But this is not a common cinema. This is what going to
the movies once was. This is what cinemas really should be
about. Still. Seventysix years later. Take a closer look.
The exterior reluctantly tells you this is a movie-place,
the building itself originally a palace built at the border
of the expanding citycore, just a few yards from August
Strindberg's 'Blue Tower'. But well inside another cityscape
opens up, admittedly on another scale, but nevertheless with
a feeling of streets, narrow passages and a small room which
feels like a starlit park. Indoors mingle with outdoor
sequences of rooms over limestone floors and marble walls,
all of it multiplied in mirrors. From the promenoir with its
dark green and white colours you get a glimpse of the
lavishly decorated auditorium behind innumerable doors. But
first you better check out the upper floor. Take one of the
steep staircases which under the starkly coloured frescoes
by Leander Engström leads up to the balconies which
frames the saloon on either side, classical motifs abounding
along the side-gallery barriers and the upper-circle
canopies. Here you can hide away in boxes and oldfashioned
sofas (which certain ladies are said to have been taking
advantage of), looking down into the elongated saloon, all
this red fluffy velvet surrounding you, and a cool blue
vaulted ceiling above, letting your mind soar into
nothingness.
This garish example of the heroic age of movie palace
architecture is one of the gems you can find among quite a
number of preserved cinemas in Sweden. It quite matches the
word of Gene Kelly who said that 'I can remember a time when
where we went to the movies was just as important as the
movies we went to see.' The atmospheric kind you might
stumble in on in the states, masterly executed by architects
like John Eberson, did never really catch on in Scandinavia.
But theater-like interiors did proliferate beginning as
early as 1904 when Stockholm got its first permanent cinema,
only some eight years after Paris, London and Berlin. And
this is no plaster or mailordered stucco with signs at the
projection box saying: 'Please do not turn on the clouds
until the show starts. Be sure the stars are turned off when
leaving.' These are all real materials, just look at the
remarkable textiles which required some fifty seamstresses
occupied in doing appliqué and embroidery with gold
wire and pearls on velvet and silver fabric.
That Gunnar Asplund was commissioned to do Skandia, which
opened up 1923, was no exception. Do take a look at
Röda Kvarn and Göta Lejon from 1815, Palladium
from 1918, or China's orientalist interior from 1928 (to
know more about these unique places, try cinema-historian
Kjell Furbergs site:
www.furberg.nu). The
cinema had already acquired a reputation as an essential
part of civilisation, with weekly newsreels and a repertoire
where Victor Sjöström and Mauritz Stiller were to
prepare the ground for international stars like Greta Garbo
and Ingrid Bergman. Well-known architects as well as artists
were commissioned to add to the imaginary. Asplund hadn't
got in contact with modernism yet, but the simple
straightforward lay-out of Skandia is somewhat promising,
and his City Library is already under way, a masterpiece of
the classical announcing the modern. His inspiration for
this overly decorated interior with its classical vocabulary
was to be found in his Italian journey less than ten years
earlier. The monochromatic painted walls with their
intricate borders reminds of Pompeii. But this is surely
more immortality than sin, although snakes in brass are
present at the end of railings wreathed in red leather. The
freely hanging lamps covered with grey silk are not yet put
back in place, but they are a reminiscence of the Greek
Theatre Asplund visited in Taormina, where he and his
companion got lost in a catholic festivity. And what
couldn't be more befitting? Isn't cinema still the very
worship of semi-gods and saints among pop-corn and soft
drink debris?
At its heydays statues of Adam and Eve flanked the
screen, and the backlit curtain really promised paradise.
With 70 mm the proscenium was moved forward, but the
grandiloquent romanticism is still in place. And this very
movie which flickers on the screen fits right into the place
anyway. It plays with the same fleshy red colours, the same
sensual stamina as Skandia itself. David Cronenberg's
eXistenZ questions reality as well as virtual reality.
Jennifer Jason Leigh as the programmer Allegra Geller
embarks on a roadmovie into a game of her own making, where
your own fantasy, your fears and dreams are the very stuff
this virtuality is made off, which is even worse than The
Blair Witch Project.. And Cronenberg is presenting a kind of
existential propaganda, a fear of detachment, of loosing
what makes us human, a dread that the division between body
and soul becomes a reality, that the real is divorced from
the virtual. You've got no rules in this virtuality, you
might kill the next waiter you meet, why not?, it might push
the game forward, or are we outside the game now, oops, I
shot him, was he real? But Cronenberg is fascinated anyway,
a game where the only restrictions are the players
themselves, where their senses are triggered way out of the
ordinary when they plug this umbilical-like cord into that
moist little hole in their backs, experiencing a virtuality
more real than reality. Instead of our own impotent bodies
we immortalize ourselves in this new reality. Fiction
defeats reality. And there you sit in this very cinema, a
dream in itself, and Cronenberg is asking you, 'do you know
where the fiction really ends?'
But Skandia doesn't work for every movie, the interior is
way too lavishly decorated, way too bourgeois in its
stylised classicism, and those precious textiles are way too
hard to preserve. Asplund did opt for this semi-athmosperic
romanticism. But is this really what dreams are made of, all
this crimson velvet, all these archaic motives? Compare this
to Kubrick who is said to have had a New York cinema's
interior painted matt black for the premiere of Barry
Lyndon, 'cause the existing colours were to vivid. Or David
Cronenberg'seXistenZ which seems to aspire to a kind of
future cinema where you plug that umbilical cord directly
into your bio-port, deep into your nervous system, entering
the movie itself, where space is nothing else than a
property of your own mind, bereft of all exterior
embellishment. Flamman, conceived by Uno Åhrén
whom helped out Asplund on Skandia, was built just a few
years later, but had done away with sumptuous romanticism
and is already modernist with its freely sweeping contours,
icy-blue ceiling and neon-signs, dead on target with the
Stockholm Exhibition 1930 and ready for sound. This sober
elegant space was far more in style with the movies and
Kubrick's 2001 wouldn't have been out of place, had only the
cinema itself survived.
Skandia did survive, although the cinema had a hard time
in the '70s and was threatened with plans for a restaurant
only a year ago, a fate of some other gems from the heydays
of the cinemagoing. Triangelfilm, a small Swedish
distributor, stepped in and are now in charge. And while
Mattias Nohrborg shows the same kind of enlightened
pessimism as Ingmar Bergman, deploring the high lease as an
obstacle. But Nohrborg will surely fight for the restoration
of Skandia. He says he want to get the old Wurlitzer back in
place, so that old silent movies can be shown again. The
only feasible solution is nonetheless to have Skandia
declared an historic landmark, otherwise this neo-liberal
creed that everything must be measured in money terms might
do away with one of the most precious gems in Stockholm. Ad
notwithstanding all its pro and cons Skandia is not meant to
be a museum, although that might be the aim of a
municipality stuck on a retro-nostalgic policy regarding the
city. Skandia will show the major movie releases as well as
having a cineclub, and why not fitting it out with THX and
maybe digital projecting?
Deplorable enough SF, the largest film-distributor of
Sweden and once Asplund's client and still the owner of the
interior, are reluctant to help out. And this is all the
more unjust since they got themselves a new movie-palace
right in centre on extremely favourable terms to the
detriment of the tax-payers. The Sergel-cinecomplex might be
far better than the cinemas of the '80s, but shows
nonetheless a commercialized lovelessness in its contempt
for the public. Here art is commissioned to add credence to
the most dysfunctional functionalist-pastisch one can ever
imagine, ever more so a shame since Sergel was conceived by
the city architect himself. SF goes for the money, too rare
on quality though. Asplund leaves a heritage in need of a
care as careful as for the movies themselves. At the end of
the century this is a velvety jewell Stockholm can be
immensely proud of, and just the kind of place where to see
certain very special movies.
Filmens hus in Copenhagen
Photos
available
New cinemas can be something entirely astonishing
different from the mainstream. This is clearly shown in
Filmens Hus which attracts a steadily increasingly amount of
spectators. The cineclub is now situated in the midst of the
Danish capital. Since the opening of the three movie
theatres two years ago the public has steadily increased to
almost 100 000 a year, with ten films shown each day. Dan
Nissen, director of the Filmmuseum and the Cinematheque,
proudly declares that Filmens Hus have reapt the benefits of
the success of Danish movies at Cannes during the last
years. The Danish Film Institute has thus been granted
raised subsidies not only to promote more Danish movies, but
also to boast the distribution of Danish as well as foreign
quality movies through some ten independent distributors and
their cinema-halls. Here's undoubtly some old-fashioned
Danish public spirit and a sense of noblesse oblige, they
same inspiration which fed their beer-making once upon a
time.
In Filmens Hus the architects at Nielsen, Nielsen &
Nielsen has opted for a greyish interior with sober dark
colours and a lot of glass. As in many other examples of
contemporary Danish architecture this provides a sober
background, where instead the public are meant to add the
local flavour. But the architecture is by no means shy of
the context, this is an addition from our time which manages
to relate by force of its newness. Here is admittedly a more
modest kind of surprise than what you can find in Paris, but
it's still something completely different, which both fits
in to and challenge the surroundings.
Kim Herforth Nielsen explains that they cleared the old
Gothenberg House of everything and then simply cut an oval
hole in the ground floor deck, inserting a two-storey
building block. The freely distinct volumes heightens the
contrasts accentuated by the conscious use of clearly
separated materials. No labour is spared on the details and
all these trite signs and installations are hidden away
quite successfully.
The boldly conceived space contains a massive, precise,
zinc-sheeted box containing the two movie theatres. Daylight
spills over the edges and is let down to the lower floor
where it reflects in the waxed and acid-treated zinc. Here
is also a videotheque and a bar to be found. This visual
clarity, meant to reveal and add to the character of this
ex-publishing building, is quite typical of Nielsen, Nielsen
& Nielsen. But they are also citing their own former
works in the details, like some clear reminiscences of the
way too luxurious court-house in Holstebro or the more
recent Architect House here in Copenhagen.
The Århus-based architects does acknowledge the
film Noir for example, or like right now, the Neo-Noir. The
steely feeling is not unfriendly, just clear and sharp as a
bullet. The interior does aspire to a quest for the
realistic, although succeeding in varying degrees. One could
ask for an exterior a little more proud of the interior, but
Filmens Hus is nevertheless a given meeting-point in
Copenhagen where the movies are kept alive, as well as the
movie-going.
Published in Frame
Read more aboute Swedish Cinemas at
ww.furberg.nu
UPP
© 2001 Calimero