Samuel Shapiro decides to open another movie theatre in downtown Philadelphia, due in part to the success of “The Graduate” at his Rittenhouse Square location.  By E. Fuld

Sameric Corp., which sold the Boyd Theater in 1988, claims that the fight over the status of theater as a historical structure forced it to sell the building for less than fair market value.  Courts have upheld the law allowing the designation of buildings as historical structures but have rejected the Boyd Theater’s designation as such.  The new owners of the building intend to convert it into stores.  By L. Pardue

United Artists, the current owner of the Boyd Theater, AKA Sameric 4, are in the process of selling the theater to real estate investors despite efforts to preserve it as a historical structure. By L. Pardue

Demonstrates the fact that Philadelphia was, to some extent, on the cinematic cutting-edge during the 1960’s.  Of course, the bulk of the movies advertised in the Inquirer seem to be the standard big-budget Hollywood fare, but there were also theaters, like the Bryn Mawr, that were up-to-speed on world cinema movements.  The fact that this article was included in the “Amusements and the Arts” section is proof that there was interested in this type of film in Philadelphia.  By A. Migdail

This is an article from the Philadelphia Inquirer briefly reviewing the films playing at each of the major Philadelphia theaters during the Christmas season, from “It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World” at the Boyd to “Kings of the Sun” at the Goldman.  It is interesting to note that, in 1963, theaters made a somewhat long-term commitment to an individual movie (whereas today, most theaters play more than one film) so that the theaters in the article are often listed before the film that is playing.  By A. Migdail

This article deals with Goldman’s expansion of his movie theatre chain.  He moves his business from a small out of the way theater to a small empire of the last picture palaces in Philadelphia.  The buying and gutting of this old establishment becomes representative of the new way of making movie theaters.  Though Keithe’s theater is still considered a picture palace, it is a new age palace and much different than its predecessors.  Goldman makes this venue into a state of the art theater for the next generation of film goers.  By W. Wright

In LexisNexis, click "Get a Case" and search for case 19 T.C. 637

United States. U.S. Tax Court. William Goldman Theatres, Inc. v. Commissionner of Internal Revenue. 19 T.C. 637; 1953 U.S. Tax Ct. Lexis 262.

This is a federal court case (the case was never granted a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court) about the settlement of William Goldman Theater Co. against Loews. This case talks about the money Goldman won after suing Loews under the Sherman Anti-trust act. The original case has to deal with the incurred loss of Goldman’s theaters because of an unfair monopoly practices under the vertically integrated studio system. Goldman was originally awarded $1.35 million for loss and damages, but after another appeal, a district court awarded him $125,000, plus $375,000 in punitive damages. By 1953, the case was already over seven years old, but it was not simply a case fighting large studios, it was a case that allowed for a local area theater owner to gain some control over distribution and exhibition with Philadelphia. This decision leads to Goldman opening a successful chain of movie theaters, which he owns and operates for over another twenty years. By W. Wright

Review of new theater (playhouse) the Forrest Theater. This is a play house but it is still interesting because it is an example of the expansion in exhibition spaces and it marks the move towards more opulent spaces. The Forrest Theater is described as “magnificent” and “a gem.”  By Jake M. Chanin

Article on the future of motion pictures in 1915. Integration of the theater space as an exhibition area for plays, burlesque shows, vaudeville, and photo plays.  By Jake M. Chanin