Generally, it is beneficial to get landmark status, even though that almost never preserves much beyond ORIGINAL exterior. Landmarking can at least stop the quick buck guys who buy an historic structure, and then quickly resell it to someone who has no intention to preserve it, but intends to demolish it to build something else. For what protections one can depend upon with landmarking, one must consult one’s Historic Preservation officer at the state house, a real estate attorney, or the League of Historic American Theatres for information relative to one’s own state’s laws, since the federal and local laws are administered under the state’s.
The only downside to landmarking is that many buyers are really interested in the potential land value of the property and want the option to remodel or demolish as they wish in future, so will not buy a landmarked property. But would we want them to own such a landmark worthy structure? Landmarking also shows potential buyers that the property is considered worthy by experts and the public alike, and many money men wouldn’t know artistic or historic significance if it came up and bit them; they need to be guided by such as Landmark Designation to see where they can put their money and thereby buy some public stature. Many money men already own dozens of properties, but they want the ‘feather in their cap’ of being known for also owning a prestegious structure worthy of being designated a landmark, and promoters of a landmark must be willing to allow the change of name to such as ‘money man’s theatre’ or whatever his name is, to entice such large egos to invest in a theatre. For example, if Donald Trump were to be invited, one would have to expect to massage his ego by allowing him to name it the TRUMP THEATRE. You cannot expect big money to be humble in this country where money is god and king.
Apparently, “Eberson syle” is someone’s reference to what became known as the ‘Atmospheric’ TYPE (a ‘STYLE’ is an historic reference, as opposed to one of the two TYPES: ‘Standard’ {sometimes called Hard Top in slang}; and ‘Atmospheric’ which is the ‘stars-and-clouds’ look). The writer of that blurb in the Newsletter was the late Andrew Corsini (John Fowler) who was very aware of the two different Types, so he was here being a little Puckish in using Eberson’s name to denote the Type of theatre in question. This practice is common today where one often reads of someone selling a new light fixture in the “Tiffany style” when in fact it was produced decades after Mr. Tiffany’s death, and invariably it is only stained glass, and not at all the refined technique and panache of the great artist.
The best source of the photos you seek is right outside of Chicago at the Theatre Historical Society of America in suburban Elmhurst. See their directions to their offices as well as their E-mail address at: www.historictheatres.org Note that you must make an appointment before visiting them for research and photos, according to the instructions on their ARCHIVE link.
Likely the Chicago Historical Society as well as the public library will have other photos. Best Wishes.
At today’s prices, in US dollars, on prime real estate such as the original was built upon, and the to the standards of quality expected in the 1920s, the ROXY would no doubt cost upwards of 350 million dollars. Far lesser quality designs of performing spaces today are being built for upwards of that figure, so it is a nice fantasy to hope that such could come to be, but while a few billionnaires could afford to build such a temple to entertainment with the added features of comfort and safety demanded today, it will never come to be. Some of the craftsmanship of those days is now essentially gone, and everyone involved today would be looking for ways to make it cheaper no matter how much you paid them, for our society of yesteryear had more of what money cannot buy: integrity.
As mentioned in above posts, the Theatre Historical Society of America has numerous photos, and you may contact their Ex. Director, Richard Sklenar, via his E-mail address or via snail mail at the address on their web page: www.historictheatres.org See their link: ARCHIVE for details about access and pricing.
Lowell Angell is a past president of the Theatre Historical Soc. and a resident of Honolulu, so he knows whereof he speaks, and his hometown heartbreak is palpable and understandable. I only hope he was able to save a few mementos to go along with his fine and well illustrated article about this cinema treasure lost to us. I extend my sympathy. Jim Rankin
Much as I would like to help with such as letters of support, my filling out legal documents for the state of New York is even more unlikely than doing it for my resident state of Wisconsin, since the statute requirements for every state are different and I am not in the legal profession in any way. LifesTooShort is right that there must be a legal entity to refer to in any letters Bruce1 might like to see others write, else whom do we refer people to in our letters of encouragement for preservation? Merely stating that we think the KINGS is valuable and should be preserved is not enough; people want to know what they should do and what we are asking for. Money? If so, to whom do they send it and what will it be used for? Their time? Where and how are they to spend that time? Bruce1’s efforts “since 1987” to raise the public conscience in the matter are admirable, but it takes more than public sympathy and petitions delivered to the city to cause something of this scale to happen.
I do not have the resources to travel to New York city and carry a picket sign in front of the KINGS with a ‘Save This Theatre’ message, and I don’t think it would do that much good if I did do such. I can well understand if Bruce1 is not comfortable taking on the task of being the head of a legal corporation —even if it is only a handful of people— since life is short and no doubt, full for him too. Perhaps he is at the point in his life where he frankly feels that others should pick up the ‘torch’ if it is to ever illuminate this issue throughout New York. Of course, with the city’s RFP about to come out, maybe we all should wait to see its results at least for a few months after its issuance or date of withdrawl, if any. But, then again, if it receives no desireable respose, it could be taken by the ‘movers and shakers’ that there is no real public sympathy for this theatre, closed lo, these many years now.
Perhaps a group of New Yorkers standing in front of the doors waving the RFP in their hands before TV cameras invited from all stations, would get public attention, especially if giant photos of it in original state could back the ‘demonstrators’, or hand-outs of 8x10s of it as it appeared at opening could be given to reporters (they are always looking for visuals). I know that your station would like to keep such an event an exclusive, Bruce, but if you really want full public backing, you will have to involve as many people as possible, including those who do not view your cable station. If you can get a crowd in front of the theatre as your ‘demonstration’ is speaking before the camera, that will make the ‘people’ scene that the TV stations look for. Of course, if no one in the area is willing to appear there with you, I think you had best put your good talents to other causes. Nothing is more pathetic than the image of a lone individual standing in front of a building being demolished and saying to reporters “I wish I could have saved it.” Best Wishes!
It is possible to collect funds without incorporation, but it is risky. IF in future someone should become dissatisfied as to your use of the funds they donated —even an amount as small as one dollar— they could sue you and everyone in your group personally for fraud. One’s personal financial liability could be great, considering both actual and punitive damages assessed by an unsympathetic court. With incorporation as a NOT-FOR-PROFIT, your personal funds would not normally be liable to seizure in case of such as embezellment unknown to you, and your literature would carry a notice that you are so incorporated and that therefore the funds would be accounted for and not put into your personal bank account. The disposition of the proceeds of a corporation must be documented according to law, but the actual work is small for any legitimate group. Your Treasurer should be a person of integrity who knows elementary bookeeping and can be depended upon to be dilligent about recording all income and payments and keeping the files of receipts of such. Possibly your management at your cable station, Bruce1, will allow you to ask their attorney for advice, without cost to you. Best Wishes.
If Mr. Lundy and anyone else can foster the restoration of the fabulous BROOKLYN PARAMOUNT, I applaud them, since this is possibly Rapp & Rapp’s most spectacular work if taken just by its proscenium alone! One look at pages 150-151 in Ben Hall’s landmark book “The Best Remaining Seats, The Story of the Golden Age of the Movie Palace” will convince anyone of the dazzling artistry never elsewhere duplicated. I wonder how much of that proscenium and its lighting still remain? I guess it is too much to expect anyone to have saved that wonderful Grand Drape, and it would cost hundreds of thousands to reproduce today, if anyone could really do it.
Theaterat has a good idea, BUT it must FOLLOW, not preceed, the forming of a not-for-profit corporation that is legally able to collect funds towards the publicity and restoration of the KINGS. Any celebrity will have their mail screened by a service looking for any type of handouts (they reportedly get dozens of such each day) so they will never see the letter unless it (1) is on the letterhead of a registered 501c3 (tax exempt) entity; and (2) it has some details of their association with the KINGS along with some photo of them there that will jog their memories. You are appealing to two points: (1) Their interest, one presumes, in their own histories, and (2) in Historic Preservaton of a theatre. It may not be wise to include photos of its present condition, since many could not imagine it ever returning from its present state. Any such solicitation of their interest must not look juvenile or amateurish, but neither should it look glossy as from a professional funds raiser.
While a letter may get through to them, don’t count on it for too much. I remember back in the early 80s when the St. Louis FOX was planning restoration and they wrote to Bob Hope who had appeared there, and he eventually wrote back without a check, that he thinks he still has a trunk there, and he wishes them well on their efforts, but regrets that all his funds are tied up for the foreseeable future. When he died, his estate was reportedly worth almost a half billion dollars, so I doubt it was a shortage of funds in his case. Remember the old saying of the rich: ‘You don’t stay rich by spending too much money.’ You could offer them a plaque on the wall or suchlike, but they already have all the fame they need, so make this a price-point offer, not a guarantee. You might say, while any amount over $100 is deeply appreciated, your generosity will be better memorialized by a bronze plaque for any donation in excess of $10,000. In this way you make it clear that a $20 ‘pat-on-the-head-and-go-away’ donation is not encouraged. To get their name behind it and a larger donation, you will have to enclose photos of it as it was, a detailed plan to restore it, a letter from the city showing both their ownership and their support for its restoration (enclose the RFP?). Tell them that you are NOT asking for their time, only a brief voice over that can be recorded at or near their home, to be broadcast behind a photo of them. Any live action theatre’s management in your area will have a directory sold only to them with the current star’s home address or that of their agent. Remember, that going through their agent may not help, since the agent is in the business of sniffing out any PROFITABLE enterprise for them (and for the agent’s 10%!), so it is best to go to them directly if possible. If I receive your letterhead in the mail with your 501c3 registration on it, as well as any local and state registrations required, I will know that a legitimate group exists, and will be willing to write up a solicitation letter for you. There is not much more I can do from a thousand miles away. Best Wishes.
As Vincent says, it is sad how many palaces we lost even after Hall’s book came out in 1961, but we must remember that it was not for lack of trying on his part, and that the deals to clear the plots of land for new construction were already underway, publically or privately. Yes, perhaps if the book had come out ten years earlier it might have engendered more support for the great palaces Vincent mentions, but somehow I doubt it. Historic Preservation was only just getting off the ground in the ‘60s and in the 50s our nation was experiencing the brute force vitality of being the only nation to come out of World War II in anywhere near good shape, and with a booming economy flush with the arrogance of Modernism, few would have looked on the 'old’ movie palaces with any sentiment. They were after all, decaying and badly faded after regular maintenance stopped with their divestiture from the film studios which had been paying handsomely to keep them up, and movie palaces are not at all practical: they need LOTS of upkeep! Ben M. Hall was a man ahead of his time, so we must be thankful that his immensely readable and very heavily illustrated book came to us at all.
Benjamin does well to give due credit to the BEST REMAINING SEATS… since it is still the Landmark book it was when first published in 1961. The late author, Ben Hall, would have been delighted at the preservation of so many fine movie palaces around the nation and around the globe partially due to his book. Yes, the book is out of print, but if one looks, one can still find the first edition which was issued only in hardbound, and that edition is the only one with the 5 color plates (frontispiece and 4 pages); the captions for which were retained in later editions even though they were gone due to the latter day publishers being too cheap to reprint them.
One need not avoid the two subsequent editions of 1975 and 1987 in softbound since they contain all of the sparkling text of the gifted writer, but also revised captions for some photos for those theatres that had passed away in the intervening years. If you will miss the color plates that much, go to any library having the first edition and COLOR copy the color plates and insert them into the other edition you buy and, Voila!, you have a duplicate of the first edition! Do not miss reading his wonderful way with words which will infect you with his enthusiasm for his subject. If you can’t find it at local book stors, go to www.Amazon.com and type in the title; they often have used copies available.
Your efforts listed here are impressive, Bruce, and I am sure that all are convinced of your dedication and earnestness. I did not know that your work was so extensive, but unless I somehow missed it in the wealth of comments previously, you did not enumerate your shows, nor did you state where one could buy a video of one or all of them. Do you think that if you made them available that it might spur more people to think about the great KINGS? If your station does not object, perhaps you could dup DVDs of them on an individual request basis for only the cost of materials and shipping. I know that as an out-of-towner this would be the only way I could see them. It is a shame that so much work should sit on some shelf at the station with perhaps little chance of ever being seen again. Don’t you think they would make good promotional tools for the theatre? If so, I call upon you to make them available.
Gustave, you have an excellent idea; a new documentary is just what the doctor ordered! Of course, it would have to be more than a camera tour of the place today. Only true visionaries will see what can be done with all that ruin. Likely the Theatre Historical Soc. would allow you to buy opening day photos from them which you could pan and zoom into to create a sort of tour at its opening. A few shots of today inserted next to them would show what was and could be again. An interview with Bruce might instill the spirit that is needed, and an appropriate city official (one NOT running for election) interviewed who believes in the structure’s potential to Brooklyn, would be good to include. While there are theatre historians who could comment on its historical position vis-a-vis other movie palaces, that might only interest historians, but your purpose would be to produce a promotional for today, to interest potential buyers/users. If you know of local groups that need a performing space, you might interview them. If someone at your school is good at making simple models, perhaps you can persuade him to make up some of areas of the theatre adapted to new uses (but preferably in a quasi theatrical vein — we don’t want another gymnasium a la the Brooklyn Paramount). You would film that model, and perhaps computer animate some people on stage, or the like.
We who love theatres tend to be very visual naturally; money men tend not to be = you have to show them exactly what you mean. Maybe you and Bruce can be the first to meet about this, and maybe invite the person writing up the RFP to be issued to see what could go into such a documentary. Would the local PBS stations be interested in showing such? Maybe wise to ask them about it in advance. And the local chamber of commerce or the Flatbush Business Advancement Association would be willing to help and give advice — maybe even donations to the documentary (now don’t you wish you had incorporated?!) I know it is easy for me to talk from a thousand miles away, but I believe that there is some merit to my suggestions. Best Wishes to you all in any case.
Dear Mr. Producer: I do hope that some such photo can be found for your use, but you must not have your heart set on this, since, as was explained to your duplicate inquiries at www.BigScreenBiz.com as well as the Guestbook of www.HistoricTheatres.org, such specific photos of titles and growds are as rare as hen’s teeth. Possibly your only real hope is to scan the back issues of newspapers during the film’s issuance and hope for such a photo and that it is still in their ‘morgue’, but rarely were such photos taken by the media unless it was somehow a newsworthy event, as when someone may have thrown a smoke bomb into the waiting crowd, or the theatre could not open for some reason and thousands standing in lines had to be turned away.
The original Hollywood producer/studio might still possibly have such a promo photo in their files, but by this late date, that is highly unlikely, especially if you don’t find such an image on the CD of the movie that must be out by now.
As stated in previous replies, it is not difficult for a photo studio to ‘fudge’ a photo of a crowd in front of a theatre anywhere to have this movie’s title on that maraquee. It is isn’t cheap to have this done, but not beyond the budget of most. The Theatre HIstorical Society linked above (www.historictheatres.org) does have dozens of such street queues photos and can likely arrange to sell you the rights to have one adapted to your purposes. You should go to their site and arrange for an appoint to look at such phots in their Archive. Best Wishes.
Animated marquees are indeed wonderful things, and I fervently wish more theatres/cinemas had them! But it is a sad commentary about our society when we are marveling at an invention of 1900, now 105 years later, only because such artistry has all but vanished from our lives, lo these many years now.
BoxOfficeBill is to be commended on providing such illuminating information that is all to often lost to history; we are the richer for it. The photo he links to does show the contour curtain I asked him about, since in many theatres such was only mounted as a decorative border since it is much cheaper to rig that way. I should have know that there would be only the best at the preeminent ROXY. Thanks, Bill.
“hardbop” says: “My beef is how can Loew’s or any other profit-making company just abandon these buildings. Aren’t they responsible for the upkeep? They can essentially just walk away from a building and leave it to rot or leave it to the taxpayers to figure out how to maintain it/demolish it?” Sad to say, what Loews did is perfectly legal in all the states, since the presumption of law is that if a property owner stops paying taxes, the state has the right to seize control of the property and sell it to offset the expense of the property to the public. Of course, that idea worked in rural farm society where land was sold, but in urban society, it is mostly the improvements (buildings) that are sold — or as in the case of the KINGS — they remain unsold. The owner gets the advantage of not being taxed on the property if the municipality seizes it, and yes, he can then just walk away. The municipality does usually place a lein upon the deed, and expects to recoup its losses both through a sale as well as anything that might come in via a lein. The trouble is, of course, that most potential buyers of so large a parcel and structure don’t want either the lein or the cost of clearing the land —a very expensive proposition, especially with today’s statutes regarding ‘brown fields’ cleanup responsibilities, so the land/improvements remain unsold and they become a burden to the city. Loews was not alone; millions of business use this tactic to divest themselves of something they cannot profitably sell, and the taxpayer is left with the burden. This is part of what some call ‘Free Enterprise’ which basically means that you are more ‘Free’ if you are rich like Loews. If you are a poorer individual, then don’t expect such a benefit, since they city will then just come after you in court for back taxes, and then seize anything else you own to pay them!
If you had read the previous comments you would have seen mine of May 2004 wherein I list the source of a large booklet crammed with large photos of the LOS ANGELES.
The tradition of RED CARPETS started a great many years ago in Europe, but I don’t know in which kingdom. I believe it was in the film “The Prince and the Showgirl” that the Prince remarks when asked why the carpets are always red: “I think it is to conceal the blood” [of assisnation attempts].
Bruce, dear fellow, it is of no use scolding people for not doing more than talking, unless you yourself are willing and able to take the lead. Here is how you start:
1) Set up a place for interested nearby people can meet at little or no expense to themselves, and give date, time, place and something of a skimpy agenda. If you can show “Memoirs of a Movie Palace” to start the meeting, that might get all in the mood. DO NOT call the media; it is too early to embarrass any who are camera shy. Likewise, do not demand anyone sign up on a roster for future meetings or the like at the first meeting; that can scare some timid souls off. Meerely state the details for the next meeting and that you will be looking for some commitments after that meeting to be in writing.
2) A third meeing will then likely draw only committed souls with whom you can then form a sound, legal not-for-profit organization, select a name, have an attorney look over your articles of incorporation and a constitution and by-laws which will enable people to see your seriousness of purpose (you should draft a Mission Statement at this or the following meeting also), and suggest a slate of Officers to be discusses and voted at the fifth meeting.
3) Most people have very little time, so make as few demands upon their time outside of the meetings as possible, or you will have good will sorts who start drifting away. Be ready for the fact of life that in any group there are a core few who do 90% of the work, and scolding the others will only reduce your base of contributors.
You say you hate pushing and pulling others along, and also hate having someone less competent than you be voted into authority over you? Then make yourself a one man show by offering your services as Funds Rasiser or Consultant in the Restoration of the Kings. I wish I could say that you will have an easy road of it, but reality and history say otherwise, so be sure of why you are into it, and just how much time you can take from home and job to accomplish it. In any case, BEST WISHES from one too far away to help.
How sad for you Tynan, that you recognize only your own ‘achievements’ and not the rights of others, but how so much sadder for the buildings you deface. Your yawps at your own estimation of your ‘artistry’ smack of a small man needing the reassurance needed by a little boy. I do hope that one day you will realize that real achievement lies in the appreciation and plaudits of the society one lives in, and that society is not the furtive gangs of self-congratulatory miscreants that rationalize their conduct by saying that at least they are using spray paint rather than guns. When you say “[it] is pure release, is pleasure at its best. Nothing can compare. Nothing else matters in life.†you are of course stating what matters to your life, not that of others: the unfortunate property owners who have had nothing to say about your desecrations, not even the hapless passersby who must be assaulted by your ego’s imagination of its achievements. Your statement betrays that your quest is NOT for art as you would have us believe, but for crass sensations of the juvenile mind where nothing but its own pleasure matters in his selfish, self-serving life. I could have pity for you if you were misguided, but your deeds spring from a heatless selfishness that has the audacity to mount this public forum and brag about your lawlessness. I can only hope that you grow up some day, and that you assault no more property.
Vincent is, of course, right; the demise of most real motion pictures is part and parcel of the demise of our culture, though it is not just caused just by greedy and slovenly people, no matter how much they have spent on their clothes from Rodeo Drive. The reason is multifaceted and peers into the very fabric of humanity itself, and is therefore beyond the scope of this forum, sad to say. With today’s modern communications, however, it no longer takes any immigration of peoples anywhere to influence the nature of film or most anything else; blight in the aesthetic sense travels even more quickly by electronic media than automobiles. I must agree that most of today’s films if they could be seen in such as the ROXY and other true palaces, would be so dwarfed in significance that the audience would indeed see such films as “ludicrous.†However, the “glass and steel box fungus†of ‘architecture’ which Vincent refers to is not so much a cause of the demise of the glorious palaces, as a symptom of the cultural degeneration which Vince refers to. Merely read the short novel form 1980: FROM BAUHAUS TO OUR HOUSE by the noted writer Thomas Wolfe, and you will notice the real reason that the ‘fungus’ spread so quickly through the architectural garden that we once enjoyed, complete with movie palaces blooming right and left. (Of course, we cannot forget that it was television which did the major damage to those palaces along with other cultural phenomena of the “black fungus.â€)
On the “About ArcLight” portion of their web site is this statement: “ArcLight Hollywood’s 14 new auditoriums begin with a “black box†design aesthetic which favors undistracted viewing over opulence….” Statements such as this are found throughout the new, aesthetically-challenged wunderkind that populate most of our cinema world these days, where they give lip service to the beauty of the palaces, but then turn around and dismiss them with statements such as the above. MANIFESTLY: if a film is so weak or unappetizing that the viewer can be ‘distracted’ by an opulent decor, then the film should be seen as the culprit, not the decorations! It is only the supreme arrogance of the filmakers that makes them assume that anything put on a screen should automatically command the complete attention of each and every member of the audience. Those few of greater humility will acknowledge that much of what comes upon screens these days is self-indulgent crap where pretension masquerades as art. Give me a gorgeous ‘palace’ to see a move along with good projection and sound and service, and I will then have something to occupy my time and justify the stiff admision fees when portions of a film are bad or dull, and there will ALWAYS be portions of any film that do not command attention at every second. The ArcLight and other such screening rooms should never be called theatres, but only cinemas at best. They may not be ‘cheap’ as the previous post explains, but in no sense was their expense evident in the decor, for true ‘decor’ they never have had.
Generally, it is beneficial to get landmark status, even though that almost never preserves much beyond ORIGINAL exterior. Landmarking can at least stop the quick buck guys who buy an historic structure, and then quickly resell it to someone who has no intention to preserve it, but intends to demolish it to build something else. For what protections one can depend upon with landmarking, one must consult one’s Historic Preservation officer at the state house, a real estate attorney, or the League of Historic American Theatres for information relative to one’s own state’s laws, since the federal and local laws are administered under the state’s.
The only downside to landmarking is that many buyers are really interested in the potential land value of the property and want the option to remodel or demolish as they wish in future, so will not buy a landmarked property. But would we want them to own such a landmark worthy structure? Landmarking also shows potential buyers that the property is considered worthy by experts and the public alike, and many money men wouldn’t know artistic or historic significance if it came up and bit them; they need to be guided by such as Landmark Designation to see where they can put their money and thereby buy some public stature. Many money men already own dozens of properties, but they want the ‘feather in their cap’ of being known for also owning a prestegious structure worthy of being designated a landmark, and promoters of a landmark must be willing to allow the change of name to such as ‘money man’s theatre’ or whatever his name is, to entice such large egos to invest in a theatre. For example, if Donald Trump were to be invited, one would have to expect to massage his ego by allowing him to name it the TRUMP THEATRE. You cannot expect big money to be humble in this country where money is god and king.
Here is an image that you might be able to adapt:
View link
Supposedly, it is the former COLESEUM theatre in Seattle.
Apparently, “Eberson syle” is someone’s reference to what became known as the ‘Atmospheric’ TYPE (a ‘STYLE’ is an historic reference, as opposed to one of the two TYPES: ‘Standard’ {sometimes called Hard Top in slang}; and ‘Atmospheric’ which is the ‘stars-and-clouds’ look). The writer of that blurb in the Newsletter was the late Andrew Corsini (John Fowler) who was very aware of the two different Types, so he was here being a little Puckish in using Eberson’s name to denote the Type of theatre in question. This practice is common today where one often reads of someone selling a new light fixture in the “Tiffany style” when in fact it was produced decades after Mr. Tiffany’s death, and invariably it is only stained glass, and not at all the refined technique and panache of the great artist.
The best source of the photos you seek is right outside of Chicago at the Theatre Historical Society of America in suburban Elmhurst. See their directions to their offices as well as their E-mail address at: www.historictheatres.org Note that you must make an appointment before visiting them for research and photos, according to the instructions on their ARCHIVE link.
Likely the Chicago Historical Society as well as the public library will have other photos. Best Wishes.
At today’s prices, in US dollars, on prime real estate such as the original was built upon, and the to the standards of quality expected in the 1920s, the ROXY would no doubt cost upwards of 350 million dollars. Far lesser quality designs of performing spaces today are being built for upwards of that figure, so it is a nice fantasy to hope that such could come to be, but while a few billionnaires could afford to build such a temple to entertainment with the added features of comfort and safety demanded today, it will never come to be. Some of the craftsmanship of those days is now essentially gone, and everyone involved today would be looking for ways to make it cheaper no matter how much you paid them, for our society of yesteryear had more of what money cannot buy: integrity.
As mentioned in above posts, the Theatre Historical Society of America has numerous photos, and you may contact their Ex. Director, Richard Sklenar, via his E-mail address or via snail mail at the address on their web page: www.historictheatres.org See their link: ARCHIVE for details about access and pricing.
Lowell Angell is a past president of the Theatre Historical Soc. and a resident of Honolulu, so he knows whereof he speaks, and his hometown heartbreak is palpable and understandable. I only hope he was able to save a few mementos to go along with his fine and well illustrated article about this cinema treasure lost to us. I extend my sympathy. Jim Rankin
Much as I would like to help with such as letters of support, my filling out legal documents for the state of New York is even more unlikely than doing it for my resident state of Wisconsin, since the statute requirements for every state are different and I am not in the legal profession in any way. LifesTooShort is right that there must be a legal entity to refer to in any letters Bruce1 might like to see others write, else whom do we refer people to in our letters of encouragement for preservation? Merely stating that we think the KINGS is valuable and should be preserved is not enough; people want to know what they should do and what we are asking for. Money? If so, to whom do they send it and what will it be used for? Their time? Where and how are they to spend that time? Bruce1’s efforts “since 1987” to raise the public conscience in the matter are admirable, but it takes more than public sympathy and petitions delivered to the city to cause something of this scale to happen.
I do not have the resources to travel to New York city and carry a picket sign in front of the KINGS with a ‘Save This Theatre’ message, and I don’t think it would do that much good if I did do such. I can well understand if Bruce1 is not comfortable taking on the task of being the head of a legal corporation —even if it is only a handful of people— since life is short and no doubt, full for him too. Perhaps he is at the point in his life where he frankly feels that others should pick up the ‘torch’ if it is to ever illuminate this issue throughout New York. Of course, with the city’s RFP about to come out, maybe we all should wait to see its results at least for a few months after its issuance or date of withdrawl, if any. But, then again, if it receives no desireable respose, it could be taken by the ‘movers and shakers’ that there is no real public sympathy for this theatre, closed lo, these many years now.
Perhaps a group of New Yorkers standing in front of the doors waving the RFP in their hands before TV cameras invited from all stations, would get public attention, especially if giant photos of it in original state could back the ‘demonstrators’, or hand-outs of 8x10s of it as it appeared at opening could be given to reporters (they are always looking for visuals). I know that your station would like to keep such an event an exclusive, Bruce, but if you really want full public backing, you will have to involve as many people as possible, including those who do not view your cable station. If you can get a crowd in front of the theatre as your ‘demonstration’ is speaking before the camera, that will make the ‘people’ scene that the TV stations look for. Of course, if no one in the area is willing to appear there with you, I think you had best put your good talents to other causes. Nothing is more pathetic than the image of a lone individual standing in front of a building being demolished and saying to reporters “I wish I could have saved it.” Best Wishes!
It is possible to collect funds without incorporation, but it is risky. IF in future someone should become dissatisfied as to your use of the funds they donated —even an amount as small as one dollar— they could sue you and everyone in your group personally for fraud. One’s personal financial liability could be great, considering both actual and punitive damages assessed by an unsympathetic court. With incorporation as a NOT-FOR-PROFIT, your personal funds would not normally be liable to seizure in case of such as embezellment unknown to you, and your literature would carry a notice that you are so incorporated and that therefore the funds would be accounted for and not put into your personal bank account. The disposition of the proceeds of a corporation must be documented according to law, but the actual work is small for any legitimate group. Your Treasurer should be a person of integrity who knows elementary bookeeping and can be depended upon to be dilligent about recording all income and payments and keeping the files of receipts of such. Possibly your management at your cable station, Bruce1, will allow you to ask their attorney for advice, without cost to you. Best Wishes.
If Mr. Lundy and anyone else can foster the restoration of the fabulous BROOKLYN PARAMOUNT, I applaud them, since this is possibly Rapp & Rapp’s most spectacular work if taken just by its proscenium alone! One look at pages 150-151 in Ben Hall’s landmark book “The Best Remaining Seats, The Story of the Golden Age of the Movie Palace” will convince anyone of the dazzling artistry never elsewhere duplicated. I wonder how much of that proscenium and its lighting still remain? I guess it is too much to expect anyone to have saved that wonderful Grand Drape, and it would cost hundreds of thousands to reproduce today, if anyone could really do it.
Theaterat has a good idea, BUT it must FOLLOW, not preceed, the forming of a not-for-profit corporation that is legally able to collect funds towards the publicity and restoration of the KINGS. Any celebrity will have their mail screened by a service looking for any type of handouts (they reportedly get dozens of such each day) so they will never see the letter unless it (1) is on the letterhead of a registered 501c3 (tax exempt) entity; and (2) it has some details of their association with the KINGS along with some photo of them there that will jog their memories. You are appealing to two points: (1) Their interest, one presumes, in their own histories, and (2) in Historic Preservaton of a theatre. It may not be wise to include photos of its present condition, since many could not imagine it ever returning from its present state. Any such solicitation of their interest must not look juvenile or amateurish, but neither should it look glossy as from a professional funds raiser.
While a letter may get through to them, don’t count on it for too much. I remember back in the early 80s when the St. Louis FOX was planning restoration and they wrote to Bob Hope who had appeared there, and he eventually wrote back without a check, that he thinks he still has a trunk there, and he wishes them well on their efforts, but regrets that all his funds are tied up for the foreseeable future. When he died, his estate was reportedly worth almost a half billion dollars, so I doubt it was a shortage of funds in his case. Remember the old saying of the rich: ‘You don’t stay rich by spending too much money.’ You could offer them a plaque on the wall or suchlike, but they already have all the fame they need, so make this a price-point offer, not a guarantee. You might say, while any amount over $100 is deeply appreciated, your generosity will be better memorialized by a bronze plaque for any donation in excess of $10,000. In this way you make it clear that a $20 ‘pat-on-the-head-and-go-away’ donation is not encouraged. To get their name behind it and a larger donation, you will have to enclose photos of it as it was, a detailed plan to restore it, a letter from the city showing both their ownership and their support for its restoration (enclose the RFP?). Tell them that you are NOT asking for their time, only a brief voice over that can be recorded at or near their home, to be broadcast behind a photo of them. Any live action theatre’s management in your area will have a directory sold only to them with the current star’s home address or that of their agent. Remember, that going through their agent may not help, since the agent is in the business of sniffing out any PROFITABLE enterprise for them (and for the agent’s 10%!), so it is best to go to them directly if possible. If I receive your letterhead in the mail with your 501c3 registration on it, as well as any local and state registrations required, I will know that a legitimate group exists, and will be willing to write up a solicitation letter for you. There is not much more I can do from a thousand miles away. Best Wishes.
As Vincent says, it is sad how many palaces we lost even after Hall’s book came out in 1961, but we must remember that it was not for lack of trying on his part, and that the deals to clear the plots of land for new construction were already underway, publically or privately. Yes, perhaps if the book had come out ten years earlier it might have engendered more support for the great palaces Vincent mentions, but somehow I doubt it. Historic Preservation was only just getting off the ground in the ‘60s and in the 50s our nation was experiencing the brute force vitality of being the only nation to come out of World War II in anywhere near good shape, and with a booming economy flush with the arrogance of Modernism, few would have looked on the 'old’ movie palaces with any sentiment. They were after all, decaying and badly faded after regular maintenance stopped with their divestiture from the film studios which had been paying handsomely to keep them up, and movie palaces are not at all practical: they need LOTS of upkeep! Ben M. Hall was a man ahead of his time, so we must be thankful that his immensely readable and very heavily illustrated book came to us at all.
Benjamin does well to give due credit to the BEST REMAINING SEATS… since it is still the Landmark book it was when first published in 1961. The late author, Ben Hall, would have been delighted at the preservation of so many fine movie palaces around the nation and around the globe partially due to his book. Yes, the book is out of print, but if one looks, one can still find the first edition which was issued only in hardbound, and that edition is the only one with the 5 color plates (frontispiece and 4 pages); the captions for which were retained in later editions even though they were gone due to the latter day publishers being too cheap to reprint them.
One need not avoid the two subsequent editions of 1975 and 1987 in softbound since they contain all of the sparkling text of the gifted writer, but also revised captions for some photos for those theatres that had passed away in the intervening years. If you will miss the color plates that much, go to any library having the first edition and COLOR copy the color plates and insert them into the other edition you buy and, Voila!, you have a duplicate of the first edition! Do not miss reading his wonderful way with words which will infect you with his enthusiasm for his subject. If you can’t find it at local book stors, go to www.Amazon.com and type in the title; they often have used copies available.
Your efforts listed here are impressive, Bruce, and I am sure that all are convinced of your dedication and earnestness. I did not know that your work was so extensive, but unless I somehow missed it in the wealth of comments previously, you did not enumerate your shows, nor did you state where one could buy a video of one or all of them. Do you think that if you made them available that it might spur more people to think about the great KINGS? If your station does not object, perhaps you could dup DVDs of them on an individual request basis for only the cost of materials and shipping. I know that as an out-of-towner this would be the only way I could see them. It is a shame that so much work should sit on some shelf at the station with perhaps little chance of ever being seen again. Don’t you think they would make good promotional tools for the theatre? If so, I call upon you to make them available.
Gustave, you have an excellent idea; a new documentary is just what the doctor ordered! Of course, it would have to be more than a camera tour of the place today. Only true visionaries will see what can be done with all that ruin. Likely the Theatre Historical Soc. would allow you to buy opening day photos from them which you could pan and zoom into to create a sort of tour at its opening. A few shots of today inserted next to them would show what was and could be again. An interview with Bruce might instill the spirit that is needed, and an appropriate city official (one NOT running for election) interviewed who believes in the structure’s potential to Brooklyn, would be good to include. While there are theatre historians who could comment on its historical position vis-a-vis other movie palaces, that might only interest historians, but your purpose would be to produce a promotional for today, to interest potential buyers/users. If you know of local groups that need a performing space, you might interview them. If someone at your school is good at making simple models, perhaps you can persuade him to make up some of areas of the theatre adapted to new uses (but preferably in a quasi theatrical vein — we don’t want another gymnasium a la the Brooklyn Paramount). You would film that model, and perhaps computer animate some people on stage, or the like.
We who love theatres tend to be very visual naturally; money men tend not to be = you have to show them exactly what you mean. Maybe you and Bruce can be the first to meet about this, and maybe invite the person writing up the RFP to be issued to see what could go into such a documentary. Would the local PBS stations be interested in showing such? Maybe wise to ask them about it in advance. And the local chamber of commerce or the Flatbush Business Advancement Association would be willing to help and give advice — maybe even donations to the documentary (now don’t you wish you had incorporated?!) I know it is easy for me to talk from a thousand miles away, but I believe that there is some merit to my suggestions. Best Wishes to you all in any case.
Dear Mr. Producer: I do hope that some such photo can be found for your use, but you must not have your heart set on this, since, as was explained to your duplicate inquiries at www.BigScreenBiz.com as well as the Guestbook of www.HistoricTheatres.org, such specific photos of titles and growds are as rare as hen’s teeth. Possibly your only real hope is to scan the back issues of newspapers during the film’s issuance and hope for such a photo and that it is still in their ‘morgue’, but rarely were such photos taken by the media unless it was somehow a newsworthy event, as when someone may have thrown a smoke bomb into the waiting crowd, or the theatre could not open for some reason and thousands standing in lines had to be turned away.
The original Hollywood producer/studio might still possibly have such a promo photo in their files, but by this late date, that is highly unlikely, especially if you don’t find such an image on the CD of the movie that must be out by now.
As stated in previous replies, it is not difficult for a photo studio to ‘fudge’ a photo of a crowd in front of a theatre anywhere to have this movie’s title on that maraquee. It is isn’t cheap to have this done, but not beyond the budget of most. The Theatre HIstorical Society linked above (www.historictheatres.org) does have dozens of such street queues photos and can likely arrange to sell you the rights to have one adapted to your purposes. You should go to their site and arrange for an appoint to look at such phots in their Archive. Best Wishes.
Animated marquees are indeed wonderful things, and I fervently wish more theatres/cinemas had them! But it is a sad commentary about our society when we are marveling at an invention of 1900, now 105 years later, only because such artistry has all but vanished from our lives, lo these many years now.
BoxOfficeBill is to be commended on providing such illuminating information that is all to often lost to history; we are the richer for it. The photo he links to does show the contour curtain I asked him about, since in many theatres such was only mounted as a decorative border since it is much cheaper to rig that way. I should have know that there would be only the best at the preeminent ROXY. Thanks, Bill.
“hardbop” says: “My beef is how can Loew’s or any other profit-making company just abandon these buildings. Aren’t they responsible for the upkeep? They can essentially just walk away from a building and leave it to rot or leave it to the taxpayers to figure out how to maintain it/demolish it?” Sad to say, what Loews did is perfectly legal in all the states, since the presumption of law is that if a property owner stops paying taxes, the state has the right to seize control of the property and sell it to offset the expense of the property to the public. Of course, that idea worked in rural farm society where land was sold, but in urban society, it is mostly the improvements (buildings) that are sold — or as in the case of the KINGS — they remain unsold. The owner gets the advantage of not being taxed on the property if the municipality seizes it, and yes, he can then just walk away. The municipality does usually place a lein upon the deed, and expects to recoup its losses both through a sale as well as anything that might come in via a lein. The trouble is, of course, that most potential buyers of so large a parcel and structure don’t want either the lein or the cost of clearing the land —a very expensive proposition, especially with today’s statutes regarding ‘brown fields’ cleanup responsibilities, so the land/improvements remain unsold and they become a burden to the city. Loews was not alone; millions of business use this tactic to divest themselves of something they cannot profitably sell, and the taxpayer is left with the burden. This is part of what some call ‘Free Enterprise’ which basically means that you are more ‘Free’ if you are rich like Loews. If you are a poorer individual, then don’t expect such a benefit, since they city will then just come after you in court for back taxes, and then seize anything else you own to pay them!
If you had read the previous comments you would have seen mine of May 2004 wherein I list the source of a large booklet crammed with large photos of the LOS ANGELES.
The tradition of RED CARPETS started a great many years ago in Europe, but I don’t know in which kingdom. I believe it was in the film “The Prince and the Showgirl” that the Prince remarks when asked why the carpets are always red: “I think it is to conceal the blood” [of assisnation attempts].
Bruce, dear fellow, it is of no use scolding people for not doing more than talking, unless you yourself are willing and able to take the lead. Here is how you start:
1) Set up a place for interested nearby people can meet at little or no expense to themselves, and give date, time, place and something of a skimpy agenda. If you can show “Memoirs of a Movie Palace” to start the meeting, that might get all in the mood. DO NOT call the media; it is too early to embarrass any who are camera shy. Likewise, do not demand anyone sign up on a roster for future meetings or the like at the first meeting; that can scare some timid souls off. Meerely state the details for the next meeting and that you will be looking for some commitments after that meeting to be in writing.
2) A third meeing will then likely draw only committed souls with whom you can then form a sound, legal not-for-profit organization, select a name, have an attorney look over your articles of incorporation and a constitution and by-laws which will enable people to see your seriousness of purpose (you should draft a Mission Statement at this or the following meeting also), and suggest a slate of Officers to be discusses and voted at the fifth meeting.
3) Most people have very little time, so make as few demands upon their time outside of the meetings as possible, or you will have good will sorts who start drifting away. Be ready for the fact of life that in any group there are a core few who do 90% of the work, and scolding the others will only reduce your base of contributors.
You say you hate pushing and pulling others along, and also hate having someone less competent than you be voted into authority over you? Then make yourself a one man show by offering your services as Funds Rasiser or Consultant in the Restoration of the Kings. I wish I could say that you will have an easy road of it, but reality and history say otherwise, so be sure of why you are into it, and just how much time you can take from home and job to accomplish it. In any case, BEST WISHES from one too far away to help.
How sad for you Tynan, that you recognize only your own ‘achievements’ and not the rights of others, but how so much sadder for the buildings you deface. Your yawps at your own estimation of your ‘artistry’ smack of a small man needing the reassurance needed by a little boy. I do hope that one day you will realize that real achievement lies in the appreciation and plaudits of the society one lives in, and that society is not the furtive gangs of self-congratulatory miscreants that rationalize their conduct by saying that at least they are using spray paint rather than guns. When you say “[it] is pure release, is pleasure at its best. Nothing can compare. Nothing else matters in life.†you are of course stating what matters to your life, not that of others: the unfortunate property owners who have had nothing to say about your desecrations, not even the hapless passersby who must be assaulted by your ego’s imagination of its achievements. Your statement betrays that your quest is NOT for art as you would have us believe, but for crass sensations of the juvenile mind where nothing but its own pleasure matters in his selfish, self-serving life. I could have pity for you if you were misguided, but your deeds spring from a heatless selfishness that has the audacity to mount this public forum and brag about your lawlessness. I can only hope that you grow up some day, and that you assault no more property.
Vincent is, of course, right; the demise of most real motion pictures is part and parcel of the demise of our culture, though it is not just caused just by greedy and slovenly people, no matter how much they have spent on their clothes from Rodeo Drive. The reason is multifaceted and peers into the very fabric of humanity itself, and is therefore beyond the scope of this forum, sad to say. With today’s modern communications, however, it no longer takes any immigration of peoples anywhere to influence the nature of film or most anything else; blight in the aesthetic sense travels even more quickly by electronic media than automobiles. I must agree that most of today’s films if they could be seen in such as the ROXY and other true palaces, would be so dwarfed in significance that the audience would indeed see such films as “ludicrous.†However, the “glass and steel box fungus†of ‘architecture’ which Vincent refers to is not so much a cause of the demise of the glorious palaces, as a symptom of the cultural degeneration which Vince refers to. Merely read the short novel form 1980: FROM BAUHAUS TO OUR HOUSE by the noted writer Thomas Wolfe, and you will notice the real reason that the ‘fungus’ spread so quickly through the architectural garden that we once enjoyed, complete with movie palaces blooming right and left. (Of course, we cannot forget that it was television which did the major damage to those palaces along with other cultural phenomena of the “black fungus.â€)
On the “About ArcLight” portion of their web site is this statement: “ArcLight Hollywood’s 14 new auditoriums begin with a “black box†design aesthetic which favors undistracted viewing over opulence….” Statements such as this are found throughout the new, aesthetically-challenged wunderkind that populate most of our cinema world these days, where they give lip service to the beauty of the palaces, but then turn around and dismiss them with statements such as the above. MANIFESTLY: if a film is so weak or unappetizing that the viewer can be ‘distracted’ by an opulent decor, then the film should be seen as the culprit, not the decorations! It is only the supreme arrogance of the filmakers that makes them assume that anything put on a screen should automatically command the complete attention of each and every member of the audience. Those few of greater humility will acknowledge that much of what comes upon screens these days is self-indulgent crap where pretension masquerades as art. Give me a gorgeous ‘palace’ to see a move along with good projection and sound and service, and I will then have something to occupy my time and justify the stiff admision fees when portions of a film are bad or dull, and there will ALWAYS be portions of any film that do not command attention at every second. The ArcLight and other such screening rooms should never be called theatres, but only cinemas at best. They may not be ‘cheap’ as the previous post explains, but in no sense was their expense evident in the decor, for true ‘decor’ they never have had.