completely immersed in their unique world. Silents are timeless AND dated! It’s not a mutually exclusive concept. (Of course, there’s nothing inherent about silent films per se that make a classic.)
<For there has to be the true underlying artistry to make a film timeless, and that’s not something that can be bought.>
It can’t be bought on command, but if they finance a project and step away from interference in production, the results can be similar. In 1965 MGM gave Kubrick about 10 million based on a sketchy outline (it may have even been verbal; I’d have to check) and look at the result.
<And the Boyd Theatre, despite the rough times it suffered when it was the Sameric, survives as art.>
Is that high art or low art? Personally, I’m a huge fan of Deco — but it was not considered high art by any means at the time it originated. My feeling is that the Boyd should be preserved because it’s a swell-looking building that reflects innumerable happy memories of the patrons who passed through its doors. But Notre Dame Cathedral it ain’t. ;)
Here in LA The Wiltern theater, a deco classic, exists to host live rock shows. Although I feel these have lesser aesthetic value than movies, I wouldn’t try to convince the audience of that. Because it wasn’t torn down, they are experiencing their own happy memories there. Perhaps, in a few decades The Wiltern may be cited for demolition… and the people who grew up with it as a rock venue will protest just as loudly as we who grew up in the Boyd.
It’s been very invigorating to discuss this subject with you; please feel free to have the last word.
I respectfully disagree with the post about what the Boyd should and shouldn’t have screened. This is my perspective (and I work in entertainment…) It’s all a business. The artistic side of cinema is (I hate saying “just”) a by-product of the merchandise made by those who bankroll & distribute movies. Please believe me when I say that the general studio perception is that movies are no more important than selling shoes.
Sure, they make all kinds of self-aggrandizing public statements to the contrary. That’s just the surface. (ex: One of the key reasons the new Superman movie took so long to get into production wasn’t about who was “right†for the role, or writing the best script… all the fighting over how much junk they could merchandise. At one point Peter Guber wanted Superman to fight Polar bears for no reason except to make stuffed animals.)
Now, all the statements about criteria are totally subjective. (Although I’d agree that any movie with Streisand is landfill.) I saw all the aforementioned films there and found that many of them could be considered epic â€" and on what scale is “epic” defined? By how many extras that can fit on the screen, or…? IMO historical accuracy has nothing to do with proportion or aesthetics. How the West was Won is certainly an epic — but it’s pretty darn inaccurate, historically and in dialogue.
I am at a total loss as to see how a science fiction film can even be expected to contain historical accuracy. Perhaps you meant believability? In that case the Star Wars films aren’t even science fiction, they are fantasies. Nobody expects the future to look as they do. (Least of all Lucas.) Blade Runner — an epic IMO — is true science fiction; many of its details are becoming a reality. That’s scary… but wholly irrelevant to how entertaining it may be or why it deserves the biggest screen possible.
Back in the day when MGM was making “prestige” adaptations of the classics, those films were expected to put butts in theater chairs just as much as their standard fare.
BTW, don’t get the impression that I am fronting for big business. I left the world of commercials to make independent, personally satisfying films. But be realistic — no studios make movies solely for their artistic value. Cinema can be art… and I’d wish it were more so… but that is not the reality.
I am very interested in information regarding the premiere of 2001: A Space Odyssey at the Boyd. If any readers would care to share memories, photos & souvenirs (such as the 3D postcards sold in the lobby during intermission) PLEASE CONTACT ME DIRECTLY. I’d really appreciate it. Thanks to all.
To avoid spam filters, write BOYD in the subject line. Thanks!