It looks like pictures I’ve seen of Tokyo. It all seems so fake and calculated. The thing that’s most disconcerting to me is that there’s absolutely no sense of any kind of organic development from what used to be to what it is now.
What I just said is specifically in reference to the Times Square/Duffy Square intersection. (Now that I think about it, it doesn’t hold quite so true for the Eighth Avenue corridor — yet.)
It surprises me very much that they left the “modern” clock and vertical as part of the restoration. It certainly doesn’t match the art nouveau interior at all, yet personally I favor it. There are so few vestiges left of the old 42nd St., and it is one of them.
Chuck, that link is already dead! Could you repost? The Garmar was very lijkely the first theater I ever attended — as an infant, and probably in the crying room! (My first home as a child was on Via Vista, in the Garfield Gardens complex — later called Hensel Gardens, I believe.)
Speaking of roadside architecture on Whittier Boulevard, does anyone remember the Mt. Baldy restaurant at the eastern edge of Pico Rivera? It looked like a one-story mountain range from the outside, and I believe it was a Mexican restaurant in its last incarnation. I have a feeling it must have been demolished by now, but it was certainly an eye-catcher.
Wasn’t the restaurant shaped like a big tamale on Whittier Boulevard, too, in either Montebello or East Los Angeles?
Great picture! Exactly as I remember it from a passing bus in 1974. The signs atop the Rosslyn Hotel are interesting from that angle.
I didn’t realize, though, that the decorative twin-headed light standards survived at that time on Main Street though it had been Skid Row for decades. Broadway should have been so lucky! Whatever beautiful light standards Broadway might have had over the years had long since been replaced with non-ornamented downward-hanging twin lights that are probably still there today.
I know this is nitpicky, but, in the interest of accuracy, the Rialto is located on Fair Oaks Avenue (not Boulevard), which was never a part of U.S. 66 (as stated in the intro).
Though not theater-related, I thought it worth mentioning for anyone who checks out the Million Dollar in person that the Bradbury Building, right across Broadway and built in 1893, is well worth a look if you’re not familiar with it. The interior is stunningly unique. (It’s an office building, so I’m sure it’s only accessible during normal business hours.)
p.s. to KenRoe: I am so jealous that you have Saint closing party tapes!
One of the posts above mentions the Million Dollar as being nameless. What about the vertical, which was quite high up on the building’s Broadway side. Has it been removed?
I went to the Million Dollar only once, during the 1970s, when it featured live performances by Mexican celebrities. I was disappointed overall, primarily because there was absolutely no trace of what the lobby and other public spaces must have originally looked like.
The dropped ceilings and wall paneling were horrid, especially as measured against the auditorium and wonderful baroque ornamentation on the building’s exterior. I wish I knew what the original decor was like, and whether it was destroyed or just covered over.
During that period, the same vandalization in the name of modernization had occurred to the lobby of the Eastern Columbia Building, also located in the theater corridor at Broadway and Ninth. It’s superb exterior is one of the most iconic art deco landmarks in Los Angeles, but the lobby had been stripped bare.
At least this wasn’t the case with the Pellissier Building that houses the Wiltern Theater. Its lobby — at least at the time I lived in Los Angeles — was completely original and as splendid as the theater itself.
Among those listed above with classic murals is the Whittier Drive-In. I saw it often from a passing car as a child and remember the Spanish dancers.
Anyway, it doesn’t have an entry here as yet. It was on Whittier Boulevard (probably still U.S. 101 when the drive-in opened), but it was not in the city of Whittier. I can’t recall the exact location, but I believe it was in Montebello or Pico Rivera.
First, I have to say that I feel Jim Rankin’s comments above are totally on target in assessing the stature of the Chinese as a “phenomenon”. My feeling about the Chinese, and likewise the Egyptian, was always that their fame considerably exceeded their intrinsic merits as movie palaces per se. (Maybe it’s partly that I don’t really enjoy the movie palace experience unless I’m sitting in the balcony — an impossibility in both those theaters!)
Anyway, I saw A Star Is Born (1976) and Divine Madness (1980) at the Chinese. My recollection is that the projection booth was still at the back of the orchestra level then, that it looked like a tacky addition that didn’t belong there, that an aisle actually snaked around it, and that the presentation was marred by the beam being distractingly close overhead. If my memory is incorrect, someone please correct me.
When was the booth relocated to the balcony?
Also, on a slight tangent, I seem to remember that when I was a kid in the 60s there was a coin-operated souvenir machine that cast a miniature replica of the pagoda in a brown waxy resiny plastic kind of material. Does that sound familiar to anybody?
Yes, I guess the lines generally follow the same shape but the material looks totally contemporary. I doubt very much that the original sunburst was made out of plastic, and this was the point I was trying to make.
I drove up the Grand Concourse this afternoon so I didn’t get a sustained look, but exterior work is clearly still going on (sidewalk shed, etc.). The terra cotta looks so clean and is a very pretty color. It appears that the marquee (the ornate bas-relief scroll above the entrance) is being updated with the addition of the sunburst that was once the background for the letters spelling out “Loew’s Paradise Theatre”. It doesn’t look like a recreation of the original, but rather a modern geometric interpretation. Not bad, just different.
I have to say, though, that there’s something mysterious about this whole project. Maybe it’s just that it took so long to get back on track after the well ran dry for the first developer and it’s all been so low-key. I wonder how promotion will take place considering there’s not yet even a website. (Correct me if I’m wrong!?) It would be nice if local press and NY1 News took notice, because something phenomenal is apparently happening right in our midst. How often is a movie palace of such exquisite quality resurrected?
Finally, it looks like the retail shops still aren’t rented, which seemed a touch amusing considering that that was supposed to be the issue that sunk the first developer. I guess this one has deeper pockets!
Doesn’t 3,095 refer to the original seating capacity, not the current overall capacity of the “multiplex”? If you look at the picture Warren posted of the original auditorium, it doesn’t seem at all implausible to me.
By the way, Warren, thanks for posting those great pictures. I had no idea that the Coliseum had a marquee that wrapped around the corner, or that there was a vertical sign on Broadway as well as 181st Street. (The vertical on the 181st St. side was still in place until just a few years ago.)
I was fascinated by the marquee’s alternation between WARNER and CINERAMA. I hadn’t even realized that there was also a change from WARNERS to WARNER at some point.
However, while this change was made on the marquee and the vertical (notice how on the 1961 vertical there’s clearly a space that the final S formerly occupied), the radio towers on top of the building continued to say WARNERS.
And with respect to the Warner Bros. Downtown, didn’t its blades say WARNERS right up to the time it was taken over by Metropolitan? I’m guessing that is so because afterward the letters were rearranged to spell WARRENS rather than WARREN.
I guess it’s proof that I’m a true movie palace geek that I should be interested in such arcane details. But, obviously, the change from Warners to Warner on the Hollywood theater was intentional. It would be very interesting to know the reason behind it. Did the houses in Beverly Hills, San Pedro, Huntington Park or elsewhere nationwide change in the same way?
Um, getting this page back on track … I noticed an error in the introductory paragraph. It states: “This theater, like the other two Warners (the Pantages and the Wiltern), are outstanding examples of what Art Deco can be.”
The Pantages in Hollywood is indeed another outstanding example of what art deco can be, but it was never a Warner Bros. house. If the reference is to the Pantages at Seventh and Hill in downtown Los Angeles that later became Warner Bros., that theater was not art deco.
I had no idea that John Cassavetes had an office in the Fox Wilshire building. Coincidentally, the only time I recall going to the Fox Wilshire was in 1976 to see Cassavetes' “The Killing of a Chinese Bookie”. There were only a handful of people there and, while watching a film in a packed movie palace is a singular experience, so is watching one in a nearly empty movie palace! I literally had the balcony to myself. Even though I found the movie less than splendid, I did revel in the atmosphere.
The Fox Wilshire is a spectacular art deco masterpiece, in the same class as the Pantages in Hollywood, the Wiltern in Los Angeles and the sadly destroyed Warner in Beverly Hills. There are a number of photos of how it originally looked in the L.A. Public Library’s database at www.lapl.org that you can find by searching on the keyword “fox wilshire”.
Is this the multiplex where the indoor space is decorated with faux movie palace decor, and each auditorium has a generic movie palace name like “Oriental”, “Paradise”, etc.? If so — and if memory serves me correctly — at least one of the auditoriums has a real balcony. I’m absolutely no fan of modern multiplexes, but I have to concede that I found it to be a very comfortable space.
I think it can be generally said that the experience of viewing a film in a multiplex that was conceived and built as a multiplex is way different — and far superior — to trying to enjoy a film in a shoebox that was created by carving up a movie palace. (Well, I guess that’s a no-brainer, isn’t it?) <lol>
The architectural style of the Raymond’s auditorium is quite unusual, at least in the realm of movie palaces. For example, prominent among the elements of its decor are medallions, swags, urns and finials.
Are there any architecture experts out there who know the precise term for this style? It’s referred to as “Beaux-Arts” in the description above, but that doesn’t seem to me to be adequate — or even particularly correct. Wouldn’t Adamesque be somewhat more accurate? I’ve seen the interiors of lots of movie palaces and have never seen anything resembling the Raymond!
Soenke, you are incorrect in your supposition that “wood letters” spelling Cinerama Holiday were placed over the Warner sign, and that they fit into that same space that “WARNER” otherwise occupied.
The letters that spelled CINERAMA were lighted, and were in the same exact position as the letters that spelled WARNER and that currently spell PACIFIC. In the Cinerama Holiday picture, the word “Holiday” is on the marquee proper, NOT above the marquee.
But then wouldn’t “Lowe’s Paradise” open the door for the Lowe’s chain of home improvement stores to have issues with the name? (I’m kidding … well, half-kidding anyway.)
Much attention has been given to the ersatz marquee and arched window that have been replicated in their original locations on the front of the Paramount Building.
Many people might not realize that the original marquee did not survive until the theater’s destruction. By the 1950s, it had been replaced by a new marquee in the shape of a modern, backlit trapezoid. I located a few pictures of this newer marquee. (On one site, it was misidentified it as the Brooklyn Paramount!)
The picture in the link posted by Christian two messages back is great. (Also, the vertical of the Iris Theater is visible a block down on the opposite side of Hollywood Boulevard from the Warner.)
One thing surprises me, though. This shot is from 1961, which would have been during the Cinerama era at the Warner. I hadn’t realized that “regular” movies were programmed in between runs of Cinerama films, and I would never have guessed that the neon letters on top of the marquee actually alternated between WARNER and CINERAMA to reflect this!
For example, Christian’s post on Jan 2, 2005 at 6:44pm shows the marquee in 1956. Cinerama Holiday was playing; the marquee says CINERAMA. And I’ve seen a postcard, presumably from 1962, when “The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm” was playing. Again, the marquee says CINERAMA. Yet as the 1961 photo confirms, the marquee was reverted back to WARNER for Back Street.
Does anyone know more about the booking history of the Warner during this period?
It looks like pictures I’ve seen of Tokyo. It all seems so fake and calculated. The thing that’s most disconcerting to me is that there’s absolutely no sense of any kind of organic development from what used to be to what it is now.
What I just said is specifically in reference to the Times Square/Duffy Square intersection. (Now that I think about it, it doesn’t hold quite so true for the Eighth Avenue corridor — yet.)
It surprises me very much that they left the “modern” clock and vertical as part of the restoration. It certainly doesn’t match the art nouveau interior at all, yet personally I favor it. There are so few vestiges left of the old 42nd St., and it is one of them.
Chuck, that link is already dead! Could you repost? The Garmar was very lijkely the first theater I ever attended — as an infant, and probably in the crying room! (My first home as a child was on Via Vista, in the Garfield Gardens complex — later called Hensel Gardens, I believe.)
Was there an ice cream parlor nearby called Curry’s? I found a postcard of Marcel and Jeanne’s French Café on eBay a few years ago. It was startling — I hadn’t thought of it in decades.
Speaking of roadside architecture on Whittier Boulevard, does anyone remember the Mt. Baldy restaurant at the eastern edge of Pico Rivera? It looked like a one-story mountain range from the outside, and I believe it was a Mexican restaurant in its last incarnation. I have a feeling it must have been demolished by now, but it was certainly an eye-catcher.
Wasn’t the restaurant shaped like a big tamale on Whittier Boulevard, too, in either Montebello or East Los Angeles?
Great picture! Exactly as I remember it from a passing bus in 1974. The signs atop the Rosslyn Hotel are interesting from that angle.
I didn’t realize, though, that the decorative twin-headed light standards survived at that time on Main Street though it had been Skid Row for decades. Broadway should have been so lucky! Whatever beautiful light standards Broadway might have had over the years had long since been replaced with non-ornamented downward-hanging twin lights that are probably still there today.
I know this is nitpicky, but, in the interest of accuracy, the Rialto is located on Fair Oaks Avenue (not Boulevard), which was never a part of U.S. 66 (as stated in the intro).
Thanks!
Though not theater-related, I thought it worth mentioning for anyone who checks out the Million Dollar in person that the Bradbury Building, right across Broadway and built in 1893, is well worth a look if you’re not familiar with it. The interior is stunningly unique. (It’s an office building, so I’m sure it’s only accessible during normal business hours.)
p.s. to KenRoe: I am so jealous that you have Saint closing party tapes!
One of the posts above mentions the Million Dollar as being nameless. What about the vertical, which was quite high up on the building’s Broadway side. Has it been removed?
I went to the Million Dollar only once, during the 1970s, when it featured live performances by Mexican celebrities. I was disappointed overall, primarily because there was absolutely no trace of what the lobby and other public spaces must have originally looked like.
The dropped ceilings and wall paneling were horrid, especially as measured against the auditorium and wonderful baroque ornamentation on the building’s exterior. I wish I knew what the original decor was like, and whether it was destroyed or just covered over.
During that period, the same vandalization in the name of modernization had occurred to the lobby of the Eastern Columbia Building, also located in the theater corridor at Broadway and Ninth. It’s superb exterior is one of the most iconic art deco landmarks in Los Angeles, but the lobby had been stripped bare.
At least this wasn’t the case with the Pellissier Building that houses the Wiltern Theater. Its lobby — at least at the time I lived in Los Angeles — was completely original and as splendid as the theater itself.
Thank you, William. (Gotta remember to check that “previous name” box when searching!)
Among those listed above with classic murals is the Whittier Drive-In. I saw it often from a passing car as a child and remember the Spanish dancers.
Anyway, it doesn’t have an entry here as yet. It was on Whittier Boulevard (probably still U.S. 101 when the drive-in opened), but it was not in the city of Whittier. I can’t recall the exact location, but I believe it was in Montebello or Pico Rivera.
First, I have to say that I feel Jim Rankin’s comments above are totally on target in assessing the stature of the Chinese as a “phenomenon”. My feeling about the Chinese, and likewise the Egyptian, was always that their fame considerably exceeded their intrinsic merits as movie palaces per se. (Maybe it’s partly that I don’t really enjoy the movie palace experience unless I’m sitting in the balcony — an impossibility in both those theaters!)
Anyway, I saw A Star Is Born (1976) and Divine Madness (1980) at the Chinese. My recollection is that the projection booth was still at the back of the orchestra level then, that it looked like a tacky addition that didn’t belong there, that an aisle actually snaked around it, and that the presentation was marred by the beam being distractingly close overhead. If my memory is incorrect, someone please correct me.
When was the booth relocated to the balcony?
Also, on a slight tangent, I seem to remember that when I was a kid in the 60s there was a coin-operated souvenir machine that cast a miniature replica of the pagoda in a brown waxy resiny plastic kind of material. Does that sound familiar to anybody?
YankeeMike, that theater was called the Heights and has an entry on this site: /theaters/11135/
Yes, I guess the lines generally follow the same shape but the material looks totally contemporary. I doubt very much that the original sunburst was made out of plastic, and this was the point I was trying to make.
I drove up the Grand Concourse this afternoon so I didn’t get a sustained look, but exterior work is clearly still going on (sidewalk shed, etc.). The terra cotta looks so clean and is a very pretty color. It appears that the marquee (the ornate bas-relief scroll above the entrance) is being updated with the addition of the sunburst that was once the background for the letters spelling out “Loew’s Paradise Theatre”. It doesn’t look like a recreation of the original, but rather a modern geometric interpretation. Not bad, just different.
I have to say, though, that there’s something mysterious about this whole project. Maybe it’s just that it took so long to get back on track after the well ran dry for the first developer and it’s all been so low-key. I wonder how promotion will take place considering there’s not yet even a website. (Correct me if I’m wrong!?) It would be nice if local press and NY1 News took notice, because something phenomenal is apparently happening right in our midst. How often is a movie palace of such exquisite quality resurrected?
Finally, it looks like the retail shops still aren’t rented, which seemed a touch amusing considering that that was supposed to be the issue that sunk the first developer. I guess this one has deeper pockets!
Doesn’t 3,095 refer to the original seating capacity, not the current overall capacity of the “multiplex”? If you look at the picture Warren posted of the original auditorium, it doesn’t seem at all implausible to me.
By the way, Warren, thanks for posting those great pictures. I had no idea that the Coliseum had a marquee that wrapped around the corner, or that there was a vertical sign on Broadway as well as 181st Street. (The vertical on the 181st St. side was still in place until just a few years ago.)
That is a great point, Manwithnoname!
I was fascinated by the marquee’s alternation between WARNER and CINERAMA. I hadn’t even realized that there was also a change from WARNERS to WARNER at some point.
In the 1961 “Back Street” picture at View link it’s WARNER. Back in the 1940s http://jpg2.lapl.org/theater1/00014800.jpg it was WARNERS.
However, while this change was made on the marquee and the vertical (notice how on the 1961 vertical there’s clearly a space that the final S formerly occupied), the radio towers on top of the building continued to say WARNERS.
And with respect to the Warner Bros. Downtown, didn’t its blades say WARNERS right up to the time it was taken over by Metropolitan? I’m guessing that is so because afterward the letters were rearranged to spell WARRENS rather than WARREN.
I guess it’s proof that I’m a true movie palace geek that I should be interested in such arcane details. But, obviously, the change from Warners to Warner on the Hollywood theater was intentional. It would be very interesting to know the reason behind it. Did the houses in Beverly Hills, San Pedro, Huntington Park or elsewhere nationwide change in the same way?
Um, getting this page back on track … I noticed an error in the introductory paragraph. It states: “This theater, like the other two Warners (the Pantages and the Wiltern), are outstanding examples of what Art Deco can be.”
The Pantages in Hollywood is indeed another outstanding example of what art deco can be, but it was never a Warner Bros. house. If the reference is to the Pantages at Seventh and Hill in downtown Los Angeles that later became Warner Bros., that theater was not art deco.
I had no idea that John Cassavetes had an office in the Fox Wilshire building. Coincidentally, the only time I recall going to the Fox Wilshire was in 1976 to see Cassavetes' “The Killing of a Chinese Bookie”. There were only a handful of people there and, while watching a film in a packed movie palace is a singular experience, so is watching one in a nearly empty movie palace! I literally had the balcony to myself. Even though I found the movie less than splendid, I did revel in the atmosphere.
The Fox Wilshire is a spectacular art deco masterpiece, in the same class as the Pantages in Hollywood, the Wiltern in Los Angeles and the sadly destroyed Warner in Beverly Hills. There are a number of photos of how it originally looked in the L.A. Public Library’s database at www.lapl.org that you can find by searching on the keyword “fox wilshire”.
Is this the multiplex where the indoor space is decorated with faux movie palace decor, and each auditorium has a generic movie palace name like “Oriental”, “Paradise”, etc.? If so — and if memory serves me correctly — at least one of the auditoriums has a real balcony. I’m absolutely no fan of modern multiplexes, but I have to concede that I found it to be a very comfortable space.
I think it can be generally said that the experience of viewing a film in a multiplex that was conceived and built as a multiplex is way different — and far superior — to trying to enjoy a film in a shoebox that was created by carving up a movie palace. (Well, I guess that’s a no-brainer, isn’t it?) <lol>
The architectural style of the Raymond’s auditorium is quite unusual, at least in the realm of movie palaces. For example, prominent among the elements of its decor are medallions, swags, urns and finials.
Are there any architecture experts out there who know the precise term for this style? It’s referred to as “Beaux-Arts” in the description above, but that doesn’t seem to me to be adequate — or even particularly correct. Wouldn’t Adamesque be somewhat more accurate? I’ve seen the interiors of lots of movie palaces and have never seen anything resembling the Raymond!
The following page has pictures of the proscenium and the marquee from the Cinerama era:
http://cinerama.topcities.com/ctorpheum.htm
Found it! Here’s the postcard that shows “The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm” at the Warner Cinerama:
http://cinerama.topcities.com/warner.htm
Soenke, you are incorrect in your supposition that “wood letters” spelling Cinerama Holiday were placed over the Warner sign, and that they fit into that same space that “WARNER” otherwise occupied.
The letters that spelled CINERAMA were lighted, and were in the same exact position as the letters that spelled WARNER and that currently spell PACIFIC. In the Cinerama Holiday picture, the word “Holiday” is on the marquee proper, NOT above the marquee.
But then wouldn’t “Lowe’s Paradise” open the door for the Lowe’s chain of home improvement stores to have issues with the name? (I’m kidding … well, half-kidding anyway.)
Much attention has been given to the ersatz marquee and arched window that have been replicated in their original locations on the front of the Paramount Building.
Many people might not realize that the original marquee did not survive until the theater’s destruction. By the 1950s, it had been replaced by a new marquee in the shape of a modern, backlit trapezoid. I located a few pictures of this newer marquee. (On one site, it was misidentified it as the Brooklyn Paramount!)
View link
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~angell/thsa/jc04-4.jpg
http://www.lirock.com/images/bkpara.jpg
The picture in the link posted by Christian two messages back is great. (Also, the vertical of the Iris Theater is visible a block down on the opposite side of Hollywood Boulevard from the Warner.)
One thing surprises me, though. This shot is from 1961, which would have been during the Cinerama era at the Warner. I hadn’t realized that “regular” movies were programmed in between runs of Cinerama films, and I would never have guessed that the neon letters on top of the marquee actually alternated between WARNER and CINERAMA to reflect this!
For example, Christian’s post on Jan 2, 2005 at 6:44pm shows the marquee in 1956. Cinerama Holiday was playing; the marquee says CINERAMA. And I’ve seen a postcard, presumably from 1962, when “The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm” was playing. Again, the marquee says CINERAMA. Yet as the 1961 photo confirms, the marquee was reverted back to WARNER for Back Street.
Does anyone know more about the booking history of the Warner during this period?