oh, brother… you aplogize then go right on and continue to claim that you are in on something we aren’t without offering any proof. That act is getting tired. It’s not as if the stuff you mention is Top Secret. So you know the Showtimes for Friday – they are already printed in papers and posted online. I found them on AOL City Guide minutes after reading your post, and they’re printed in a newspaper that just landed on my doorstep.
Yes I had some contact with Armand aka Phillip (same person). I’d say putting a 26 year old with very limited experience in charge of running the National was a strong indicator that its days are numbered. Nice enough kid I guess, but the midnight movies looked like they were chosen by a teenage boy without much thought as to what kind of draw they would be, which is one reason why so few of us ventured out to see them. And yeah, I did know he was gone not long after the midnight movies were cancelled. Lucky guess? Who cares?
I have worked every position (including projectionist) in movie theatres and several positions in legit houses on both coasts, as well as various positions at nearly every studio in town, and I don’t see any of that experience as particularly impressive. I’ve been employed and regarded as an expert and historian but firmly deny both labels because for all I do know there is infinitely more that I don’t know. The only self description I’ll agree to is I’m interested enough in entertainment to have learned and remembered a few things and I’m no big deal. However…
I am far beyond puberty so I’m not at all impressed with all this “hint-hint” stuff. Frankly, “I know something you don’t know” and I’ve got a secret but I’m not telling you" ranks right up there with “nyah-nyah-nyah” on the maturity scale. If you reallly were some insider and your point in being here was to learn, you wouldn’t feel the need to repeatedly try to impress us and call attention to yourself as some sort of incognito authority.
Now back to topic… booking BECOMING JANE into the National the day it opens wide after already playing in limited release isn’t much to shout about. Another little art film in a blockbuster venue. Nice enough movie and better than nothing, but not very appropriate or profitable. The National deserves better, but life isn’t fair.
r0wr – Statements like “I know everything you don’t and more about the National in regards to it’s status as of now” and “I actually do know the grosses for both theatres and in actuality, they are non [sic] of your business” indicate a rather juvenile arrogance that’s neither appealing nor productive. You have no idea what experience or connections to the industry the rest of us may have, For someone who claims to be so “in the know” and such a well connected professional, I don’t see any real constructive ideas or action coming from your direction.
I know how much seats and draperies cost. I have dealt directly with the contractors and companies who supply them. I never said it would be cheap to renovate the National, only that it wouldn’t need any structural changes, and the fact is, if the National were to go on as a first class showcase it definitely needs some work done.
As for projection, I know of no commercial theatre in town that has installed 4k projection. 2k is not all that impressive on a large screen, so obviously twice the resolution would be an improvement. Claiming that the public wouldn’t notice or care about the difference is exactly the cynical attitude that has led movie exhibition from a memorable theatrical event to just a blank room with a bare screen where the picture just pops on like your TV at home.
If Sony were to install 4k they could promote the theatre as having the highest resolution digital picture in town. Even better if Sony bought the place to show off their own technology and their product and rent it out as a premiere venue. The point is that having significantly superior picture quality could at least give the National some bragging rights to distinguish it from the rest.
Same goes for the dine-in concept that’s been successful elsewhere. The National needs something to set it apart and draw more people (and more money) back. People who are eating and watching a movie spend more than the price of a standard movie ticket, and there is no theatre in town doing full food service. The little diner in the ArcLight lobby and the trays carried into a couple rooms in the Bridge don’t count.
Of course none of the things ANY of us has suggested are likely unless a miracle happens and a generous studio or a Paul Allen steps up to save the place. And such miracles are very rare. People have forgotten that we almost lost the Cinerama Dome as we know it, and very few realize that it was not the public outcry ot a change of heart at Pacific that saved it. It was a lawsuit filed by one smart Cinerama fan that could have halted the whole ArcLight project or added about 12 million to its cost. (I don’t like the navy blue curtains in the Dome at all, by the way.)
None of us is in any position to save the National, including one who claims to be so “iN with the Biz” but never offers any proof of his exaulted position. But demanding to keep the place open isn’t as effective without some real suggestions for how it might be made more profitable. Those of us who’ve been reaching for ideas are at least trying to be consturctive.
So what CAN we do"? Well if the unnamed source quoted in the Curbed LA article is right, then the name of the National’s owner is right there. Direct your petition and suggestions to him, ask some publications to investigate, ask studios to consider the possibilities… circulate fliers to get the word out… and anyone who is really “IN the Know” and in the industry should go talk to his connections and do something more constructive than shooting down all of our ideas.
For the reason I mentioned, It HAS to spill over a little, and on each of the screens you mentioned, it does. However the more it spills over, the more noticable it is. Maybe the Crest needs to adjust the masking or the lens. Can’t tell without seeing it.
PS when I saw Dreamgirls at the Dome, the bottom corners were cut off much of the time (due to the bad angle of the projector’s throw onto a curved screen) This is just one reason why the Dome’s main booth should be relocated to the rear of the Mezzanine.
William: I totally agree that the future in question and now is the time for action. Alert the Media…
Brad: you’re right about the National not having enough support from the studios, and the place could do very well with a blockbuster.
Mark: Unfortunately, the National’s streamlined modern design is not enough to make it a landmark based on its architectue. Its history, and potential are the real reasons to save it.
The National’s kitschy 70s decor is so easy to update, new drapes and seats in the auditorium, new paint and wall coverings, etc and you’ve got a fresh up-to-date venue. I still think something like a conversion to a “dine in seats” venue (wildly successful elsewhere but not fully done in LA) I’d leave some seats for normal viewing and maybe create a VIP dining section. Installing superior projection like Sony’s 4K or better could help. My point is the National has great potential as a movie showplace and it wouldn’t take a lot of restructuring to make it viable. We can only hope, and make some noise to call attention to the place.
Michael C – the Coronet/United Artists was located just up the street from the Crest, within a block or so. I was there in the US days, and it was an ugly mess. It is now a drugstore.
Hwd 90038 – it’s normal for a bit of the picture to spill over onto the black masking. Corners of a film frame are rounded and corners of a movie screen are square. The masking is there to give a nice sharp edge and contrasting frame to the picture, and movies are shot with that in mind. The picture at the Crest would always be brighter and sharper than the Dome because the dimensions of the Crest provide a shorter throw distance to a normal size screen.
saps: More accurate to call the Crest the smaller sister of the El Capitan.
James: Your photos are also linked from another site, the one the describes them as magnificent. Your work is a complete success and the best way to convey the magic of the Majestic Crest. I know the designer, Joe Musil, is very pleased with how well you artfully captuted his work.
William: The Crest redesign is also an example of what Joe Musil could create on his own without Disney’s executive “advice.”
Pacific doesn’t want the Cinerama name and brand, they think the ArcLight brand is going to be as popular as The Hard Rock Cafe or Planet Hollywood. Delusional, huh? With only one or two exceptions, (good people who aren’t given enough clout by the owners) the Pacific/Arclight folks in currently charge have never had any knowledge, interest or respect for the Cinerama name or the process.
Actually the CInerama stuff sold just fine. They really took a bath on the ArcLight branded merchandise, because really, who cares about that name?. Cinerama is one of the more recognizable names in entertainment history, and it actully means something, while the ArcLight name (“borrowed” from a foreign theatre chain that sued Pacific over it) means nothing. Ask one of the employees what ArcLight means. They have no idea. I once asked someone in middle management there, and the answer was comically clueless.
Adding the 3 Cinerama projectors was not corporate Pacific’s idea at all, it was the result of much prodding from Cinerama enthusiasts, and Pacific chose to ignore much of the expert advice about how to get a good picture on the Cinerama screen, which is why movies at the Dome are generaly dim and fuzzy.
Seattle and Pacific aren’t the ones who wanted to restore any or all of the Cinerama movies, and they aren’t willing to pay for it all. And by the way. none of the films has been “restored” They just struck new prints of two features and that’s all. The costs were shared by special arrangements. Again it was the Cinerama enthusiasts (many of whom are employed in entertainment and know how to do it right) that prodded these theatres into doing what’s been done so far, and both theatres' execs resisted fully installing the screen and process, so the screen image in both Seattle and the Dome are not as effective as they could be.
If Seattle execs really cared for Cinerama, they would have listened to the experts and permanantly installed a proper Cinerama screen (with the strips anchored to the front) instead of rolling it up behind a flatter screen. Their designers were so enthralled with making that showy new ceiling that they neglected to allow for the full size of the Cinerama screen. The ceiling obsturcts part of the picture, so the screen has to be masked down from its full picture size because of the ceiling.
The Cinerama name and process was not really being kept alive by the corporations in charge of Pacific or Seattle, it was some vocal and resourceful enthusiasts and experts who prodded both into action, and in both cases their expert advice was not fully carried out and the installations are compromised.
Cinerama inc. is a very small division of Pacific, and has maybe a three person staff consisting of the two experts mentioned before and a secretary. Again these are good people who know showmanship, and if they were in charge of things, the Cinerama Dome experience (and the rest of the theatres) would be far superior to what it is today. The execs only listen to money.
I’ve seen the headline “Magificent photos of the Majestic Crest” somewnere… ; )
Very nice to hear someone else finds ArcLight’s lackluster boxes unimpressive, and that the theatrical showmanship of the Majestic Crest can greatly enhance the quality of the moviegoing experience.
William, the Banana Republic story was denied by the manager a couple months ago. I have heard nothing definitive announced about the National. only heresay from an unnamed source. In the absence of some word from the actual owner or lessee, we have only rumor and speculation. I certainly think something is up and the National’s future is in question, and by all means, make some noise if you want to help save the place, but let’s not claim to have the real answers until do.
BTW the interior of the Oswego is more elaborate than the Norwalk. It’s clear from their pics that the side walls were replaced and the screen/proscenium was brought forward… The Oswego (last time I saw it) had better details. Clouds painted on the ceiling, faux side balconies, Different entrance. Seems the Auburn Schine looks a bit more like the Oswego than the Norwalk.
The Oswego auditorium did not have a back wall, just a half wall, and eventually heavy curtains were hung above it. In the 72 conversion, the second booth was built in the back of the house from Left aisle to Right aisle right to the edge of the balcony, which was walled off. The back left and right sections, also under the balcony, are now boxed off to house two other screens. I have had nightmares for years that someone bought the Oswego and turned it into a sloppy multiplex… (oh right, they did)
I’d restore the theatre, including the balcony, to its original condition, then excavate the lot next to it and build a parking garage, with a tasteful multiplex over it. I’d have a top notch designer make the decor of the new auds similar in style to the main house. Maybe add a restaurant & some retail, making it a full destination. The lot to the left of the theatre may be available as well…
William, if you find those pictures, I know where they can find a proper showcase…
Lost Memory, Nice picture… has anyone posted yet about where the Marquee is programmed? I’m told It’s run from the studio in Burbank. The theatre itself has no control over the sign except maybe turning it on and off.
Warren, where on earth did you get that picture?? I don’t remember the extra lines on the building, just the Schine’s up top. And I paid a lot of attention. Those details had to be gone by the sixties. Have you any other pictures of this, or other theatres from that area??
Geo, CS has no feature on the Oswego yet – No photos to post. Only way they could post existing or vintage pics is if someone offered them… Someone local has agreed to take some new shots of the Oswego Theatre, (in and out) the former Oswego (mini) Cinema, and the Midway Drive-in.
Speaking of sister theatres, the Kallet Genesee in Syracuse seems to have one as well. I’ll have to look for the link.
Mark, actually the El Cap did not discontinue the curtain show. All 3 curtains are still there, I’ve seen them all used in the usual manner within the past few months, and the management has confirmed they’re all still in operation. The curtain opening is preprogrammed, and if they have the screen in front of one of the curtains (as was the case for a couple of the 3-D features) or the stage show set precludes use of all three curtains, if one of them is being cleaned or replaced, or whatever, then they can’t do it. The Pirate movies had their own curtain show, (and their own curtain).
I never said I despise ArcLight, just that they don’t live up to their hype. One is just as likely to be bothered by inconsiderate people there as anywhere else, and though they make a big show of staying inside to check on things, they really don’t monitor the audience for disturbances, even when they are in there. The new seats AMC put into Universal are way more comfortable than ArcLight’s. (though the new Uni lobby is hideous) For the record, ArcLight happens to be the closest plex to me.
Mark, I know what you mean about the Bruin, but the Majestic Crest is designed opulence from the marquee to the screen, so it beats the hell out of the Bruin. Disney has no need to notice the Crest’s presentation… their El Capitan has a great opening curtain and light show… by the same designer as the Majestic Crest. The Crest is an example of what Joe Musil could do without interference from the Mouse Factory.
And speaking of the ultimate curtain show, Me. Musil’s Musem of Theatrical Design in Santa Ana has a theatre with something like a dozen curtains! Makes the El Cap look like a puppet show. The Crest/Hairspray page you were were looking at has a link to his website. He’s ahveing a show Saturday with clips from movie musicals, and his museum has an entire wall dedicated to designing and outfittng the Crest.
Hwd9, I am no expert but I can recognize fake audience surrounds (it was one of the first surround sound I ever heard decades ago) I have to warn you that the last time ArcLight’s zero decor “Black Box” showed GREASE (with Director Randal Kleiser present) either the print was flat mono (highly unlikely) or the surrounds weren’t even turned on. Sounded like loud mono. Part of the problem is most of the “black boxes” are wider than they are long, so the surrounds are probably too far apart to be noticed. Just don’t expect much from GREASE.
ArcLight is just SO FAR away from being what they say they are…. but more of that will surface elsewhere later.
When I tried to see HAIRSPRAY at the unpublicized midnight preview, I had a run-in with an arrogant manager, and got a ticket to return later. I said I’d just wait until CHUCK & LARRY got moved to the back, because HAiRSPRAY would inevitably end up in the Dome, and she swore that HAIRSPRAY would NEVER play the Dome again. She also swore that her staff never allowed feet on the seats and always looked for disruptive patrons. Wrong on every point.
Went back to the Dome yesterday afternoon and found HAIRSPRAY a joy, but the picture was dim and fuzzy as usual because of Pacific’s bad projection decisions. You can read more on that elsewhere… I have also never found the Dome’s sound system to be particularly impressive. Sure it’s loud, but I don’t ever remember hearing much in the way of discrete channels or high fidelity. Ditto the ArcLight’s “Black Boxes”…
I still want to see Hairspray at the Crest. Their picture will be sharper and brighter than the Dome’s. For More on HAIRSPRAY at the Crest and a look at the interior, Visit View link There will eventually be an in-depth review of Arclight/Cinerama Dome there, among other theatres.
There will always be fanatics who complain. Jessica Rabbit not having underwear? NO cartoons have that kind of detail until they’re in a close-up. They don’t fingernaills, or individual teeth either… People complained about the villains in Aladdin being arabs. It was set in Arabia, so they shold import the villians from England? Hearing things: “good teenagers, take off your clothes.” right. the script says addresses the tiger, telling it to “take off.. go.” Then they complained that there were gay and ethnic stereotypes in THE LION KING, You remember what Disney’s reaction was? “It ’s a CARTOON!” they actually changed the ads to feature all four of the things people complained about, as if to say “get over it.”
Not everyone gives into these boycotts and protests. Remember the episode of “thirtysomething” that showed David Marshall Grant and Peter Frechette in bed together? it was apparent that they were naked, and the writers had them smoke only to confirm they had just “done it.” They weren;t even allowed to kiss or even touch, but ABC did not cave into pressure – they ran the episode and lost millions of dollars in ad revenue. Years later they showed Doug Savan’t gay character on Melrose Place all but kiss another man. It was clear they did it but they cut away before contact. Brothers and Sisters has a matter of fact gay character whi is not treated any differently than the rest of the quirky family. He had a full on kiss with a man, on Mulholland Drive, yet! Not a lot of censorship there, or much protesting, if any, according to the show’s producers.
I think it’s long overdue that the media stop glamorizing destructive behavior. Show it if you want, but also show the consequences. How many kids do you see playing with guns and saying “Bang! bang! you’re dead!” they don’t get the reality of it, because violence is made to look cool.
i really don’t think a studio’s own decision not to promote smoking can be construed as censorship, nor will it lead to a total whitewashing of the media. No way. Prople watch broadcast television less and cable more because of the extra freedom from network censorship. Have you watched FX lately? The Riches and Damages both have totally realistic unbleeped language. Networks have had to loosen up. You can go back several years to the ABC series Once and Again with Sela Ward and catch a casual shot of Billy Campbells handsome butt. You can hear “son of a bitch” and “bastard” on any sitcom. there is no way we can go back to the kind of censorship of the Hayes office. It’s not profitable.
I totally agree about smokers in real life. It’s not just their own health they’re ruining. When they smoke outdoors, where do they think the smoke goes? Ban it entirely! And how about some decent socialized medical care while we’re at it? L.M.– H.G. you sound like you’d be at home on another website I know of.
Bottom line is I just don’t agree that this voluntary decision not to glamorize smoking indicates a huge media-wide trend toward bowing to pressure from overzealous conservatives and hyper-religiious fanatics. It just won’t sell.
Can we take a moment here to reflect on all the illness and death that smoking has caused? It has also caused birth defects, illnesss and deaths of innocent people who were in a close proximity to smokers. It costs taxpayers billions of dollars in healthcare costs.
My mother smoked around us as far back as I remember. One day, as a kid, I looked at her curiously while she smoked. She handed me the cigarette and I sucked in a huge breath of death. Imagine what thet tastes like to a child. God bless her for that. I like to think she knew what she was doing. I never had the slightest interest in smoking after that. I eventually became rebellious enough to refuse to buy her cigarettes when she sent me on errands. I would even “torture” her cigarettes when she wasn’t around, crumbling them up, thinking “Ha! THIS one won’t hurt her!” Back then we didn’t know the effects of second hand smoke. I have permanent respiratory damage going back to my childhood. My mother died of a heart attack at 58.
At 18, I met a talented charismatic actress from New York. The day we met I said something about her health when I saw her light up a cigarette. She advised me to be careful because unsolicited advice may turn some people off. I moved to NY and we became good friends. She eventually quit smoking but the damage was done. She threw away all evidence of her actng career, and moved to a little place in Westport, on oxygen 24/7, waiting for a lung transplant. When she died I was her only contact with “the biz' so I sent her obituary to the trade papers.
Movies in the Noir era glamorized smoking because they thought it WAS glamorous. On TV, I LOVE LUCY was sponsored by Phillip Morris – they had product placement IN the shows as well as having Lucy and Desi do commercials for the death sticks. Because they didn’t know any better. The toll that smoking took on them both was obvious. Even with an overwhelming amount of evidence that smoking kills, knowing how much it shortens lives, the tobacco industry deliberately targets young people to get them hooked so they can make the most money off them before they get sick and die. And they reach kids through the media. That is inexcusable, but it’s fact of everyday life today, and they continue to get away with it.
Where there was smoke, now there is fire. The media has been glamorizing violence beyond all reasoable proportion while rarely showing the results. A few years ago, to kill time in a multiplex, I stumbled into a Schwartzenneger movie – where he killed something like 30 people in five minutes before the opening credits. it bothered me for weeks. It’s appalling that such matter-of-fact violence is viewed as entertainment. It is certainly not “artistry.”
In the cartoons I grew up with, Popeye threw a punch, and the instant his fist came back, there was already an X of bandages there. Wile E. Coyote or Daffy Duck got blown up or shot repeatedly, looked momentarily damaged, then were perfect in the next scene, but they also walked on thin air, and did other things that clearly weren’t real. We could easily tell the difference and didn’t go around hitting each other with frying pans.
Live action movies now handle violence in the same way – when someone is blowing away numerous anonomous people, you rarely see the suffering, the bereaved families, the real loss of life, it’s all just a one-dimensional sight gag. In real life, the effect is not momentary, people suffer and die. I may be in the minority here, but I do not find that entertaining. It’s apparent that much of today’s society is more conditioned into apathy than empathy.
In our society, violence is glamorized and sex is censored. Have a look at THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED to see how much violence is allowed vs. sex. As opposed to European countries where but violence is restrained, and sex is no big deal (frontal nudity in commercials, game shows, etc.). How many times have European school kids brought guns to school and massacred their classmates?
If you’re telling a story about an ignorant, unbalanced, irresponsible or destructive character, go ahead and let him smoke, but also show him coughing up a lung, getting cancer, and making innocent bystanders sick from second hand smoke. Instead, we have plenty of “Cool” or Average Joe" characters smoking, drinking, and killing, but we don’t see many of them get cancer, run over a pedestrian, facing a bereaved family and going to jail.
There is infinite proof of the media’s influence on everyday behavior through the years. We want to look, act, talk, eat, smoke, drink, and buy like the media images we find appealing. It’s long overdue for the media to take responsibility for their own influence by not glamorizing destructive behavior, and depicting the real life consequences. Disney is not the first studio to address the issue of onscreen smoking, they just got more publicity from it.
The idea that restraining the depiction of destructive behavior will eventually lead to the entire media being governed by “religious right and radicals” is just as naive as thinking that gay marriange will eventually lead to bestiality. There is plenty of room for “artistry” without being irresponsible.
You couldn’t really say that Pacific “likes to spend money on putting on classic shows…” Pacifiic’s management is not excactly into that kind of thing as a rule. The only one related to Pacific who has a clue about showmanship is John Sittig, who oversees special Cinerama events.
Regarding my request for photos of the Ziegfeld or other good NYC theatres, the correct email address is
ArcLight has no sense of showmanship, it’s all about money. They booked that awful comedy then the Bourne picture and Put HAIRSPRAY in the back. They had one Thursday night Midnight screening of HAIRSPRAY in the Dome but kept it a secret by not mentioning it in their weekly newsletter email or the features column on their site. The only LA theatre playing the film that can match the big, splasy colorful HAIRSPRAY is the Majestic Crest in Westwood.
Will anyone who has photos of the Ziegfeld please contact if they’re interested in being part of an online feature on the Ziegfeld?
By the way, ArcLight is not all that well run. There is a curtain in the Dome but they have no idea how to use it. It always opens and closes on a blank screen, and at the Midnight preview screening of HAIRSPRAY they didn’t bother with it at all. It was open already. I would trade the Dome for the Ziegfeld anytime, because the Ziegfeld folks at least seem to make an effort. HAIRSPRAY was not booked into the Dome, and they didn’t bother to mention the midnight screening in their newsletter or their front web page.
oh, brother… you aplogize then go right on and continue to claim that you are in on something we aren’t without offering any proof. That act is getting tired. It’s not as if the stuff you mention is Top Secret. So you know the Showtimes for Friday – they are already printed in papers and posted online. I found them on AOL City Guide minutes after reading your post, and they’re printed in a newspaper that just landed on my doorstep.
Yes I had some contact with Armand aka Phillip (same person). I’d say putting a 26 year old with very limited experience in charge of running the National was a strong indicator that its days are numbered. Nice enough kid I guess, but the midnight movies looked like they were chosen by a teenage boy without much thought as to what kind of draw they would be, which is one reason why so few of us ventured out to see them. And yeah, I did know he was gone not long after the midnight movies were cancelled. Lucky guess? Who cares?
I have worked every position (including projectionist) in movie theatres and several positions in legit houses on both coasts, as well as various positions at nearly every studio in town, and I don’t see any of that experience as particularly impressive. I’ve been employed and regarded as an expert and historian but firmly deny both labels because for all I do know there is infinitely more that I don’t know. The only self description I’ll agree to is I’m interested enough in entertainment to have learned and remembered a few things and I’m no big deal. However…
I am far beyond puberty so I’m not at all impressed with all this “hint-hint” stuff. Frankly, “I know something you don’t know” and I’ve got a secret but I’m not telling you" ranks right up there with “nyah-nyah-nyah” on the maturity scale. If you reallly were some insider and your point in being here was to learn, you wouldn’t feel the need to repeatedly try to impress us and call attention to yourself as some sort of incognito authority.
Now back to topic… booking BECOMING JANE into the National the day it opens wide after already playing in limited release isn’t much to shout about. Another little art film in a blockbuster venue. Nice enough movie and better than nothing, but not very appropriate or profitable. The National deserves better, but life isn’t fair.
r0wr – Statements like “I know everything you don’t and more about the National in regards to it’s status as of now” and “I actually do know the grosses for both theatres and in actuality, they are non [sic] of your business” indicate a rather juvenile arrogance that’s neither appealing nor productive. You have no idea what experience or connections to the industry the rest of us may have, For someone who claims to be so “in the know” and such a well connected professional, I don’t see any real constructive ideas or action coming from your direction.
I know how much seats and draperies cost. I have dealt directly with the contractors and companies who supply them. I never said it would be cheap to renovate the National, only that it wouldn’t need any structural changes, and the fact is, if the National were to go on as a first class showcase it definitely needs some work done.
As for projection, I know of no commercial theatre in town that has installed 4k projection. 2k is not all that impressive on a large screen, so obviously twice the resolution would be an improvement. Claiming that the public wouldn’t notice or care about the difference is exactly the cynical attitude that has led movie exhibition from a memorable theatrical event to just a blank room with a bare screen where the picture just pops on like your TV at home.
If Sony were to install 4k they could promote the theatre as having the highest resolution digital picture in town. Even better if Sony bought the place to show off their own technology and their product and rent it out as a premiere venue. The point is that having significantly superior picture quality could at least give the National some bragging rights to distinguish it from the rest.
Same goes for the dine-in concept that’s been successful elsewhere. The National needs something to set it apart and draw more people (and more money) back. People who are eating and watching a movie spend more than the price of a standard movie ticket, and there is no theatre in town doing full food service. The little diner in the ArcLight lobby and the trays carried into a couple rooms in the Bridge don’t count.
Of course none of the things ANY of us has suggested are likely unless a miracle happens and a generous studio or a Paul Allen steps up to save the place. And such miracles are very rare. People have forgotten that we almost lost the Cinerama Dome as we know it, and very few realize that it was not the public outcry ot a change of heart at Pacific that saved it. It was a lawsuit filed by one smart Cinerama fan that could have halted the whole ArcLight project or added about 12 million to its cost. (I don’t like the navy blue curtains in the Dome at all, by the way.)
None of us is in any position to save the National, including one who claims to be so “iN with the Biz” but never offers any proof of his exaulted position. But demanding to keep the place open isn’t as effective without some real suggestions for how it might be made more profitable. Those of us who’ve been reaching for ideas are at least trying to be consturctive.
So what CAN we do"? Well if the unnamed source quoted in the Curbed LA article is right, then the name of the National’s owner is right there. Direct your petition and suggestions to him, ask some publications to investigate, ask studios to consider the possibilities… circulate fliers to get the word out… and anyone who is really “IN the Know” and in the industry should go talk to his connections and do something more constructive than shooting down all of our ideas.
For the reason I mentioned, It HAS to spill over a little, and on each of the screens you mentioned, it does. However the more it spills over, the more noticable it is. Maybe the Crest needs to adjust the masking or the lens. Can’t tell without seeing it.
PS when I saw Dreamgirls at the Dome, the bottom corners were cut off much of the time (due to the bad angle of the projector’s throw onto a curved screen) This is just one reason why the Dome’s main booth should be relocated to the rear of the Mezzanine.
William: I totally agree that the future in question and now is the time for action. Alert the Media…
Brad: you’re right about the National not having enough support from the studios, and the place could do very well with a blockbuster.
Mark: Unfortunately, the National’s streamlined modern design is not enough to make it a landmark based on its architectue. Its history, and potential are the real reasons to save it.
The National’s kitschy 70s decor is so easy to update, new drapes and seats in the auditorium, new paint and wall coverings, etc and you’ve got a fresh up-to-date venue. I still think something like a conversion to a “dine in seats” venue (wildly successful elsewhere but not fully done in LA) I’d leave some seats for normal viewing and maybe create a VIP dining section. Installing superior projection like Sony’s 4K or better could help. My point is the National has great potential as a movie showplace and it wouldn’t take a lot of restructuring to make it viable. We can only hope, and make some noise to call attention to the place.
Michael C – the Coronet/United Artists was located just up the street from the Crest, within a block or so. I was there in the US days, and it was an ugly mess. It is now a drugstore.
Hwd 90038 – it’s normal for a bit of the picture to spill over onto the black masking. Corners of a film frame are rounded and corners of a movie screen are square. The masking is there to give a nice sharp edge and contrasting frame to the picture, and movies are shot with that in mind. The picture at the Crest would always be brighter and sharper than the Dome because the dimensions of the Crest provide a shorter throw distance to a normal size screen.
saps: More accurate to call the Crest the smaller sister of the El Capitan.
James: Your photos are also linked from another site, the one the describes them as magnificent. Your work is a complete success and the best way to convey the magic of the Majestic Crest. I know the designer, Joe Musil, is very pleased with how well you artfully captuted his work.
William: The Crest redesign is also an example of what Joe Musil could create on his own without Disney’s executive “advice.”
Pacific doesn’t want the Cinerama name and brand, they think the ArcLight brand is going to be as popular as The Hard Rock Cafe or Planet Hollywood. Delusional, huh? With only one or two exceptions, (good people who aren’t given enough clout by the owners) the Pacific/Arclight folks in currently charge have never had any knowledge, interest or respect for the Cinerama name or the process.
Actually the CInerama stuff sold just fine. They really took a bath on the ArcLight branded merchandise, because really, who cares about that name?. Cinerama is one of the more recognizable names in entertainment history, and it actully means something, while the ArcLight name (“borrowed” from a foreign theatre chain that sued Pacific over it) means nothing. Ask one of the employees what ArcLight means. They have no idea. I once asked someone in middle management there, and the answer was comically clueless.
Adding the 3 Cinerama projectors was not corporate Pacific’s idea at all, it was the result of much prodding from Cinerama enthusiasts, and Pacific chose to ignore much of the expert advice about how to get a good picture on the Cinerama screen, which is why movies at the Dome are generaly dim and fuzzy.
Seattle and Pacific aren’t the ones who wanted to restore any or all of the Cinerama movies, and they aren’t willing to pay for it all. And by the way. none of the films has been “restored” They just struck new prints of two features and that’s all. The costs were shared by special arrangements. Again it was the Cinerama enthusiasts (many of whom are employed in entertainment and know how to do it right) that prodded these theatres into doing what’s been done so far, and both theatres' execs resisted fully installing the screen and process, so the screen image in both Seattle and the Dome are not as effective as they could be.
If Seattle execs really cared for Cinerama, they would have listened to the experts and permanantly installed a proper Cinerama screen (with the strips anchored to the front) instead of rolling it up behind a flatter screen. Their designers were so enthralled with making that showy new ceiling that they neglected to allow for the full size of the Cinerama screen. The ceiling obsturcts part of the picture, so the screen has to be masked down from its full picture size because of the ceiling.
The Cinerama name and process was not really being kept alive by the corporations in charge of Pacific or Seattle, it was some vocal and resourceful enthusiasts and experts who prodded both into action, and in both cases their expert advice was not fully carried out and the installations are compromised.
Cinerama inc. is a very small division of Pacific, and has maybe a three person staff consisting of the two experts mentioned before and a secretary. Again these are good people who know showmanship, and if they were in charge of things, the Cinerama Dome experience (and the rest of the theatres) would be far superior to what it is today. The execs only listen to money.
I’ve seen the headline “Magificent photos of the Majestic Crest” somewnere… ; )
Very nice to hear someone else finds ArcLight’s lackluster boxes unimpressive, and that the theatrical showmanship of the Majestic Crest can greatly enhance the quality of the moviegoing experience.
William, the Banana Republic story was denied by the manager a couple months ago. I have heard nothing definitive announced about the National. only heresay from an unnamed source. In the absence of some word from the actual owner or lessee, we have only rumor and speculation. I certainly think something is up and the National’s future is in question, and by all means, make some noise if you want to help save the place, but let’s not claim to have the real answers until do.
Geo. I meant the Norwalk pics compared to my memory of the Oswego. I posted my email to you two messages ago. The Balcony wasn’t huge.
BTW the interior of the Oswego is more elaborate than the Norwalk. It’s clear from their pics that the side walls were replaced and the screen/proscenium was brought forward… The Oswego (last time I saw it) had better details. Clouds painted on the ceiling, faux side balconies, Different entrance. Seems the Auburn Schine looks a bit more like the Oswego than the Norwalk.
The Oswego auditorium did not have a back wall, just a half wall, and eventually heavy curtains were hung above it. In the 72 conversion, the second booth was built in the back of the house from Left aisle to Right aisle right to the edge of the balcony, which was walled off. The back left and right sections, also under the balcony, are now boxed off to house two other screens. I have had nightmares for years that someone bought the Oswego and turned it into a sloppy multiplex… (oh right, they did)
I’d restore the theatre, including the balcony, to its original condition, then excavate the lot next to it and build a parking garage, with a tasteful multiplex over it. I’d have a top notch designer make the decor of the new auds similar in style to the main house. Maybe add a restaurant & some retail, making it a full destination. The lot to the left of the theatre may be available as well…
Contact me Geo, I have information for you…
William, if you find those pictures, I know where they can find a proper showcase…
Lost Memory, Nice picture… has anyone posted yet about where the Marquee is programmed? I’m told It’s run from the studio in Burbank. The theatre itself has no control over the sign except maybe turning it on and off.
Warren, where on earth did you get that picture?? I don’t remember the extra lines on the building, just the Schine’s up top. And I paid a lot of attention. Those details had to be gone by the sixties. Have you any other pictures of this, or other theatres from that area??
Geo, CS has no feature on the Oswego yet – No photos to post. Only way they could post existing or vintage pics is if someone offered them… Someone local has agreed to take some new shots of the Oswego Theatre, (in and out) the former Oswego (mini) Cinema, and the Midway Drive-in.
Speaking of sister theatres, the Kallet Genesee in Syracuse seems to have one as well. I’ll have to look for the link.
Warren and Geo, you can reach me at
Mark, actually the El Cap did not discontinue the curtain show. All 3 curtains are still there, I’ve seen them all used in the usual manner within the past few months, and the management has confirmed they’re all still in operation. The curtain opening is preprogrammed, and if they have the screen in front of one of the curtains (as was the case for a couple of the 3-D features) or the stage show set precludes use of all three curtains, if one of them is being cleaned or replaced, or whatever, then they can’t do it. The Pirate movies had their own curtain show, (and their own curtain).
I never said I despise ArcLight, just that they don’t live up to their hype. One is just as likely to be bothered by inconsiderate people there as anywhere else, and though they make a big show of staying inside to check on things, they really don’t monitor the audience for disturbances, even when they are in there. The new seats AMC put into Universal are way more comfortable than ArcLight’s. (though the new Uni lobby is hideous) For the record, ArcLight happens to be the closest plex to me.
Mark, I know what you mean about the Bruin, but the Majestic Crest is designed opulence from the marquee to the screen, so it beats the hell out of the Bruin. Disney has no need to notice the Crest’s presentation… their El Capitan has a great opening curtain and light show… by the same designer as the Majestic Crest. The Crest is an example of what Joe Musil could do without interference from the Mouse Factory.
And speaking of the ultimate curtain show, Me. Musil’s Musem of Theatrical Design in Santa Ana has a theatre with something like a dozen curtains! Makes the El Cap look like a puppet show. The Crest/Hairspray page you were were looking at has a link to his website. He’s ahveing a show Saturday with clips from movie musicals, and his museum has an entire wall dedicated to designing and outfittng the Crest.
Hwd9, I am no expert but I can recognize fake audience surrounds (it was one of the first surround sound I ever heard decades ago) I have to warn you that the last time ArcLight’s zero decor “Black Box” showed GREASE (with Director Randal Kleiser present) either the print was flat mono (highly unlikely) or the surrounds weren’t even turned on. Sounded like loud mono. Part of the problem is most of the “black boxes” are wider than they are long, so the surrounds are probably too far apart to be noticed. Just don’t expect much from GREASE.
ArcLight is just SO FAR away from being what they say they are…. but more of that will surface elsewhere later.
So the renovation is off?
So what’s the status of this theatre now?
When I tried to see HAIRSPRAY at the unpublicized midnight preview, I had a run-in with an arrogant manager, and got a ticket to return later. I said I’d just wait until CHUCK & LARRY got moved to the back, because HAiRSPRAY would inevitably end up in the Dome, and she swore that HAIRSPRAY would NEVER play the Dome again. She also swore that her staff never allowed feet on the seats and always looked for disruptive patrons. Wrong on every point.
Went back to the Dome yesterday afternoon and found HAIRSPRAY a joy, but the picture was dim and fuzzy as usual because of Pacific’s bad projection decisions. You can read more on that elsewhere… I have also never found the Dome’s sound system to be particularly impressive. Sure it’s loud, but I don’t ever remember hearing much in the way of discrete channels or high fidelity. Ditto the ArcLight’s “Black Boxes”…
I still want to see Hairspray at the Crest. Their picture will be sharper and brighter than the Dome’s. For More on HAIRSPRAY at the Crest and a look at the interior, Visit View link There will eventually be an in-depth review of Arclight/Cinerama Dome there, among other theatres.
PS: Obviously I need to work on brevity and typing. Please excuse my verbosity and typos.
There will always be fanatics who complain. Jessica Rabbit not having underwear? NO cartoons have that kind of detail until they’re in a close-up. They don’t fingernaills, or individual teeth either… People complained about the villains in Aladdin being arabs. It was set in Arabia, so they shold import the villians from England? Hearing things: “good teenagers, take off your clothes.” right. the script says addresses the tiger, telling it to “take off.. go.” Then they complained that there were gay and ethnic stereotypes in THE LION KING, You remember what Disney’s reaction was? “It ’s a CARTOON!” they actually changed the ads to feature all four of the things people complained about, as if to say “get over it.”
Not everyone gives into these boycotts and protests. Remember the episode of “thirtysomething” that showed David Marshall Grant and Peter Frechette in bed together? it was apparent that they were naked, and the writers had them smoke only to confirm they had just “done it.” They weren;t even allowed to kiss or even touch, but ABC did not cave into pressure – they ran the episode and lost millions of dollars in ad revenue. Years later they showed Doug Savan’t gay character on Melrose Place all but kiss another man. It was clear they did it but they cut away before contact. Brothers and Sisters has a matter of fact gay character whi is not treated any differently than the rest of the quirky family. He had a full on kiss with a man, on Mulholland Drive, yet! Not a lot of censorship there, or much protesting, if any, according to the show’s producers.
I think it’s long overdue that the media stop glamorizing destructive behavior. Show it if you want, but also show the consequences. How many kids do you see playing with guns and saying “Bang! bang! you’re dead!” they don’t get the reality of it, because violence is made to look cool.
i really don’t think a studio’s own decision not to promote smoking can be construed as censorship, nor will it lead to a total whitewashing of the media. No way. Prople watch broadcast television less and cable more because of the extra freedom from network censorship. Have you watched FX lately? The Riches and Damages both have totally realistic unbleeped language. Networks have had to loosen up. You can go back several years to the ABC series Once and Again with Sela Ward and catch a casual shot of Billy Campbells handsome butt. You can hear “son of a bitch” and “bastard” on any sitcom. there is no way we can go back to the kind of censorship of the Hayes office. It’s not profitable.
I totally agree about smokers in real life. It’s not just their own health they’re ruining. When they smoke outdoors, where do they think the smoke goes? Ban it entirely! And how about some decent socialized medical care while we’re at it? L.M.– H.G. you sound like you’d be at home on another website I know of.
Bottom line is I just don’t agree that this voluntary decision not to glamorize smoking indicates a huge media-wide trend toward bowing to pressure from overzealous conservatives and hyper-religiious fanatics. It just won’t sell.
Can we take a moment here to reflect on all the illness and death that smoking has caused? It has also caused birth defects, illnesss and deaths of innocent people who were in a close proximity to smokers. It costs taxpayers billions of dollars in healthcare costs.
My mother smoked around us as far back as I remember. One day, as a kid, I looked at her curiously while she smoked. She handed me the cigarette and I sucked in a huge breath of death. Imagine what thet tastes like to a child. God bless her for that. I like to think she knew what she was doing. I never had the slightest interest in smoking after that. I eventually became rebellious enough to refuse to buy her cigarettes when she sent me on errands. I would even “torture” her cigarettes when she wasn’t around, crumbling them up, thinking “Ha! THIS one won’t hurt her!” Back then we didn’t know the effects of second hand smoke. I have permanent respiratory damage going back to my childhood. My mother died of a heart attack at 58.
At 18, I met a talented charismatic actress from New York. The day we met I said something about her health when I saw her light up a cigarette. She advised me to be careful because unsolicited advice may turn some people off. I moved to NY and we became good friends. She eventually quit smoking but the damage was done. She threw away all evidence of her actng career, and moved to a little place in Westport, on oxygen 24/7, waiting for a lung transplant. When she died I was her only contact with “the biz' so I sent her obituary to the trade papers.
Movies in the Noir era glamorized smoking because they thought it WAS glamorous. On TV, I LOVE LUCY was sponsored by Phillip Morris – they had product placement IN the shows as well as having Lucy and Desi do commercials for the death sticks. Because they didn’t know any better. The toll that smoking took on them both was obvious. Even with an overwhelming amount of evidence that smoking kills, knowing how much it shortens lives, the tobacco industry deliberately targets young people to get them hooked so they can make the most money off them before they get sick and die. And they reach kids through the media. That is inexcusable, but it’s fact of everyday life today, and they continue to get away with it.
Where there was smoke, now there is fire. The media has been glamorizing violence beyond all reasoable proportion while rarely showing the results. A few years ago, to kill time in a multiplex, I stumbled into a Schwartzenneger movie – where he killed something like 30 people in five minutes before the opening credits. it bothered me for weeks. It’s appalling that such matter-of-fact violence is viewed as entertainment. It is certainly not “artistry.”
In the cartoons I grew up with, Popeye threw a punch, and the instant his fist came back, there was already an X of bandages there. Wile E. Coyote or Daffy Duck got blown up or shot repeatedly, looked momentarily damaged, then were perfect in the next scene, but they also walked on thin air, and did other things that clearly weren’t real. We could easily tell the difference and didn’t go around hitting each other with frying pans.
Live action movies now handle violence in the same way – when someone is blowing away numerous anonomous people, you rarely see the suffering, the bereaved families, the real loss of life, it’s all just a one-dimensional sight gag. In real life, the effect is not momentary, people suffer and die. I may be in the minority here, but I do not find that entertaining. It’s apparent that much of today’s society is more conditioned into apathy than empathy.
In our society, violence is glamorized and sex is censored. Have a look at THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED to see how much violence is allowed vs. sex. As opposed to European countries where but violence is restrained, and sex is no big deal (frontal nudity in commercials, game shows, etc.). How many times have European school kids brought guns to school and massacred their classmates?
If you’re telling a story about an ignorant, unbalanced, irresponsible or destructive character, go ahead and let him smoke, but also show him coughing up a lung, getting cancer, and making innocent bystanders sick from second hand smoke. Instead, we have plenty of “Cool” or Average Joe" characters smoking, drinking, and killing, but we don’t see many of them get cancer, run over a pedestrian, facing a bereaved family and going to jail.
There is infinite proof of the media’s influence on everyday behavior through the years. We want to look, act, talk, eat, smoke, drink, and buy like the media images we find appealing. It’s long overdue for the media to take responsibility for their own influence by not glamorizing destructive behavior, and depicting the real life consequences. Disney is not the first studio to address the issue of onscreen smoking, they just got more publicity from it.
The idea that restraining the depiction of destructive behavior will eventually lead to the entire media being governed by “religious right and radicals” is just as naive as thinking that gay marriange will eventually lead to bestiality. There is plenty of room for “artistry” without being irresponsible.
You couldn’t really say that Pacific “likes to spend money on putting on classic shows…” Pacifiic’s management is not excactly into that kind of thing as a rule. The only one related to Pacific who has a clue about showmanship is John Sittig, who oversees special Cinerama events.
Regarding my request for photos of the Ziegfeld or other good NYC theatres, the correct email address is
ArcLight has no sense of showmanship, it’s all about money. They booked that awful comedy then the Bourne picture and Put HAIRSPRAY in the back. They had one Thursday night Midnight screening of HAIRSPRAY in the Dome but kept it a secret by not mentioning it in their weekly newsletter email or the features column on their site. The only LA theatre playing the film that can match the big, splasy colorful HAIRSPRAY is the Majestic Crest in Westwood.
Will anyone who has photos of the Ziegfeld please contact if they’re interested in being part of an online feature on the Ziegfeld?
By the way, ArcLight is not all that well run. There is a curtain in the Dome but they have no idea how to use it. It always opens and closes on a blank screen, and at the Midnight preview screening of HAIRSPRAY they didn’t bother with it at all. It was open already. I would trade the Dome for the Ziegfeld anytime, because the Ziegfeld folks at least seem to make an effort. HAIRSPRAY was not booked into the Dome, and they didn’t bother to mention the midnight screening in their newsletter or their front web page.