In addition to those listed, it is wise to trace the decendents of the original owners and builders who often have mementos/photos of their ancestors' theatre, and local newspaper files (‘morgues’) often have photos that appeared in print and some that didn’t. The Register of Deeds is a good place to start, since the documents there may direct you to people and groups involved years ago that might still have photos. Performing groups listed in old newspapers may still exist and have old photos of productions there. Best Wishes
Yes, it certainly is the MICHIGAN in Detroit, for I doubt there is another theatre so desecrated in all the USA, in that it is now a parking structure, hence the ease of filming a chase scene there. It was a wonderful Rapp & Rapp design, and what you saw were just as you said, portions of the top of the proscenium and side walls; the lower portions were simply torn away to the outer brick walls, and parking decks poured to connect to the columns in the outer walls. On page 181 of “American Picture Palaces” by David Naylor is a photo of what you saw, with even a piece of the drapery still hanging in shreds in the stagehouse behind where the Grand Drape would have been. The sight almost makes you wish the structure had been razed.
While a Farady cage (passive blocking, called SHIELDING) MAY stop signals from outside the theatre/cinemas, it will do nothing to block the signals generated inside an auditorium and received there by other devices. For these inside-the-building situations, only a jamming device would help, though its legality may be open to question.
It should be noted that while passive shielding (the Farady cage) is possible, it is NOT easily accomplished, since even tiny gaps in the necessary complete metallic coverage will allow some signals to penetrate, as the spy and counter-spy industries could so ruefully tell you. The adequacy of shielding against any one frequency is very problematic since it takes the calculations of an engineer to determine what frequency the shielding resonates at. The further the undesired frequency is from the resonant frequency of one’s shielding, the less effective the shield will be. Know that virtually no shielding within reasonable cost is totally effective, so if you apply passive shielding as with carefully earth grounded metal mesh behind the walls, you must start out with the acceptance of the fact that it probably will NOT be totally effective.
In new construction, metal mesh shielding that is carefully and non-corrosively bonded electrically panel-to-panel, as well as thoroughly earth grounded as one would use a ground rod to ground a TV mast, then it may prove helpful and cost effective. Antennas can be mounted outside the shielded areas and their signals routed inside it by means of Shielded Cables if one wants to import TV or other radio signals to some receiver indoors, but notch filters may still be required to eliminate undesireable frequencies. The design and installation of such shielding and grounding would be much more successful if put in the care of a Radio Frequency technician or engineer. A successful shield requires scrupulous attention to detail in specifying the proper mesh and carefully overlaping it, as well as the high quality of an earth ground that is almost not resonant at any frequency, which provides greatest degree of grounding. Note that shielding NOT successfully grounded with the least resonance, inductance, resistance, and capacitance may well be totally ineffective, and worse, it can act as a reflecting antenna that can sometimes intensify unwanted signals in certain areas!
Stevebob is right that there is far too much mediocracy in workmanship today, BUT the others are even more right: the venerable PARADISE is still standing, and it can still be polished and adjusted yet more to go beyond examples of poor workmanship in the years to come as the owners/builders learn from their mistakes. Perhaps the contractor to repair the sign was someone’s relative; nepotism is nothing new to the trades. Maybe it is just that so large and elaborate a sign was entirely new to the local sign shop and they weren’t ready to stick the time, talent and money into doing the job right. We don’t knowl, and probably never will. BUT the fact remains that it can still be redone; paint is easily removed and replaced, and even the entire sign could be rebuilt in bronze if the money for such ever appears. Yes, there are some bad workers that they don’t have to employ again, BUT there are also good workers out there; craftsmen with nothing to be ashamed of. These men can be found and paid the higher fees they will probably demand, but ANY quality of days past CAN be achieved today, IF one is willing to go to the effort to find and pay for such talent.
Heck, signs are the smaller of the worries in trying to find talent in theatre restoration; try to find a place that has the facilities, talent, and integrity to rebuild the original elaborate draperies as they once were. The draperies and their trimmings (passementeries) are virtually a lost art, yet a few recent re-creations show that such can be done if enough money and time is present and one is willing to work with out-of-town artisans. Let us not dispair at the fate of the PARADISE just yet; there are days and years to come when present or future owners may have the funds and patience to persue the perfection we all crave.
Warren is quite right that the proscenium dome did not have a sky effect, and was otherwise painted as he suggests. Apparently, when the blueprints were sent to the artist, the nature of the dome’s decoration was not indicated, as such things were often determined by the decorator some time after the prints by the architects were completed. It may also have been a case of revision, where the sky effect was at first intended, but plans altered at a later date, perhaps by the owner or architect refusing the decorator’s idea for the area. Other than this dome, I don’t know that there are any other material differences between the rendering/painting and the actual theatre. Remember too, that the artist was in the employ of the drapery maker or the passementier, and was to feature their work, not that of the architects or decorator, since this may well have been originally a prospectus to bid on the job.
Ed’s heartfelt comments are well taken. Let us hope that the powers that be will at least have the wisdom to have large photo blow-ups of the theatre as it was at prime, mounted inside the glass wall. That plus a plaque stating some of its history and just why it was so partially preserved, plus sources of further information, would be most appropriate. Such careful and gracious accomodation of viewers of the future would do much to dispell the impression that it was merely a ‘smash it down for the sake of our greed’ mentality that some may otherwise see it as. If they lack photos, know that www.historictheatres.org has numerous b&w plus COLOR images. If rendered in the Lithographic (etched) Aluminum sheet process, they will look classy and be mostly immune to aging. Let us hope.
I AM HAPPY TO REPORT THAT A WONDERFUL COLOR RENDERING OF THE STAGE WALL OF THE PARAMOUNT’S AUDITORIUM IS NOW ON LINE AT: View link
CLICK ON THE IMAGE THERE AND YOU WILL SEE A CAPTION THAT GIVES CREDIT TO THE ARTIST AND DESIGNER WHO APPARENTLY CREATED THAT WONDERFUL PROSCENIUM AT THE BEHEST OF RAPP & RAPP.
While we all would like to see the KEITH’S preserved in toto, it is apparent that that will not happen, so I believe that if the lobby remnant is TASTEFULLY integrated into the new structure, it will help our posterity to see the real grandeur that was once part of their heritage. Perhaps partial preservations like this will goad the younger generations to more prize that which they might otherwise lose. Perhaps there will be another theatre there or anywhere else where people of that day will recall this preserved remnant, and say, ‘No, we will not allow it to happen again.’ I hear that that is the sentiment these days in San Francisco after that famous poster was made showing the demolition bursting through the fabulous FOX’S auditorium wall rallied so many to its defense at the eleventh hour. Sad to say, that rallying did hot prevail, but it may have made them reluctant to throw away so much notable history again. So may this reminder in Flushing do this for that part of the world.
And, after all, seeing a photo is not the same as appreciating the huge scale of the palaces, and this remainder of that palace will let youngsters appreciate the enormity of their —and our— loss.
Well, Mr. LawfordTheatre, I’m not sure if your skills and resources extend to a full movie palace of about 2400 seats, but if so, click on my name at the bottom to get my Contact info. and E-mail me and mention the GRAND THEATRE in your subject line. I will reply by sending you data about it, a photo of it, and the contact address for the owner. This is in Milwaukee.
You might do well to E-mail or visit the Archive of the Theatre Historical Soc. of America at: www.historictheatres.org Their address and other such details are among their links on their front page. They have photos and records of many thousands of theatres across the country and some in other countrires as well, and have kept such records and published their quarterly magazine MARQUEE, since 1969. That magazine has had more than one article about Minnesota theatres over the years.
Yes, the front page photo you refer us to on that site is definitely the WARNER in Erie, PA, a Rapp&Rapp design that has some the characteristics of the former WARNER in Milwaukee (dark for over ten years as the GRAND).
Inaugural Programmes make wonderful donations to the National Archive of the Theatre Historical Soc. in Elmhurst Illinois, and are on-line at: www.historictheatres.org
Theatrebuff1: you give some very good comments, but if you want people to contact you privately on this matter, you must leave your E-mail address or other contact information. When one clicks on the blue name line at the bottom of a message here, he is taken to that person’s Profile Page where such information is recorded. You should go to yours and update the CONTACT entry which is now blank.
There is the 1948 filmette: “Your Theatre” which shows some of those audience reactions and other scenes that you describe, but it is dated and rarely seen anymore. I don’t know who produced it, but one would imagine it to be from the National Assn. of Theatre Owners (NATO). It was last seen as a trailer at the close of a segment of the PBS series in the early ‘90s of “Matinee at the Bijou” and possibly a library has a set of the tapes of it from which one could look for the trailer. This short subject was never a popularity contest, but it showed the economic importance of the local theatre to the local economy as well as being the major entertainment focus for a community.
It would be seen as a curio today to a TV station, but maybe someone could get the rights to show it on a local station by contacting the Copyright Cleareance Office at the Library of Congress which might itself have a copy of the 10-minute black and white film. A company called Criterion supplies many ‘shorts’ and possibly they will have it. The Theatre Historical Soc. of America may have a copy of it, but as they will tell you, mere possession of a copy is not the same thing as the legal right to exhibit it, though it might possibly be in the public domain which is what the Copyright Clearance Office can tell you.
This is not exactly what you wanted, but it may be as close as you can get in stimulating public appreciation of an exhibition form that seems to be fading. One could contact the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (the OSCARS) in Pasadena, but remember that every year the TV production of the “Oscars” is criticized as being too long, sometimes approaching four hours! For all that time, the MPAAS must find a sponsor willing to pay for each segment of the show, and I doubt highly that NATO would have the many thousands of dollars for commercial payment even if they would agree with your idea and intent. Ah, theatrebuff1, if there were an easy way to implement your idea, it would be grand, so do keep on thinking on the matter. You may have the makings of a producer in you, and his job is always to first find backers and their money.
Awards for Good Theatre operation might seem like a workable concept, but in reality it would be more difficult than it might seem. First of all, there is no universal idea of what is good theatre operation. The chains are obviously run by accountants who work for the conglomerates which own them, and are strictly bottom-line oriented: the highest profit for the current quarter is all they look at. In their MBA-trained minds, any business is seen as a sacrifice for immediate profits, so the future of Hollywood and cinemas is no conern of theirs, only the immediate profits to stockholders. True capitalists would bristle at the idea that things should be otherwise!
Secondly, for this to have any impact, it would have to be on a national level, and that would instantly involve regionalism. Remember that everyone has pride of place, and it would soon degenerate to North vs. South (the Civil War has never really ended in the South), or ‘sophisticated’ East vs. ‘bucolic’ West, or Feminist owners vs. male owners, or Black owners vs. White owners, etc. etc. The divisions in society would soon trump any attempt at fairness, unless they determined every year to choose another theatre/cinema in a different area, run by a different gender of a different race, etc. And how genuine would such a judgement be then as to quality? It would become another excersize in public diversity sentiment.
How would judgements be made? Mom-‘n’-Pop single screen operations are really not the same as chain multiplexes, and it would be dicey to try to compare what are actually two different business models and yet expect the same results from them. Would this make the contest seem too arbitrary and capricious to seriously judge? Where would one find highly experienced (unpaid?) judges who had visited a site remote from their homes enough to really get a feel for the site and its consistancy of operation? How would one eliminate the personal bias that each one has for theatres/cinemas of his youthful locale? If a site disagreed with the write-up about their place, how would they appeal such a personal opinion to a central group? Would there then be a governing body that would review all the judges' write-ups and referee the clamors for special favor, or the accusations of special favor given to someone else? Since this might, in time, affect someone’s profit picture, could the national authority be sued for Restraint Of Trade, or fraud via conspiracy? Would you like to be a national judge accused of bias or conspiracy and criticized in print for such “incompetence” or favoritism? What compensation would such judges receive, and if they are to be volunteers with only their expenses met, are they to be accused of being mere “amateurs” who by implication are clueless as to the real nature of today’s exhibition? Who pays the bills for an office, personnel, supplies, transportation, publicity, awards, etc. etc.?
If the competition is to be more than a tempest in a teapot, then how would one pay a sizeable award that would encourage operators to go beyone the minimalist payment for the maximum profit? If it is to be only a token award such as a plaque, then who will design it, make it, deliver/present it, and at whose cost? Shold a theatre or exhibitor be allowed to ‘donate’ to the judges' expenses? Would such a donation be construed as self-interest in the industry, or a bribe? Would giving the same award to the same theatre/cinema twice in a row reflect a lack of suitable subjects, or a fixation on someone’s favorite cinema?
I think we begin to see the problems, desireable though the concept might otherwise be.
Having a difficult night sleeping what with my heart failure, so took the time to look up Tony Heinsbergen’s obit in MARQUEE magazine of 2nd Qtr. 1981 as quoted from the now-defunct CONSOLE magazine:
“FAMOUS WEST COAST ARTIST, THEATRE DECORATOR DIES
One of the nation’s most prolific theatre decorators during the age of the great film palaces, Anthony Heninsbergen, died at his Los Angeles home June 14th. … His canvases in theatre decorating were the ceilings, domes and interiors of the most opulent structures from Mexico City to Alaska. … Heinsbergen was proudest of his murals for the Vancouver B.C. ORPHEUM theatre dome which he painted in his studio in 1976, when the theatre became the home of the Vancouver symphony. The painting was done in 24 panels, taken to the theatre and applied like wallpaper.
In his long career, Heinsbergen decorated nearly 750 theatres in the western part of the United States. One of his outstanding jobs was the decorating of the Los Angeles Theatre on South Broadway in downtown Los Angeles….”
Yes, Will is right: we would all prefer to quibble over shades of marble (faux or real) rather than the words ‘grand’ or ‘grandiose.’ I only mentioned the words since one has two meanings, but both positive (grand = ‘large’ or ‘sumptuous’ and ‘impressive’), whereas ‘grandiose’ can have a negative connotation that the speaker/writer may not have at all meant.
Yes, illusion was the name of the game! While a few of the larger palaces could afford real marble and some 24-carat gold leaf, most of the neighborhood houses had to content themselves with illusion, and that was not always a bad thing. When most theatres had what appeared to be wood paneling, it was really faux-painted plaster, since that was not only cheaper at the time, but fireproof too, and cities often insisted that no non-flameproof materials could be in the area of the audience or the lobbies.
AS to Mr. Henisbergen’s murals, they would have been a real bragging point for any theatre, since many seemingly custom murals were actually stock designs from scenic studios, and not custom designed for a theatre, so if a mural was custom, it was a cause for bragging rights and sometimes a noteworthy footnote in history. AS far as I know, Tony Heinsbergen died a few years ago, so I do not know what became of his studio, though I have a hunch that the mavens at www.historictheatres.org would know if you contacted them.
Stevebob: in using the term “grandiose” in the opening here I was trying to set the stage for the era in which such neighborhood movie palaces were constructed: often of smatterings of ornamentation and gilt to carry the idea of the theme they were recalling, but rarely with authenticity or proper scale. Whether or not a theatre was more pretentious than real in its actualization of theme is a matter in the eye of the beholder. The PARADISE in the Bronx was grandiose in the sense of being overwhelming, but not pretentious; it had authentically Venetian motifs. The VENETIAN, on the other hand, was more pretentious in trying to live up to its name, since the then-existing JUNEAU on Mitchell Street was actually more ‘Venetian’ than was the VENETIAN if you compare photos. The design of Peacock and Frank’s VENETIAN was more just a conglomeration of vaguely Mediterranean motifs than anything peculiar to Venice. It was a charming, but hardly authentic pastiche, a common practice in those days, just as our AVALON had nothing Welsh or of Arthurian legend. Notice that there were no Venetian gondalas nor their mooring bollards, for example, as were depicted in the JUENEAU. In this sense, then, it was made to overwhelm the modest showhouses then in the neighborhood, as opposed to being authentically Venetian in theme. The name chosen could have been as easily ‘Patio’ or ‘Garden’ or the like since the decor was that non-specific; thus it was modestly “grandiose” or pretentious as opposed to being more modestly authentic.
Tim, Send me your E-mail or regular mail addresses, and I will send you a photocopy of my photocopy of the three small interior PHOTOS (not renderings) of the interior as I listed them in Exhibitor’s Herald, which has been defunct for some 50 years now. This may be the reason that the library could not find it for you, though the Union List of Serials should have shown that a number of libraries around the country do have it in volume if not also microfilm (libraries may lend microfilm, but will rarely lend bound volumes). I believe that the Archive of the Theatre Historical Soc. outside of Chicago also has a set of 1920s volumes of the Herald, but they will NOT lend them. Go there by appointment to see what they have in their vast archives. www.historictheatres.org
If you want someone to respond to you personally, you must list your Contact Information on your Profile Page which is accessed for anyone by clicking on their name in blue at the bottom of any post, and then clicking on CONTACT on the profile page when it appears. My E-mail address can be thus viewed too. If you prefer to correspond, then write me at: P.O. Box 14455, West Allis, WI 53214.
Andy, of the hundreds of thousands of people who worked at “grindhouse” cinemas, dozens of them must read this web site, and so your inquiry might best be posted as a “Theatre NEWS” item where they can ALL see it. Click on the link at the top of the first page. If such a notice seen by all here should not bring you the contacts you seek, then write or E-mail the Theatre Historical Soc. ( www.historictheatres.org )to have them refer your quest to their members in the Dayton area. Best Wishes, Jim R.
Has anyone thought to check the records of the Dept. of Building Inspection, where they almost certainly were required by law to submit the plans to convert the theatre? Some cities keep these plans (blueprints) on microfilm or in a warehouse for as long as the building stands. These modification drawings will show which, if any, dressing room floors were retained in the building. Contacting the architects/general contractor of the 1960s redo might also lead to copies of the blueprints.
On at least one occasion the KINGS was used as the background for a filming location: the 1996 movie “Sleepers” with Brad Pitt, Jason Patrick, Kevin Bacon and others. A minor character is shown walking up to the front doors and the dillapidated marquee is shown as the camera cuts to the lobby, the grand staircase and the balcony foyer. Not too much is shown of the theatre, and parts of the background are draped in white cloth to hide lights or damage, I don’t know which. It is a relatively short scene near the middle of the film and acts as a local gang lord’s supposed throne room. The location never again appears in the movie, and nothing of the auditorium is seen. I wonder if it has otherwise been used as a location for film (aside from documentaries such as “Memoirs of a Movie Palace”)? Such use for location filming can bring in much needed funds; the LOS ANGELES now survives largely on such fees from the movie producers. Perhaps the NYC area interested ones could join with the NY film commission and prepare 8x10 photos of the original and current state of affairs views to file with the group that furnishes data on locations nationwide to the California producers/location scouts. This might raise the awareness of the wonderful KINGS so that it is seen in more films and thus is seen publically as a valuable resource left to moulder.
Best Wishes, but beware of post-hurricane “bargains!” If there was ever a time that you need an experienced THEATRE inspector, now is that time. I believe the the League of Historic American Theatres (www.lhat.org) and possibly the Theatre Historical Society (www.historictheatres.org) both have lists of such men. You may also want to scan the Archives of the FORUMS on www.bigscreenbiz.com to learn of the very difficult economics of running a cinema today!
I will reply as to a reason that this beautiful palace has “sat for some 24 years unused.” It is difficult enough these days to successfully program a 200-seat theatre, much less one with some 4000 seats! It was bought at one point by a “land banker” to use a polite euphemism for a slum lord, who stoped paying the utilities and just let winter/summer heat and thaw take its toll on the building, such that there are now many hundreds of thousands of dollars needed for just interior repairs alone, and therefore the space is a long way from being safe or desireable to open to the public, sad to say.
Contact the suggested sources I list on this site and you may find helpful photos or materials:
http://www.cinematour.com/article.php?id=3
In addition to those listed, it is wise to trace the decendents of the original owners and builders who often have mementos/photos of their ancestors' theatre, and local newspaper files (‘morgues’) often have photos that appeared in print and some that didn’t. The Register of Deeds is a good place to start, since the documents there may direct you to people and groups involved years ago that might still have photos. Performing groups listed in old newspapers may still exist and have old photos of productions there. Best Wishes
Yes, it certainly is the MICHIGAN in Detroit, for I doubt there is another theatre so desecrated in all the USA, in that it is now a parking structure, hence the ease of filming a chase scene there. It was a wonderful Rapp & Rapp design, and what you saw were just as you said, portions of the top of the proscenium and side walls; the lower portions were simply torn away to the outer brick walls, and parking decks poured to connect to the columns in the outer walls. On page 181 of “American Picture Palaces” by David Naylor is a photo of what you saw, with even a piece of the drapery still hanging in shreds in the stagehouse behind where the Grand Drape would have been. The sight almost makes you wish the structure had been razed.
While a Farady cage (passive blocking, called SHIELDING) MAY stop signals from outside the theatre/cinemas, it will do nothing to block the signals generated inside an auditorium and received there by other devices. For these inside-the-building situations, only a jamming device would help, though its legality may be open to question.
It should be noted that while passive shielding (the Farady cage) is possible, it is NOT easily accomplished, since even tiny gaps in the necessary complete metallic coverage will allow some signals to penetrate, as the spy and counter-spy industries could so ruefully tell you. The adequacy of shielding against any one frequency is very problematic since it takes the calculations of an engineer to determine what frequency the shielding resonates at. The further the undesired frequency is from the resonant frequency of one’s shielding, the less effective the shield will be. Know that virtually no shielding within reasonable cost is totally effective, so if you apply passive shielding as with carefully earth grounded metal mesh behind the walls, you must start out with the acceptance of the fact that it probably will NOT be totally effective.
In new construction, metal mesh shielding that is carefully and non-corrosively bonded electrically panel-to-panel, as well as thoroughly earth grounded as one would use a ground rod to ground a TV mast, then it may prove helpful and cost effective. Antennas can be mounted outside the shielded areas and their signals routed inside it by means of Shielded Cables if one wants to import TV or other radio signals to some receiver indoors, but notch filters may still be required to eliminate undesireable frequencies. The design and installation of such shielding and grounding would be much more successful if put in the care of a Radio Frequency technician or engineer. A successful shield requires scrupulous attention to detail in specifying the proper mesh and carefully overlaping it, as well as the high quality of an earth ground that is almost not resonant at any frequency, which provides greatest degree of grounding. Note that shielding NOT successfully grounded with the least resonance, inductance, resistance, and capacitance may well be totally ineffective, and worse, it can act as a reflecting antenna that can sometimes intensify unwanted signals in certain areas!
I compliment EdSolero; he put it so very nicely.
Stevebob is right that there is far too much mediocracy in workmanship today, BUT the others are even more right: the venerable PARADISE is still standing, and it can still be polished and adjusted yet more to go beyond examples of poor workmanship in the years to come as the owners/builders learn from their mistakes. Perhaps the contractor to repair the sign was someone’s relative; nepotism is nothing new to the trades. Maybe it is just that so large and elaborate a sign was entirely new to the local sign shop and they weren’t ready to stick the time, talent and money into doing the job right. We don’t knowl, and probably never will. BUT the fact remains that it can still be redone; paint is easily removed and replaced, and even the entire sign could be rebuilt in bronze if the money for such ever appears. Yes, there are some bad workers that they don’t have to employ again, BUT there are also good workers out there; craftsmen with nothing to be ashamed of. These men can be found and paid the higher fees they will probably demand, but ANY quality of days past CAN be achieved today, IF one is willing to go to the effort to find and pay for such talent.
Heck, signs are the smaller of the worries in trying to find talent in theatre restoration; try to find a place that has the facilities, talent, and integrity to rebuild the original elaborate draperies as they once were. The draperies and their trimmings (passementeries) are virtually a lost art, yet a few recent re-creations show that such can be done if enough money and time is present and one is willing to work with out-of-town artisans. Let us not dispair at the fate of the PARADISE just yet; there are days and years to come when present or future owners may have the funds and patience to persue the perfection we all crave.
Warren is quite right that the proscenium dome did not have a sky effect, and was otherwise painted as he suggests. Apparently, when the blueprints were sent to the artist, the nature of the dome’s decoration was not indicated, as such things were often determined by the decorator some time after the prints by the architects were completed. It may also have been a case of revision, where the sky effect was at first intended, but plans altered at a later date, perhaps by the owner or architect refusing the decorator’s idea for the area. Other than this dome, I don’t know that there are any other material differences between the rendering/painting and the actual theatre. Remember too, that the artist was in the employ of the drapery maker or the passementier, and was to feature their work, not that of the architects or decorator, since this may well have been originally a prospectus to bid on the job.
Ed’s heartfelt comments are well taken. Let us hope that the powers that be will at least have the wisdom to have large photo blow-ups of the theatre as it was at prime, mounted inside the glass wall. That plus a plaque stating some of its history and just why it was so partially preserved, plus sources of further information, would be most appropriate. Such careful and gracious accomodation of viewers of the future would do much to dispell the impression that it was merely a ‘smash it down for the sake of our greed’ mentality that some may otherwise see it as. If they lack photos, know that www.historictheatres.org has numerous b&w plus COLOR images. If rendered in the Lithographic (etched) Aluminum sheet process, they will look classy and be mostly immune to aging. Let us hope.
I AM HAPPY TO REPORT THAT A WONDERFUL COLOR RENDERING OF THE STAGE WALL OF THE PARAMOUNT’S AUDITORIUM IS NOW ON LINE AT:
View link
CLICK ON THE IMAGE THERE AND YOU WILL SEE A CAPTION THAT GIVES CREDIT TO THE ARTIST AND DESIGNER WHO APPARENTLY CREATED THAT WONDERFUL PROSCENIUM AT THE BEHEST OF RAPP & RAPP.
While we all would like to see the KEITH’S preserved in toto, it is apparent that that will not happen, so I believe that if the lobby remnant is TASTEFULLY integrated into the new structure, it will help our posterity to see the real grandeur that was once part of their heritage. Perhaps partial preservations like this will goad the younger generations to more prize that which they might otherwise lose. Perhaps there will be another theatre there or anywhere else where people of that day will recall this preserved remnant, and say, ‘No, we will not allow it to happen again.’ I hear that that is the sentiment these days in San Francisco after that famous poster was made showing the demolition bursting through the fabulous FOX’S auditorium wall rallied so many to its defense at the eleventh hour. Sad to say, that rallying did hot prevail, but it may have made them reluctant to throw away so much notable history again. So may this reminder in Flushing do this for that part of the world.
And, after all, seeing a photo is not the same as appreciating the huge scale of the palaces, and this remainder of that palace will let youngsters appreciate the enormity of their —and our— loss.
Well, Mr. LawfordTheatre, I’m not sure if your skills and resources extend to a full movie palace of about 2400 seats, but if so, click on my name at the bottom to get my Contact info. and E-mail me and mention the GRAND THEATRE in your subject line. I will reply by sending you data about it, a photo of it, and the contact address for the owner. This is in Milwaukee.
You might do well to E-mail or visit the Archive of the Theatre Historical Soc. of America at: www.historictheatres.org Their address and other such details are among their links on their front page. They have photos and records of many thousands of theatres across the country and some in other countrires as well, and have kept such records and published their quarterly magazine MARQUEE, since 1969. That magazine has had more than one article about Minnesota theatres over the years.
Yes, the front page photo you refer us to on that site is definitely the WARNER in Erie, PA, a Rapp&Rapp design that has some the characteristics of the former WARNER in Milwaukee (dark for over ten years as the GRAND).
Inaugural Programmes make wonderful donations to the National Archive of the Theatre Historical Soc. in Elmhurst Illinois, and are on-line at: www.historictheatres.org
Theatrebuff1: you give some very good comments, but if you want people to contact you privately on this matter, you must leave your E-mail address or other contact information. When one clicks on the blue name line at the bottom of a message here, he is taken to that person’s Profile Page where such information is recorded. You should go to yours and update the CONTACT entry which is now blank.
There is the 1948 filmette: “Your Theatre” which shows some of those audience reactions and other scenes that you describe, but it is dated and rarely seen anymore. I don’t know who produced it, but one would imagine it to be from the National Assn. of Theatre Owners (NATO). It was last seen as a trailer at the close of a segment of the PBS series in the early ‘90s of “Matinee at the Bijou” and possibly a library has a set of the tapes of it from which one could look for the trailer. This short subject was never a popularity contest, but it showed the economic importance of the local theatre to the local economy as well as being the major entertainment focus for a community.
It would be seen as a curio today to a TV station, but maybe someone could get the rights to show it on a local station by contacting the Copyright Cleareance Office at the Library of Congress which might itself have a copy of the 10-minute black and white film. A company called Criterion supplies many ‘shorts’ and possibly they will have it. The Theatre Historical Soc. of America may have a copy of it, but as they will tell you, mere possession of a copy is not the same thing as the legal right to exhibit it, though it might possibly be in the public domain which is what the Copyright Clearance Office can tell you.
This is not exactly what you wanted, but it may be as close as you can get in stimulating public appreciation of an exhibition form that seems to be fading. One could contact the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (the OSCARS) in Pasadena, but remember that every year the TV production of the “Oscars” is criticized as being too long, sometimes approaching four hours! For all that time, the MPAAS must find a sponsor willing to pay for each segment of the show, and I doubt highly that NATO would have the many thousands of dollars for commercial payment even if they would agree with your idea and intent. Ah, theatrebuff1, if there were an easy way to implement your idea, it would be grand, so do keep on thinking on the matter. You may have the makings of a producer in you, and his job is always to first find backers and their money.
Awards for Good Theatre operation might seem like a workable concept, but in reality it would be more difficult than it might seem. First of all, there is no universal idea of what is good theatre operation. The chains are obviously run by accountants who work for the conglomerates which own them, and are strictly bottom-line oriented: the highest profit for the current quarter is all they look at. In their MBA-trained minds, any business is seen as a sacrifice for immediate profits, so the future of Hollywood and cinemas is no conern of theirs, only the immediate profits to stockholders. True capitalists would bristle at the idea that things should be otherwise!
Secondly, for this to have any impact, it would have to be on a national level, and that would instantly involve regionalism. Remember that everyone has pride of place, and it would soon degenerate to North vs. South (the Civil War has never really ended in the South), or ‘sophisticated’ East vs. ‘bucolic’ West, or Feminist owners vs. male owners, or Black owners vs. White owners, etc. etc. The divisions in society would soon trump any attempt at fairness, unless they determined every year to choose another theatre/cinema in a different area, run by a different gender of a different race, etc. And how genuine would such a judgement be then as to quality? It would become another excersize in public diversity sentiment.
How would judgements be made? Mom-‘n’-Pop single screen operations are really not the same as chain multiplexes, and it would be dicey to try to compare what are actually two different business models and yet expect the same results from them. Would this make the contest seem too arbitrary and capricious to seriously judge? Where would one find highly experienced (unpaid?) judges who had visited a site remote from their homes enough to really get a feel for the site and its consistancy of operation? How would one eliminate the personal bias that each one has for theatres/cinemas of his youthful locale? If a site disagreed with the write-up about their place, how would they appeal such a personal opinion to a central group? Would there then be a governing body that would review all the judges' write-ups and referee the clamors for special favor, or the accusations of special favor given to someone else? Since this might, in time, affect someone’s profit picture, could the national authority be sued for Restraint Of Trade, or fraud via conspiracy? Would you like to be a national judge accused of bias or conspiracy and criticized in print for such “incompetence” or favoritism? What compensation would such judges receive, and if they are to be volunteers with only their expenses met, are they to be accused of being mere “amateurs” who by implication are clueless as to the real nature of today’s exhibition? Who pays the bills for an office, personnel, supplies, transportation, publicity, awards, etc. etc.?
If the competition is to be more than a tempest in a teapot, then how would one pay a sizeable award that would encourage operators to go beyone the minimalist payment for the maximum profit? If it is to be only a token award such as a plaque, then who will design it, make it, deliver/present it, and at whose cost? Shold a theatre or exhibitor be allowed to ‘donate’ to the judges' expenses? Would such a donation be construed as self-interest in the industry, or a bribe? Would giving the same award to the same theatre/cinema twice in a row reflect a lack of suitable subjects, or a fixation on someone’s favorite cinema?
I think we begin to see the problems, desireable though the concept might otherwise be.
Having a difficult night sleeping what with my heart failure, so took the time to look up Tony Heinsbergen’s obit in MARQUEE magazine of 2nd Qtr. 1981 as quoted from the now-defunct CONSOLE magazine:
“FAMOUS WEST COAST ARTIST, THEATRE DECORATOR DIES
One of the nation’s most prolific theatre decorators during the age of the great film palaces, Anthony Heninsbergen, died at his Los Angeles home June 14th. … His canvases in theatre decorating were the ceilings, domes and interiors of the most opulent structures from Mexico City to Alaska. … Heinsbergen was proudest of his murals for the Vancouver B.C. ORPHEUM theatre dome which he painted in his studio in 1976, when the theatre became the home of the Vancouver symphony. The painting was done in 24 panels, taken to the theatre and applied like wallpaper.
In his long career, Heinsbergen decorated nearly 750 theatres in the western part of the United States. One of his outstanding jobs was the decorating of the Los Angeles Theatre on South Broadway in downtown Los Angeles….”
Yes, Will is right: we would all prefer to quibble over shades of marble (faux or real) rather than the words ‘grand’ or ‘grandiose.’ I only mentioned the words since one has two meanings, but both positive (grand = ‘large’ or ‘sumptuous’ and ‘impressive’), whereas ‘grandiose’ can have a negative connotation that the speaker/writer may not have at all meant.
Yes, illusion was the name of the game! While a few of the larger palaces could afford real marble and some 24-carat gold leaf, most of the neighborhood houses had to content themselves with illusion, and that was not always a bad thing. When most theatres had what appeared to be wood paneling, it was really faux-painted plaster, since that was not only cheaper at the time, but fireproof too, and cities often insisted that no non-flameproof materials could be in the area of the audience or the lobbies.
AS to Mr. Henisbergen’s murals, they would have been a real bragging point for any theatre, since many seemingly custom murals were actually stock designs from scenic studios, and not custom designed for a theatre, so if a mural was custom, it was a cause for bragging rights and sometimes a noteworthy footnote in history. AS far as I know, Tony Heinsbergen died a few years ago, so I do not know what became of his studio, though I have a hunch that the mavens at www.historictheatres.org would know if you contacted them.
Stevebob: in using the term “grandiose” in the opening here I was trying to set the stage for the era in which such neighborhood movie palaces were constructed: often of smatterings of ornamentation and gilt to carry the idea of the theme they were recalling, but rarely with authenticity or proper scale. Whether or not a theatre was more pretentious than real in its actualization of theme is a matter in the eye of the beholder. The PARADISE in the Bronx was grandiose in the sense of being overwhelming, but not pretentious; it had authentically Venetian motifs. The VENETIAN, on the other hand, was more pretentious in trying to live up to its name, since the then-existing JUNEAU on Mitchell Street was actually more ‘Venetian’ than was the VENETIAN if you compare photos. The design of Peacock and Frank’s VENETIAN was more just a conglomeration of vaguely Mediterranean motifs than anything peculiar to Venice. It was a charming, but hardly authentic pastiche, a common practice in those days, just as our AVALON had nothing Welsh or of Arthurian legend. Notice that there were no Venetian gondalas nor their mooring bollards, for example, as were depicted in the JUENEAU. In this sense, then, it was made to overwhelm the modest showhouses then in the neighborhood, as opposed to being authentically Venetian in theme. The name chosen could have been as easily ‘Patio’ or ‘Garden’ or the like since the decor was that non-specific; thus it was modestly “grandiose” or pretentious as opposed to being more modestly authentic.
Tim, Send me your E-mail or regular mail addresses, and I will send you a photocopy of my photocopy of the three small interior PHOTOS (not renderings) of the interior as I listed them in Exhibitor’s Herald, which has been defunct for some 50 years now. This may be the reason that the library could not find it for you, though the Union List of Serials should have shown that a number of libraries around the country do have it in volume if not also microfilm (libraries may lend microfilm, but will rarely lend bound volumes). I believe that the Archive of the Theatre Historical Soc. outside of Chicago also has a set of 1920s volumes of the Herald, but they will NOT lend them. Go there by appointment to see what they have in their vast archives. www.historictheatres.org
If you want someone to respond to you personally, you must list your Contact Information on your Profile Page which is accessed for anyone by clicking on their name in blue at the bottom of any post, and then clicking on CONTACT on the profile page when it appears. My E-mail address can be thus viewed too. If you prefer to correspond, then write me at: P.O. Box 14455, West Allis, WI 53214.
Andy, of the hundreds of thousands of people who worked at “grindhouse” cinemas, dozens of them must read this web site, and so your inquiry might best be posted as a “Theatre NEWS” item where they can ALL see it. Click on the link at the top of the first page. If such a notice seen by all here should not bring you the contacts you seek, then write or E-mail the Theatre Historical Soc. ( www.historictheatres.org )to have them refer your quest to their members in the Dayton area. Best Wishes, Jim R.
Has anyone thought to check the records of the Dept. of Building Inspection, where they almost certainly were required by law to submit the plans to convert the theatre? Some cities keep these plans (blueprints) on microfilm or in a warehouse for as long as the building stands. These modification drawings will show which, if any, dressing room floors were retained in the building. Contacting the architects/general contractor of the 1960s redo might also lead to copies of the blueprints.
On at least one occasion the KINGS was used as the background for a filming location: the 1996 movie “Sleepers” with Brad Pitt, Jason Patrick, Kevin Bacon and others. A minor character is shown walking up to the front doors and the dillapidated marquee is shown as the camera cuts to the lobby, the grand staircase and the balcony foyer. Not too much is shown of the theatre, and parts of the background are draped in white cloth to hide lights or damage, I don’t know which. It is a relatively short scene near the middle of the film and acts as a local gang lord’s supposed throne room. The location never again appears in the movie, and nothing of the auditorium is seen. I wonder if it has otherwise been used as a location for film (aside from documentaries such as “Memoirs of a Movie Palace”)? Such use for location filming can bring in much needed funds; the LOS ANGELES now survives largely on such fees from the movie producers. Perhaps the NYC area interested ones could join with the NY film commission and prepare 8x10 photos of the original and current state of affairs views to file with the group that furnishes data on locations nationwide to the California producers/location scouts. This might raise the awareness of the wonderful KINGS so that it is seen in more films and thus is seen publically as a valuable resource left to moulder.
Best Wishes, but beware of post-hurricane “bargains!” If there was ever a time that you need an experienced THEATRE inspector, now is that time. I believe the the League of Historic American Theatres (www.lhat.org) and possibly the Theatre Historical Society (www.historictheatres.org) both have lists of such men. You may also want to scan the Archives of the FORUMS on www.bigscreenbiz.com to learn of the very difficult economics of running a cinema today!
I will reply as to a reason that this beautiful palace has “sat for some 24 years unused.” It is difficult enough these days to successfully program a 200-seat theatre, much less one with some 4000 seats! It was bought at one point by a “land banker” to use a polite euphemism for a slum lord, who stoped paying the utilities and just let winter/summer heat and thaw take its toll on the building, such that there are now many hundreds of thousands of dollars needed for just interior repairs alone, and therefore the space is a long way from being safe or desireable to open to the public, sad to say.