Fascinating stuff. Both the article, and some of the responses.
Funny how we look at options outside our interests. For example, I used to regularly fly from the UK to North America to visit family. Economy. After having trawled around for a deal. I couldn’t afford to upgrade. Not to Business, and certainly not to First Class. The notion of The Concorde was ridiculous, beyond reason, beyond reckoning…even if I’d won the lottery.
Once, my gal and I got upgraded. To Business. Man…THAT was incredible. In fact, I phoned my parents, trans-Atlantic, from Heathrow, to tell them. I was that excited.
After that? I still flew Economy.
I’ve done the VIP thing at movies. In the UK and in Canada. For me, a waste of money. The added luxury added nothing to my experience. (And for me, had nothing to do with seeing a movie.) But then I was as happy to sit in the tiniest of Cineplex-Odeon’s original multiplex cinemas at the Eaton Centre as I was to see a gala at the Elgin during the Toronto International Film Festival.
I think news item…and some of the responses…most reveal how betrayed many people feel by the cinema trade. How things aren’t the same any more, and further, that some entrepreneurs want to CHARGE EXTRA for what used to be the norm. “Really, the notion of charging more for what I should be getting already!!!”
The fact is that there’s a market for everything. (And if there isn’t, then the offering will quickly disappear.) I don’t understand $200 dinners. But there’s a market. I don’t understand $5000 watches. But there’s a market. And I don’t understand the notion of paying three, four times the average ticket price for the pleasure of seeing a movie. But clearly, there’s a market for it. I may not understand it…but good for them. All of them.
This is precisely the sort of non-linear thinking the movie theatres should be doing. They cannot control the product they receive from their ‘supplier’…and there’s only one supplier. So they have to do something they’re notoriously bad at: innovate. (What’s really funny to me is that their arrogance -seen best in how they’ve absolutely abrogated their responsibility to provide the customer a satisfying experience, not just shepherd them into the auditoriums after feeding themâ€" is actually not something they’ve earned…because they’re no longer the primary means for most people to enjoy the films they watch.) They’re going to have to WORK for their share of peoples' discretionary entertainment monies. Welcome to the 90s.
This quote from Moby, modern musican, DJ and pop-star about the music industry actually indicates some intriguing parallels to the film biz:
“Every aspect of the music business is in a state of transition — the way records are made, the way they’re distributed, the way people listen to them, how music exists,“ he says. "I was talking to someone recently and we were remembering that, up until the Walkman, music never left the home. Unless it was on a transistor, unless it was on a radio, that idea that you would bring your music with you didn’t exist. You bought a record, you listened to the record at home and maybe, if you were feeling really crazy, you brought a record to a friend’s house. It’s such a different way of thinking about music that it’s so portable now.
“For the longest time, people just associated music with the delivery vehicle it was presented on. So people thought of music as being a record or being a cassette or being a CD and not recognizing that it’s this intangible entity. It’s the only art form that has no actual substance. Music is just air moving around … . And so, I think, even in the record companies, they always assumed music would be linked to some plastic delivery vehicle. And now, it isn’t.”
It used to be that the only way you could view a movie was at a cinema. No more. Times have changed. And if cinemas are to survive long-term, then diversification is the key. People are entrenching themselves more and more in their home entertainment systems. Cinemas have to find creative (and lucrative) ways to get them into their facilities. Not just for these events, but to remind them how satisfying being in a cinematic environment can be.
Besides offering a diverse slate of options besides movies, I believe that they need to look at ways to get patrons in the theatres more often, and as I’ve said before, this approach is a possible key: View link
Because so many of the comments I read are, at best, naïve, at worst, the ‘Wah, wah!“ whining of spoiled brats.
As I inferred, you’d think there was some moralistic element attached to what Hollywood does. As if they should be behaving in a certain way, because movies have a certain place in our lives, especially culturally. (This gets conflated with the misconception that there’s any connection at all between those who produce the product –‘Hollywood’– and those who, at a cinema level, sell the experience to the public, the cinema owner/operators.) I’ve mentioned this before, this ‘proprietorship’ slant on how people see movies, as if, by proxy, they’re actually part-owners of the medium…which of course is ludicrous; we’re nothing more than consumers, and the only ‘say’ we have is regarding what we consume…and in what form we consume it.
I do not believe there is any responsibility on the part of Hollywood except for the bottom-line business-wise, and to whatever ‘artistic’ weight they attach to each project they endeavour to bring to market. Hollywood owes the viewing public nothing in regards to what it tosses out to feed the seemingly endless appetite of that public. Do you think that television has any obligation in this regard? Does the music industry? Do auto-makers? I don’t. We live in a free-market, capitalistic, vote-with-your-dollar system. And we all vote all the time, every day, for the entirety of our lives. When people start to take umbrage at an industry doing what it does, for the reasons it’s always done it…I can’t help but laugh.
Seeing as you’ve questioned my place in Life, I’d be very curious to see the profiles of those people who are ‘loaded for bear’ where this topic is concerned, to see just how grounded in reality their self-righteous stances are. I suspect, even from a distance, that there’s a ton of double-standards involved.
Sorry, don’t get it. What are you suggesting should be happening?
I’m always fascinated when people bemoan free-market, capitalist behaviour…especially where movies are concerned. You’d think there was a moralistic issue attached. Strange, considering we’re talking commerce.
…and cut down on distribution costs. Anyone know what the current cost is to bring a film to cinemas in wide release? (And obviously, I’m referring to traditionally-equipped cinemas.)
The studios are in business to make money. The amount they derive from theatrical ticket receipts world-wide is now between 10 and 12% of the revenue pie. And as renting and buying movies becomes more ‘home entertainment system’-based (read that as ‘via download’, the theatrical experience is going to be come less and less a priority.
This is what it comes down to: for most aficionados here, the default paradigm for viewing a movie is to go to a cinema. But for new generations coming up, and for those who have the $$$ to cocoon at home and leave all the messy aspects of cinema-going behind, less so. (One movie site I frequent had very, very impassioned film fans responding to the question ‘How many films will you see at the cinema this year?’ with astonishingly low numbers. The average, as I recall, was a half-dozen. They might ‘view’ a hundred…but a paucity of these will be seen at the cinema. And these are hard-core film lovers.) And quite frankly, Hollywood doesn’t care. As long as it gets its revenue, what makes anyone here believe that it matters to them where it gets its money from?
If it can reduce bottom-line costs, Hollywood will be happy. This switch will certainly, in the long-term, reduce its costs…increase its profit-margin.
And of course, the people who show the movies have no real say in things. Not when there is no alternative supplier. And not when you can project that in ten years, the cinema slice of the revenue pie will hover somewhere around 5%. At that point, cinema exhibition will merely be flashy way to advertise their wares. Even acknowledging that maybe $10 billion will be the value of this slice.
What’s ironic is that the only thing that an exhibitor can control is the experience of seeing a film in an auditorium. In other words, providing something that you cannot get at home. And I’m writing this in a comments section of a site dedicated to a time when movie palaces were the norm, when ‘cinema treasures’ were cathedrals of worship, when it wasn’t so much the movie that was paramount, but where and how you saw it. If cinema-going is to survive beyond being an esoteric activity, a tertiary choice for consuming movies, then the exhibitors are going to have to innovate. Or, in a nutshell, start appreciating that customer service is at the core of what they’re selling, not the product.
“If this had happened then the Palace might have lasted until the late 1980’s as a cinema, likely closing at the same time as the Century and Tivoli (September 1989).Both of the theatres ended up owned by the same company who was not affiliated with Famous Players or Odeon (later Cineplex)”
Brian: Thanks for this very intriguing tidbit; I hadn’t realized that they weren’t part of either company’s chains…even though I’m sure I have the info laying about here somewhere.
For years I’ve been putting together info for a planned online resource for Hamilton cinema history; drop me an email if you’re interested in chatting about this stuff.
I’d say ‘No’. (I’ve lived in Hamilton or surrounding environs most of my life. I was there when the Century went dark, the Tivoli, the Hyland, the Towne, the Avon, Main West, Delta, Centre Mall, the Cinema Theatre…even the SkyWay Drive-in.)
There was too much behind supporting Hamilton Place, no concessions would have been granted along the way, etc. Politicians wanted “New, new, new!‘ Hamilton, by the time the early 70s arrived, was, paradoxically, heading into its decline.
To think, this location now houses a beauty supply shop. Sad.
The mayor at the time of Jackson Square’s building eerily predicted that unless development was effected east of this downtown development…where the Palace stood…then nothing good would, in the end, result from the boom. And wouldn’t ya know it? He was right.
Hang on… I have the Odeon opening in ‘73. The Palace was gone by then.
At the start of the 70s…right before we have the Palace and Capitol being demolished, the downtown looks like this: The Hyland, the Century, the Tivoli. The Odeon has yet to open, as does the Jackson Square two-plex. The periphery markets, extending down Barton, out towards the east end, and out towards Mac, are another story entirely.
Actually, I rather doubt that Hamilton Place (live entertainment) had much to do with their (movies) demise. The Jackson Square cinemas (initially operated by Famous Players), perhaps. But at the time, the downtown was in fact over-screened, all things considered, and the landscape was changing.
I have a small pet project I’ve been wanting to get around to: finding out just how ‘profitable’ the businesses have been that went into the locations where the Capitol and the Palace existed. I rather doubt much revenue has been generated by either over the ensuing 35+ years. Sad, really.
HowardBHaas: Clearly, we part company when it comes to access to former palaces. Because at the one end, we have a fully restored facility that functions as it once did, and at the other, a facility that’s no longer used in that capacity…and in fact, during its public access, passively denies that it was ever really enjoyed in any other form.
There’s no question that architecturally, The Stanley is a marvel to walk through. As would any other church based in a wholly-refurbished 80 year old former movie palace. But within my value system, I’m not so sure that there’s much enjoyment to be had when the ‘cord’s been cut’. In fact, I’m not so sure I’d want to visit other theatres that had undergone similar transformations, where the building’s heritage is denied. Maybe this seems to smack of ‘cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face’. But then it’s been seven weeks since I was at the Stanley and the visit still makes me nauseated. I don’t need to repeat that experience. I’d prefer to put my time and energies into supporting places like the Loew’s Jersey or Kings.
As with all other Cinema Treasures visitors, I die a little every time a palace is destroyed. (My home town now has no history left to it. Well…there’s The Tivoli on James Street, but that’s almost a foregone conclusion.) And these old ‘cathedrals’ will continue to be demolished, as hardly anything lasts anymore. (Good Lord, look at the debacle of NYC’s Grand Central Terminal! That alone proves how relentless ‘progress’ is. And how often it’s mentally vapid.)
So maybe this is why I flinch at your comment “We certainly would not want them to discontinue their wonderful and free tours because people start griping.” Frankly, I reserve the right to ‘gripe’. And seriously, if they reacted to criticism in this way, by denying the general public opportunities to ‘enjoy’ The Stanley for different reasons than for worshipers…then I’d question the sincerity of their ‘good Christian fellowship’.
I appreciate what you’re suggesting, here. What it comes down to though, is that we’re talking about a group’s religion and their place of worship. Of everything, they take the most pride in the work they did for their god. As an indication of their faithfulness, their dedication. That supercedes any other elements, such as the fact that there had been fifty years worth of cinematic history that came before their restoration, and proper respect is due the heritage of the building. (Which is why they don’t address either element.)
To me, what we experienced there wasn’t just one tour guide’s slant on things. The JWs see being there in that building, under the circumstances they’ve found themselves in, as an act of providence on the part of their god. There are no representations of anything cinematic in the entire building. No nostalgia gallery, no mementos, nothing. So I doubt very much that they’d be welcoming of any suggestion to change the focus of the tours…which, as they stand, are self-congratulatory.
I appreciate everything you’re saying here. But we’re talking apples and oranges.
I don’t think I’ve taken issue in any of my posts with anything the JW have done in terms of restoration. Not at all. How could anyone, once they’ve seen the place?
No, my issue is the lack of respect for the heritage that allowed them to take over the building in the first place; no cinema history, no Stanley, no JW church on that location. You’d think, by extension, that the fact that it was a renowned cinema for years was only incidental to their God giving them the chance to express their faith by restoring it.
In contrast, this past weekend, my NYC host and I took the Elgin and Winter Garden tour in Toronto. Formerly known as Loew’s Yonge, this ‘only working double-decker theatre in the world’ (and an atmospheric in The Winter Garden, to boot) has tours of the facility that pay respect to its nearly 100 years of history. There’s a real sense of ‘rightness’ to the Elgin/Winter Garden tour…whereas thinking of the Stanley’s still leaves me queasy…and entirely disinterested in ever going back. (I’d much rather spend my time across the street at the Jersey.)
Here’s how I see Cinema Treasures: This is a combination ‘Wiki’ and discussion board facility. (I wish we did have actual discussion boards, it might actually provide the environment you’re looking for. That is, having them might maintain the ‘integrity’ of the actual listings, while still providing a chance for members to ‘chat’ .) The idea of moderating every comment is a little much. In its present form, the site provides a chance to offer up information about some admittedly esoteric locations, as well as exchange viewpoints and memories. It’s not a ‘pure’ arena. And unless the site’s intent is changed radically, it never will be. Yeah, there are some times when things get a little hairy…a little off-topic…but so what? This isn’t an academic site. And as with everywhere else on the Web, you always have the right to ignore posts, skim others, and respond to those that intrigue.
Can’t really understand why so many people are getting their feathers ruffled at the ‘requirements’…and yet I do, I most certainly do.
I applaud the efforts here, aimed at raising standards as much as trying to ensure consistency of entries. Just as there’s a quite-intriguing tendency to ‘proprietorship’ on the part of moviegoers regarding the fare they watch, so is there one on the part of members of Cinema Treasures regarding the site itself. But it’s not ours, we’re merely visitors using the resources provided us.
I was wanting to confirm that both the Capitol and Palace were Lamb designs. A friend and I were trying to figure out the time-line that allowed two Lamb buildings to be built a block apart, by presumably competing chains.
There doesn’t seem to be any Lamb biography out there…and there’s a dearth of general resources about Lamb, specifically what he designed, and where.
I’m going to resist my usual diatribing and instead simply mention that this week, I’ve been trawling the CT pages and am constantly stunned by how much has been lost. In just about every major city in North America. (I’m constantly amazed that my ‘home town’…population when I was growing up of less than 250,000…had TWO Thomas Lamb cinemas a block apart. Both now gone.) My point here is that while we see these ‘palaces’ in a particular light, others, many others, MOST others, don’t.
We live in a world of diminishing appreciation of our heritage. More value is placed on ‘new’ than ‘old’. (This goes for people as well as buildings.) Much can be said about how this reflects ‘modern’ values. And yet we began knocking down many of these gems forty, fifty, sixty years ago. So it’s not a new development, this disregard, this disrespect.
If our own neighbours don’t put any value on these nostalgic gems, these cathedrals of film, if they can’t be bothered to want to reclaim, refurbish and restore, why would you expect someone from thousands of miles away to? The skewed perception of ‘Hollywood’s role’ aside (and subsequent naive railings at the same), I suppose we just have to do what we can, wherever we can.
All of this is true…except that there’s another player here. One that has not, to my reckoning, as it’s been explained to me, allowed the Friends of the Loew’s to make the most of its stewardship. And when your hands are tied…it’s tough to perform the magic you’re capable of.
Until that situation changes, there’s a ceiling on what can be accomplished, no matter the extent of the volunteer support.
Hold up: you’re equating a television broadcast of what is essentially a self-indulgent, over-produced display of showboat-preening on the parts of (admittedly talented) ego-driven stars for the benefit of a cannibalistic, sensation-gorging, false-idol-worshipping public with something of nationalistic importance?!?
Now THIS…this is the stuff of great satire.
‘Impassioned film-goer and flag-waver, seeing that a Hollywood strike is about to derail their beloved Oscar broadcast, decides to take things into their own hands. Bombastic mayhem ensues, shining a satirical light on the true state of their nation.’
I believe that this strike has a lot more at its core than the salient issues being bargained. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that these unspoken aspects have far greater relevance; the items on the table are just expressions of the primary aspect, that of respect.
And I’m not sure you can take decades of grievances and sort them out in negotiations. Mindsets are terrible things to try to change during arm-wrestling.
The collateral damage being done by this strike is depressing.
Fascinating stuff. Both the article, and some of the responses.
Funny how we look at options outside our interests. For example, I used to regularly fly from the UK to North America to visit family. Economy. After having trawled around for a deal. I couldn’t afford to upgrade. Not to Business, and certainly not to First Class. The notion of The Concorde was ridiculous, beyond reason, beyond reckoning…even if I’d won the lottery.
Once, my gal and I got upgraded. To Business. Man…THAT was incredible. In fact, I phoned my parents, trans-Atlantic, from Heathrow, to tell them. I was that excited.
After that? I still flew Economy.
I’ve done the VIP thing at movies. In the UK and in Canada. For me, a waste of money. The added luxury added nothing to my experience. (And for me, had nothing to do with seeing a movie.) But then I was as happy to sit in the tiniest of Cineplex-Odeon’s original multiplex cinemas at the Eaton Centre as I was to see a gala at the Elgin during the Toronto International Film Festival.
I think news item…and some of the responses…most reveal how betrayed many people feel by the cinema trade. How things aren’t the same any more, and further, that some entrepreneurs want to CHARGE EXTRA for what used to be the norm. “Really, the notion of charging more for what I should be getting already!!!”
The fact is that there’s a market for everything. (And if there isn’t, then the offering will quickly disappear.) I don’t understand $200 dinners. But there’s a market. I don’t understand $5000 watches. But there’s a market. And I don’t understand the notion of paying three, four times the average ticket price for the pleasure of seeing a movie. But clearly, there’s a market for it. I may not understand it…but good for them. All of them.
This is precisely the sort of non-linear thinking the movie theatres should be doing. They cannot control the product they receive from their ‘supplier’…and there’s only one supplier. So they have to do something they’re notoriously bad at: innovate. (What’s really funny to me is that their arrogance -seen best in how they’ve absolutely abrogated their responsibility to provide the customer a satisfying experience, not just shepherd them into the auditoriums after feeding themâ€" is actually not something they’ve earned…because they’re no longer the primary means for most people to enjoy the films they watch.) They’re going to have to WORK for their share of peoples' discretionary entertainment monies. Welcome to the 90s.
This quote from Moby, modern musican, DJ and pop-star about the music industry actually indicates some intriguing parallels to the film biz:
“Every aspect of the music business is in a state of transition — the way records are made, the way they’re distributed, the way people listen to them, how music exists,“ he says. "I was talking to someone recently and we were remembering that, up until the Walkman, music never left the home. Unless it was on a transistor, unless it was on a radio, that idea that you would bring your music with you didn’t exist. You bought a record, you listened to the record at home and maybe, if you were feeling really crazy, you brought a record to a friend’s house. It’s such a different way of thinking about music that it’s so portable now.
“For the longest time, people just associated music with the delivery vehicle it was presented on. So people thought of music as being a record or being a cassette or being a CD and not recognizing that it’s this intangible entity. It’s the only art form that has no actual substance. Music is just air moving around … . And so, I think, even in the record companies, they always assumed music would be linked to some plastic delivery vehicle. And now, it isn’t.”
It used to be that the only way you could view a movie was at a cinema. No more. Times have changed. And if cinemas are to survive long-term, then diversification is the key. People are entrenching themselves more and more in their home entertainment systems. Cinemas have to find creative (and lucrative) ways to get them into their facilities. Not just for these events, but to remind them how satisfying being in a cinematic environment can be.
Besides offering a diverse slate of options besides movies, I believe that they need to look at ways to get patrons in the theatres more often, and as I’ve said before, this approach is a possible key: View link
Because so many of the comments I read are, at best, naïve, at worst, the ‘Wah, wah!“ whining of spoiled brats.
As I inferred, you’d think there was some moralistic element attached to what Hollywood does. As if they should be behaving in a certain way, because movies have a certain place in our lives, especially culturally. (This gets conflated with the misconception that there’s any connection at all between those who produce the product –‘Hollywood’– and those who, at a cinema level, sell the experience to the public, the cinema owner/operators.) I’ve mentioned this before, this ‘proprietorship’ slant on how people see movies, as if, by proxy, they’re actually part-owners of the medium…which of course is ludicrous; we’re nothing more than consumers, and the only ‘say’ we have is regarding what we consume…and in what form we consume it.
I do not believe there is any responsibility on the part of Hollywood except for the bottom-line business-wise, and to whatever ‘artistic’ weight they attach to each project they endeavour to bring to market. Hollywood owes the viewing public nothing in regards to what it tosses out to feed the seemingly endless appetite of that public. Do you think that television has any obligation in this regard? Does the music industry? Do auto-makers? I don’t. We live in a free-market, capitalistic, vote-with-your-dollar system. And we all vote all the time, every day, for the entirety of our lives. When people start to take umbrage at an industry doing what it does, for the reasons it’s always done it…I can’t help but laugh.
Seeing as you’ve questioned my place in Life, I’d be very curious to see the profiles of those people who are ‘loaded for bear’ where this topic is concerned, to see just how grounded in reality their self-righteous stances are. I suspect, even from a distance, that there’s a ton of double-standards involved.
TheaterBuff1: No, not ‘rich’ at all. What in my comments has led you to say that?
“…they think only of themselves…”
???
Sorry, don’t get it. What are you suggesting should be happening?
I’m always fascinated when people bemoan free-market, capitalist behaviour…especially where movies are concerned. You’d think there was a moralistic issue attached. Strange, considering we’re talking commerce.
…and cut down on distribution costs. Anyone know what the current cost is to bring a film to cinemas in wide release? (And obviously, I’m referring to traditionally-equipped cinemas.)
long: So just to clarify… Was that actually five points you were getting straight…?
: )
‘The future is now, the future is…
…money.'
The studios are in business to make money. The amount they derive from theatrical ticket receipts world-wide is now between 10 and 12% of the revenue pie. And as renting and buying movies becomes more ‘home entertainment system’-based (read that as ‘via download’, the theatrical experience is going to be come less and less a priority.
This is what it comes down to: for most aficionados here, the default paradigm for viewing a movie is to go to a cinema. But for new generations coming up, and for those who have the $$$ to cocoon at home and leave all the messy aspects of cinema-going behind, less so. (One movie site I frequent had very, very impassioned film fans responding to the question ‘How many films will you see at the cinema this year?’ with astonishingly low numbers. The average, as I recall, was a half-dozen. They might ‘view’ a hundred…but a paucity of these will be seen at the cinema. And these are hard-core film lovers.) And quite frankly, Hollywood doesn’t care. As long as it gets its revenue, what makes anyone here believe that it matters to them where it gets its money from?
If it can reduce bottom-line costs, Hollywood will be happy. This switch will certainly, in the long-term, reduce its costs…increase its profit-margin.
And of course, the people who show the movies have no real say in things. Not when there is no alternative supplier. And not when you can project that in ten years, the cinema slice of the revenue pie will hover somewhere around 5%. At that point, cinema exhibition will merely be flashy way to advertise their wares. Even acknowledging that maybe $10 billion will be the value of this slice.
What’s ironic is that the only thing that an exhibitor can control is the experience of seeing a film in an auditorium. In other words, providing something that you cannot get at home. And I’m writing this in a comments section of a site dedicated to a time when movie palaces were the norm, when ‘cinema treasures’ were cathedrals of worship, when it wasn’t so much the movie that was paramount, but where and how you saw it. If cinema-going is to survive beyond being an esoteric activity, a tertiary choice for consuming movies, then the exhibitors are going to have to innovate. Or, in a nutshell, start appreciating that customer service is at the core of what they’re selling, not the product.
“If this had happened then the Palace might have lasted until the late 1980’s as a cinema, likely closing at the same time as the Century and Tivoli (September 1989).Both of the theatres ended up owned by the same company who was not affiliated with Famous Players or Odeon (later Cineplex)”
Brian: Thanks for this very intriguing tidbit; I hadn’t realized that they weren’t part of either company’s chains…even though I’m sure I have the info laying about here somewhere.
For years I’ve been putting together info for a planned online resource for Hamilton cinema history; drop me an email if you’re interested in chatting about this stuff.
I’d say ‘No’. (I’ve lived in Hamilton or surrounding environs most of my life. I was there when the Century went dark, the Tivoli, the Hyland, the Towne, the Avon, Main West, Delta, Centre Mall, the Cinema Theatre…even the SkyWay Drive-in.)
There was too much behind supporting Hamilton Place, no concessions would have been granted along the way, etc. Politicians wanted “New, new, new!‘ Hamilton, by the time the early 70s arrived, was, paradoxically, heading into its decline.
To think, this location now houses a beauty supply shop. Sad.
The mayor at the time of Jackson Square’s building eerily predicted that unless development was effected east of this downtown development…where the Palace stood…then nothing good would, in the end, result from the boom. And wouldn’t ya know it? He was right.
Hang on… I have the Odeon opening in ‘73. The Palace was gone by then.
At the start of the 70s…right before we have the Palace and Capitol being demolished, the downtown looks like this: The Hyland, the Century, the Tivoli. The Odeon has yet to open, as does the Jackson Square two-plex. The periphery markets, extending down Barton, out towards the east end, and out towards Mac, are another story entirely.
Actually, I rather doubt that Hamilton Place (live entertainment) had much to do with their (movies) demise. The Jackson Square cinemas (initially operated by Famous Players), perhaps. But at the time, the downtown was in fact over-screened, all things considered, and the landscape was changing.
I have a small pet project I’ve been wanting to get around to: finding out just how ‘profitable’ the businesses have been that went into the locations where the Capitol and the Palace existed. I rather doubt much revenue has been generated by either over the ensuing 35+ years. Sad, really.
HowardBHaas: Clearly, we part company when it comes to access to former palaces. Because at the one end, we have a fully restored facility that functions as it once did, and at the other, a facility that’s no longer used in that capacity…and in fact, during its public access, passively denies that it was ever really enjoyed in any other form.
There’s no question that architecturally, The Stanley is a marvel to walk through. As would any other church based in a wholly-refurbished 80 year old former movie palace. But within my value system, I’m not so sure that there’s much enjoyment to be had when the ‘cord’s been cut’. In fact, I’m not so sure I’d want to visit other theatres that had undergone similar transformations, where the building’s heritage is denied. Maybe this seems to smack of ‘cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face’. But then it’s been seven weeks since I was at the Stanley and the visit still makes me nauseated. I don’t need to repeat that experience. I’d prefer to put my time and energies into supporting places like the Loew’s Jersey or Kings.
As with all other Cinema Treasures visitors, I die a little every time a palace is destroyed. (My home town now has no history left to it. Well…there’s The Tivoli on James Street, but that’s almost a foregone conclusion.) And these old ‘cathedrals’ will continue to be demolished, as hardly anything lasts anymore. (Good Lord, look at the debacle of NYC’s Grand Central Terminal! That alone proves how relentless ‘progress’ is. And how often it’s mentally vapid.)
So maybe this is why I flinch at your comment “We certainly would not want them to discontinue their wonderful and free tours because people start griping.” Frankly, I reserve the right to ‘gripe’. And seriously, if they reacted to criticism in this way, by denying the general public opportunities to ‘enjoy’ The Stanley for different reasons than for worshipers…then I’d question the sincerity of their ‘good Christian fellowship’.
PastRespects:
I appreciate what you’re suggesting, here. What it comes down to though, is that we’re talking about a group’s religion and their place of worship. Of everything, they take the most pride in the work they did for their god. As an indication of their faithfulness, their dedication. That supercedes any other elements, such as the fact that there had been fifty years worth of cinematic history that came before their restoration, and proper respect is due the heritage of the building. (Which is why they don’t address either element.)
To me, what we experienced there wasn’t just one tour guide’s slant on things. The JWs see being there in that building, under the circumstances they’ve found themselves in, as an act of providence on the part of their god. There are no representations of anything cinematic in the entire building. No nostalgia gallery, no mementos, nothing. So I doubt very much that they’d be welcoming of any suggestion to change the focus of the tours…which, as they stand, are self-congratulatory.
PastRespects:
I appreciate everything you’re saying here. But we’re talking apples and oranges.
I don’t think I’ve taken issue in any of my posts with anything the JW have done in terms of restoration. Not at all. How could anyone, once they’ve seen the place?
No, my issue is the lack of respect for the heritage that allowed them to take over the building in the first place; no cinema history, no Stanley, no JW church on that location. You’d think, by extension, that the fact that it was a renowned cinema for years was only incidental to their God giving them the chance to express their faith by restoring it.
In contrast, this past weekend, my NYC host and I took the Elgin and Winter Garden tour in Toronto. Formerly known as Loew’s Yonge, this ‘only working double-decker theatre in the world’ (and an atmospheric in The Winter Garden, to boot) has tours of the facility that pay respect to its nearly 100 years of history. There’s a real sense of ‘rightness’ to the Elgin/Winter Garden tour…whereas thinking of the Stanley’s still leaves me queasy…and entirely disinterested in ever going back. (I’d much rather spend my time across the street at the Jersey.)
re: John J. Fink
Here’s how I see Cinema Treasures: This is a combination ‘Wiki’ and discussion board facility. (I wish we did have actual discussion boards, it might actually provide the environment you’re looking for. That is, having them might maintain the ‘integrity’ of the actual listings, while still providing a chance for members to ‘chat’ .) The idea of moderating every comment is a little much. In its present form, the site provides a chance to offer up information about some admittedly esoteric locations, as well as exchange viewpoints and memories. It’s not a ‘pure’ arena. And unless the site’s intent is changed radically, it never will be. Yeah, there are some times when things get a little hairy…a little off-topic…but so what? This isn’t an academic site. And as with everywhere else on the Web, you always have the right to ignore posts, skim others, and respond to those that intrigue.
“DVDs have killed the rep business.”
“DVD hasn’t hurt at all – DVD may have helped us.”
Fascinating contrast, fascinating article.
I’m reminded of a saying, and of a song: ‘You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink,’ and ‘I can’t make you love me…’
LOL
Can’t really understand why so many people are getting their feathers ruffled at the ‘requirements’…and yet I do, I most certainly do.
I applaud the efforts here, aimed at raising standards as much as trying to ensure consistency of entries. Just as there’s a quite-intriguing tendency to ‘proprietorship’ on the part of moviegoers regarding the fare they watch, so is there one on the part of members of Cinema Treasures regarding the site itself. But it’s not ours, we’re merely visitors using the resources provided us.
Good luck to all those involved.
Yeah, I saw the mention in Brian’s post.
I was wanting to confirm that both the Capitol and Palace were Lamb designs. A friend and I were trying to figure out the time-line that allowed two Lamb buildings to be built a block apart, by presumably competing chains.
There doesn’t seem to be any Lamb biography out there…and there’s a dearth of general resources about Lamb, specifically what he designed, and where.
Can anyone confirm that this was a Thomas Lamb theatre?
I’m going to resist my usual diatribing and instead simply mention that this week, I’ve been trawling the CT pages and am constantly stunned by how much has been lost. In just about every major city in North America. (I’m constantly amazed that my ‘home town’…population when I was growing up of less than 250,000…had TWO Thomas Lamb cinemas a block apart. Both now gone.) My point here is that while we see these ‘palaces’ in a particular light, others, many others, MOST others, don’t.
We live in a world of diminishing appreciation of our heritage. More value is placed on ‘new’ than ‘old’. (This goes for people as well as buildings.) Much can be said about how this reflects ‘modern’ values. And yet we began knocking down many of these gems forty, fifty, sixty years ago. So it’s not a new development, this disregard, this disrespect.
If our own neighbours don’t put any value on these nostalgic gems, these cathedrals of film, if they can’t be bothered to want to reclaim, refurbish and restore, why would you expect someone from thousands of miles away to? The skewed perception of ‘Hollywood’s role’ aside (and subsequent naive railings at the same), I suppose we just have to do what we can, wherever we can.
All of this is true…except that there’s another player here. One that has not, to my reckoning, as it’s been explained to me, allowed the Friends of the Loew’s to make the most of its stewardship. And when your hands are tied…it’s tough to perform the magic you’re capable of.
Until that situation changes, there’s a ceiling on what can be accomplished, no matter the extent of the volunteer support.
TheaterBuff1:
Hold up: you’re equating a television broadcast of what is essentially a self-indulgent, over-produced display of showboat-preening on the parts of (admittedly talented) ego-driven stars for the benefit of a cannibalistic, sensation-gorging, false-idol-worshipping public with something of nationalistic importance?!?
Now THIS…this is the stuff of great satire.
‘Impassioned film-goer and flag-waver, seeing that a Hollywood strike is about to derail their beloved Oscar broadcast, decides to take things into their own hands. Bombastic mayhem ensues, shining a satirical light on the true state of their nation.’
Has this theatre ever been listed on this site?
TheaterBuff1: Well said.
I believe that this strike has a lot more at its core than the salient issues being bargained. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that these unspoken aspects have far greater relevance; the items on the table are just expressions of the primary aspect, that of respect.
And I’m not sure you can take decades of grievances and sort them out in negotiations. Mindsets are terrible things to try to change during arm-wrestling.
The collateral damage being done by this strike is depressing.
As for the Oscars…well…meh.