Los Angeles Theatre

615 S. Broadway,
Los Angeles, CA 90014

Unfavorite 71 people favorited this theater

Showing 151 - 175 of 295 comments

kencmcintyre
kencmcintyre on August 3, 2007 at 11:03 pm

Here is an early photo of the Los Angeles from the LAPL. Date is 1932:
http://jpg2.lapl.org/pics30/00049663.jpg

kencmcintyre
kencmcintyre on July 18, 2007 at 12:07 am

There was a cyclone fence across the front of the theater today. No one was around, so I couldn’t ask what was going on.

rroudebush
rroudebush on July 12, 2007 at 9:48 pm

Brady is on over twenty councils, committees and commission for downtown redevelopment, and I know for a fact that he has a very special love for the Los Angeles Theater.

Brady is the one who took down Mike Davis and his book “The Ecology of Fear.” Don’t mess with Brady!

rroudebush
rroudebush on July 12, 2007 at 9:21 pm

Hmmm… Well, that must be the guy then, and Brady Westwater is a good friend of his (Brady was at the party, too). And, believe me, if there is anybody you want standing up for the Los Angeles Theater, it’s Brady Westwater. That theater would be compromised over his dead body.

rfwebber
rfwebber on July 12, 2007 at 7:56 pm

From Brady Westwater’s blog, entry dated June 22, 2007: “The State, the Palace, the Tower and the Los Angeles theaters, owned by Michael Delijani, are currently used for filming, live events and the Last Available Seats movie series.” (Of course he means “Last Remaining Seats”.)

rroudebush
rroudebush on July 12, 2007 at 7:37 pm

I met the owner of the Palace Theater at a party after the opera we did there (a very young man whose name I’ve forgotten). He also owns the restaurant where the party was, which had wonderful photos on the walls of the Palace Theater in its original vaudeville state). He said he had just bought a much smaller theater downtown as well, but I don’t think he owns the Los Angeles Theater.

If you contact Brady Westwater at http://lacowboy.blogspot.com/

I’m sure he could tell you the owner(s) of the Los Angeles Theater.

(I wish it were the guy who owns the Palace – like I said, a young guy who seems to have unlimited funds – he treated the entire cast to drinks and dinner at his restaurant – and a great appreciation for the history of the theaters on Broadway.)

rfwebber
rfwebber on July 12, 2007 at 7:07 pm

Actually, the property behind the theater on Hill Street, the William Fox Building, is owned by the same people who own the theater. They acquired the Fox Bldg. in the 80’s for conversion to a jewelry mart and the theater came with the deal. The two buildings were built at the same time and have always constituted a single parcel of land. The theater building extends nearly 2/3rds of the way to Hill Street, thus allowing it to be oriented perpendicular to the street, in contrast to the other large theaters on Broadway. At first the owners were reportedly considering breaking through the back wall of the theater stage and extending the jewelry mart into the theater! Fortunately that never happened and the owners have come to recognize its value as a theater. (In fact, I believe they have also acquired the Palace and the State. Can anyone confirm this?)

rroudebush
rroudebush on July 12, 2007 at 3:54 pm

There is actually lots of parking at the Pershing Square underground lot, which is only a block away from the theater. At the opera production I was in, mentioned above, a discount rate was negotiated with this parking facility for people with a validated ticket. It worked beautifully.

But the Los Angeles does have a shallow stage and limited backstage facilities, which compromise it for live productions. If some enterprising person would buy the property in back of it, the backstage area could be completely redone.

rfwebber
rfwebber on July 12, 2007 at 1:04 am

The L.A. is more likely to be used these days as a movie and TV location (e.g. the recent Tony Bennett TV taping). As for its use as a first run movie theater, the problem is that a 2000-seat, single-screen house is a near financial impossibility in today’s market, regardless of location. Some people have been exploring its use as a live venue, but there are problems. One is difficult backstage access (for sets, etc.). Another is the lack of sufficient nearby parking.

kencmcintyre
kencmcintyre on July 11, 2007 at 9:42 pm

Everybody stands in line once a year for the last remaining seats show. Other than private parties, that’s about it. But, as we’ve said on some of the other pages, is there enough demand to keep a first run theater going in DTLA? I guess the Staples people will find out when they open up their multiplex in a few years. There will be an increased need for entertainment if the downtown population continues to multiply.

kencmcintyre
kencmcintyre on July 11, 2007 at 9:27 pm

There is going to be some fight if they ever try to bulldoze this. At least I hope there will be a fight.

rfwebber
rfwebber on May 31, 2007 at 4:04 pm

You’re right. My apologies.

William
William on May 31, 2007 at 3:49 pm

In the above comment you stated “When Dr. Scott first acquired the State”, you mean the United Artists theatre right.

rfwebber
rfwebber on May 31, 2007 at 3:11 pm

The State is leased to a Hispanic church, which doesn’t want it to be used for other anything else, period. The situation at the UA is more interesting. That theatre is owned by the Gene Scott ministries. When Dr. Scott first acquired the State he not only spent a lot of money restoring it but seemed to be open to the idea of it being used for other purposes when not needed for church services (Sunday mornings), much like the old Ambassador Auditorium in Pasadena. In fact, Last Remaining Seats had a couple of screenings at the theatre with his blessing and he allowed the Conservancy’s Saturday morning tours in there on a regular basis. However, one always felt that he was a little nervous about having “strangers” in his building. His church attendees were carefully screened (you couldn’t attend services without making a reservation in advance) and when the Conservancy tour groups came in they were always accompanied by one or more church security people and closely watched throughout their visit. So at a certain point he informed the Conservancy that no more LRS or other outside events would be permitted at the theatre. The tours continued, however, until 9/11, at which point his apparent nervousness about possible “terrorist” plots prompted him to terminate those as well. Dr. Scott died recently and the church is now in the hands of his widow, who seems even less inclined to allow outside groups in. (“This is a church, not a tourist attraction!”) So it appears that the beautifully restored UA will, for the foreseeable future, be off-limits to anyone except the church parishioners.

shatter
shatter on May 31, 2007 at 1:31 pm

<<They’ve been approached, but no dice. (Same situation at the United Artists.) posted by Richard W on May 12, 2007 at 10:50am >>

I would love to see films at these locations as well. Just out of curiosity, Richard W, can you divulge what their rationale is? You’d think the owners would be interested in maintaining the public’s interest (as well as pocketing the dough they’d receive for something like this) in these landmarks, not shun the curious.

shatter
shatter on May 31, 2007 at 1:20 pm

I was there last night to view “Roman Holiday” as part of the Last Remaining Seats series. I had never been to the theater and wow — I agree with all the above comments. I’ve never seen such detail, such craftsmanship in a theater. The three levels of seating, the enormous rooms downstairs that weren’t even utilized (the ones separating the bathrooms; the “lounge”, what looked like a kitchen). What a labyrinth. Security wasn’t tight and we were tempted to sneak up the various stairwells but decided not to. An amazing place. I hope they replace the worn carpet and continue the restoration. Wouldn’t it be great to see movies here again all the time? The audience sure appreciated it.

kencmcintyre
kencmcintyre on May 26, 2007 at 4:16 pm

An article in today’s LA Times discussed a proposal to turn Broadway between 2nd and 9th into a pedestrian mall with a busway. This had been proposed in 1977, but nothing came of it. The general manager of the Los Angeles theater was quoted favorably on the issue. I recall that this was done on Chestnut Street in the 80s with limited success. I think that street is once again open to traffic.

kencmcintyre
kencmcintyre on May 18, 2007 at 4:54 pm

Here is a circa 1940s photo from the USC archive:
http://tinyurl.com/2xxzog

kencmcintyre
kencmcintyre on May 14, 2007 at 1:39 pm

The Culver is across the street from the old MGM studio.

rroudebush
rroudebush on May 14, 2007 at 12:31 pm

The “old drive-in in Culver City” mentioned above was the Studio Drive-In where Jefferson and Sepulveda come together. Unfortunately, it has been demolished. A housing project is on the site.

I was in downtown Culver City yesterday and saw that the Old Culver Theater, a wonderful old Art Deco movie house, has been turned into the Kirk Douglas Theater, a legitimate theater. It’s near the Culver Hotel, where the Munchkins were put up during the filming of Wizard of Oz – it’s the tallest building in town. You can’t miss it.

rfwebber
rfwebber on May 12, 2007 at 3:50 pm

They’ve been approached, but no dice. (Same situation at the United Artists.) I’m quite sure that the theatre is still equipped to show movies. The Million Dollar has been off-limits because of a hazard from loose ceiling plaster caused by the last earthquake.

kencmcintyre
kencmcintyre on May 11, 2007 at 10:17 pm

I will bet that if you offer the Iglesia people at the State some amount of money, they will set up a big movie screen on the stage, assuming the old one is not there anymore. I would pay to see a movie there, or in the Million Dollar.

rfwebber
rfwebber on May 11, 2007 at 10:02 pm

I agree. The first LRS, 20 years ago, was intended to be a one-time event which would spotlight a number of the old, neglected theatres on Broadway and attempt to recreate the early movie palace experience. Little did those of us involved in planning that first series know that it would take off and become the blockbuster (and major money-maker for the Conservancy) that it is today. In the early years, the Los Angeles and the Orpheum were used, of course, but also, the State, the United Artists, the Million Dollar and the Palace downtown and theatres in other parts of town, such as the Westlake, the Wiltern, the South Pasadena Rialto and even an old drive-in in Culver City. For various reasons, including the unavailabilty of some of these venues, size requirements and probably some political and sponsorship considerations, the current planners seem to have moved away from the original intent; spotlighting lesser-known and neglected theatres seems to be no longer the main thrust. (The Alex is hardly neglected and why the Ford was chosen truly mystifies me — probably for political reasons!)

kencmcintyre
kencmcintyre on May 11, 2007 at 6:05 pm

I always appreciate the program, so I don’t want to appear to be grousing. However, it seems like the theater rotation was better when I started attending a decade ago. I suppose it’s not possible to screen films in some of the other Broadway theaters, like the State for example, but I’m not too motivated to see a movie at the Ford that I can watch on AMC. The idea is to see the movies in the original settings. Just an opinion.