Loew's Capitol Theatre

It’s just unfortunate that there’s no place like this for such places. They certainly have the same kind of architectual merit, and the same sort of escapist quality. After all, the Schubert/Majestic is on here, and I really don’t think that it qualifies, i’m not even sure it’s ever played film. I agree that they don’t really qualify, but it seems a shame

Then you’d be getting into an even greater grey area, since you’d have to add in the Atlantic City Convention Hall main auditorium (now called Boardwalk Hall) and the Atlantic City Convention Hall Ballroom, since it was originally intended that movies would be shown in that venue (the ballroom). The ACCH would win the size game hands down, as well as having the largest, albeit currently unplayable, organ in the world, which, if in full working order, would blow the roof off either RCMH or the Shrine.

I agree the Shrine Auditorium should be considered a theatre.It looks very much like a movie palace. I saw “Hello Dolly” with Pearl Baily with my friend Richard Oliver who told me the theatre was larger than Radio City Music Hall. The only difference I see is that Radio City and the Fox in Atlanta showed movies for most of its life during the movie palace era where the Shrine showed movies rarely. I love Radio City but I would have preferred the Roxy. I also prefer the Art Deco lobby of the Oakland Paramount over the ART Deco lobby of Radio City and would have loved to have stood in the lobby of the Roxy.brucec

Jim:……you are a true gentleman sir.

Jim: with respect….. I would like to make the case that the Shrine Auditorium is definately a theatre, unlike the Atlantic City Convention Hall. The Shrine Auditorium, despite its name, is a conventional theatre with a large balcony, that has been used since 1920 for movies, opera, stage and TV shows, concerts etc. It may not have been solely a classic movie theatre but is still advertised as North America’s largest theatre. I think the name “auditorium” confuses the issue. Perhaps they should have called it the Shrine Theatre. The Shrine headquarters and convention hall are on the same site attached, but separate from, the Auditorium (theatre) even though they are all used for some functions. Check out their website for a great interior shot. Ironically, the Shrine Auditorium was originally used in the same way that the old restored movie palaces are being used now.
The Fox Theatre in Atlanta was built by the Shriners as part of their area headquarters the same as the Shrine Auditorium in LA but for financial reasons the theatre part was leased to William Fox and is classed as a movie palace today. Seems to me the Shrine Auditorium would also be in the movie palace category if it had been taken over by a theatre chain. Its still a regular theatre, no matter who owns it, which has been in continual use as a theatre since 1920. The Fox in Detroit is used for car shows occasionally and even the stage at the venerable old RCMH has been used for basketball games. I don’t see that as being any different than how the Shrine Auditorium has been used. Gray definately applies to these discussions on theatres!

“mjc” is right about the huge SHRINE AUDITORIUM (where the Academy Awards were staged for many years) having possibly the largest INDOOR seating of a facility in the US with perhaps only the Atlantic City CONVENTION HALL where the Miss America Pageant was held being among those in its league, along with possibly the new KODAK auditorium. But, of course, these are not really theatres per se; they fall into the classification of Civic, Fraternal, and Scholastic Auditoria which is rather a different beast than a true theatre, showing movies or not. Like “mjc” I prefer to just enjoy the facility and its decor regardless of what classification it fall into, or the size it is, so long as it serves the purpose well.

When Vincent asks if the Radio City Music Hall should be classed as a movie palace, he here brings up the ‘gray’ area of definition, since chronology also enters the picture. Since “Roxy” Rothafel was called over from his ROXY theatre to help with the RCMH, one might assume that it became a ‘movie palace’ by simple association with him, but others might not accept that position in view of the fact that the place was intended as a live action venue primarily and was programed and marketed as such for most of its existance. Perhaps it waas the last of the palaces in view of the Great Depression ending that era. I believe that it is also a matter of being designed as distinctive themed decor that helps in the definition, to distinguish ‘palaces’ from merely any theatre with some ornament in its decor; the RCMH was/is ornamental, but does not use traditional ornament in its decor. In the end, I guess the definition boils down to a matter of personal perception.

According to the official totals listed on their sites here, RCMH beat the Roxy by 20 seats….5940 for RCMH and 5920 for the Roxy.
By Roxy’s calculations, however, the Roxy had over 6200 seats, but he was notorious for counting every seat in the house, including the musicians chairs as well as the stools the box office cashiers sat on.

According to RCMH’s site, movies were shown there just two weeks after the grand opening in 1932 which would, I suppose, indicate that projection facilities were in place from the beginning.

Hi Jim, then I misunderstood your previous comment. My mistake. In regards to Vincent’s comment above, I don’t consider RCMH to be a movie palace. It was not built for movies, and it lacks the escapist theme that almost all movie palaces have. What it IS, is the nation’s greatest theatre, and an extremely luxurious one at that.

Ziggy: No, the PABST in Milwaukee was not by chronology nor design a Movie Palace; I was only trying to show that if mere ornamental elaborateness is the criterion, then it could be put in that category since it did show movies for a while. The true definition of a movie palace must include not only elaborateness (else the NYC NEW AMSTERDAM would qualify on that alone), but also large size, being built FOR movies, but also having a working stage to distinguish it from a mere cinema. Theatres this large, ornate and elaborate were really called “Presentation Houses” where Vaudeville, legit stage, choral and orchestral works, as well as movies could be presented. No, the PABST and a number of other large, ornate theatres across the nation could resemble ‘palaces’ but were technically not that.

Hi Jim Rankin! As informative and fun as your comments at this site are, I’m afraid I have to say no, the Pabst was not the first movie palace. It is not even a movie palace at all. It is magnificent, and it is palatial, but I can’t bring myself to say that a legit theatre built in the 1890’s is a movie palace.