Publix Theaters were a part of Paramount Pictures, which was known as Paramount-Publix Corporation in the 30’s before reorganizing into Paramount Pictures Corp. The theater chain later was spun off into United Paramount Theatres, then bought by ABC, then sold off to other regional chains like Plitt Theatres. Many of the local Paramounts were operated by affiliated companies rather than direct subsidiaries of Paramount. The consent decree broke this system up and many local Paramounts became independent theaters or parts of smaller and unrelated chains. The last chain to operate the Boston Paramount was General Cinemas.
This chain was entirely unrelated to the Publix/Gaiety Theatre, which was last operated by E.M. Loew’s Theatres (not to be confused with Loew’s Theatres of NYC). It was E.M. Loew who renamed it the Publix Theatre.
I certainly remember the FISST movement in the late 80’s (I was a kid) because there was a lot of local press about it. Now that I work here and have seen files, blueprints, etc., it really shows me how one-sided the press was back then, so eager to paint the owners as bad people wanting to destroy the theater. That is certainly not the case. The idea of multiplexing the building back then was the same plan that came to fruition in the 90’s – using abandoned space in the building rather than splitting up the original theater. I have seen architectural plans dated in the late 80’s that are almost identical to the current layout, all of which kept the main theater intact. It was great to get historical landmark status – but I should point out that this status only covers the EXTERIOR and not the interior. It was the owners who decided to keep the theater whole.
Sorry if I sound reactionary, but I have heard so many people badmouth the owners in regard to the period of the late 80’s/early 90’s and they have little knowledge of the facts. Nobody is perfect, but these people are very proud to own the theater and to have kept it open, even when it has lost money. Everybody always assumes that landlords and property owners are some kinds of villains, twirling their mustache while demanding ransom. That is just not the case and is a stereotype. So many so-called community activists jump to conclusions and rely on rumors and bad local press without talking to the sources themselves.
That said, I am not badmouthing FISST (as I too signed their petitions back in the day) and certainly not Ron, who is a very nice guy, and always a welcome patron at the Somerville, I just want people to know that there are definitely two sides to this story.
And everything has surely worked out for the best in the end: in fact, Garen Daly is bringing the Sci-Fi marathon back to Somerville this February, something we are all very excited about.
I look forward to ten years of preparing the theater for it’s hundreth birthday – we are always pushing forward with little improvements, bit by bit, and I hope to see Ron there!
Has anybody been inside this theater recently? Does any of the original space remain intact? I wonder if restoration would be at all feasible. Mattapan Sq. would benefit from a performing arts space (of course who has the money for it!).
It was the then-owners of the Harvard Sq. that wanted to build in the Porter Sq. Sears' building, pre-Sack/USA ownership. I am personally very glad they didn’t because it would surely have doomed my current workplace, the nearby Somerville Theatre. Still, it always grates my cheese when nit-wit NIMBY’S stop a reasonable development like a movie theater, especially when it would improve an otherwise empty space.
that theater is the Wang Theatre, now part of Boston’s Wang Center for the Performing Arts. It opened as the Metropolitan, was affiliated with Paramount, and was renamed by Sack’s as the Music Hall, a name that stuck until it became a performing arts center.
I have seen old Loew’s instruction manuals that tell employees to discourage the use of “loeweez”, because the “company’s name is Loew’s, which rhymes with ‘shows’” so it would appear that then, as now, the correct pronounciation is “Loews” not “Loeweez”. The whole “Loeweez” thing seems to be a New York area phenomenon. Loew’s theaters in other cities always seem to be pronounced “Loews”.
My uncle owned the Westborough Flick ½, also known as the Ruth Gordon Cinema, on Route 9 in Westborough, but it was not affiliated with the other Flicks.
The Stoneham Theatre was closed after attempting to show “Deep Throat” in the 70’s (the locals shut it down for this). The building was owned by a rather mean old fellow named Zaltman for many years. Numerous groups offered to purchase the theater from him over the years but he never sold, leaving the theater to fall apart. When he finally died, the building was sold.
The new owners had to basically build a new theater space, including an entire new roof and ceiling, because the old space was so far gone.
The theater no longer has 35mm projection capabilities.
We (the Somerville Theatre) do not rent to Bombay Cinema in any long term way… sometimes they rent an auditorium, sometimes they go for weeks without doing so, but we don’t want people to misunderstand and think they have found a permanent home with us. I believe they are still looking for a permanent cinema of their own.
I also have heard that there was a tunnel connecting the Gary to the Saxon. Someone once told me that one of the staff used to use this tunnel for shooting practice!
Ron – yes the original Beacon Hill was at roughly that same spot.
Dwodeyla- I too have heard that Ben Sack won the (original) Beacon Hill Theatre in a poker game. Sack was originally a junk dealer, and this winning was his entry into the entertainment business. I believe he died last year (or possibly the year before). His family has gold ‘lifetime’ passes to get into former Sack houses for free. When I worked for Loews I had the opportunity to talk to his grandson, Terry Sack, who was a very nice guy. When I mentioned my interest in local cinema history (and the fact that I knew his grandfather’s name, a rarity for young people today) he was kind enought to offer me the opportunity to meet with Mr. Sack, but alas, I never made the time to do so.
There are still a few people around in the Loews Boston operations that go back to the Sack days… more ushers and projectionists than managers. I worked with a great lady at Harvard Square who got her start as an usher at the Saxon when she was 15. She has worked pretty much every theater in Boston, the Charles, Beacon Hill, etc. She still works at the Harvard Square Theatre.
Do any of you guys remember the old Sack policy trailers where the little animated people in sacks formed the “S” in “Sack”?
If you walk around the rear of the Loews Assembly Square Cinemas, the fire dept. pipes still say “Sacks Cinema” on them.
Also, I am not sure about the other area Loews, but the Assembly Sq. Cinema was still technically operated by “Sacks Theatres” on its entertainment license, at least until the Loews bankruptcy of 2001. All of the theaters were operated under various corporate entities because of grandfathering issues, etc.
I have heard that Showcase bought this theater so that the nearby Circle Cinemas didn’t have to bid competitively for movies against the Allston. With Showcase controlling both, the quality pics went to the Circle, and the crap to Allston.
The 57 restaurant, for many years a hugely popular Boston eatery, was the anchor for the hotel when it was built. The original 57 restaurant was located on a different street (with a number 57 address) but moved when the hotel was opened.
I know that Ben and Casey Affleck and Matt Damon worked for the Harvard Square Theatre and Janus Cinema, because when I worked there we found their pay stubs in the basement, and when they were at the Harvard Square for the “Good Will Hunting” premiere, they joked about working there.
For many years one of the Capitol Theatre’s chandeliers hung in the 60’s-era Cheri Cinema in Boston (a Loew house for its last years, closing in 2001). I wonder if this is the same chandelier, or if there are a few out there. I always wondered if/who salvaged it when the Cheri was closed.
As far as the Boston Film Festival, they already split it between the Copley and Boston Common, so I’d imagine that any closing of the Copley would mean it would be all at Boston Common.
I attended a meeting as a Loews manager in 2001 just as Boston Common was about to open where the president of the company told us that they were considering a renovation of Copley Place into less and better screens, to highlight art-house fare. Obviously, that plan did not come to fruition.
The Copley used to do incredible kids-show business on weekends, but all the popular stuff went to B.C.
As far as the Boston Film Festival, they already split it between the Copley and Boston Common, so I’d imagine that any closing of the Copley would mean it would be all at Boston Common.
I attended a meeting as a Loews manager in 2001 just as Boston Common was about to open where the president of the company told us that they were considering a renovation of Copley Place into less and better screens, to highlight art-house fare. Obviously, that plan did not come to fruition.
The Copley used to do incredible kids-show business on weekends, but all the popular stuff went to B.C.
All good points. Surely, nobody expects (though it would be a nice fantasy) that EVERY great movie palace be saved, from the 42nd Street grindhouses all the way up to the Roxy, but it is really a total shame that not ONE of the big old theaters was saved. Would there be a true commercial need for all of them, Loew’s State, Paramount, Rivoli, Strand, Roxy? Probably not, but if even only one or two of them remained, I am sure that they would find some good use or another. If LA can support so many one screen ‘premiere’ houses, is it unreasonable to think NYC could have one or two? If Disney can operate the El Capitan to premiere its product, wouldn’t Paramount consider using the NY Paramount to do the same, if it still existed? Obviously there are big differences in the market, but it seems that NYC could support one or two.
I have a great article from a 1947 “Saturday Evening Post” that profiles the (then) manager of this theater, I believe his name was George Peters. It contains some nice color photos of the theater, and gives a great window into what running a movie palace was like in those days, all the showmanship and promotion that was once such a huge part of the theater manager’s job.
The Old Howard was originally built as a temple, and was called the Old Howard Athenaeum in its early years. The exterior was gothic looking, like a church.
There was some small controversy about its demolition in the 60’s. There had been a small but not devastating fire there and many people were pushing for a renovation of sorts, but before anything could go forward the city tore the building down rather quickly. This was at the height of urban renewal and not much was considered historic excepting colonial-era structures.
President Kennedy was a regular patron of the Old Howard in his Harvard days (as were many Harvard men).
I believe that the auditorium was demolished in the early 1990’s, possibly as early as 1990. I don’t know much more about the history unfortunately. I think the Stormship office is in a former ballroom space on the second floor.
All I personally remember about the interior is that it was kind of dim and dirty, and very “60’s” looking. I remember the lobby was somewhat similar to the Arlington Capitol Theatre as it looked in the early 80’s -long and narrow and simple looking.
Publix Theaters were a part of Paramount Pictures, which was known as Paramount-Publix Corporation in the 30’s before reorganizing into Paramount Pictures Corp. The theater chain later was spun off into United Paramount Theatres, then bought by ABC, then sold off to other regional chains like Plitt Theatres. Many of the local Paramounts were operated by affiliated companies rather than direct subsidiaries of Paramount. The consent decree broke this system up and many local Paramounts became independent theaters or parts of smaller and unrelated chains. The last chain to operate the Boston Paramount was General Cinemas.
This chain was entirely unrelated to the Publix/Gaiety Theatre, which was last operated by E.M. Loew’s Theatres (not to be confused with Loew’s Theatres of NYC). It was E.M. Loew who renamed it the Publix Theatre.
This theater was controlled by Loew’s Theatres of New York City, not E.M. Loew’s Theatres of Boston.
I certainly remember the FISST movement in the late 80’s (I was a kid) because there was a lot of local press about it. Now that I work here and have seen files, blueprints, etc., it really shows me how one-sided the press was back then, so eager to paint the owners as bad people wanting to destroy the theater. That is certainly not the case. The idea of multiplexing the building back then was the same plan that came to fruition in the 90’s – using abandoned space in the building rather than splitting up the original theater. I have seen architectural plans dated in the late 80’s that are almost identical to the current layout, all of which kept the main theater intact. It was great to get historical landmark status – but I should point out that this status only covers the EXTERIOR and not the interior. It was the owners who decided to keep the theater whole.
Sorry if I sound reactionary, but I have heard so many people badmouth the owners in regard to the period of the late 80’s/early 90’s and they have little knowledge of the facts. Nobody is perfect, but these people are very proud to own the theater and to have kept it open, even when it has lost money. Everybody always assumes that landlords and property owners are some kinds of villains, twirling their mustache while demanding ransom. That is just not the case and is a stereotype. So many so-called community activists jump to conclusions and rely on rumors and bad local press without talking to the sources themselves.
That said, I am not badmouthing FISST (as I too signed their petitions back in the day) and certainly not Ron, who is a very nice guy, and always a welcome patron at the Somerville, I just want people to know that there are definitely two sides to this story.
And everything has surely worked out for the best in the end: in fact, Garen Daly is bringing the Sci-Fi marathon back to Somerville this February, something we are all very excited about.
I look forward to ten years of preparing the theater for it’s hundreth birthday – we are always pushing forward with little improvements, bit by bit, and I hope to see Ron there!
-Ian Judge
General Manager
Somerville Theatre
Has anybody been inside this theater recently? Does any of the original space remain intact? I wonder if restoration would be at all feasible. Mattapan Sq. would benefit from a performing arts space (of course who has the money for it!).
It was the then-owners of the Harvard Sq. that wanted to build in the Porter Sq. Sears' building, pre-Sack/USA ownership. I am personally very glad they didn’t because it would surely have doomed my current workplace, the nearby Somerville Theatre. Still, it always grates my cheese when nit-wit NIMBY’S stop a reasonable development like a movie theater, especially when it would improve an otherwise empty space.
veyoung,
that theater is the Wang Theatre, now part of Boston’s Wang Center for the Performing Arts. It opened as the Metropolitan, was affiliated with Paramount, and was renamed by Sack’s as the Music Hall, a name that stuck until it became a performing arts center.
I have seen old Loew’s instruction manuals that tell employees to discourage the use of “loeweez”, because the “company’s name is Loew’s, which rhymes with ‘shows’” so it would appear that then, as now, the correct pronounciation is “Loews” not “Loeweez”. The whole “Loeweez” thing seems to be a New York area phenomenon. Loew’s theaters in other cities always seem to be pronounced “Loews”.
My uncle owned the Westborough Flick ½, also known as the Ruth Gordon Cinema, on Route 9 in Westborough, but it was not affiliated with the other Flicks.
The Stoneham Theatre was closed after attempting to show “Deep Throat” in the 70’s (the locals shut it down for this). The building was owned by a rather mean old fellow named Zaltman for many years. Numerous groups offered to purchase the theater from him over the years but he never sold, leaving the theater to fall apart. When he finally died, the building was sold.
The new owners had to basically build a new theater space, including an entire new roof and ceiling, because the old space was so far gone.
The theater no longer has 35mm projection capabilities.
Everybody at Loews always called it “Sher-rEE”, except when making fun of it by calling it the Cherry.
We (the Somerville Theatre) do not rent to Bombay Cinema in any long term way… sometimes they rent an auditorium, sometimes they go for weeks without doing so, but we don’t want people to misunderstand and think they have found a permanent home with us. I believe they are still looking for a permanent cinema of their own.
I also have heard that there was a tunnel connecting the Gary to the Saxon. Someone once told me that one of the staff used to use this tunnel for shooting practice!
If I recall correctly, the Plymouth was renamed the Gary in honor of someone in Ben Sack’s family, a son, I believe.
Ron – yes the original Beacon Hill was at roughly that same spot.
Dwodeyla- I too have heard that Ben Sack won the (original) Beacon Hill Theatre in a poker game. Sack was originally a junk dealer, and this winning was his entry into the entertainment business. I believe he died last year (or possibly the year before). His family has gold ‘lifetime’ passes to get into former Sack houses for free. When I worked for Loews I had the opportunity to talk to his grandson, Terry Sack, who was a very nice guy. When I mentioned my interest in local cinema history (and the fact that I knew his grandfather’s name, a rarity for young people today) he was kind enought to offer me the opportunity to meet with Mr. Sack, but alas, I never made the time to do so.
There are still a few people around in the Loews Boston operations that go back to the Sack days… more ushers and projectionists than managers. I worked with a great lady at Harvard Square who got her start as an usher at the Saxon when she was 15. She has worked pretty much every theater in Boston, the Charles, Beacon Hill, etc. She still works at the Harvard Square Theatre.
Do any of you guys remember the old Sack policy trailers where the little animated people in sacks formed the “S” in “Sack”?
If you walk around the rear of the Loews Assembly Square Cinemas, the fire dept. pipes still say “Sacks Cinema” on them.
Also, I am not sure about the other area Loews, but the Assembly Sq. Cinema was still technically operated by “Sacks Theatres” on its entertainment license, at least until the Loews bankruptcy of 2001. All of the theaters were operated under various corporate entities because of grandfathering issues, etc.
Those are my “Sacks” tidbits. Anybody else?
I have heard that Showcase bought this theater so that the nearby Circle Cinemas didn’t have to bid competitively for movies against the Allston. With Showcase controlling both, the quality pics went to the Circle, and the crap to Allston.
The 57 restaurant, for many years a hugely popular Boston eatery, was the anchor for the hotel when it was built. The original 57 restaurant was located on a different street (with a number 57 address) but moved when the hotel was opened.
I know that Ben and Casey Affleck and Matt Damon worked for the Harvard Square Theatre and Janus Cinema, because when I worked there we found their pay stubs in the basement, and when they were at the Harvard Square for the “Good Will Hunting” premiere, they joked about working there.
For many years one of the Capitol Theatre’s chandeliers hung in the 60’s-era Cheri Cinema in Boston (a Loew house for its last years, closing in 2001). I wonder if this is the same chandelier, or if there are a few out there. I always wondered if/who salvaged it when the Cheri was closed.
As far as the Boston Film Festival, they already split it between the Copley and Boston Common, so I’d imagine that any closing of the Copley would mean it would be all at Boston Common.
I attended a meeting as a Loews manager in 2001 just as Boston Common was about to open where the president of the company told us that they were considering a renovation of Copley Place into less and better screens, to highlight art-house fare. Obviously, that plan did not come to fruition.
The Copley used to do incredible kids-show business on weekends, but all the popular stuff went to B.C.
As far as the Boston Film Festival, they already split it between the Copley and Boston Common, so I’d imagine that any closing of the Copley would mean it would be all at Boston Common.
I attended a meeting as a Loews manager in 2001 just as Boston Common was about to open where the president of the company told us that they were considering a renovation of Copley Place into less and better screens, to highlight art-house fare. Obviously, that plan did not come to fruition.
The Copley used to do incredible kids-show business on weekends, but all the popular stuff went to B.C.
All good points. Surely, nobody expects (though it would be a nice fantasy) that EVERY great movie palace be saved, from the 42nd Street grindhouses all the way up to the Roxy, but it is really a total shame that not ONE of the big old theaters was saved. Would there be a true commercial need for all of them, Loew’s State, Paramount, Rivoli, Strand, Roxy? Probably not, but if even only one or two of them remained, I am sure that they would find some good use or another. If LA can support so many one screen ‘premiere’ houses, is it unreasonable to think NYC could have one or two? If Disney can operate the El Capitan to premiere its product, wouldn’t Paramount consider using the NY Paramount to do the same, if it still existed? Obviously there are big differences in the market, but it seems that NYC could support one or two.
I have a great article from a 1947 “Saturday Evening Post” that profiles the (then) manager of this theater, I believe his name was George Peters. It contains some nice color photos of the theater, and gives a great window into what running a movie palace was like in those days, all the showmanship and promotion that was once such a huge part of the theater manager’s job.
The Old Howard was originally built as a temple, and was called the Old Howard Athenaeum in its early years. The exterior was gothic looking, like a church.
There was some small controversy about its demolition in the 60’s. There had been a small but not devastating fire there and many people were pushing for a renovation of sorts, but before anything could go forward the city tore the building down rather quickly. This was at the height of urban renewal and not much was considered historic excepting colonial-era structures.
President Kennedy was a regular patron of the Old Howard in his Harvard days (as were many Harvard men).
Might that be Barbara “Baba Wawa” Walters, Warren?
I believe that the auditorium was demolished in the early 1990’s, possibly as early as 1990. I don’t know much more about the history unfortunately. I think the Stormship office is in a former ballroom space on the second floor.
All I personally remember about the interior is that it was kind of dim and dirty, and very “60’s” looking. I remember the lobby was somewhat similar to the Arlington Capitol Theatre as it looked in the early 80’s -long and narrow and simple looking.
Sad to see the place go, for sure.