Comments from schmadrian

Showing 101 - 125 of 265 comments

schmadrian
schmadrian commented about How many was that again...? on Jan 11, 2008 at 4:00 pm

The definition of ‘movie palace’? Well, I think that’s a poll in itself.

Surely you know one when you see one, yes? The three I visited recently in the NYC area qualify, even if we’re going back to their heyday: Loew’s Jersey, The Stanley and The Zeigfeld. (I’m including this one because of its stairways, the refreshments area, the winding approaches to the auditorium, the ladies' washroom facilities…as well as the size of the auditorium itself…understanding that it was built at the end of the 60s.)

The Century and Tivoli, Palace and Capitol in my home town would have qualified. As would have The Uptown, The University, The Eglinton…and The Elgin in Toronto.

So let’s hear it; what defines a ‘movie palace’?

schmadrian
schmadrian commented about How many was that again...? on Jan 11, 2008 at 3:45 pm

And as an off-branch question, I’d love to know how many true ‘movie palaces’ are still in operation. (As opposed to single-screeners, which I guess could have largish numbers of seats, but also could include ‘nabes’, with under 500).

What a great road-trip that would be, hitting all the extant movie palaces!

schmadrian
schmadrian commented about Stanley Theatre on Jan 10, 2008 at 1:25 pm

To me it’s pretty simple. Kudos to Jehovah’s Witnesses for restoring the building. (And I really, really want to make clear here that none of what I’ve expressed has ANYTHING to do with religion. My religious views are entirely separate from the issue at hand.) The efforts, once you’ve seen the Before and After photos, and viewed the building, are staggering. (My previous experience in this regard is the Elgin/Winter Garden complex in Toronto. Google it, go to the site, see something similar.) There is no question that they’ve done a truly exemplary job. (I don’t even take issue with the painted-over murals or the ‘serpents heads’ on the lit exit signs that were changed to roses.) What I take issue with is…

Well, I’ll leave it to a friend of mine with whom I shared all of this to express (in no uncertain terms) the hard-line viewpoint: he saw it as pure opportunism.

They now have an incredible facility in which to worship. One that, in our tour guide’s own words, is diametrically opposed to the standard for Kingdom Halls, which is one of simplicity. If you take a look at the photos I have in the Picasa album, you can imagine how glorified their worship must be to them, while they’re there. It’s magnificent.

However… This building is (after the admitted work that was done by the JWs) a glorification of entertainment. You can’t eradicate that; the place was built to enhance the experience of movie-going, period. And in taking over The Stanley, they’ve transferred this glorification to that of their god. Which is fine. But to me, there is something decidedly distasteful about not ‘rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.’

This has nothing to do with the endless comments about the faith, made by the tour guide…but here’s the thing: I’m willing to bet that almost all the tours cater to movie palace lovers. (Jehovah’s WItnesses can access the facility during services.) So doesn’t common courtesy, doesn’t manners, doesn’t respect indicate an approach a little more informed than entirely ignoring the heritage that made it possible to have this wondrous opportunity laid before them?

What I’m railing against smacks of insensitivity, it smacks of intolerance. Two issues the Jehovah’s Witnesses have been combating for decades, since its inception. I’m not expecting them to continue showing films once a month to placate the filmgoers amongst us. (Although it makes me sad that no film will ever be seen there again.) But I would expect anyone who has taken over stewardship of such a building, who has taken the opportunity to restore it for their own purposes, to show respect to the traditions and history that made it all possible in the first place. Something, ANYTHING would have been better than the unadulterated silence that they proffered regarding why that building was there in the first place.

If we don’t have time or inclination in today’s world for respect…then we’re truly lost.

schmadrian
schmadrian commented about Loew's Jersey Theatre on Jan 10, 2008 at 12:19 pm

When designing my recent NYC visit, I most wanted to see the Loew’s. I get the weekly newsletter and I’m always sad that I can’t volunteer there.

I got my first view of the theatre from across the street…and I was all smiles for the next hour or so…even through our journey back to NYC.

We were greeted at the door by Patty, whom I had spoken to on the phone that morning. She was incredibly gracious with her time, with her enthusiasm in answering question, everything. (In fact, after chatting for about half an hour on the stage…with two young volunteers happily racing about, and joined by a co-worker of hers, I was the one who cut the chat short, as I was mindful of taking up too much time.) We even got a primer about local politics, both current and that of the early 20th century.

What an amazing building. So much has been done already, and it’s got such character, such personality…even those elements that are crying out for restoration.

I won’t hold forth on a polemic regarding the duty Jersery City (and its citizens) have in allowing The Friends of The Jersey to get on with their stewardship…but I will say that my heart was full in leaving the building, and my hopes go out to everyone involved that this movie palace is allowed to be restored to its former glory, taking its place once again in the lives of all who are fortunate to take part in its entertainments.

Bravo to Patty and everyone involved in the ongoing efforts.

I have put up a Picasa photo album of our visit; please email me for the link.

schmadrian
schmadrian commented about Stanley Theatre on Jan 10, 2008 at 12:06 pm

trying to get rid of the ringing in my ears from so many capitals and exclamation marks in joannie’s message…

1) I have EVERY right to ‘criticize’. Just as you have every right to ‘yell’ and reveal your true nature. (‘nuff said.)

2) It’s their property…I was given a tour…I found the presentation distasteful, disrespectful…

3) I reject your admonition that unless I ‘have something good to say, say nothing at all’. What are you, a primary school teacher? This is a message board. Where discussion and discourse take place. Ironic that I could throw your little advice back at the JWs and say ‘Just let people wander on their own and respect the impetus behind their visit.’

4) Would love to, and intend to, if the opportunity arises.

Thanks for your (loud) input.

The Picasa album is now available to any and all who want to take a peek at the photos of this outstanding restoration. Email me.

schmadrian
schmadrian commented about Stanley Theatre on Jan 10, 2008 at 11:17 am

Warren:

Go back and read what I’ve said.

There’s nothing in there negative about the efforts made. Or reducing the impressiveness of the exquisite results. The fact that this building was saved is fantastic. (I take issue with the notion that the movie industry ‘abandoned’ the Stanley; movie-going habits of the paying public effected that situation.)

I feel I have to declare, to re-define my status as someone who loves cinema treasures. My hometown had two Thomas Lamb theatres a block apart. One was razed, the other is now a bar. One evening in the late 80s had me attending the closing of two other movie palaces. One now is only an auditorium, the other has stood vacant since then…with talk of it being converted into a condo complex. Each and every time a palace is torn down, I hurt. Every time I read of one slated for demolition, my heart aches. I love cinema treasures.

In fact… The way I’m constantly explaining it is that to me, great movie houses are ‘cathedrals of film’. They’re where those who hold film in esteem, go to worship.

If I owned offices that were housed in a reclaimed cinema, and I held tours, you better believe that I’d show respect to the heritage of the building and ensure that alongside explaining what was done to bring the premises back to life, I’d relay information and insight in this regard. It’s common sense, it’s good manners…it’s plain and simple respect.

In fact, that’s what all of this comes down to. A matter of respect.

I applaud the Jehovah’s Witnesses of Jersey City for restoring The Stanley to its former glory. They did a fine job. And now I’d suggest that they show respect (something they’ve been fighting for in the US courts for some fifty years on many fronts) for the edifice that allows them such a heightened sense of worship and acknowledge the building’s heritage in their tours…and establish a small enclave within the Stanley where film aficionados can witness some of this history. To have no representation on-site is at the very least perplexing, and at the worst, wholly lacking in respect.

schmadrian
schmadrian commented about Stanley Theatre on Jan 10, 2008 at 8:38 am

Here’s a great indicator: before she took us into the building-proper, she showed us the map of the world illustrating with coloured push-pins where the regional offices of the Jehovah’s Witnesses are (!!!), she asked how we found out about the Stanley. I replied ‘Cinema Treasures’. She gazed back at me with the blankest face imaginable…and continued with her JW PR presentation pre-tour. It was then that I realized the tenor of our visit. And it was then that this very uneasy feeling in the pit of my gut began to gurgle.

schmadrian
schmadrian commented about Stanley Theatre on Jan 10, 2008 at 8:24 am

It could very well have been that we had a tour guide who, over the two years she’s been doing the tours, had developed her own personal habit of not having anything to do with the Stanley’s past. (When she took us to the cafeteria…then the adjoining auditorium…each seating 700, each with sizable wall-mounted Sonys…I thought to myself ‘You MUST be joking! What makes you think that we’re interested in an office-like place that was built where a parking garage used to be?!? We’re here to see what this movie palace looks like now, restored, not more proof of your religious practices!’) Last night, speaking with my NYC host, I said “I’d like to go back and repeat the tour, only have with me all manner of documents and photos of the Stanley when it was in its heyday, providing for them what they so very much neglect.”

It’s not the Jehovah’s Witnesses' responsibility to be cinematic historians. But it is their responsibility in a purely ‘good manners and showing respect’ sense that they at least address the heritage of this building they take such delight in worshiping in. But they don’t. (At least that was MY impression after MY tour.) And maybe it’s hard for readers to appreciate what my reaction was/is like, to understand how much a smack in the face it is to have NOTHING offered in terms of the other half of the motivation of why ANY movie palace aficionado would take the tour…and instead, be insulted by the obvious neglect in reference. The tour did a number on my head and clearly, I’m still trying to sort out my reaction. No apologies are offered here by me for how this doesn’t sit well with Cinema Treasure members. I remain Mr Conflicted.

schmadrian
schmadrian commented about Loew's Jersey Theatre on Jan 9, 2008 at 9:26 pm

In preparation for a post about a recent visit to the Loew’s, I happened to find this article in a search…which is ironic, given the previously mentioned reportage about development plans:

http://tinyurl.com/2n9uel

The publication date is listed as October 14, 1984.

schmadrian
schmadrian commented about Stanley Theatre on Jan 9, 2008 at 9:00 pm

“95% of the nation’s historic moviehouses are closed, mostly demolished or gutted.”

And this is exactly why I’ve felt conflicted.

I would have thought I’d have been overjoyed it was there. I wasn’t. Not the way I saw it. In fact, its occurred to me that considering their approach, they shouldn’t be doing tours. At least not as a former movie palace.

schmadrian
schmadrian commented about Stanley Theatre on Jan 9, 2008 at 8:32 pm

Well, let me add this: I have nothing against, I have no problem with a palace being used as a church. What I take issue with is the entire whitewashing of the heritage of the building. It’s as if it’s incidental that it ever was a cinema.

The more I ponder my tour, the more I tend to lean towards the descriptive ‘disrespectful’. That might seem harsh to some…but as I say, this entire interlude has thrown me for a loop…as it has for anyone who loves cinemas whom I’ve shared my experience with.

schmadrian
schmadrian commented about Stanley Theatre on Jan 9, 2008 at 8:06 pm

Understanding that what I’m about to say might not sit well with some people, I want to preface my comments by noting that my opinion wasn’t something formed on the spur of the moment, nor in isolation.

During my recent trip to the New York City area, I took in a tour of the Stanley with my host. When we’d left the building and had crossed the street more than an hour later, I stopped and looked at her and said ‘I can’t believe how utterly conflicted I feel.’

Let me flash-forward a bit and throw this analogy at you: If you were dumped by the love of your life, which do you suppose you’d prefer? Never seeing them again…or watching them take up with someone new?

First things first: the restoration was a labour of love. The effort that went into it was immeasurable, very reminiscent of what was accomplished in Toronto at the Elgin/Winter Garden. Except most/all of the work done at the Stanley was performed by volunteers. It is an exquisite facility now, something that only an in-person visit can do justice to. (However, I will be putting together a Picasa album this week; anyone interested in the link can email me at adrian-at-olorinfilms.com )

Having said this, I am still, several days later, trying to sort out my feelings about this once-showpiece now being a place of worship.

A place of worship lovingly brought to life…but recognizing, acknowledging nothing of its previous history. Not once on the tour was there any mention of the decades of movie-going that had made it possible for it to have been re-born as a Kingdom Hall. Three times I asked our tour guide, in three entirely different ways, how they reconciled its heritage with its present use…and three times my query was brushed off, responded to instead with a reminder of how much work went into the reclamation, how amazing the effort was.

The final wound for me occurred when we’d watched the 15 minute DVD presentation from the front row, and we stood up, and I turned and looked back up to the balcony, up above this vast expanse…and heard the guide say that ‘Yes, that’s where the projection booth used to be…we converted it to apartments.’

I shook my head and thought ‘You couldn’t even make a concession there, and have a small museum for the undoubtedly vast heritage of one of the area’s cinematic landmarks?!?’

So here’s the deal: in the Stanley, we have a sumptuous restoration of a movie palace…where there’s no evidence of anything cinematic. Honestly? Being there broke my heart. No matter how beautiful it was.

Which brings me back to trying to sort out my conflictedness about the Stanley. I’ve been trying to come up with other analogies, trying to test my reaction to this bizarre situation. One is ‘Imagine your favourite, storied baseball stadium, lovingly restored to its former glory…only now, it’s a huge flea market.’ Or how about this one: ‘It’s like a cathedral, war-torn and bombed-out, brought back to life…as a strip joint.’ (Admittedly, this second one might be a little argumentative…so imagine a bar, the greatest bar imaginable…restored by a church group for their services…only there’s NEVER any acknowledgement of its heritage.)

During the tour, much was made of the efforts of the volunteers. But really, considering the end result, I was, and still am, inclined to believe the restoration was less about the theatre than it was about their god. And I’ll be blunt; considering how the list of extant palaces shrinks every year, I felt a little nauseated upon leaving the Stanley. I felt a little sickened by the punchline, that yes, a palace had been saved from demolition…but really, how satisfying can this be, given the circumstances?

So; would you prefer to never see that love-of-your-life again…or could you live with seeing them with someone else? I’m still sorting out my answer.

schmadrian
schmadrian commented about Survey reveals new factors in moviegoing decline on Aug 19, 2007 at 7:43 am

LMFAO!

I’ll say one thing for you, TB1: you surely reflect your age group.

schmadrian
schmadrian commented about Survey reveals new factors in moviegoing decline on Aug 18, 2007 at 4:10 am

TheaterBuff1:

1) Thanks for allowing me a few good, early-morning laughs. Nothing like a chortle to start the day.

2) I discovered elsewhere on this site a better idea of your age; this explains a lot. Just about everything, in fact.

3) What do you actually know about my stance on anything, espectially cinemas?

4) What on earth are you going on about with all this ‘truth’ hokum?

5) Clearly, an increase in your meds is indicated.

schmadrian
schmadrian commented about Survey reveals new factors in moviegoing decline on Aug 16, 2007 at 4:37 am

Oh, God… I’ve just gone and perused the earlier potions of this thread… Now I remember you. I referred this topic to friends and they laughed their gluteus maximi off.

Seriously; are you SURE you’re not living in the 50s?

“At this late stage, we continue to think of movie theaters strictly as businesses, forgetting that they’re also major artistic outlets, in that movies have long come of age as an art form.”

Um, that’s right. Movie theatres ARE businesses. End of discussion. As much as I tend to look at them as ‘cathedrals’, I’m not so hand-clenched naive as to believe they’re deserving of any ‘protection’ from normal market circumstances. The landscape has changed, it will continue to change, many cinemas will fall by the wayside as art-lovers (read that as ‘movie-lovers’) find more preferred ways to view their ‘art’.

Fact is that the film-showing biz is incredibly arrogant. It’s decided, to a great extent, not to change with the times, to instead say ‘This is what we want to do, how we want to do it.’ It’s mostly been unwilling to adapt. To actually find out what its customers want. It’s preferred to keep its head in the sand.

And for the record, in this discussion, the only ‘backward-minded’ participant surely isn’t me. I’m not the one constantly hearkening back to halcyion days.

schmadrian
schmadrian commented about Survey reveals new factors in moviegoing decline on Aug 15, 2007 at 7:00 am

stares at TheaterBuff1’s comment

keeps staring

tries to head-shake his stare away

schmadrian
schmadrian commented about Closed Circuit Telecasts: Later shown in 35MM format? on Mar 13, 2007 at 4:35 am

No, the Knievel jump was on tv. I watched it.

schmadrian
schmadrian commented about Canadian chain sells theater naming rights on Jan 30, 2007 at 10:18 am

Why should this surprise anyone? SkyDome is now The Rogers Centre. The Montreal Forum is no longer, replaced by The Bell Centre, Maple Leaf Gardens replaced by ‘The Air Canada Centre’. I know that south of the border it’s no different.

We live in an age where the bottom-line is everything. And heritage has little meaning at all.

And the sad thing is that this is only the tip of the iceberg. Wait for it, wait for it…

schmadrian
schmadrian commented about Survey reveals new factors in moviegoing decline on Jan 18, 2007 at 4:38 am

1) Seek advice on meds levels
2) Consider relenquishing your membership in the ‘Blame Society'
3) Remind yourself that we’re not really having a conversation here, and that despite your continued harrisome invectives, I haven’t actually responded to any of your 'accusations’. I would, but I hardly think that this thread on this site is appropriate. Should you want to actually engage me in dialogue, please feel free to email me at olorinfilms_at_gmail.com

schmadrian
schmadrian commented about Survey reveals new factors in moviegoing decline on Jan 17, 2007 at 2:26 am

I feel bad that not only are you unable to listen to what’s being told you, but your cognitive abilities are clearly impaired. My guess is that I was wrong, you’re not a Gen-Xer, you must be a Gen-Y pupplet, over-juiced with an abilitiy to string words together with an admittedly admirable enthusiasm. Are you a recent high school grad?

Have you not done any research into cinema history at all? Come clean; the potential embarrassment of this admission is nothing close to the embarrassment you’re causing yourself with your wild declamations about things of which you are clearly ignorant.

But I do thank you for beng so entertaining in your contributions to this thread. I’ve been able to share your many ‘interesting’ viewpoints with various and sundry elsewhere and it’s a nice change to be shocked by someone’s words and not have epithets involved.

I’m not going to try to point you down the straight-and-narrow regarding ‘my generation’ as you so clearly have your mind made up, firm in your prejudic- I mean, your convictions. Good luck with that intractibility the rest of your life; who knows, maybe it will provide you some comfort on those lonely nights, pining away for what never was.

schmadrian
schmadrian commented about Survey reveals new factors in moviegoing decline on Jan 16, 2007 at 3:23 am

Well, I’m glad I could provide some degree of venting for your generational spew. Sounds like you’ve got a lot of misdirected anger there and I suppose it’s better released here than in an arena involving real-life interaction; sounds like you’ve got enough bile there to make the news in some messy ‘Live from CNN’ way.

Interesting about your age; I would have pegged you for a senior-citizen, blinkered and self-absorbed, prone to going off on rants and diatribes that befit a cloistered existence. But as you’ve given a strong hint as to your age, I guess that points to you being a blinkered and self-absorbed Gen-Xer, still prone to rants and diatribes…only just seasoned differently. (As my friend the observer opined about your blatherings, ‘What’s next, the Christian card?!?’)

Very intriguing that you would choose to assign so quickly all the mistakes of my generation to me personally, not having a clue as to what I may or may not have contributed to said ‘crimes’. And that you have chosen to demonize this demographic, seemingly choosing to ignore everything that led up to the admitted indulgences of the ‘Boomers’, the circumstances that created the beast, instead, taking them so harshly to task for making such a mess of the world. Such a simple approach…one reminiscent of a high school student with far too much belly-gazing time on their hands, an exercise in facile name-calling, chest-puffed in umbrage, in high dudgeon in full-effect, protesting the neighbour’s H3, or lack of proper composting with a solitary mini protest march up and down the driveway, home-made bullhorn in hand.

Rather than get yourself worked up into such a lather with your own quite-bent-out-of-shape rhetoric over the loss of single-screen theatres (and some fascinating turns of logic as to why it’s all unfolded that way; are you sure you’re not some addle-brained pensioner writing Letters to the Editor while your troop of felines bounds over the stacks of rotting newspapers…?), have you ever thought to putting aside your sizable enmity towards ‘those who came before’ and looked at it from economic and sociological viewpoints, rather than your amusing spin on ‘The Reds are coming! The Reds are coming!’? You might want to do a little research in that regard, keeping your vitriol about how badly things were screwed-up in other aspects of the world at bay…you know, dealing with one issue at a time, while keeping the big picture in mind in the background…?

Again, thanks for an amusing start to my day. You’ve reaffirmed my belief not only in the endless variety of people in the world, but in the value of the web, and sites such as this, to provide a forum for those sufficiently-sequestered people clearly unable to follow the bare-bones advice ‘You need to get out more.’

P.S. You go on a lot about ‘truth’ in your posts. Surely you’re familiar with the saying ‘There’s three sides to every story; yours…mine…and The Truth.’

schmadrian
schmadrian commented about Survey reveals new factors in moviegoing decline on Jan 15, 2007 at 4:10 am

The post-WWII era. I’m a boomer. Although not nearly as old a one as you are, I suspect.

: )

And a comment from an outside observer: “I’m absolutely flabbergasted reading that.”

schmadrian
schmadrian commented about Survey reveals new factors in moviegoing decline on Jan 14, 2007 at 6:08 am

OMG.

OMG!

(Can I say that loud enough and repeat it enough?)

I hate to say this…but I actually would like to have coffee with you…just to say I’ve experienced it.

I’d respond to ‘all this’…but frankly, my time’s better spent chasing squirrels to try to pet them.

shivers and the whole display here

Wow.

schmadrian
schmadrian commented about Survey reveals new factors in moviegoing decline on Jan 13, 2007 at 4:14 am

“Furthermore, do you know of many people right now who find Clint Eastwood’s "Letters From Iwo Jima” even mildly offensive? For right there’s your classic tunnel vision if ever there was such, not what I’m putting forth."

Just what are you getting at here?

schmadrian
schmadrian commented about Survey reveals new factors in moviegoing decline on Jan 12, 2007 at 7:01 am

TheaterBuff1: Honestly, I wouldn’t even know where to start in responding to your thoughts. So I’ll just throw out a few of my own that come to mind:

-times have changed and so have people’s wants.

-options. Many, many more of them now.

-one of the hazards of a site like this is the preponderance of ‘romantic nostalgic tunnel-vision’. (I still can’t believe this paragraph: “As for movie theaters having diplomatic immunity so as to rise above the constraints of politics gone amuck, there would have to be certain trade-offs theaters would have to surrender to qualify for this. And number 1 would be NO COMMERCIALS! Add to this, nothing could be shown that could said to be unreasonably racially biased, or violence-instilling without fair justification, and so forth and so on.” You do realize we live in a free-market, capitalist, somewhate-democratic society, yes?

-if single-screeners ever make a come-back, it won’t be for the reasons you suggest (not that I even agree with the reasons you’ve proposed for their demise.)

-I have to ask, because I think it informs your slant: in what era did you grow up?