Oh, and Chuck, I forgot to mention something about your comment about this book being on library shelves. The Toronto Public Library has 19 print copies in branches across their system (including one in the Reference Library), and e-book downloads. And the University of Toronto has 5 copies (one each located in Innis College, St. Michael’s College, Victoria and University Colleges, and The Robarts Library, the University’s main humanities and social sciences research facility. So this is why I’m so concerned about the dissemination of inaccurate information.
Chuck,
Thank you for your comments. Much appreciated. I was surprised by jerryross’s post. I would have thought that anyone using this site would want the most accurate details possible. But in this particular case, I guess not. Very puzzling.
I just finished reading “Toronto Theatres and the Golden Age of the Silver Screen” by Doug Taylor, published in 2014.
This book is filled with many errors, and this is going to be a long review because I am going rebut some of the most egregious ones individually.
(I am posting under the University, as I couldn’t seem to find a place to post generic info on Toronto theatres other than under a specific theatre).
My reason for doing so is that this book is In Print, and the mistakes herein could very easily be perpetuated by unsuspecting researchers in the future and I cannot stand by and let them go unchallenged. I am going to inform the publisher of these errors and hopefully changes can be made in upcoming editions, but this review is a forewarning to anyone who might read this imprint in the meantime. This is a highly specific topic, likely to be of most interest to Torontonians in particular, and movie theatre and history buffs in general, therefore the specificity of the details are bound to be of considerable importance to them.
My guard was immediately up when I read this on the page 3 flyleaf:
“Notice: The information in this book is true and complete to the best of our knowledge. It is offered without guarantee on the part of the author or The History Press. The author and The History Press disclaim all liability in connection with the use of this book.”
And it was further heightened by this passage in the Preface:
“I have attempted to verify the information and consulted multiple sources wherever feasible, but this was often impossible. However, every effort has been made to ensure that the information is as accurate as possible. I also found that sometimes the information I discovered did not agree with my personal memories. This created difficulties when writing about the theatres. Some of the discrepancies I never resolved, leading me to think that my memory is not as accurate as I had previously thought. However, I must accept the blame for any errors contained in this book”. (Page 8)
The first example of an error that could have been very easily researched occurs in the Introduction. In describing a typical Saturday matinee schedule for kids he says:
“….Next they showed a serial, which was a short film that required five or six episodes, one shown each week, before the entire tale was completed. Serials were also referred to as “movie-chapter plays” or “cliff hangers,"…. (page 12)
Serials of the 1930’s, 40’s and 50’s were never that short. They were always between twelve and fifteen episodes:
“Each company turned out four to five serials per year, of 12 to 15 episodes each, a pace they all kept up until the end of World War II when, in 1946, Universal dropped its serial unit… Republic and Columbia continued, Republic fixing theirs at 12 chapters each while Columbia fixed at fifteen”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_film#Sound_era
The Great Movie Serials; authors; Glut, Harmon. Publisher; Routledge (2013)
On page 33, in talking about the Loews Downtown theatre located at Queen and Yonge he states:
“In 1960, the theatre was converted to “Cinerama,” which required three projectors. To accommodate the expansive curved screen, the opera boxes and the proscenium arch were removed. This greatly diminished the appearance of the theatre ’s auditorium”.
This is incorrect. There were only two theatres in Toronto that ever converted to three projector Cinerama; The University and The Eglinton
The University began with “This Is Cinerama” on Oct 24,1957 (not in 1958 as the author states on page 110) and permanently ceased with the Cinerama format on November 25, 1959 with “South Seas Adventure”(to make way for Ben Hur, projected in 70mm).
The Eglinton began three projector screenings on Dec 23,1960 with a rival process called Cinamiracle. The film was called “Windjammer”, but this was the only film ever made in Cinamiracle. The company went bankrupt, and was bought out by Cinerama. The Eglinton then converted to Cinerama, and continued with it until December 15, 1963 with the screening of “How The West Was Won”. This was the last three projector Cinerama film shown in Toronto.
Three projector Cinerama had an immersive 146 degree curved screen, but it also had many problems. Where the images from the three projectors connected on the screen, visible join lines were perceptible. And occasionally there were focus issues and synchronization issues. There were only two fiction films ever made in true Cinerama; “The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm’ (1963) and “How the West Was Won”. Three projector Cinerama was much more conducive to the documentary travelogues it made from 1954-1962. The audience was less forgiving with dramas.
But the Cinerama designation did not disappear in 1963. Cinerama continued producing films under this banner with “It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad World”, which premiered Dec 20,1963 at the Carlton Cinema. But this was no longer the three projector system. It was a new single projector 70mm Cinerama format (in reality anamorphic Ultra Panavision 70), which also had a curved screen, but only 120 degrees as opposed to Cinerama’s 146 degrees. This was followed by the single projector Super Panavision 70mm spherical lens process, which commenced with showings of “Grand Prix” in 1966. The last film presented under the Cinerama logo in Canada was “The Song of Norway (1970)
http://www.in70mm.com/library/70mm_in/canada/index.htm
Also in Mr. Taylor’s description of the University Theatre he says the following.
“In 1962, the film Ben Hur played at the University. Because of the movies I saw in the theatre, in my mind, Charlton Heston was forever the towering hero-Moses or Judah Ben Hur. In 1962, I also saw Lawrence of Arabia, a lengthy film that almost gave me camel sores. Fortunately, the plush maroon theatre seats compensated, as they were soft and comfortable. However, the desert scenes dehydrated me, and at intermission, I gulped two containers of Vernor’s Ginger Ale” (p 110-111)
Well, I know this to be categorically incorrect because in high school I worked every weekend at the University (and fulltime in the summer) from 1962-1964.
Before I started working there, “Ben Hur” played at the University from Dec 23, 1959 to May 5, 1961. It won 11 Academy awards on April 4 1960. It did not play at the University in 1962. Nor did Lawrence of Arabia ever play at the University. That played exclusively at the Carlton Cinema from Jan 31,1963 to July3,1963. The only 70mm roadshow film to play at the University in 1962 was “Mutiny on the Bounty”, followed by “Cleopatra” in 1963. I know. I was there.
I’m afraid the only thing the authour got right in that paragraph was the fact that we served Vernor’s Ginger Ale instead of the usual Canada Dry.
There are other errors that could have been resolved by more careful proofreading. For example, in referring to Shea’s Hippodrome on page 38 he says
“ In 1957, as the attendance at theatres began to lag, they demolished the great theatre.”
But on the previous page (37) there is a photo of the intact theatre, and the caption reads:
“The Shea’s Hippodrome, view looking northward on Bay, in 1959”.
The author also states on page 35 that:
“On the evening the Hippodrome opened, the feature film was” Run for Cover, starring James Cagney”.
As the Hippodrome, which originated as a Vaudeville house,but later started showing films, this of course is patently impossible as “Run For Cover” was released in 1955. So (presumably) what the author was indicting is that this was the closing film at the Hippodrome.
On page 77 he quotes Mae West as follows:
“When I’m good I’m good, but when I’m bad I’m really good.”(sic)
Whew. Poor Mae. The actual quote is:
“When I’m good, I’m very good, but when I’m bad, I’m better. ”
There are other areas, while not technically incorrect, that are nonetheless misleading.
For example, on Page 17, he talks about the Auditorium Theatre, which was renovated in 1913 and then called The Avenue Theatre. And then he says:
“ The theatre was renamed the Pickford in 1915 in honour of Mary Pickford. Born in Toronto, by 1915 she had become a rising star on the Hollywood scene.”
In 1915, she was hardly a rising star; she was already a world-wide phenomenon.
“In 1916, Pickford signed a new contract with Zukor that granted her full authority over production of the films in which she starred, and a record-breaking salary of $10,000 a week.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Pickford (or any Pickford biography).
$10,000 a week in 1916 dollars would be the equivalent of $223,620.00 a week now. Only Charlie Chaplin made more money at the time, (and not that much more).
There are more factual errors and debatable premises but I will leave those for now and turn my attention to the author’s style.
On page 11, describing Saturday afternoon matinee’s of his youth he writes:
“It was unlike any other event in the week, akin to a hallowed ritual. Through the magic of movies, I was exposed to faraway, exotic worlds, as well heroes of the past, superheroes of the present and space adventurers of the future. Cowboys, crime-stoppers, criminals and pirates all raced across the screen”.
I find this to be an example of the very uninspired, cliché-ridden writing that unfortunately permeates the book.
The author is also prone to digressions. For example on page 21:
“In the 1940’s,The Ace on Queen Street was owned by Sam Ulster, who also owned The Broadway on Queen St and The Rio on Yonge St. He was also the owner of the Town and Country restaurant on Mutual Street. I remember this eatery very well. It was famous for it’s buffet, which featured roast beef and lobster. Its main rival on the 1940’s was the Savarin Tavern on Bay Street… In the 1940’s, to the west of the theatre was a restaurant named Bowles lunch, the space later occupied by Scotts Chicken Villa.”
And in referring to the Tivoli on page 38, he states:
“ During the years of silent films, Luigi’s Romanelli’s orchestral (sic) often provided the music at the theatre. He also performed at the King Edward hotel and throughout the years played 27 organ concerts in Varsity Arena, the city’s main sports arena at that time”.
These digressions, and there are others like them, are irrelevant and tedious in a book about the history of Toronto theatres.
Which brings up the central question about this book. What kind of book is this exactly? Is it a history of Toronto’s Theatres?, or is it a personal memoir? The problem is that it can’t make up its mind and is trying to be both at the same time, and it simply doesn’t work.
That is not to say that there isn’t much interesting and useful information to be found here. On page 15, he talks about the first projected screening in Toronto having taken place August 31,1896 at the Robinson Musee located at Yonge and Adelaide.
That was new information to me, and Lord, oh, Lord I wish he had listed a reference for that. It took a while, but I eventually tracked it down as coming from the Toronto Historical Board.
And that’s the biggest problem with this book. There is no bibliography whatsoever, no index, no source notes, nor any footnotes.
Am I being too hard here? I don’t think so. To date, there is only one other book on the history of Toronto Film Theatres, called “The Nabes” by John Sebert, published in 2001. So “Toronto Theatres in the Golden Age of the Silver Screen” will undoubtedly be consulted as an additional historical reference.
In the flyleaf on p.154, the author’s bio states:
“Doug Taylor has researched, studied and taught the history of Toronto for several decades. This is his seventh book that employs his native city as the background for his writing. Having taught history at the high school level, Doug was a member of the faculty of Lakeshore Teachers' College (York University) and the Ontario Teacher Education College”
And this book is published by The Historical Press in South Carolina.
So I hold the author (and the publisher) to a higher professional standard than I would a casual volume of reminiscences
.
The most worrisome part is that because of the errors that I have easily discovered, it has unfortunately created uncertainty about other facts in the book. Can I trust them? I want to, I really do; but I’m not sure I can. The seeds of doubt have been firmly planted, and that is a shame.
It is my sincerest wish that these and any other errors in this book can be rectified in future editions, and source notes for factual information supplied.
Then it would be a truly useful volume.
A note on pagination: I read this book in an on-line copy borrowed from the Toronto Public Library and it is 154 pages long. The hard copy print version is listed as being 160 pages. So there may be a slight discrepancy with the print version pagination.
Oh, and Chuck, I forgot to mention something about your comment about this book being on library shelves. The Toronto Public Library has 19 print copies in branches across their system (including one in the Reference Library), and e-book downloads. And the University of Toronto has 5 copies (one each located in Innis College, St. Michael’s College, Victoria and University Colleges, and The Robarts Library, the University’s main humanities and social sciences research facility. So this is why I’m so concerned about the dissemination of inaccurate information.
Chuck, Thank you for your comments. Much appreciated. I was surprised by jerryross’s post. I would have thought that anyone using this site would want the most accurate details possible. But in this particular case, I guess not. Very puzzling.
I just finished reading “Toronto Theatres and the Golden Age of the Silver Screen” by Doug Taylor, published in 2014.
This book is filled with many errors, and this is going to be a long review because I am going rebut some of the most egregious ones individually.
(I am posting under the University, as I couldn’t seem to find a place to post generic info on Toronto theatres other than under a specific theatre).
My reason for doing so is that this book is In Print, and the mistakes herein could very easily be perpetuated by unsuspecting researchers in the future and I cannot stand by and let them go unchallenged. I am going to inform the publisher of these errors and hopefully changes can be made in upcoming editions, but this review is a forewarning to anyone who might read this imprint in the meantime. This is a highly specific topic, likely to be of most interest to Torontonians in particular, and movie theatre and history buffs in general, therefore the specificity of the details are bound to be of considerable importance to them.
My guard was immediately up when I read this on the page 3 flyleaf:
“Notice: The information in this book is true and complete to the best of our knowledge. It is offered without guarantee on the part of the author or The History Press. The author and The History Press disclaim all liability in connection with the use of this book.”
And it was further heightened by this passage in the Preface:
“I have attempted to verify the information and consulted multiple sources wherever feasible, but this was often impossible. However, every effort has been made to ensure that the information is as accurate as possible. I also found that sometimes the information I discovered did not agree with my personal memories. This created difficulties when writing about the theatres. Some of the discrepancies I never resolved, leading me to think that my memory is not as accurate as I had previously thought. However, I must accept the blame for any errors contained in this book”. (Page 8)
The first example of an error that could have been very easily researched occurs in the Introduction. In describing a typical Saturday matinee schedule for kids he says:
“….Next they showed a serial, which was a short film that required five or six episodes, one shown each week, before the entire tale was completed. Serials were also referred to as “movie-chapter plays” or “cliff hangers,"…. (page 12)
Serials of the 1930’s, 40’s and 50’s were never that short. They were always between twelve and fifteen episodes:
“Each company turned out four to five serials per year, of 12 to 15 episodes each, a pace they all kept up until the end of World War II when, in 1946, Universal dropped its serial unit… Republic and Columbia continued, Republic fixing theirs at 12 chapters each while Columbia fixed at fifteen”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_film#Sound_era The Great Movie Serials; authors; Glut, Harmon. Publisher; Routledge (2013)
On page 33, in talking about the Loews Downtown theatre located at Queen and Yonge he states:
“In 1960, the theatre was converted to “Cinerama,” which required three projectors. To accommodate the expansive curved screen, the opera boxes and the proscenium arch were removed. This greatly diminished the appearance of the theatre ’s auditorium”.
This is incorrect. There were only two theatres in Toronto that ever converted to three projector Cinerama; The University and The Eglinton
The University began with “This Is Cinerama” on Oct 24,1957 (not in 1958 as the author states on page 110) and permanently ceased with the Cinerama format on November 25, 1959 with “South Seas Adventure”(to make way for Ben Hur, projected in 70mm).
The Eglinton began three projector screenings on Dec 23,1960 with a rival process called Cinamiracle. The film was called “Windjammer”, but this was the only film ever made in Cinamiracle. The company went bankrupt, and was bought out by Cinerama. The Eglinton then converted to Cinerama, and continued with it until December 15, 1963 with the screening of “How The West Was Won”. This was the last three projector Cinerama film shown in Toronto.
Three projector Cinerama had an immersive 146 degree curved screen, but it also had many problems. Where the images from the three projectors connected on the screen, visible join lines were perceptible. And occasionally there were focus issues and synchronization issues. There were only two fiction films ever made in true Cinerama; “The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm’ (1963) and “How the West Was Won”. Three projector Cinerama was much more conducive to the documentary travelogues it made from 1954-1962. The audience was less forgiving with dramas.
But the Cinerama designation did not disappear in 1963. Cinerama continued producing films under this banner with “It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad World”, which premiered Dec 20,1963 at the Carlton Cinema. But this was no longer the three projector system. It was a new single projector 70mm Cinerama format (in reality anamorphic Ultra Panavision 70), which also had a curved screen, but only 120 degrees as opposed to Cinerama’s 146 degrees. This was followed by the single projector Super Panavision 70mm spherical lens process, which commenced with showings of “Grand Prix” in 1966. The last film presented under the Cinerama logo in Canada was “The Song of Norway (1970) http://www.in70mm.com/library/70mm_in/canada/index.htm
Also in Mr. Taylor’s description of the University Theatre he says the following.
“In 1962, the film Ben Hur played at the University. Because of the movies I saw in the theatre, in my mind, Charlton Heston was forever the towering hero-Moses or Judah Ben Hur. In 1962, I also saw Lawrence of Arabia, a lengthy film that almost gave me camel sores. Fortunately, the plush maroon theatre seats compensated, as they were soft and comfortable. However, the desert scenes dehydrated me, and at intermission, I gulped two containers of Vernor’s Ginger Ale” (p 110-111)
Well, I know this to be categorically incorrect because in high school I worked every weekend at the University (and fulltime in the summer) from 1962-1964.
Before I started working there, “Ben Hur” played at the University from Dec 23, 1959 to May 5, 1961. It won 11 Academy awards on April 4 1960. It did not play at the University in 1962. Nor did Lawrence of Arabia ever play at the University. That played exclusively at the Carlton Cinema from Jan 31,1963 to July3,1963. The only 70mm roadshow film to play at the University in 1962 was “Mutiny on the Bounty”, followed by “Cleopatra” in 1963. I know. I was there.
I’m afraid the only thing the authour got right in that paragraph was the fact that we served Vernor’s Ginger Ale instead of the usual Canada Dry.
There are other errors that could have been resolved by more careful proofreading. For example, in referring to Shea’s Hippodrome on page 38 he says
“ In 1957, as the attendance at theatres began to lag, they demolished the great theatre.”
But on the previous page (37) there is a photo of the intact theatre, and the caption reads:
“The Shea’s Hippodrome, view looking northward on Bay, in 1959”. The author also states on page 35 that:
“On the evening the Hippodrome opened, the feature film was” Run for Cover, starring James Cagney”.
As the Hippodrome, which originated as a Vaudeville house,but later started showing films, this of course is patently impossible as “Run For Cover” was released in 1955. So (presumably) what the author was indicting is that this was the closing film at the Hippodrome.
On page 77 he quotes Mae West as follows:
“When I’m good I’m good, but when I’m bad I’m really good.”(sic)
Whew. Poor Mae. The actual quote is:
“When I’m good, I’m very good, but when I’m bad, I’m better. ”
There are other areas, while not technically incorrect, that are nonetheless misleading.
For example, on Page 17, he talks about the Auditorium Theatre, which was renovated in 1913 and then called The Avenue Theatre. And then he says:
“ The theatre was renamed the Pickford in 1915 in honour of Mary Pickford. Born in Toronto, by 1915 she had become a rising star on the Hollywood scene.”
In 1915, she was hardly a rising star; she was already a world-wide phenomenon.
“In 1916, Pickford signed a new contract with Zukor that granted her full authority over production of the films in which she starred, and a record-breaking salary of $10,000 a week.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Pickford (or any Pickford biography).
$10,000 a week in 1916 dollars would be the equivalent of $223,620.00 a week now. Only Charlie Chaplin made more money at the time, (and not that much more).
There are more factual errors and debatable premises but I will leave those for now and turn my attention to the author’s style.
On page 11, describing Saturday afternoon matinee’s of his youth he writes:
“It was unlike any other event in the week, akin to a hallowed ritual. Through the magic of movies, I was exposed to faraway, exotic worlds, as well heroes of the past, superheroes of the present and space adventurers of the future. Cowboys, crime-stoppers, criminals and pirates all raced across the screen”.
I find this to be an example of the very uninspired, cliché-ridden writing that unfortunately permeates the book.
The author is also prone to digressions. For example on page 21:
“In the 1940’s,The Ace on Queen Street was owned by Sam Ulster, who also owned The Broadway on Queen St and The Rio on Yonge St. He was also the owner of the Town and Country restaurant on Mutual Street. I remember this eatery very well. It was famous for it’s buffet, which featured roast beef and lobster. Its main rival on the 1940’s was the Savarin Tavern on Bay Street… In the 1940’s, to the west of the theatre was a restaurant named Bowles lunch, the space later occupied by Scotts Chicken Villa.”
And in referring to the Tivoli on page 38, he states:
“ During the years of silent films, Luigi’s Romanelli’s orchestral (sic) often provided the music at the theatre. He also performed at the King Edward hotel and throughout the years played 27 organ concerts in Varsity Arena, the city’s main sports arena at that time”.
These digressions, and there are others like them, are irrelevant and tedious in a book about the history of Toronto theatres.
Which brings up the central question about this book. What kind of book is this exactly? Is it a history of Toronto’s Theatres?, or is it a personal memoir? The problem is that it can’t make up its mind and is trying to be both at the same time, and it simply doesn’t work.
That is not to say that there isn’t much interesting and useful information to be found here. On page 15, he talks about the first projected screening in Toronto having taken place August 31,1896 at the Robinson Musee located at Yonge and Adelaide.
That was new information to me, and Lord, oh, Lord I wish he had listed a reference for that. It took a while, but I eventually tracked it down as coming from the Toronto Historical Board.
And that’s the biggest problem with this book. There is no bibliography whatsoever, no index, no source notes, nor any footnotes.
Am I being too hard here? I don’t think so. To date, there is only one other book on the history of Toronto Film Theatres, called “The Nabes” by John Sebert, published in 2001. So “Toronto Theatres in the Golden Age of the Silver Screen” will undoubtedly be consulted as an additional historical reference.
In the flyleaf on p.154, the author’s bio states:
“Doug Taylor has researched, studied and taught the history of Toronto for several decades. This is his seventh book that employs his native city as the background for his writing. Having taught history at the high school level, Doug was a member of the faculty of Lakeshore Teachers' College (York University) and the Ontario Teacher Education College”
And this book is published by The Historical Press in South Carolina.
So I hold the author (and the publisher) to a higher professional standard than I would a casual volume of reminiscences . The most worrisome part is that because of the errors that I have easily discovered, it has unfortunately created uncertainty about other facts in the book. Can I trust them? I want to, I really do; but I’m not sure I can. The seeds of doubt have been firmly planted, and that is a shame.
It is my sincerest wish that these and any other errors in this book can be rectified in future editions, and source notes for factual information supplied.
Then it would be a truly useful volume.
A note on pagination: I read this book in an on-line copy borrowed from the Toronto Public Library and it is 154 pages long. The hard copy print version is listed as being 160 pages. So there may be a slight discrepancy with the print version pagination.