Motion Picture Herald (Jul-Sep 1931)

September 26, 1931 Motion Picture Herald 21 the requirements of the law, to provide for the structural security of the building, and to supervise the actual construction. To date these have been his chief responsibilities. He cannot claim any unusual responsibility for the general planning and sight-line disposition of the theatre structure, because he is merely imitating his predecessors along these lines. He has kept away from anything that has the earmarks of being scientific or mechanical, as being irrelevant to his work. The Society of Motion Picture Engineers recently testified to this wide gulf between architectural and engineering phases of the theatre structure, since it has begun an attempt to bring about a closer relationship. Reports of this society show that it has found the theatres built to date to be poorly planned from a standpoint of projection, acoustics, illumination and optics — and that's everything. These considerations are not as technical as some may think. They are the very architecture ■ of the theatre more than anything else. The average theatre of today has no architecture of its own — it is almost a museum holding poor imitations of good old classical forms, and these, alas, are hardly ever seen because of the lack of light ! Now the problem remains as to how the different functions of the theatre structure are to be coordinated into a unit of mechanical efficiency, offering the comforts and emotional effects that the theatre patron is sure to appreciate. The architect is best fitted for this job because his training and experience teaches him to compose the many parts into a workable whole, whereas the engineer, important as he may be, has his mind always focused on details. Then again it must be remembered that there are several engineers needed for one job, while in most cases only one architect is needed. The architect must equip himself with a fairly good knowledge of the work of the various engineers, and the engineers should also have an idea of the essential architectural problem. The practice has been in the past for the architect and engineer to develop their respective parts of the work without any close relationship. One always seemed to be in the way of the other in their accomplishments. This might easily account for much of the faults of theatre design. The correct process of design would be for the architect to gather together all the engineering data with the help of appointed engineers, then to proceed to work his preliminary scheme around such information, instead of designing the building and then calling in the engineer to find some place for his work, somehow or other, without destroying the architectural scheme. The author . architect v» brought forth floor incline To this end, the theatre builder must realize that the architect must be supplied with certain assistance from various engineers, starting with the preliminary plans of a project, and that the architect is not in a position to pay for such services from the fee he receives. To obtain these services gratis from the various material and equipment companies is a great mistake, because such engineers must always make rcommendations that for obvious reasons are not necessarily for the general good of the job. More thought must now be given to such engineering services, as electrical, air conditioning, acoustical, projection and seating. The last mentioned should be handled by the architect in a much more scientific manner than it has been to date. The idea of buying seats as one would just so much furniture, after the theatre is completed, is one of the outstanding sore spots of present day theatres, when one considers what an integral part of a theatre the seating happens to be — in comfort, in acoustics, but especially in the visual effect of the picture. SOME THEATRE builders may think that to pay certain engineers' fees, plus an architect's fee, might bring the cost of professional services too high. That is only because these costs are immediate costs that do not show their value until the finish of a project, and in some cases, later. When one realizes that the average life of a theatre building should be at least 15 years, one realizes the importance of the proper planning, mechanically as well as architecturally, so as to deter the approach of that time when the theatre may be regarded as obsolete. Probably the near future will bring a more practical solution as to how best to obtain the needed professional ' services. Several possible scherhes present themselves, yet each one may be subject to the peculiar aspects of a particular job. The small theatre in the small town presents a different problem from that of the deluxe house in the cities. Certain standardizations in design should help a great deal, much help toward which may presently be forthcoming from the new interests of the Society of Motion Picture Engineers. Following are three plans that may prove successful as a means of providing professional services : . . New York h o recently the reversed for theatres. 1. The employment of an architect and consulting engineers. 2. The employment of an architect so highly equipped in every phase of theatre design as to include all engineering services within his architectural service. 3. The use of a bureau of theatre planning consisting of architects, engineers, etc., to work in conjunction with a local architect. The first plan might prove somewhat more costly than the second or third, and might also always be subject to friction due to the numbers of interested parties. This plan is probably not suited to the small town theatre, where cost is a very important item, but on the other hand it should be adaptable for the planning of many types of large theatre projects. The second plan is a highly desirable one in most instances. Although some architects may claim to have such an organization, there is yet to be seen the results forthcoming from such a service. Unless such an architect had considerable work at all times, could he afford to maintain such a staff with the fee that is given architects for services? This plan may materialize if the theatre builder becomes educated to pay a sufficiently high fee for such service. The third plan is an interesting one and seems to be particularly adaptable to the small theatre job, in which standardization is an important factor. Such a bureau could be responsible for the planning, and a local architect could carry out such plans with great ease and at a small cost to the builder, partly because of the long-run savings due to expert planning. When one considers all the money that is now spent on unnecessary ornamental plaster, draperies, costly decorative painting and waseful structural portions that only hasten the obsolescence of the theatre, one wonders why it is such a difficult task to convince the theatre builder of the importance of highly expert professional service. This is no time to try to place blame on anyone, but it is time that all concerned in theatre building started to give full consideration to the complex demands of the truly modern motion picture theatre and what they require in precise, coordinated knowledge from many technical branches.