SCREEN-L Archives

January 1999, Week 1


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
"Ressel, David Lee" <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 31 Dec 1998 12:32:01 -0500
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (97 lines)
Anent the Cinerama preservation posting:

I am not sure if the this forum is the correct venue for this, however,
w/ the preservation of film a continuing goal, there may be some

I must admit  that I was unaware of Pacific Theatre's efforts to
restructure the famous Cinerama Theatre.  In the interest of historical
preservation, I am grateful that this unique venue remains intact
despite the lack of Cinerama product.  Also, as a viewer, it is great to
still have large screens available.

But, I can't help think that the rights of Pacific Theatre have been
abridged. If they are barred from using their property in a manner they
see fit to maximize their profits, is that not an impediment to their
ability to keep  the building open at all, not to mention their property
rights.  It would seem unfair to force them to bow to eminent domain,
for  art for art's sake.

Can there be some way to compensate rights holders whose options are
limited, so societal interests of preservation can be fulfilled?  Maybe
this is less needed w/ film preservation, where marketing to new media
outlets might give a profit motive. For example, I can assume there can
me some valuation advantage to a designation of "historical
significance."   This certainly works for video sales (the AFI list

Very truly yours,


N.B. In the interest of full disclosure, although I briefly worked for a
company that represented Pacific Theatres at one time,  I have never had
any financial interest in their affairs.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Horak, Chris [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 1998 2:13 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Cinerama Dome Update
> For those of you wondering what has happened to the Los Angeles
> Cinerama
> Dome Theatre, there is good news.  According to press reports, Pacific
> Theatres has given up its plan to gut the 1960s landmark's interior
> spaces
> and remove the original curved Cinerama screen. Thus ends, according
> to the
> New Times (24-30 Dec)  "one of the unlikeliest L.A. preservation
> struggles
> in recent memory."
> "Michael R. Foreman, the company's chairman, spoke of being `moved by
> the
> passion' of Dome aficionados."  The reality of the situation was a bit
> different. Apparently, the controversy generated so much bad press for
> Pacific Theatres that they could not find retailers to rent space in
> their
> planned expanded shopping mall (One response from a large book store
> chain
> was supposedly laughter). The best the developers could do for a
> "theme"
> restaurant in a converted Dome lobby was a fast food, near bankrupt
> chicken
> franchise.
> In return for leaving the Cinerama Dome untouched, preservationists
> will now
> support Pacific Theatre's plans for a smaller development at the rear
> of the
> property, including film screens, a food court, retail shops, and a
> health
> spa.
> L.A. City Council and the Community Redevelopment Authority still also
> need
> to approve funds for a $20 million parking facility.
> A big thank you goes to Hollywood Heritage, the Los Angeles
> Conservancy, and
> The Friends of Cinerama for saving a treasured part of our history. No
> thanks to L.A. City Council, whose members sat on their hands through
> most
> of the fight, while allowing developers to gut L.A.'s already
> pitifully weak
> landmark protection laws.
> Chris Horak
> ----
> Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite

Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama.