Final Research Paper1

Brooke Helgerson

ARCH 4432; TA: Tom Christian December 16, 2009

Movie Theaters of the 1920’s: Creating Social Change through Advertising Entertainment

The first impression on entering the Roxy is that of agreeable surprise. You are prepared for the unusual. Your expectation is more than realized. Your eyes encounter so much that is out of the ordinary that you find it difficult to center your thoughts on any one feature. The size of the stage and proscenium arch amaze you. No other structure in the world equals their proportions. From this point the theater radiates out fanlike, with a tremendous sweep of balcony at the widest point and a shimmering bronze dome overhead. It is vast. It is amazing in its sheer beauty of design and decoration. A symphony in color. A harmonious blending of luxurious draperies clothing an architectural masterpiece… When you enter its portals you step magically from the drab world of confusion and cares into a fairy palace whose presiding genius entertains you royally with all the fine allurements that art, science and music can offer. That is the spirit of this Cathedral of the Motion Picture. –Ben Hall, The Best Remaining Seats

The picture palace, or ‘Cathedral of the Motion Picture,’ was a new type of movie theater that

came to represent moviegoing in the 1920’s. Palaces popped up all over the country, offering each

audience a similar experience to the one described above. The palaces represented the extravagance of

their times. Their presence confirmed that a new age in moviegoing, where movies were not only

respected but celebrated by millions, had arrived. These theaters played an integral role in elevating

movies to this respectable status. Without them, the movies may have never made it past the

opposition that plagued them in their early years. The picture palaces thus offer a unique viewpoint

from which to view American culture in the 1920’s. In addition to reflecting the variety of cultural,

technological and economical changes of the 1920, picture palaces also changed the ways that society

viewed and responded to movies. Through their architecture, these theaters transformed the motion

picture from a low-class only entertainment into a respectable, enduring amusement for all classes.

1 I would like to begin by saying thank you to everyone who helped me with this paper. My peer review group, TA Tom Christian, and Professor Dr. Rachel Iannacone have given me invaluable advice that has led me to this final product. I appreciate their insight, which has opened me up to new, exciting ideas about the movie theater and its relationship to society.

Helgerson 2

Picture palace architecture coincided with other important social developments. The

implementation of the eight hour workday allowed families more time and money to spend doing

leisure activities.2

To reveal the relationship between theaters and culture, it will be helpful to separate this paper

into two prevalent themes: Theaters and People and Theaters as Advertising. The first section will

examine how movies and their theaters related to the people who attended them. This involves

discussions of class and economy that show the movie theaters’ unique accessibility to all levels of

society. This characteristic at first made the movies quite controversial, an issue that will be examined

through looking at the social opposition to movies of the day. The second section will investigate how

theaters achieved this relationship with society. This will be done first by examining the measures taken

by theaters to counter social opposition and second by assessing the role of their architecture as

advertising for the major movie production companies. This necessitates discussions of both the origins

The affordability of the palaces at this time made them a perfect outlet for this new

desire for entertainment. The magnates of the movie industry used architecture—the facades of their

buildings, their luxurious interiors, upholstery, and lighting—to draw this new demographic into their

theaters. They made the theaters so alluring and accessible that people overcame their misgivings about

movies. They soon could not get enough of them. Theaters responded to the increased hunger for

movies by becoming destinations of fantasy, escape, and equality for all classes of people. The palaces

thus were an integral component of the previously unrealized desire for entertainment. This hunger for

amusement was a phenomenon that had only begun to pervade American in the 1920’s. The trend has

continued into the present day. Thus, the movie theater, once the pariah of pastimes, changed our

culture by causing us to become obsessed with entertainment. The palaces were the first step in a long

line of developments which continue to satiate our need for diversion.

2 Sidney Fine, “The Eight-Hour Day Movement in the United States, 1888-1891,” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 40, no. 3 (December 1953), and “The Adamson Law,” Harvard Law Review, 30, no. 1 (November 1916).

Helgerson 3

and development of the early movie venue and the resulting picture palaces and atmospheric theaters

that reflected the industry’s increased competition.

The Picture Palace

When you first step inside the Capitol theater you think ‘Wheeoo’ and feel for the nearest support… In the midst of such complete luxury, the average man can merely rub his eyes and wonder whether they are serving him aright… But it is not an illusion. It is all real.3

The opening of the luxurious Capitol Theater in St. Paul on September 8, 1920, left Twin Citians feeling

stunned, as the quote above of an attendee and reporter from the St. Paul Pioneer Press shows. The

Capitol was not only one of the first theaters to be built specifically for movies; it was also the first real

Minnesotan example of the picture palace, a new type of theater that was spreading across the

country.

4 The Capitol was built by George and C.W. Rapp, well-known theater architects of their day.5 It

was not an independent structure; rather, it had a unique location in a corner of the Hamm building, a

structure built by the theater’s financial backer, the brewer William Hamm, in 1915.6

The Capitol Theater embodied many elements characteristic of the picture palace, including

luxurious interior and exterior decorations, excessive size, and complimentary usher escorts.

[Figure 1] The

theater is situated so that it is only visible from one side of the building. Its façade is markedly different

than the façade that wraps around the rest of the building, signifying its presence to visitors and

passersby alike.

7

3 James Gray, St. Paul Pioneer Press September 8, 1920, quoted in Dave Kenney, Twin Cities Picture Show: A Century of Moviegoing, (St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2007), 41.

The size of

4ibid., 52.

5David Naylor, American Picture Palaces: The Architecture of Fantasy, (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1981), 47.

6 Kenney, 42.

7 Charlotte Herzog, “The Movie Palace and the Theatrical Sources of its Architectural Style." Cinema Journal 20, no. 2 (Spring 1981): 15.

Helgerson 4

the theater is hinted at in its façade, which was dominated by three immense arches starting at the

second story. These dwarf the doors below them at street level, which are at a much more human scale.

[Figure 2] The marquee is set to the left of the building below pediment windows, which are repeated

on the far right side for balance. The marquee itself was becoming a staple element of the movie

theater. While the Capitol’s was not especially large, it still extended beyond the building façade,

operating as shelter for patrons. Its lights also served as a beacon attracting people into the theater.8 All

of these elements and the pilasters and surfaces in between them are intricately and profusely

decorated, becoming what historian Dave Kenney describes as “…a gaudy carnival of terra-cotta, iron,

and bronze festooned with columns, cherubim, and gargoyles.”9 Inside the lobby, the sumptuous

decoration continued. Guests would be surrounded by marble floors and stairs, hand-painted ceilings,

and even an interior fountain. 10 All of this, along with the lush carpets and other details, was brightly

illuminated by three central fixtures of fifty-five lights each.11 The lobby and stairs led into a fittingly

large auditorium. With 3,000 seats, it compared to the palaces in larger cities, which often seated 3,000

-6,000.12 The Capitol’s services also compared with those offered in other picture palaces. While it was

the most expensive theater opened by the local chain of Finkelstein and Ruben, its admission price was

kept at an affordable level. Teams of uniformed usherettes made all patrons feel wealthy by escorting

patrons to their seats. [Figure 3] This effectively created the atmosphere where, as one press writer

wrote, “…her ladyship, the manicurist, will have the same right to its use as her ladyship, the society

woman.”13

8 Charlotte Herzog, The Motion Picture Theater and Film Exhibition1896-1932, (Evanston, Illinois: University Microfilms International, 1980), 94.

9 Kenney, 52.

10 Kirk J. Besse, Show Houses: Twin Cities Style, (Minneapolis: Victoria Publications Ltd., 1997), 45.

11 ibid. 12 Herzog, “The Movie Palace,” 15. 13 St. Paul Pioneer Press, September 9 1920, quoted in Kenney, 42.

Helgerson 5

Impeccable service at a low price was a unique feature of the picture palace. Movie venues had

been inexpensive ever since their creation. With the picture palace, however, low prices no longer

meant cramped interiors with a makeshift screen thrown to one end. Instead, lavish decorations made

all moviegoers feel special:

[They] loved it. After all, it was for them that this sumptuous and magic world was built… Ladies from cold-water flats could drop in at the movie palace after a tough day in the bargain basements and become queens to command.14

The vistas of splendor that filled the walls of the palaces made the décor a more important part of

moviegoing than ever before. Members of the lower class were attracted by the experience of luxury

made attainable to them.

15 Sometimes, this was even more important than seeing the actual film that

was playing, a fact that cartoons of the day aptly noted. [Figure 4] The luxurious atmosphere of the

palaces was furthered by their use of air conditioning technology to make their auditoriums as

comfortable as possible. Theaters were actually one of the first venues that gave people exposure to air

conditioning. To remain competitive in stifling hot summers, all good theaters had to have it. It became

a major part of their advertising campaign; many publicized that their theater was ‘the coolest place in

town.’ [Figure 5] Theater owners used this to such a great degree that some patrons even became sick

because of overcooling.16

Theater owners were beginning to realize the needs of the theater to become something more

than just a place. Once the novelty of movies had worn off, owners had to provide something new to

attract customers. In 1925, an architect writing for Architectural Forum stated that audiences were

“…demanding alluring facades and attractive appointments.”

17

14 Ben Hall, The Best Remaining Seats, (New York: Da Capo Press, 1961), 17.

Architect E.C.A. Bullock (who worked at

Rapp & Rapp) saw that “The people of today… go to the theater to live an hour or two in the land of

15 Herzog The Motion Picture Theater, 128. 16 Samuel L. Rothafel, “The Architect and the Box Office,” Architectural Forum 57 (September 1932): 196. 17 Kenneth Franzheim, “Present Tendencies in the Design of Theater Facades,” Architectural Forum 42 (Sept. 1925): 365.

Helgerson 6

romance,” and concluded that, to be successful, “… The atmosphere of a king’s palace must prevail to

stimulate the imagination of those who come within its doors.”18 Theater owners thus adopted the

trend of creating an atmosphere that would provide fantasy and escape for their patrons. One owner in

particular was known for his attention to showmanship. Samuel L. Rothafel, or Roxy (the namesake of

the theater mentioned in the introduction), created in all of his theaters an entertainment atmosphere

that made patrons feel like they were waited on hand and foot.19 He wanted to find an ideal behind the

theater that would make it a more integral social institution.20 His influence can be seen across the

country theaters, like the Capitol in St. Paul, which epitomized his ideas about just how to entertain

people. These theaters “spelled out fun, enchantment, and escape to all the millions in the twenties

who wanted so desperately to believe in make-believe.”21 The decoration, services, and low prices of

the theaters created an ambience that would eventually draw all types of people inside their doors.22

Theaters and People

Minneapolis before the Picture Palace

Minneapolis at the turn of the century was home to all types of entertainment—it was a city

with something for everyone.23 Wealthier citizens attended stage plays at the Metropolitan Theater,

paying a dollar or more a ticket.24 For the people who couldn’t pay this price, there were the dime

museums, burlesque shows at the Dewey theater, or comedies and melodramas at the Bijou.25

18E.C.A. Bullock, “Theater Entrances and Lobbies,” Architectural Forum 42 (Sept. 1925): 369

These

‘lower’ types of entertainment were looked down upon by the upper classes and were often subjected

to incendiary attacks in newspaper articles and editorials of the day that cited their negative qualities. A

quote from the Saturday Evening Spectator in 1879 shows just how aggressive these criticisms were:

19 Samuel L. Rothafel, “What the Public Wants in the Picture Theater,” Architectural Forum 42 (Sept. 1925): 361. 20 ibid. 21 Hall, 17. 22 Herzog, “The Movie Palace,” 18. 23 Kenney, 6. 24 ibid. 25 ibid., 7.

Helgerson 7

The breakout of smallpox in the Minneapolis Theater Comique may be accepted as a first step in reform. Smallpox is so great an improvement on the regular state of things in that institution that a steady betterment may now be expected.26

This statement clearly uses hyperbole. However, it does effectively show what opinions society held

about the venues they saw as inferior. Statements like this show that there seemed to be no middle

ground of entertainment. Each class stayed within its entertainment boundaries, limited either by price

or by an unacceptable association with indecency. Movies would change all this. When they were

introduced, they were shown alongside the ‘lesser’ entertainments, and were initially grouped into the

lower-class category. However, their accessibility would make them popular and eventually turn them

into an accepted entertainment medium beloved by all classes.

The Moviegoers

Movies were unique, even revolutionary, because they were equally affordable to all. This was

because the technology of recording and reproducing film allowed movies to be made at a much lower

cost than their live predecessors. Writers of the day recognized that “So long as a play required for each

presentation the active co-operation of a considerable number of more or less talented persons it could

never be cheap… But… a celluloid film a spectacle can be reproduced indefinitely.”27 Without the

financial obligations of a large cast and crew, movies were profitable even when admission was low. The

inexpensive prices allowed access to a whole new demographic. Picture palace prices ranged from 20

cents to a dollar; some even advertised their low admission on the marquee.28[Figure 6] These prices are

equivalent to about $2.00-$10.00 in 2009 dollars.29 For the people living in the 1920’s, these prices

could also buy a loaf of bread (12 cents), a pound of butter (55 cents) or a pair of bloomers (98 cents).30

26 ibid., 8.

27 “The Drama of the People,” Independent. September 29, 1910, in The Movies in our Midst: Documents in the Cultural History of Film in America, ed. Gerald Mast, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982), 56. 28 Herzog The Motion Picture Theater, 167, and Naylor, 68. 29“Inflation Calculator,” http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm (accessed December 6, 2009). 30 The People History, “1920’s Fashions,” http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/20sclothes.html and “1920’s Food Prices,” http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/20sfood.html

Helgerson 8

These items and their prices were in reach of many of the working-class citizens; thus, movies were also

an entertainment option for them.

The movies soon became a popular pastime for many. The cheap prices allowed people to

attend the movie theaters often, some weekly.31The interiors of the later theaters offered people the

chance to experience luxury, a chance many would never have within their own homes. This luxury was

enticing and led moviegoing to become a regular part of peoples’ lives. Theater owners saw this early on

and soon presented shows all day long. Many theaters also diversified their showings, presenting

combinations of feature films, shorts, and newsreels in hopes of offering something for every

entertainment preference.32One New York theater had showings for every part of the day: the Forenoon

Show at 10:45, the De Luxe Luncheon Show at 1:00, the Afternoon Shoppers Show at 3:00, the Tea Time

Show at 5:00, the Early Diners Show at 7:25, and the Night Show at 9:25.33

This attendance was in the millions each week nationally. Profits from this amply supported the

growing movie industry, which employed 255,000 people and produced 85% of the world’s motion

pictures in 1929.

These multiple times catered

to peoples’ different schedules in order to draw in maximum crowds and profit.

34Production boomed as dozens of pictures became available weekly.35 The constant

showings and variation in pictures being played kept things fresh and encouraged audiences to go back

again and again. In 1927, “…one hundred million people went to the movies every week—close to the

total population of the United States at that time.”36

Because of the low cost of filmmaking technology and admission prices, the movie theater was a

social equalizer. Movies themselves were a democratic form of entertainment in that everyone was

31 Hall. 32 Herzog The Motion Picture Theater, 166. 33 Times Square Paramount, Theatre Historical Society Annual no. A-3, (1976): 4, quoted in Herzog The Motion Picture Theater, 168. 34 Will Hays, See and Hear (Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America), 34-35. 35 Exhibitor’s Herald World 92 (1928). 36 Herzog The Motion Picture Theater, 75-76.

Helgerson 9

equal inside the auditorium. Each person was treated to the same lavish interiors, the same direction of

the ushers. Movies broke down the class barriers of the time, if only for the duration of the picture

being shown. Moviegoing became a popular outlet for many people in towns and cities alike. However,

it is imperative to realize that movies were not always so well received. The factor that made them so

unique—their low cost—also caused many to be skeptical about them. In many peoples’ minds, the

movies had unparalleled powers for corruption; this notion was only enhanced by the ‘low-class’

audiences that frequented the early movie venues. This opposition was multi-faceted and directly

influenced the development of the movie theater itself.

Initial Opposition

People were both enthralled with and threatened by the life-like movements the first movies

showed. Because movies were so realistic, they confused the boundary between actual life and the

fictional stories presented on screen. The ability of the camera to capture three-dimensional motion, of

the actors to move in and out of view, and of multiple images to be projected at once demonstrated

technical effects plays never could achieve.37 This realism increased the movies’ power of suggestion to

levels beyond the capacity of previous forms of entertainment. Questionable subject matter featured in

this evocative medium became an urgent concern: “Suggestive situations are altogether too numerous

in many film productions. These have a demoralizing effect upon the young mind, and are not an

edifying stimulant for older minds.” 38 The prominence of ‘suggestive situations’ is illustrated in text of a

comment card given out by the Twin City theater chain of Finkelstein and Ruben. [Figure 7] At the top,

under the question “What type of picture do you like best?” is a check box labeled “sex drama.”39

37 “The Drama of the People,” in Mast 57.

It is

surprising to see this, as even today a movie in a ‘sex drama’ genre would probably be met with

38 “Fifty Years Back Stage,” article in Lucile M. Kane and John Alley Dougherty Motion Picture Research Files, Minnesota Historical Society Library, St. Paul, MN.

39 Besse, 47.

Helgerson 10

opposition. That it was an option in the 1920’s suggests that it was indeed a prominent movie type, one

that adults and children alike would undoubtedly have been exposed to in theaters.

A pervading concern was that people would believe what they saw in movies was real. Thus,

movies that showed leniency to subject matter such as affairs, jealousy, and murder, and crime were a

touchy subject.40 Some real suicides and murders were thought to have been inspired by suggestive

motion pictures.41 For children and teens, the movies were considered to be even more dangerous.

Many people thought that kids, because of their impressionability, were especially vulnerable to the

moral ills portrayed in movies. As one concerned writer wrote, “The mirror held up by the movies is

gazed into by myriads of adolescents and even young children in their secret thoughts, in their

broodings, their day-dreaming and fantasies—they want to be like the people in the movies.”42 This

desire to see the stories on screen made kids violate moral character in order to get into the theater:

“To obtain free tickets…many boys and girls have been led into all sorts of vice.”43 Actions like this made

people worry that children would begin to idolize the unpunished criminals shown on screen. This would

confuse their morals and influence their actions negatively.44 The lives of luxury so accessible on screen

were also misrepresentations of real life. They caused concern because they spread the idea that wealth

was an entitlement, one that did not require hard work to earn.45 One author even went so far as to

conclude that movies had the power to bring out the worst in people, and could even cause some

people to kill46

40 Henry James Forman, Our Movie Made Children, (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1934), 184.

The notion that movies could so directly cause violence seems unfounded now; however,

statements like this show that society was truly worried about what effect the movies would have on

peoples’ behavior.

41 “The Moving Picture and the National Character,” American Review of Reviews, (September 1910), in Mast, 59. 42 Forman, 141. 43 “The Moving Picture and the National Character,” in Mast, 59. 44 Kenney, 45. 45 Forman, 184. 46 ibid., 180.

Helgerson 11

Despite the widespread concern, the movies remained irresistible to many working-class

citizens. Their attendance continued to bring in profit for producers and theater owners alike. The profit

and progression of the industry allowed the movie theater to continue development. This was fortunate

because it allowed the theaters to take on an ever more important role—that of achieving respectability

for the motion picture medium among all classes in America. It is important to recognize that this

accomplishment was not realized by architecture that was at the forefront of modernity. Instead, the

achievement was made through the use of theaters that expressed an architecture so new, curious, and

luxurious that it acted as a billboard to lure people inside.

Theaters as Advertising Early Origins of the Movie Theater

The first movies were developed by famed inventor Thomas Edison. They were a result of his

wish to create a device that would reproduce sight as his phonograph had reproduced sound.47 In the

1880’s, this desire for capturing motion was achieved when Edison combined his ‘cylinder picture

machine’ with fellow inventor George Eastman’s newly developed film.48 In retrospect, this was quite a

monumental event; as Will Hays, a prominent figure in the movie industry remarked, “Imagine the thrill

of that occasion. George Eastman’s product had met and fitted Thomas Edison’s product. The motion

picture had come into being.”49

These primitive movies were first shown in ‘peep shows.’

50

47 Hays, 7.

[Figure 8, middle] To view these,

individuals would look through a hole in a machine. When movies developed beyond this into shows

that could be viewed by many people at a time, no one was sure how to react. Because theater owners

didn’t want to risk their entire business on the new unknown medium, movies were initially shown in

conjunction with other types of entertainment. These initial venues— circuses, penny arcades,

48 ibid., 8-9. 49 ibid. 50 Ibid.

Helgerson 12

storefront theaters, nickelodeons, and vaudeville houses—successfully introduced movies to a large part

of the population. At the same time, they made important contributions to later movie theater

architecture.51

Each venue showed movies in a different way; elements of all would be incorporated in the

later, more permanent theaters. In the circus, movies were shown in the ‘black tops,’ large tents that

blocked out the light to allow people to see the films.

52 The penny arcade, usually located in a converted

store, was the first of a series of more permanent venues. Storefront theaters continued this

development by increasing the number of seats available for screen showings. In all of these venues, the

owners dressed up theater facades, giving their establishments hints of respectability by using Classical

elements which represented the wisdom and morality of the ancients. These elements also advertised

the respectability of movie venues by associating them with the Classically-decorated ‘legitimate’ stage

theaters of the day. These devices were very efficient at attracting people inside—they had to be, if

owners were going to get any profit at all in the negative moral atmosphere that surrounded the

movies. The box office placed in front of the black top at circus shows or the uninhibited façade and

interior of the penny arcade also sparked peoples’ interest: “The curiosity of the passer-by and the

power of suggestion of this spatial continuity played a big part in getting people into these early movie

locales.”53

While each of these venues would provide inspiration for the styles later movie theaters would

take on, they also caused hesitation in the middle and upper classes. In the circuses and travelling

shows, movie showings took on the form of a side show equal to that of the ‘freak show.’

54

51 Herzog “The Movie Palace,” 18.

These were

often considered disreputable amusements, and movies were thus categorized similarly. This social view

is clearly seen in the statement of one architect looking back on the early theater days:

52 ibid. 53 Ibid, 25. 54 ibid.

Helgerson 13

…it was considered degrading to attend the so-called ‘movie shows’… after a careful survey up and down the street to make sure that no acquaintance was within sight, a nickel or dime was hastily deposited… [and] a hurried plunge was made through the entrance door into a dank, mysterious and black interior!55

Despite this reputation, however, people continued venturing inside theaters. Movies were gradually

catching on. This can be seen in the new nickelodeons being built in the early part of the century.

Nickelodeons were the next development of the storefront theater. They were more permanent

structures used specifically for showing movies.56Admission to a show was just a nickel. This accessibility

increased popularity and caused more and more nickelodeons to be built in a flurry of development that

one later author called ‘movie madness.’57The cheap prices, as well as the decorated exteriors that

expressed splendor attracted many.58 However, inside, auditoriums were small, crowded, and

uncomfortable.”59 [Figure 8, top] Looking back, one architect recalled that “…in the interiors the seats

were arranged much as they would be in a slum mission, with flat floors and no ventilation.”60 Still, it

was in these theaters that architecture was first used to advertise the legitimacy of movies. The

nickelodeons combined some features of their predecessors, such as the box office, unimpeded

entrance, and eye-catching displays, and worked them into a style distinctive of the movie theater.61

These features and their display on and in the nickelodeon would become “…signs of permanency in the

movie locale and important factors in gaining immediate confidence in the film product.”62

I admit that a large portion of the better class of people in this city are not patrons of these theaters… [but] In the larger cities, the picture shows are patronized by the best

This

confidence was indeed increasing; the nickelodeons’ architectural devices were beginning to have a

positive effect on peoples’ views, as one writer for the St. Paul Pioneer Press in 1911 illustrates:

55 C. Howard Crane, “Observations on Motion Picture Theaters,” Architectural Forum 42 (Sept. 1925): 381. 56 Herzog “The Movie Palace,” 28. 57 Besse, 1. 58 ibid. 59 Kenney, 13. 60 Crane. 61 Herzog, “The Movie Palace” 28. 62 Ibid.

Helgerson 14

people, I mean by this, not only rich people but people of education and refinement… So I claim that the moving picture… is here to stay.63

Vaudeville houses succeeded the nickelodeon in movie theater development. Because movies

were often showed as part of vaudeville shows, they became the mechanism through which movies

were introduced to audiences beyond the working class. With these larger audiences, movies became

widely popular. Eventually, this exposure made movies so prevalent that they required theaters of their

own.

64

The early days of the theater were a hectic period. Anyone with a little money and an idea

could get into the industry. The low cost of projection machines—between $75 and $95—was enticing

to many small businessmen.

In the resulting built-for-film locations, owners no longer had the option of falling back and

reverting the space back to the store it once was. To ensure success, the theaters themselves had to

step up and become the selling point that would draw customers inside. This new role caused theaters

to develop an interesting relationship with the businesses of the growing film industry, in which a few

major production and distribution companies were settling into dominance. Through industry control,

theaters became advertising not just for the movies, but also for the production companies themselves.

Growth of the Movie Industry

65

The most prominent chain in Minneapolis and St. Paul was partnership of Moses Finkelstein and

Isaac Ruben. After opening their first theater, the Princess, in St. Paul in 1910, these two former retail

store owners were introduced to substantial profits. F & R’s success led them to open other theaters

throughout the cities. Soon, they owned many fancy movie theaters; this was accomplished with the

They just needed to rent or purchase a space, a sheet, and some chairs.

Many Minneapolitans took advantage of these promising opportunities. As theaters proliferated, many

owners began buying multiple theaters. Some even became substantial regional organizations, although

they were much less powerful than the national companies that were developing at the same time.

63 St. Paul Pioneer Press, October 21, 1911, quoted in Kenney, 17. 64 ibid.,14. 65 Ibid.

Helgerson 15

help of their financial backer and third partner, William Hamm. Eventually, their business mirrored the

monopoly exhibited by the larger national chains, such as Paramount and MGM. By 1920, F & R owned

and operated more than thirty movie theaters and 7,000 seats in Minneapolis and St. Paul.66 They

became so dominant that they were accused of monopolization of the movie industry in the Twin Cities.

This allegation stemmed from F & R’s questionable dealings in buying out the Lagoon Theater in

Uptown. Its owner, Joseph W. Cohen, claimed that they had virtually forced him out of business by

giving him only days to respond to their offer67. Cohen also charged that F & R owned 85% of the

theater seats in the cities. This dominance made it impossible for him and other independents to get

affordable prices for movies.68

The dilemma of industry monopolization acted as a Catch-22 for the many independent

operators across the country. They were prevented from getting good pictures because they didn’t have

the power to afford them, but they lacked power because they never had the chance to establish

themselves with quality films. This paradox shows why industry culture made it so feasible for

partnerships like F & R to buy multiple theaters: companies with many theaters under their control had

more clout to demand good pictures from the choosy production and distribution corporations.

F & R were later proved to only own 33% of seats in St. Paul and 38.4% in

Minneapolis, but the charges against them show the highly competitive nature of the industry at that

time.

This monopolization of the national companies occurred early in movie development. However,

the major companies that would emerge from this initial stage, Paramount-Publix, Twentieth-Century

Fox, MGM (Loews), Warner Brothers, and RKO (Radio- Keith- Orpheum), first started out small. 69

66 Besse, 42.

Adolph Zukor and his company, Paramount, illustrate this rise from independent producer to

67 St Paul Pioneer Press, February 8, 1921, in the Motion Picture Research Files.

68 ibid. 69 Hays.

Helgerson 16

corporation. Zukor was a producer among the frenzy of activity in the early days of movies. However,

the dominance of two companies, the General Film Company and the Patents Company, soon limited

where he could show his movies. These companies controlled both the machinery and the films that

exhibitors were allowed to show.70 This caused some problems for the independent producers; as Zukor

recalls, “…they made it a condition in leasing a machine that only their pictures could be shown on the

screen. So I found myself with “Queen Elizabeth” [a movie he had produced] and no place to go.”71 To

get around the limitations set by these monopolies, Zukor and his acting crew, the Famous Players,

contracted their films with the state’s rights men, a group of regional distributors.72 The organization

that resulted was the Paramount Pictures Corporation.73While in a better position to show his movies in

theaters, Zukor’s reliance on the distributors still left him feeling uneasy. When the distributors decided

to take on the production aspect of movies as well, Zukor decided to take a stand. The only way for him

to do this was to incorporate exhibition into his company.74 To do this, Zukor had to buy theaters in

which to present his own movies. His purchase of the Rialto and Rivoli theaters in New York gave

Paramount control over production, distribution, and exhibition—all aspects of the movie industry. 75 In

a few short years, Zukor amassed over 300 theaters.76

Paramount and F & R had dealings with each other in the late 1920’s. Their relationship started

a bit earlier than this, when F & R had joined with other regional chains to form the First National

His monopoly would compete with the other

large companies and their theaters for national dominance and control. This competition would have

many implications for the future of theater architecture, as will be explored in depth later on.

70 Adolph Zukor, “Origin and Growth of the Movies (1927),” in Mast, 114. 71 ibid. 72 ibid. 119. 73ibid. 74 ibid., 120. 75 ibid., 121. 76 ibid.

Helgerson 17

Exhibitors circuit in order to compete with the Paramount corporation.77 Their organization was a

reaction to the practice of ‘block booking’ used by Paramount, in which exhibitors were forced to accept

packages of movies that included both good and bad films.78 It was this type of organization that forced

Zukor into the theater exhibitions business. After gaining control of hundreds of theaters throughout the

1920’s, Paramount turned its sights to Minneapolis—and to F & R—in 1928.The company wanted to

lease the Minnesota, the new picture palace being built in the Twin Cities at the time. Finkelstein and

Ruben of course were against this. If Paramount succeeded, it would diminish F & R’s audiences and

possibly run them out of business.79 This eventually turned out to be the truth. In 1929, shortly following

a deal which relinquished partial control to Paramount, F & R sold their entire chain to the monopoly.80

These types of dealings were common throughout the industry, illustrating just what an

aggressive business it was. Companies came and went every day—even stable ones like F & R. This

cutthroat competition inevitably made its way into architecture, as owners realized that they would

have to enhance their theaters in order to continue drawing in audiences.

Afterwards, they would fade from the Minneapolis scene.

81

Theaters Reflect Industry Competition

Industry magnates used

theater architecture to advertise what they were selling to moviegoers: excitement, fun, and escape.

The objective of the picture palace was not just to provide a new experience for those who

walked through its doors, but also to draw people in and bring profit to the theater operators.82

77 Kenney, 65.

Architecture was used to meet this goal. The facades and elaborate decorations were perhaps the most

important part of the theater, for they were what influenced peoples’ decision to go inside or continue

78 ibid. 79 ibid., 67. 80 ibid., 68 81 Larry Widen and Judy Anderson , Milwaukee Movie Palaces, (Milwaukee, 1986), 5, in the Motion Picture

Research Files. 82 Naylor, 32.

Helgerson 18

on down the street. Facades were distinguished from other buildings in the city by their decoration and

brightly lit marquees.83 These components of the entrance had to “…actually be a magnet to draw the

people on foot and in vehicles toward [the theaters’] doors.”84 This literal comparison of the entrance

with magnets was not an exaggeration. As the major production companies began to monopolize and

competition between them grew, they used the advertising capability of facades to draw moviegoers

from their competitors into their own theaters. They upped the decoration to advertise fun and

excitement that would entice people inside.85

For an example of how theaters acted as advertisements, we can turn again to the Capitol

Theater. [Figures 1 and 2] The facade articulation of the three arches marks it as separate from the rest

of the Hamm building that surrounds it. Its decoration is much more elaborate, bringing attention to it

from the office building. The greater articulation of the theater brings with it excitement, signifying that

this was not a place where work was done but a place to go for an escape. The materials used in the

facade were elaborate and expressed permanence. This shows that theaters had advanced their status,

as they no longer depended on makeshift signs posted over the façade to distinguish them from their

surrounding buildings. [Figure 9] The profuse decoration that covers the surface of the Capitol, when

coupled with its large scale, gives off a feeling of grandeur. Passersby at that time would no doubt have

gazed at the ornament which suggested importance. The marquee, though smaller than the ones that

would adorn in later theaters, was nevertheless well lit. It would have easily been seen by people on the

trolley that passed right in front of the theater’s entrance. All of these elements were meant to

distinguish the theater from others in the city. The Capitol’s owners, F & R, wanted this theater to be the

best. This interest was not just because they wanted to outdo their competitors; it was also because

83 ibid. 84 Bullock, 369. 85 Herzog The Motion Picture Theater, 90.

Helgerson 19

they wanted to increase their profits. These motives and their architectural representation show how

competition was tangibly expressed in building facades.

This relationship between elaborate architecture and industry competition is an interesting

phenomenon that would continue as industry rivalry grew more intense. Facades would get even more

elaborate than the Capitol’s as the years progressed. As competition continued, the theater companies

needed more and more extravagance from their architects. Companies hired extravagant fantasy

architects, like John Eberson and Thomas W. Lamb, to build theaters that would outdo their competitors

in terms of decoration and materials employed.86

The Atmospheric Theater

Many theaters across the country were born out of

this competition. While they were highly profitable, the escalation of ornament eventually reached a

plateau. At this point, companies needed to incorporate architectural innovations that would cause their

theaters to trump those of their competitors. The need for differentiation in the sea of picture palaces

would ultimately create an entirely new type of theater.

Newspapers in 1928 heralded the arrival of the Granada Theater in Minneapolis. The next new

theater to be built by F & R and designed by Liebenberg and Kaplan was sure to pack a punch. Articles

talked of a theater that would create a new type of experience for patrons—one which would give them

the illusion of being out of doors in a Mediterranean garden.87

86 ibid., 127, and Hall.

[Figure 10] As can be seen in the

photograph from the Minneapolis Journal, the walls and proscenium of the theater are covered with

balconies, balustrades, arches and greenery that evoke the atmosphere and climate of a Spanish villa.

The ceiling seems to be separate from these elements, hovering above them much like a real sky would.

As if this weren’t enough to evoke an outdoor setting, the ceiling would become a night sky, complete

with hundreds of twinkling stars, when the lights were turned down. To increase the ‘atmospheric’

87 Minneapolis Journal, September 16, 1928 and September 25, 1928, in the Motion Picture Research Files.

Helgerson 20

effect further, a hidden cloud machine (common in atmospheric theaters) spread artificial clouds across

the auditorium. [Figure 11]

All of these elements contributed to the atmospheric theater’s ability to transport people to

another place, even another climate. Their interiors went beyond the lavish experiences created by the

original picture palaces. Now, they were lavish with a specific purpose: to bring audiences to places they

may never actually be able to go. They furthered the democratic nature of theaters, since “very few

people are able to travel the world over on account of the time and expense required, but it is within

the reach of everybody to see the scenes gathered from all over the world and displayed on the screen

at a low cost while he sits in comfort.”88

The decoration bestowed on the interiors of the atmospheric theaters represented a shift in

theater design. Previously, the emphasis of picture palaces had been on the exterior façade. Now, the

exterior played a much less elaborate role. This can be seen in the restrained exterior of the Granada,

which is made mostly of simple sandstone.

The ‘atmosphere’ created within these theaters provided the

exact boost the picture palaces needed: interiors that contrasted so greatly with actual surroundings

would intrigue audiences and encourage them to come back again and again. This is exemplified in the

Granada, as the lush Spanish garden must have seemed a welcome and surprising relief to the frigid

winters of Minnesota.

89 [Figure 12] Above the central marquee are three thin,

arched windows separated by Corinthian-capped columns; the only other major decoration occurs at

the parapet, where shallow niches are separated by pilasters and terminated by two bays that rise

above the roof line.90

88 Arthur S. Meloy, Theaters and Motion Picture Houses, (New York: The Architects’ Supply and Publishing Company, 1916), 55.

This decrease in decoration shows a change in what elements of the theater were

considered important. The facades of movie theaters no longer needed shout with decoration in order

89 “The Granada Theater,” from Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission Local Heritage Preservation Designation Sheet, in the Motion Picture Research files. 90 ibid.

Helgerson 21

to tempt the passerby inside. This was because more and more people were convinced of the

respectability of the movie medium—they didn’t need to be won over by the luxury of theater

architecture. The atmospheric theaters’ attention to the interior represented a new stage in the

evolution of moviegoing. Now, people went because it was a popular pastime more integrated with

American culture. This new attitude was caused in part by what the picture palace architecture was like.

Elaborate, fancy decorations had caused people to accept the movies. Now, as they embraced the

medium, they needed a new architecture that represented their new-found approval. This was found in

the transporting experiences provided by the atmospherics.

The atmospheric theaters furthered the progress of the movie theater as a type. But their

elaborate decoration was not met by all as a positive thing. In fact, charges of extravagance, not

surprisingly, were one of the most common critiques leveled against atmospheric and picture palace

architects. While many of these evaluations make sense with our modern ideas about simplicity and

reduction, it must be remembered that the true impact of the picture palaces does not lie in their

architectural correctness. Rather, it is in their capacity to provide a total experience that caused both

social and cultural change during the decade.

Historical Significance of the Picture Palace

The picture palaces and atmospheric theaters were able to achieve a considerable presence in

people’s lives in the 1920’s. Their brightly lit marquees became a familiar part of the cityscape. The

movie theater was a place everyone could go to—and most people did. Their lavish nature was a

product of their origins in venues that imitated Classical decorations. Their continued extravagance was

a necessary part of their program, because the palaces functioned as places for escape where people

could forget their troubles. As theater architect George Rapp put it,

Watch the eyes of a child as it enters the portals of our great theaters… Watch the bright light in the eyes of the tired shopgirl who hurries noiselessly over carpets and sighs with satisfaction as she walks amid furnishings that once delighted the hearts of queens. See

Helgerson 22

the toil-worn father whose dreams have never come true, and… there you have the answer to why the motion picture theaters are so palatial.91

The palaces’ function and popularity say something about American culture at the time. Leisure and

entertainment were becoming a bigger part of peoples’ lives. People who previously had to spend long

days working in factories now had time off to spend with friends and family. This desire for

entertainment has had great implications for culture over the last century. It was during the 1920’s that

America’s love for movies began; this love was just the first step in a long line of developments that

brought our country close to new types of leisure activities.

Despite their importance in the lives of everyday people, picture palace architecture was

subjected to criticism from architects and engineers who thought the theaters should be held to a

higher standard of design. Their main concern was that movie theaters were not designed effectively for

the technology on which they relied. Because projection machines placed three-dimensional motion

onto a two-dimensional screen, sight lines were more important in movie theaters than in stage

theaters. If audience members were seated too far outside a maximum angle from the screen, distortion

of the movie would be significant.92[Figure 13] In the cavernous picture palaces, there were many seats

outside of this suggested range. The theaters’ floor slope, seat angle, placement of balconies, and the

height of the screen also contributed to these vision problems by forcing audiences to crane their necks

uncomfortably in order to see the picture.93

91 Craig Morrison, “From Nickelodeon to Picture Palace and Back,” Design Quarterly 93 (1974), 13, in Herzog, The Motion Picture Theater, 127.

When sound projection was developed in the later part of

the decade, the large size of theaters, as well as their profuse plaster ornamentation and carpets,

caused audio problems. These materials and their shape caused reverberation that made the movies

hard to hear. One engineer pointed out specifically that the shape and size of the out-of-proportioned

ceilings of atmospheric theaters increased reverberation and decreased beneficial sound reflection at

92 Ben Schlanger, “New Theaters for the Cinema,” Architectural Forum 57 (September 1932): 253-254. 93 ibid.

Helgerson 23

crucial points of the theater.94 That these comments about the technical side of theater design went

largely unheeded caused engineers to consider palace architects ignorant. They also viewed the palaces

in the same light—not as worthy pieces of architecture, but as examples of excess and gaudiness that

served no purpose. The decoration of historical styles was thought to be superficial and garish.95 These

theaters were neither designed for technological efficiency, nor did they reflect the reductionist

architectural theories prevalent at the time. As one critic put it, “’No more pitiful degradation of an art

has ever been presented than the prostitution of architecture that goes on daily in the construction of

these huge buildings.’”96

From this professional point of view, the picture palaces could be considered merely a frivolous

manifestation of pop culture. However, they reveal much more about society than that. To understand

this, the palaces must be viewed from a more social standpoint. As historian David Naylor suggests,

evaluation of the picture palace can only be done when one forgets about standard architectural

principles and theories.

For these intellectuals, the palaces were a point of disgust.

97

Let us not be too hoity-toity with our judgments…The intent of the temple builders and the wizards who elaborately conceived the stage shows and other bold attractions that adorned these theatres, was not to please Lewis Mumford and serious critics of American art. It was to attract the susceptible mass audience and to delight it with extreme, eye-filling shows.

Journalist Bosley Crowther tells readers the same thing in his introduction to

Ben Hall’s Best Remaining Seats:

With this attitude in mind, it can be recognized that the worth of the picture palaces did not lie in their

modernity of style or technological prowess. Rather, it resides in their relation and importance to the

moviegoers themselves. As Crowther’s statement shows, these theaters advertised a new type of

entertainment and leisure activity that people could take advantage of during their free time. Their

atmosphere of extravagance created a fantasy land so irresistible that people were drawn inside.

94 Paul E. Sabine, “Acoustics in Theater Design,” Architectural Forum 57 (September 1932), 261-265. 95 Herzog The Motion Picture Theater, 166. 96 Motion Picture News, 1928, in Naylor, 31. 97 Naylor, 31.

Helgerson 24

The popularity of these theaters reflects a change taking place in society. With more time to

spend, Americans were becoming hungry for more entertainment. Never before had so many people

had access to places as fancy as the picture palaces. Because these theaters fulfilled the growing desire

for entertainment, they were familiar destinations for many Americans. Their familiarity and presence in

peoples’ lives caused their worth to transcend that of their architectural and technical details. Their

worth lies instead in the rich experiences they created for their audiences. It was this experience that

moviegoers would take with them when they left. The picture palace or atmospheric theater would stay

in peoples’ minds as the quintessential movie encounter—they didn’t care that the theater was not

technically or theoretically perfect. Through the experience of their architecture, the palaces established

moviegoing of the twentieth-century. While the forms of later theaters inevitably deviated from them,

the palaces were nevertheless influential in making America’s love affair with movies a lasting one.

Conclusion

The picture palaces, through creating lasting experiences, were able to achieve social change.

They helped people—the worker and the social elite alike—to overcome the initial opposition that

plagued the movie medium. This was perhaps precisely because they were more elaborate than the

other architecture of the day. The palaces represent a vital relationship present between theaters and

people in the 1920’s. This connection has continued to develop, as still today society is enthralled with

the movie industry.

The picture palaces and atmospheric theaters brought people together with movies. They

incorporated both elements of previous movie venues and respectable classical components to nurse

society through its initial reaction of opposition to the new medium. When the movie industry grew

from a hectic amalgam of independent exhibitors, producers, and distributors to a more settled

collective of monopolies, these theaters continued to change social views. They, and especially their

Helgerson 25

facades, acted as advertisements, propagandizing technology, leisure, escape, movies, and

respectability.

Though their superficiality may have led some to dismiss the palaces as an architectural type,

analysis shows that they were a vital part of our culture. They caused America to realize that it actually

loved this new pastime of moviegoing. The evolution of the picture palace style into the exotic

atmospheric theaters fostered and reflected this cultural change. When viewed through this social lens,

these theaters become not just repositories of excess of plaster and velvet but important buildings that

gauged the country’s values. Thinking of these theaters in their role as advertisements, we can see just

how they effected change. Their facades welcomed and drew in the poor and the wealthy alike. Their

interiors provided a wonderful experience, and were many peoples’ only access to such luxury. The test

of time has proved that these early theaters were successful in creating change: the movies are still

today an important part of our culture, both nationally and globally.

Suggestions for Further Research

The topic of the movie theater is a vast one. Much research has been done, but plenty more can

be extrapolated from further exploration. There are many interesting relationships between the movie

theater and society that were beyond the scope of this paper. Of particular interest are the events of the

1930’s. The social events and economic strain of that decade caused movie theaters to change greatly,

providing an interesting contrast to the period of the exuberant 1920’s. This topic relates specifically to

Minneapolis, as it was home to one of the most prolific theater architects in the Midwest, Jack

Liebenberg. Liebenberg built many small and large scale theaters, mostly in the Art Deco style, in towns

and cities across the region. This style represents another shift in thought and culture that occurred in

the 1930’s. The smaller, more reserved neighborhood theaters answered the call for a new style that

would fit with America’s more streamlined needs. This topic can be mined for a wealth of information,

Helgerson 26

particularly when a study of the movie industry and censorship is included. Studying these issues could

lead to an even greater understanding of just how the movie theater is interrelated with society. It may

also reveal interesting relationships between the Twin Cities and the rest of the country at that time.

Helgerson 27

Figure 3: The Capitol Theater Usherettes. From Kenney, Dave. Twin Cities Picture Show: A Century of Moviegoing. St. Paul : Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2007.

Helgerson 28

Helgerson 29

Helgerson 30

Helgerson 31

Helgerson 32

Sources Cited and Consulted

American Cinema of the 1930s: Themes and Variations, edited by Ina Rae Hark. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2007.

Architectural Forum 42, (1925).

Bullock, E.C.A. “Theater Entrances and Lobbies.” 369.

Crane, C. Howard. “Observations on Motion Picture Theaters.” 381. Franzheim, Kenneth. “Present Tendencies in the Design of Theater Facades.” 365. Rothafel, Samuel L. “What the Public Wants in the Picture Theater.” 361.

Architectural Forum 57, (1932).

Rothafel, Samuel L. “The Architect and the Box Office.” 196.

Sabine, Paul E. “Acoustics in Theater Design.” 261-265.

Schlanger, Ben. “New Theaters for the Cinema.” 253-254.

Besse, Kirk J. Show Houses: Twin Cities Style. Minneapolis: Victoria Publications Ltd., 1997.

Fine, Sidney. “The Eight-Hour Day Movement in the United States, 1888-1891.” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 40, no. 3 (December 1953): 419-596.

Hall, Ben The Best Remaining Seats. New York: Da Capo Press, 1961.

Hays, Will. See and Hear. Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, 1929.

Herzog, Charlotte. "The Movie Palace and the Theatrical Sources of its Architectural Style." Cinema Journal 20, no. 2 (Spring, 1981): 15-37.

Herzog, Charlotte. The Motion Picture Theater and Film Exhibition1896-1932. Evanston, Illinois: University Microfilms International, 1980.

Hill, Lawrence J. “Dives and Diversions: The Variety Theaters of Early Minneapolis,” Hennepin County History 46.

Kane, Lucile M. and John Alley Dougherty Motion Picture Research Files. Minnesota Historical Society Library, St. Paul.

Helgerson 33

“The Granada Theater,” from Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission Local Heritage Preservation Designation Sheet.

Various Minneapolis Journal and St. Paul Pioneer Press articles.

Kenney, Dave. Twin Cities Picture Show: A Century of Moviegoing. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2007.

Liebenberg and Kaplan Papers. Northwest Architectural Archives. University of Minnesota Elmer L. Andersen Library, Minneapolis.

Mast, Gerald. ed. The Movies in our Midst: Documents in the Cultural History of Film in America. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982.

“The Drama of the People.” Independent. September 29, 1910.

“The Moving Picture and the National Character.” American Review of Reviews, (September 1910).

Zukor, Adolph. “Origin and Growth of the Movies (1927),”

Meloy, Arthur S. Theaters and Motion Picture Houses. New York: The Architects’ Supply and Publishing Company, 1916.

Moving Picture World (1907-1928) and Exhibitor’s Herald (1915-1927). Later merged to become Exhibitors Herald-World (1929-1930).

Naylor, David. American Picture Palaces: The Architecture of Fantasy. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1981.

Naylor, David. Great American Movie Theaters. Baltimore: The Preservation Press, 1987.

Preddy, Jane and Theatre Historical Society (U.S.). Glamour, Glitz and Sparkle: The Deco Theatres of John Eberson. Chicago, Ill: Theatre Historical Society of America, 1989.

Scherer, Herbert. "Marquee on Main Street Jack Liebenberg's Movie Theaters: 1928-1941." The Journal of Decorative and Propaganda Arts 1, (Spring, 1986): 62-75.

Schlanger, Ben. “Motion Picture Theaters.” Architectural Record 81 no. 2 (February 1937): 16-24.

Shand, Morton P. Motion Picture-Houses and Theaters. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1930

Sharp, Dennis. The Picture Palace. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., 1969.

Stote, Helen M., ed. The Motion Picture Theater: Planning and Upkeep. The Society of Motion Picture Engineers, 1948.

Helgerson 34

“The Adamson Law.” Harvard Law Review 30, no. 1 (November 1916): 63-66.

Waller, Gregory A. "Imagining and Promoting the Small-Town Theater." Cinema Journal 44, no. 3 (Spring, 2005): 3-19.

Worthington, Clifford. The Influence of the Cinema on Contemporary Auditoria Design. London: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, Ltd., 1952.