Motion Picture Herald (Jan-Mar 1932)

February 13, 1932 Motion Picture Herald 15 relation to ideal acoustics, are the paramount factors, in comparison with which all other considerations must be subordinate. Theatre No. 8, as was noted, has a seating capacity of 3,500, dictributed on four levels. In this, it is similar to the plan of the SallePleyel in Paris. That is, the three upper levels of seating consist in shallow balconies— hugging the rear wall of the auditorium, leaving a large uninterrupted space between the facias of the balconies and the proscenium. Three shallow balconies, or mezzanines, as they are called, seat approximately 500 each. The main floor holds the bulk of the seating. The large overhanging balcony, common in most of the larger theatres, has thus been eliminated. This, then, is an important departure from even common good practice in motion picture theatre design finally evolved during the last ten years. Essentially, these shallow upper levels of seating could have many desirable qualities. They form more intimate groups of seating. The pocket underneath the usual large overhanging balcony, acoustically undesirable, is eliminated, and sight on to a higher screen is more readily possible than when the single large overhanging balcony is used. However, the particular disposition of the three upper levels of seating in Theatre No. 8 causes some undesirable conditions. A superfluous height of auditorium caused by the superimposed levels of seating leaves a greater part of the complete height of the auditorium at the screen end, above the top of the point where the screen would have to be. This means that people seated in the upper levels, unless they bend forward to look down at the screen, find themselves staring at a surface which vies in size with the area of the screen itself. This not only would prove a physical discomfort to the patron, but it also has a poor psychological effect in the function of viewing the screen. This fault is not so evident in the case of the stage performance, since there is not such a distinct line of demarcation in the settings that are used for legitimate performances as there is between the light area on the motion picture screen, and also the dark portion immediately above it. The two uppermost levels of seating are, moreover, at a height above the street level which requires an uncomfortable amount of stair climbing. This fact is recognized in the provision of elevators to reach these levels. Elevators, of course, cannot be considered an efficient means of transporting large numbers of people in a theatre, and they also are undesirable psychologically. The excessive projection angle, caused by the necessity of placing the projection room above the top level of seating, results in a distorted effect to the picture on the screen, which cannot be entirely and successfully eliminated by any adjustments to the location of the screen or in the projection machines. The angle of projection in Theatre No. 8 is approximately 26° — an extreme. The general shape of the Theatre No. 8 plan shows a width of auditorium practically equal to the depth, which measures from the proscenium line to the projection room Avail. This resultant main form of the plan has a tendency to make the eye wander from side to side, making it difllicult to concentrate attention restfully toward the screen. A somewhat narrower width and a greater depth would have achieved much better results. There are five banks of seating on the main orchestra floor across the width of the auditorium, the two extreme side backs being in an area from which a rather distorted view of the screen is almost certain, especially if a maximum-sized screen were to be used, as, indeed, is provided in the plan. TN DESIGN, Rockefeller Theatre No. 8, presents nothing to retard the movement toward a revalution of the photoplay theatre. In the designs of some architects during the past year or two — those of S. Charles Lee and B. Marcus Priteca, for example — experiment has been toward the expression of the fantastic in modern abstract forms. Whether this attempt is in the right direction or not, is a controversial matter. The attempt itself, however, can only be admirable, for it does seek a better way, and the Rockefeller Cinema design has apparently been done in the same spirit. There is no evidence of the French psuedo-modernism, nor of the German corruption of Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright. Neither gaudy nor severe, the beauty of the Cinema lies in its simple harmonies, its modernism in its finding a natural beauty in materials themselves. This, if not complete, is assuredly an authentic appreciation of modern resources and of the contemporary spirit, contributed to, as designers and artists for the whole project, by Edward Stone, Paul Manship, Lee Lawrie, Robert Garrison, Rene Chambellin, Edward Trumbull, Hildreth Meiere, Carl Landefeld, George Paully and John Wenrich. Headed by "Roxy," who will direct all of the theatrical and operatic enterprises of Radio Keith Orpheum in Rockefeller City, the Cinema is to present pictures and stage acts in the grand manner sponsored by Rothafel in the New York theatre bearing his nick-name. It remains to be seen, of course, which is to be given emphasis — the stage portion, or the screen portion. And here, I think, is represented the crux of the problem dominating theatre designing today. This article began with it, it ends with it: Is the theatre we are planning to be a motion picture theatre or not? It seems to me that motion picture entertainment today is too specialized to permit of the compromise represented in Rockefeller City's home for this art. Elevation of the main foyer, showing inner wall, with doors to auditorium.