Loew's Valencia Theatre
165-11 Jamaica Avenue,
Jamaica,
NY
11432
165-11 Jamaica Avenue,
Jamaica,
NY
11432
36 people
favorited this theater
Showing 376 - 400 of 480 comments
Ooops, I didn’t mean to say that the PITKIN was demolished, but was apparently thinking of the 172nd STREET.
The edition Benjamin is looking at is indeed the most recent reprint (from 1987) and the pages were renumbered as he surmises, due to the fact that the latter-day publisher, the DeCapo Press, did not reproduce the 5 color plates of the first edition of 1961. The edition of 1975 did not either, but both the latter day editions did retain the caption to four missing pages (bottom of page 136 of the first edition), the frontice piece being the fifth one! On their back of title page is this paragraph: “This DeCapo Press paperback edition [of 1987] of ‘The Best Remaining Seats’ is a republication of the revised edition published in New York in 1975 and issued under the title: ‘The Golden Age of the Movie Palace.’ The present edition has been updated through 1987 and is supplemented with a new preface by B. Andrew Corsini. It is reprinted by arrangement with Crown Publishers, Inc.†They did update the theatre captions where needed, but not the text of the book.
The mentioning of the JERSEY as one of the 5 Loew’s Wonder theatres in that original page 205 caption reprinted as on page 201 in the ‘87 edition, is an interpolation by a latter day editor, and not Ben Hall’s original text. So, Mr. Hall felt that the PITKIN was one of the ‘Wonder Theatres’ originally, but someone else thought to replace it with the JERSEY in the latter editions. This may be because the PITKIN was demolished by the time the reprints were made, and latter day editors may have thought it would make the book more ‘relevant’ as was the by-word of those days for the sake of sales, and to get new listings in library card catalogs of the day.
Ben M. Hall was murdered on Dec. 15th, 1970 according to the article about it in the New York Times of Dec. 16th, 1970, page 54 at bottom: “Writer Found Slain in Village Roomsâ€. The dust jackets and other reproductions of such text and photo are just simple photo reproductions, and do not attempt to be updated, though one would hope that a new bio note there would have mentioned his death. All this shows the cheapness of latter day publishers who will not even take the time to remove irrelevant captions for the color plates they are too cheap to print, as well as update the dust jacket. I guess that their attitude is that we should be happy that they reprinted a 16-year-old book at all.
Possibly it was a mistake of Mr. Hall’s in regard to the actual architect/designer of the 172nd St.’s auditorium, but as Benjamin graciously admits, most anyone can make a mistake, or be upstaged by latter day research. The 1961 first edition of the book is definitive, but probably does have an error or two.
I guess the “Wonder Theater” slogan was really good advertising if movie theater buffs, 75 years later, can be discussing which theaters should or should not have been included! And it’s not just about the Pitkin, I’ve notice other theater threads that have also included discussions about whether the theater was a “Wonder Theater†or not. (Kind of reminds me of those debates about who should be Miss Rheingold or who should win an MTV award — both great advertising ploys by Rheingold and MTV, respectively!)
It is true that, ultimately, the Loew’s Corporation gets to decide which theaters belong or not (just as, I assume, MTV gets to decide which are the best videos in the various categories), so it is interesting to figure out what criteria and reasoning they had in their original advertising campaign â€" hence my original question. But I also find it interesting to find out what criteria other people thought Loew’s had in mind, too.
I finally got a chance to look at my copy of the Hall book, and I discovered something very interesting. In my copy, page 205 has nothing at all about any “Wonder Theaters”! Instead, there are two photographs of Balaban & Katz presentations on that page: 1) a scene from “Pearl of Baghdad” (on top) and 2) a scene from “Watteau Come to Life” (below).
BUT, on page 201 of my copy, as I mentioned in my February 6 post, there is a caption to a photo of the interior of the Loew’s Kings that does mention the various Wonder Theaters. In my copy it reads: “The Kings (named after Brooklyn’s county) was opened in 1929 as one of the five Loew"s "Wonder Theatres” (others: Valencia in Jamaica, Long Island, Paradise in The Bronx, JERSEY, JERSEY CITY, 175th Street in Manhattan.“ [The emphasis is mine.]
Possible explanation?:
I believe my copy is a cheap reprint from the mid-1970s. (It was published by Bramhall House, a division of Clarkson N. Potter.)
At a number of points in the text, it refers to color photos — although there are no color photos in the book. I’ve never bothered to check to see if the photos are instead included in only black and white, but maybe they just left the photos out altogether and just re-numbered the pages?
Also, since the book was originally published 15 years or so earlier, maybe they discovered that the substitution of the Pitkin for the Jersey was a small Ben Hall mistake, or perhaps, instead, just a typographer’s error? (But then, again, the dust jacket of this edition gives a brief bio of Hall as though he were still alive, when apparently he had been killed in the late 1960s or early 1970s. So it’s not really clear when this edition was published or what they conciously decided to change and what, if anything, they decided to leave alone.)
Actually, I’ve noticed a number of what I believe are mistakes in the Hall book. And Warren has also pointed out what appears to be a pretty big one regarding the auditorium of the Loew’s 72nd Street Theater, which Hall seems to feel is one of Lamb’s best: “His atmospheric Loew’s Pitkin Theatre in Brooklyn and the auditorium of his Loew’s 72nd Street Theatre, while lacking some of the subtlety of the Eberson touch, turned out quite well, and did, indeed, ‘retain their novelty character for a considerable length of time.’†And the photos of the interior of the 72nd St. Theater (pgs. 114-115) do, indeed show a really stunning atmospheric. But Warren points out on the Loew’s 72nd St. page on this site, that there is an article in an issue of the Theater Society’s journal that says it was Eberson who actually designed the auditorium â€" Lamb, according to the article designed the rest of the theater. What’s more, according to the article, this information was pretty well known when the theater was built.
Regarding Ben Hall’s mistakes: While his book is really terrific — a monumental work , really — nevertheless he was a pioneer in the field and was thus almost bound to make a number of mistakes. I see the same thing with other early writers on historic preservation. One can do just so much research at the time, and years later, with a lot more researchers spending a lot more time on the issues, inevitably more accurate information comes to light.
Yes, but it was Loew’s, Inc. which got to decide which theatres were “wonder theatres”, not Ben Hall.
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.
ziggy — Hi! I can see where your explanation makes sense, especially when thought of in the following context:
The sound era becomes the rage in late 1927(?). To capitalize on this new phenomenon and to tap into a very fast growing market in the newly burgeoning areas outside of Manhattan, Paramount-Public (and subsequently Loew’s) plans to construct in the “outer boroughs” FIVE very large(3,000+ seat) and eye-poppingly lavish theaters — built specifically for the “talkies.” (Other large, lavish theaters, like the Capitol, 5,200 seats, and even the Roxy, 5,900 seats, were originally built, of course, with silent films in mind.)
These theaters would be designed by the greatest names in movie theater architecture (Eberson, Rapp & Rapp, and Thomas Lamb) and would all open, more or less, at the same time — hopefully, in the fall of 1929.
Unlike other such grand theaters in the region, the “Wonder Theatres” would be located outside of midtown Manhattan, in the “outer boroughs” (Upper Manhattan and nearby Jersey City being, in the context of the Wonder Theater advertising campaign, “outer borough” communities). They would bring a super-modern version of the grand movie palace of midtown Manhattan to the middle-class “subway suburbs” of Queens, Brooklyn, etc.; and they would create an entirely new intermediate level of movie theatergoing — something between the experience of traveling all the way downtown to go to a gigantic, first run movie palace in Manhattan (like the Loew’s Capitol) and the experience of walking to a nearby local shopping street to go to one of the many small neighborhood theaters spread throughout the metropolitan region.
Such theaters would bring a new level of grandeur and beauty to the outer boroughs — and they would be bound together by their post-Manhattan run “exclusivity” (second run after the Loew’s Capitol in Manhattan).
So how is the Loew’s marketing department going to publicize this chain of five spectacular new modern theaters that are located, so daringly, far from the Great White Way? — as the five “Wonder Theaters”!
So what was so “wondrous” about them? Giving the Loew’s PR department a little bit of room for puffery — they are a PR department, after all — these theaters would be among the very first, large-sized theaters to be built specifically with “talkies” in mind. They would have all the latest and greatest theatrical equipment on hand (including twenty-three rank Robert Morton organs). Each of the five would be designed by one of the three greatest firms in movie theater architecture, and would bring to the Bronx, Queens, etc. a level of movie palace grandeur and beauty previously unheard of for these relatively modest communities.
So that would help explain why the Valencia was a “Wonder Theater” and the Loew’s Triboro and Loew’s Pitkin were not. As neither of the second two would — or could — be part of this “second run” chain (since the Valencia and the Kings would occupy those places of honor in Queens and Brooklyn, respectively). And this would explain why it was “logical” for the Jersey (not really in an outer borough, but in “downtown” Jersey City) to be included with the other Wonder Theaters — because it too was part of this “second run” chain of magnificent new modern theaters.
Looking back, I find it really “wonder-ful” that so much construction was taking place in New York City and its “outer boroughs.” Imagine FIVE totally new 3,000+ theaters — and that’s not counting all the other theaters (and other buildings) also being built in Manhattan and other relatively close-in areas of the region. Cities were really a beehive of activity then. But then again, it was the “Roaring 20s”!
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.
As I mentioned previously, as magnificent as the Hall book is, in my opinion it is also very chaotically organized. Therefore, although I may have missed it somewhere, as far as I could tell, the Hall book never really addresses why the five Loew’s NYC “Wonder Theaters” are called that, which is why I asked my question.
As far as I could tell, Hall only mentions the “Wonder Theaters” as a group in one instance, in the caption to a photo of the Loew’s Kings, on page 201 — although, of course, he does mention individual “Wonder Theaters” elsewhere in the book (such as on pg. 102, where he mentions that Eberson designed both the Valencia and the Paradise).
He doesn’t say anything in the page 201 caption, at least, about the phrase “Wonder Theaters” being just advertising gimick slogans. Rather he mentions that the Kings was one of the five “Wonder Theatres” and goes on to say that all of them had identical twenty-three rank Robert Morton organs.
In my post, I mention that I did not think one could “copyright” the “concept” of the atmospheric. (Perhaps “patent” would have been the better word for “copyright” and “idea” the better word for “concept.”) I wasn’t talking about “copyrighting” the phrase “Wonder Theaters.” (I think “trademarking” is the more legally precise word in this case, rather than “copyrighting.”)
Regarding patenting the concept of the atmospheric: in the “old days,” I don’t think one could have patented it. I am not a lawyer, but judging from what one reads in the newspapers about the new rules regarding patenting — where Amazon.com can get a patent on the one-click method (!) of internet shopping — I think it is conceivable that Eberson might have had a good shot at patenting his idea today. Or, at least, it wouldn’t be quite as far fetched a possiblity as it probably was in the early 1920s.
Regarding tradmarking the phrase and an overall “concept” of the “Wonder Theater”: it is true that a phrase can’t be too common if it is to be trademarked. Again, although I am not a lawyer, I get the feeling from what I’ve read that Loew’s would have a decent chance, if it did things “right” in the first place, to trademark this phrase and overall “concept” (if it indeed was a concept) — if they had thought of it and wanted to do it. In order to do things “right” they would have to have found ways to make the phrase and the “concept” distinctive (e.g., unique identifiable logo, etc.) — like “Band Aid” brand adhesive bandages and “Scotch” brand adhesive tape.
Since Eberson’s first premiered the atmospheric, according to Hall (pg. 95) in Houston (not Dallas) in 1922 (not 1923), my thought was that Paramount-Publix (or, later, Loew’s) might have thought of introducing gigantic atmospherics to New York as part of its “Wonder Theater” program to make gigantic atmospherics one of the distinguishing features of the Wonder Theater “brand” — its all atmospheric “line” of gigantic theaters, so to speak.
But since I found out that only two of the five “Wonder Theaters” are actually atmospherics (the Valencia and the Paradise) and that one of Wonder Theaters (the Jersey) was built near a giant atmospheric that was built the previous year (the Stanley), the question then came up what (if anything) did the five “Wonder Theaters” have in common that made the title “Wonder Theater” a plausable — and not laughable — adverstising slogan.
So far, the only things that seem to fit the bill are the seating capacities of the theaters (especially when one considers their distance from midtown Manhattan, the “traditional” home to large-sized theaters in the NYC region) and the lavishness of their decoration (in either the hard-top or atmospheric style). (Although, since Hall mentions that all five had twenty-three rank Robert Morgan organs, perhaps in those times, that particular kind and size of theater organ also put these theaters into the “Wonder” class?)
Seating capacities of the five “Wonder” theaters: Kings (3,700); Valencia (3,600); Paradise (3,885); Jersey (3,200); and 175th St. (3,444). (All figures are from the Cinema Treasures website.)
Since all five “Wonder” theaters were built at approximately the same time, perhaps this, in addition to their large seating capacities and non-Midtown Manhattan locations, may also have been part of what made them wonder-ful. (Although, I would think that Loew’s would have been happy to welcome into its “Wonder” class of theaters subsequently built large-sized theaters with similarly lavish decor, like the 3,290 seat atmospheric Triboro. And the fact that the Loew’s Jersey is in “downtown” Jersey City rather than “subway sububan” upper-Manhattan, the Bronx, Queens or Brooklyn, would seem to make it just another downtown movie palace, rather than a “subway suburb” Wonder Theater.)
Further exploring the Cinema Treasures website to get an answer to my question, the closest I got to an answer was a Mar 4, 2004 post on the site of the Loew’s Pitkin which mentions that the 2,827 seat Pitkin was advertised as a Wonder Theater although it was not “offically” considered one. (Maybe because it wasn’t large enough?)
Another thought, maybe the Triboro wasn’t considered a Wonder Theater because by the time it was built the “Wonder Theater” concept — or advertising campaign — had come and gone as a “big thing” with the Loew’s corporation?
Interesting sidenote:
Although Hall mentions that atmospherics “were comparatively cheap to build [a few paragraphs earlier he says that they cost only ”… about one-fourth as much to build …“!] and simple to maintain … ” (page 100), he also quotes some negative comments about the economics of atmospherics from Thomas Lamb (who, at least early in his career was apparently skeptical about them) on pg. 117:
“My personal opinion is that this type of work will not be lasting. My objection to it, mainly, is that valuable space is used up on each side of the auditorium for effects that otherwise could be sued for seats. Another thing, these various effects and ornamental details are very likely to be accumulators of dust and dirt, therefore increasing greatly the cost of upkeep.”
The term “atmospheric” for a ‘stars-and-clouds’ movie palace, was, according to the late authority on the subject: Ben M.Hall, author of that landmark 1961 book: The Best Remaining Seats: The Story of the Golden Age of the Movie Palace", the original inspiration of architect John Eberson when he premiered it at the MAJESTIC in Dallas in 1923 (though the COURT theatre in Chicago and others with hints of a sky long predated it). Thus, ‘atmospherics’ were by no means original to New York City, and while they were cheaper to build, the chains had to contend with the competition of what was already in an area in deciding upon what type and style to build. If there were an atmospheric anywhere nearby, they would naturally go for a ‘hard top’ of some style so as to be different, a major factor in their competitive world.
The “Wonder Theatres” were really just advertising gimick slogans, as Mr. Hall points out. They weren’t inherently any more wonderful than any number of other palaces in the nation, though they were among the largest and best. As far as I have been able to discern, the slogan was not copyrighted, if only for the reason that what is a ‘wonder’ to one person certainly may not be to another. Copyright is often refused for simple straight English words that anyone might use, else much of our language would long ago have been preempted by those seeking to make money on it.
Thanks, Benjamin, for posting your amusing thought and daydream !
I’ll let Warren answer the bulk of your question.
The downtown Jamaica multiplex (ten screens in late June 2003, when I was there last)on the southeast corner of Parsons Blvd. and Jamaica Avenue is called the Jamaica Multiplex Cinemas, and is at 159-02 Jamaica Avenue. The phone number is (718) 291-9400.
Given the wealth of knowledge on this board about the “Wonder Theaters” and the Loew’s organization, this is probably a good place for me to clear up what I’m beginning to think was a misconception on my part about them.
Growing up with the “atmospheric” Valencia (undoubtedly one of the five Loew’s “Wonder Theaters”), I thought that all five of the Loew’s “Wonder Theaters” were “atmospherics” and that, in this region at least, the “Wonder Theaters” (or at least the Loew’s organization) had a, more or less, “franchise” (in an informal way, not legally) on the atmospheric “brand.”
Of course, I realize you can’t copyright something like the “atmospheric” concept. But I thought that in this region the concept might have been so associated with Loew’s that other theater owners would have shied away from using it (thinking that it would “brand” their theater as a Loew’s theater in the public consciousness). And I thought that maybe Loew’s (or as Warren points out, the original sponsor of the five Wonder Theaters, Paramount-Publix) might have seen the success of earlier “atmospherics” elsewhere and decided to import them on a grand scale, and in a big way, to NYC as their way of establishing a NYC presence or “brand.”
Therefore, I thought (apparently, mistakenly) that all of the regions grand “atmospherics” that I knew of were one of the five “Wonder Theaters.” So, in my mind, the five Wonder Theaters would have been the Loew’s Valencia, the Loew’s Triboro (which I now know, while being a Loew’s atmospheric, was built after the original five Wonder Theaters), the Loew’s Paradise, the Loew’s Kings and the Loew’s Jersey City.
Substituting the Loew’s 175th St., in Manhattan, for the Loew’s Triboro, in Queens, I still thought that all these theaters were atmospherics. But, a friend tells me (if I understood him correctly) that in Jersey City, for instance, it was the Stanley, not the Loew’s Jersey, that was the “neighborhood” atmospheric.
So, if all the Wonder Theaters were not atmospherics (and if other non-Loew’s, non-Wonder Theaters were) what WERE the distinguishing qualities that the planners and builders of the five Wonder Theaters saw in their theaters that made them group them together under that one “umbrella” title?. Was it only their common ownership, large size and the fact that they were all built at about the same time — and, thus, labeling them “Wonder” would be a nice publicity gimmick? Or did they actually have some things in common among themselves (aside from common ownership, and closely spaced opening dates) that distinguished them from the other large movie palaces built in the area?
Also, it would be interesting to find out if the other, non-Loew’s atmospherics in the region were built before or after the five Wonder Theaters?
Speaking of Loew’s “Wonder Theaters,” just an amusing thought/daydream:
Too bad the “Valencia” wasn’t built on the Grand Concourse, and that the “Paradise” wasn’t built on Jamaica Ave.
If this had been the case, the grandest theater in the Bronx would be an Hispanic-themed one — and would have even greater appeal as a Bronx “community” theater/town hall for graduations, concerts, etc. (I realize that Bronx residents already love the theater but, still, wouldn’t a theater inspired by the courtyards of Spain be really super?) And the worshippers belonging to the “Tabernacle of Prayer” would be going to religious services at the “Paradise”!
Does anyone know the name of the multiplex that now serves downtown Jamaica? I’d like to find out more information about it, and would like to look it up on this website (if it is listed) on elsewhere on the internet.
Thanks in advance for any info.
I remember working at the Valencia in 1953. I mentioned this in an earlier comment. Seeing that I changed my email address I had to re-apply. My twin brother Robert and I were ushers when Mr. “Z” was manager. I believe the very first movie I worked was either “I Love Melvin” with Debbie Reynolds and Donald O'Connor or “The Moulin Rouge”. What a great theatre! I still can remember the smell when you entered the theatre from that long lobby…it was part of the magic and the mystique. I was listening to Robert Redford on “The Actor’s Studio” and he was quite literate regarding the excitement one felt when you went to the movies. We have in a way too much to have those small experiences. Going to the “Music Hall” during Christmes bring back some of that charm.
it sure has been great reading about the valencia theater.in the 60’s my dad worked there and he’d take me to work with him on saturdays. my dad was the stagehand there until it closed in 1977. he was in charge of all seat maintence,marquee changing and changing the hundreds of light bulbs all over the building. he also had to raise and lower the huge curtain before and after each screening.when we were kids he’d let us run all over the backstage area,there were tunnels under the stage that ran all the way to the lobby. also under the stage were rooms that had'nt been opened since the 40’s,my brother jim and i would go exploring in these tunnels and rooms all day. then my dad would feed us and then we’d watch the movie depending on the rating. i actually remember the huge carp(fish) in the lobby pond and skateboarding in that lobby. i always compare movie thaters to that great theater, theaters today don’t come close to the granduer of the valencia.theater has stayed a huge part of our lives,today my dad is the pyrotechnician at beauty& the beast on broadway and i’m a stagehand at the brooklyn academy of music. thanks for the trip down memory lane.
To read a contemporary account on the Valencia’s opening take a short hike to the Jamaica Library and ask to see a micro-film reel of the January 1929 Long Island Press. Ginger Rogers danced on the Valencia stage before her fame and fortune. A multiplex theatre has just opened on Jamaica Avenue to serve today’s residents.
Thanks, Warren, for the fascinating information! It’s very thought provoking. And, of course, fascinating info like this provokes even more questions (readers of the Cinema Treasures website, like myself, being insaitiable and spoiled!).
You mention that LA theater owners already had such a system in operation. I wonder how/why it started there? (I’m thinking perhaps because of the way the city is laid out — so suburban and spread out to begin with — that it made a lot of sense for that market?)
I also wonder how/why it spread (as I assumed it did) to other cities with downtown movie palaces other than New York (e.g., Cleveland, Philly, etc.).
Thanks Warren for the information!
I’ve noticed that the “Premiere Showcase” concept has been mentioned before, mostly by you but perhaps by others also. Is there a succinct source of info on this apparently watershed “Premier Showcase” concept that would explain a little bit more about its background and influence?
Here are some of the questions that come to mind. (Since I’m not that familiar with the movie business, some of these questions may include misconceptions or info that is otherwise incorrect.):
Why did United Artists come up with this concept? Were they operating at some sort of competitive disadvantage, and did this concept somehow allow them to rectify this?
Why did no one else come up with it before they did? In other words, what conditions might have changed to make this way of doing business possible when United Artists did it in the early 1960s, while it might not have been possible to do before then? I’m thinking, maybe they had the (apparently successful) hunch that enough people were now willing to trade-in traveling downtown (or to a borough’s downtown) to see a movie in a grand movie palace for a visit to a closer neighborhood theater if the theater had easy parking and showed the film early enough in its run? Or maybe it was a decline in the number of films being released — such that the old system of a new film every week at a movie palace was no longer really feasible?
Why did U.A.’s “Premiere Showcase” concept force a change on the other movie companies — why couldn’t the Loew’s chain continued to show films the “old” way with the films that came their way? Or was the pool of available films so much smaller in the early 1960s that this was something that was no longer possible â€" so Loew’s had to directly compete for business with U.A. and their “Premiere Showcase” concept?
Another thought: perhaps the nature of movies and the movie going audience had begun to change â€" become more fragmented â€" so that fewer and fewer movies that were made were of the type that could comfortably fill a movie palace. In some ways this audience fragmentation would be similar to what happened to the big general interest magazines â€" they (Life, Look, the Saturday Evening Post, etc.) experienced trouble while a host of more specialized magazine proliferated.
Obviously, I’m guessing that something changed to make the “Premiere Showcase” concept a (financially) “better” way of doing business than the “old” system (with a movie first playing at a movie palace and then making its way down the hierarchy of theaters).
In other words, I’m guessing that the “Premiere Showcase” concept was probably analogous to the introduction of the multiplex that showed owners that given the world as it has become (suburban malls and people driving to movie theaters, etc.) they could make more money showing a number of films throughout the day in smaller auditoria than one film throughout the day in a very large movie auditorium (e.g., by selling popcorn throughout the day, having people arrive in a steady stream throughout the day; putting one auditorium on top of another to maximize land values, etc.).
During the early 40’s, the Valencia and Triboro screens were tiny compared to the sizes of the prosceniums. And is it my imagination, or were the corners of the screens rounded rather than square?
PaulNoble
Warren
Were weekly changes the norm all the way up to premiere showcase? I know for a film like Ten Commandments that it would wind up being held over, but what about a strong grossing normal film? I guess this is why films had such strength in those days to keep moving down the circut tiers and then to the late run neighborhood houses.
We moved to Jamaica in 1958 and, although I went to the Valencia a number of times while we lived in Jamaica, I particularly remember going to the Valencia in the evening with my father to see, if I remember correctly, “One, Two, Three,” starring James Cagney. My father was a smoker in those days, so we sat in the balcony or loge, and my recollection is that the theater was just PACKED.
Since a number of posters seem to have worked in the Valencia, I have a question. Was there ever a particular point in time when you (or your co-workers) distinctly noticed that the era of the movie palace (and the Valencia) was on a downswing or coming to an end? I’m thinking of a specific event or series of events — e.g., a year when the crowds had noticeably declined; a sure-fire hit movie that somehow inexplicably “bombed.”; etc.
For instance, as I understand it, transatlantic ocean liners were doing extremely well as a business up until the late-1950s the trans-Atlantic Boeing 707s was introduced. Then within a period of a year or two there was a real noticable change.
I suppose the same might be said of long distance rail travel — or of neighborhoods that experience a steep sudden decline. (For instance, supposedly when Co-Op City opened in the Bronx, moving vans were virtually double-parked on the Grand Concourse.)
And of course, many people have mentioned how the emergence of Milton Berle as a TV star was a noticeable event in the history of TV.
Were there also noticeable events, or dates, in the decline of the movie palace (as experienced as a worker at the Valencia)?
I grew up attending many movies at the Valencia. I actually never cared what the movie was—I just wanted to be sitting inside the castle, marveling at the very realistic sky above me and imagining myself as living in the castle. It was about 1958 or 9 when I saw Ten Commandments that I found out I needed glasses—I couldn’t read the bus signs on Parsons Blvd.when we came out!
Now I work around the corner from the main entrance and next to the side entrance (I work for Queens Library) and get to visit the place often. It is garish but very carefully and lovingly done.
Thanks, Warren.
David Robertson— The most famous sepia sequence from 1939 is, of course, the beginning and end of “The Wizard of Oz,” which some (most?) modern prints represent in black-and-white. I remember the sequences projected in sepia for the reissue of “The W of O” that I saw as a kid in 1949 at the Mayfair (aka Embassy 234), but when I took my own kids to see it at a multiplex in the ‘70s, the sequence stock was black-and-white. I recall a few B-features in sepia in the late '40s at the Loew’s chain (ergo MGM), notably “Lust for Gold” with Glenn Ford and Ida Lupino, now shown on TV in black-and-white.
Thank you Warren.I did go there to a wedding when it was called “da ta” the Regency House a catering establishment.Abaut 1960 or when chubby Checkers twist was popular,they played it three times. I also worked as a kid for a man who fixed the broken seat at that movie.Worked from end of last show till 6 AM. in the summer,but thats a whole other story.
David Robertson
Thanks, Warren. The Carlton Theater is on the CinemaTour listing for Queens, but no address is given for it.
When the theater was known as Werba’s Jamaica, I wonder if it had anything to do with Werba Realty, in Ridgewood, or elsewhere, in Queens, circa 1965 or 66.
David Robertson :
Trust your memory until tangible, objective evidence requires you to do otherwise.
“Five blocks past the end of the el (168th St.) and the Valencia and Alden” : in what direction ? East or west ?
Have you looked on Cinema Tour’s list of Queens theaters for this “poor sister movie house” ? Do you remember the name at all ? That would be better than trying to find it with an approximate address like 163-XX or 173-XX Jamaica Avenue.
Try this link :
View link