|
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
|
Author
|
Topic: What is London like in January?
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 07-01-2007 05:41 AM
I thought this had to b about the Electric when I read about the 'ridiculously large screen'. I remember seeing that.
quote: Cameron Glendinning
Does anyone know exactly when it was built? I heard that it is Londons oldest purpose built cinema.
I can't give you an exact date, but I'm pretty sure it would be 1910 plus or minus one year.
There are several cinemas which claim to be London's oldest; there's not really any one cinema which has total rights to that claim. It's rather like 'who invented television?'; it depends on how you define 'television' and 'invented'.
The Phoenix, East Finchley, makes such a claim, by including the words 'continuously operating'. But then what does that phrase mean? Whenever it has been open it has operated as a cinema, but it has been closed three times in it's life for major alterations; in 1938 when the autitorium was turned round and new projection facilities built, sometime in the '70s, when the rake was increased to improve the sightlines and changes were made to the foyer, and again a few years ago when the auditorium was reduced in size, the foyer enlarged and ficilities for disabled users improved; I think that closure was about 18 months.
The original Auditorium at the Ritzy, Brixton dates from a similar time, and I think claims to be 'one of the oldest'. Of course, this has also been closed for extended periods, and much altered, during its life.
All of these, and many others built at the same time share similar architecture. Interestingly, quite a number still survive, whereas the next major development, the large 'super cinemas' of the late '20s and '30s, are almost extinct, or converted to other uses.
The reason for all of this cinema building activity at that time was the new regulations contained in the Cinematograph Act of 1909, which came into force in 1910, and which closed down many of the makeshift facilities previously used. For example, the Pullman, Herne Hill, closed in 1958, then Bingo for many years, then derelict for many more, then finally demolished a few years ago, replaced a makeshift cinema housed in one of the arches under the railway line. Again, the architecture was very similar, though I only managed to get inside the place not long before it was demolished when it was in very poor, and dangerous, condition.
There was an actor, I can't remember his name, who wanted to restore it as a live theatre, but it looked like a very lost cause when I saw it, and there was no room for backstage facilities, they even had to add an external brick box to the back wall to house the loudspeaker when the place was converted to sound. Can anybody remember this mans name? Leo might, because he worked as one of the actors at MOMI at one time, and Bernard might because he was a CTA member.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 07-04-2007 02:25 AM
quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan
The £4 fare quoted above is only if you don't have the Oyster smart card which is available for a £3 returnable deposit, with that fares are £1.50-2.50 in inner London.
OK, but realistically, how many visitors are going to faff around doing that? If you ask me this is a cynical money-raising ploy, because (i) business travellers aren't going to care about the extra quid, because it'll go on the expenses claim, and (ii) most tourists won't want the hassle of finding out how to register for a smart card scheme. I can't think of any other major public transport system in the world which charges that big a premium for walk-on tickets.
quote: Mike Heenan
At 2 dollars to 1 pound, that's around 150 dollars after currency conversion fees etc. And that's cheap over there? Yikes.
Agreed completely, and the abnormal pound/dollar ratio must be affecting the tourist industry quite significantly now. Earlier this year a friend emailed me to say that she wouldn't be including Britain in her once-in-a-lifetime big European tour, largely for that reason. Instead I went over to Amsterdam for a weekend, and the cost of my hotel room per night was probably less than she'd have paid in public transport costs from the airport to the city where I live. The business writers in the papers seem to think that the pound is overvalued at the moment, though, so hopefully things will put themselves right before long (though not before I visit NY in September, though - I could do with those cheap dollars then!).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 07-10-2007 02:59 AM
quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
After reading about the terrible twelve to thirteen week back log due to the new American government regulations...
I think governments and officialdom generally have this habit of playing down people's expectations, so that (i) if things go wrong, they're not surprised, and (ii) if things do right, they're pleasantly surprised. Exactly the same thing happened when I renewed my passport last year: the official leaflet tells you to allow eight weeks (or make a 'fast track' application for a much bigger cost), whereas in fact mine arrived in just over two. Not that it should have taken any longer: it was simply a renewal of an existing passport that was still valid, so they didn't need to check references or anything like that - just print out a new one and stick the photo in it, basically. Furthermore, I made the application in January - not, in other words, when hundreds of thousands of people have just booked their summer holiday and have suddenly realised that they need a passport.
The other thing that annoyed me was with the photo. 'Use an approved photo booth', said their leaflet. It warned against trying to print out your own on a photo inkjet, because it might not conform to their regulations, in which case the form would come back and I'd have to start again. So I decided to use a 'passport approved' photo booth in order to avoid the hassle, even though they cost £5. Imagine my surprise, then, when the photo which came out with it was a low resolution, heavily compressed picture (I'd guess 200dpi at most), printed on cheap and nasty paper!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic