The Accessibility of Cinema in the Early Cinema Period

Throughout the early cinema period, vast changes were made in the makeup of theater

audiences, the content of films, and the way people thought about movies. These changes

reflected broader cultural shifts occurring in the progressive era in the United States such as

urbanization, the suffragette movement, and an influx of immigration. All over the US, the

theater business boomed, and especially in Columbia, South Carolina. Over the course of the

period between 1900 and 1922, the number of theaters in Columbia went from one to ten

(Walsh’s Columbia South Carolina City Directory, 1905; Walsh’s Columbia South Carolina City

Directory, 1922). Theaters became a more accessible attraction for Columbians in the first two

decades of the twentieth century as competition drove the lowering of prices, theaters expanded

into different areas of the city, and theater hours lengthened to include the working class.

In 1904, the construction of the new South Carolina state house on Main Street in

Columbia had just been completed (South Carolina State House History: The State House

History). Just across Gervais street from this new state house sat the only theater in the city, the

Columbia Theatre (Rotograph Co., 1905). Formerly the Columbia Metropolitan Opera, the

building housed city hall along with the theater (Rotograph Co., 1905). The Columbia Theatre

hosted stage shows from traveling companies during the majority of the 1904 season, but for ten

nights, the theater showed movies by Shepard’s Motion Picture Company. According to an

article written in The State on December 28, 1904, attendance was so low on the ten nights of

movie showings that the house was not full. In fact, the article claims that the manager, Mr. F L

Brown, did not want to play the movies given his knowledge of the general distaste for films in

Columbia, but was compelled to by the Theatre Trust (At The Theatre, 1904). The unpopularity

of movies at this time may account for the fact that only one theater stood in the whole of the
city, but public opinion surrounding movies seemed to change rapidly in the following months.

An article written in The State less than one year later on September 21, 1905, details the

excitement surrounding a showing of Shepard’s moving pictures, saying that the company had a

good reputation in the city and that there was sure to be a big crowd anytime one of their movies

played (Shepard’s Pictures, 1905). Another article published on March 12, 1906 in The State

confirmed that there was a larger audience each time the Shepard’s Moving Picture Company

came to do a show (Shepard’s Pictures, 1906). These articles illustrate the growing popularity of

movies in this early cinema period, a popularity which led to increasing demand from

movie-goers and eventually increasing supply of theaters. Between 1904 and 1910, three more

theaters came to Columbia (Walsh’s Columbia South Carolina City Directory, 1905; Walsh’s

Columbia South Carolina City Directory, 1910). This increase in supply of theaters led to a

decrease in ticket prices, evidenced by an advertisement for Shepard’s Moving Pictures at the

Columbia Theatre in The State in 1904 which billed the ticket prices at 25, 35, or 50 cents for an

evening show and an article about the Lyric Theatre in the Amusements section of the Columbia

Record paper in January of 1910 which stated that admission for any part of the house was five

cents (Columbia Theatre, 1904; Lyric Theatre, 1910). This drastic drop in prices as a result of

increased competition between theaters allowed the working class to enjoy movies as they could

not before. White theaters in 1910 competed for audiences by dropping prices and adding prizes

and attractions, but the Majestic Theatre was the only black theater listed in the city directory

that year (The Lyric, 1910; Walsh’s Columbia South Carolina City Directory, 1910). Black

audiences in 1910 had more access to movie-going than in 1904, but still had only one theater

which they could attend. The introduction of the Astoria Theatre and the Royal Theatre for black

patrons before 1917 increased access to movies for black patrons, but only the Astoria was
owned and operated by black businessmen, according to The Southern Indicator (Walsh’s

Columbia South Carolina City Directory, 1910; The Royal Theatre, 1921). This example shows

that while theaters may have become more accessible for diverse audiences, there was still a long

way to go in terms of the management of the theaters.

In the 1910 Columbia city directory, three new theaters were listed alongside the

Columbia Theatre: the Majestic Theatre, the Lyric Theatre, and the Grand Theatre (Walsh’s

Columbia South Carolina City Directory, 1910). Three of the four of these theaters were on Main

Street, just a few blocks apart from each other. The Columbia Theatre stood in the same location

on the corner of Main and Gervais, surrounded by the State House and city hall, separating itself

from the other theaters as a non-rowdy, upper class theater by its proximity to these

governmental fixtures. The Lyric and Grand theaters, however, were both surrounded by many

retail stores (Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Company, 1910). The locations of these theaters

around these other types of businesses helped to determine the kinds of people who would

patronize the theaters. The Columbia Theatre carved out its place as a high class establishment,

while the other theaters chose locations surrounded by other businesses that would generate

many kinds of foot-traffic. In 1910, three out of four of Columbia’s theaters were located within

a few blocks of each other, but by 1922, only six out of the ten theaters in Columbia were located

along Main street. Theaters had spread to Washington street, Sumter Street, and even Brookland,

in West Columbia (Walsh’s Columbia South Carolina City Directory, 1922). This wider range of

theater locations led to a more diverse audience of movie-goers, as people outside of the white,

upper class city center could enjoy this form of entertainment. One example of this was the

Royal Theatre, which was located on Washington Street and was surrounded by dwellings

(Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Company, 1919). There were no other businesses in the vicinity,
but the location of the theater lent itself to being more accessible to its audience, black people in

the working class. Another example was the Dixie Theatre in Brookland, West Columbia which

was surrounded only by a single row of other businesses. Because this area was largely

residential, the theater provided movie access to working class patrons living in Brookland

outside of the city (Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Company, 1919).

Working class patrons, both black and white, would not have been able to attend theaters,

however, had there not been a shift in the showtimes of movies during this period. An

advertisement for the Broadway Theatre in the Gamecock from 1914 displayed the hours of

operation for the theater as eleven AM to eleven PM daily (The Broadway Theatre, 1914). These

hours are drastically different from the showtimes for the Columbia Theatre advertised in The

State in 1906 as Wednesday afternoon and evening (Shepard’s Pictures, 1906). Because of

weekday work schedules and ticket prices, the working class had been historically excluded from

“higher class” attractions like the theater. This all changed, however, when movies came along,

and theaters even began to cater toward working class audiences. They did this not only by

having daily and weekend movie showings, but also by displaying different content and

attractions at their theaters that were geared toward working class patrons (At the Lyric, 1910).

For instance, an article in the Amusements section of the Columbia Record in 1910 detailed the

events for the coming week at the Lyric Theatre, which included apple-eating and cracker-eating

contests, forms of entertainment more likely geared toward the middle and lower classes than

upper class movie-goers (Lyric Theatre, 1910).

The changes made in the early cinema period in the level of competition between

theaters, the location of theaters, and the operating hours of theaters served to increase access to

movie theaters for different communities in the Columbia area. This increase in access extended
to minorities and the working class especially, but still left many changes to be desired in

inclusion for minorities in the exhibition of film and the management of theaters. Overall, the

early cinema period is one of the periods of the most rapid and robust change in the film industry

to date.
 References

1. Vaudeville troupe on Main Street, 1890s. Richland Library, Columbia. blackboard.sc.edu.

Web. Accessed 19 February 2023.

2. Rotograph Co. Columbia Theatre, corner of Main and Gervais, 1905. Richland Library,

Columbia. blackboard.sc.edu. Web. Accessed 19 February 2023.

3. Main Street, between 1903-1913. Richland Library, Columbia. blackboard.sc.edu. Web.

Accessed 19 February 2023.

4. “Today’s Attraction,” The State 23 Sep. 1904, Fri. morning ed.: 4. Blackboard.sc.edu.

Web. Accessed 19 February 2023.

5. Walsh's Columbia South Carolina City Directory for 1905. Charleston, S.C.: W. H. Walsh

Directory Company, 1905. South Carolina Digital Library. Digital.tcl.sc.edu. Web.

Accessed 19 February 2023.

6. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Company, Columbia, 1904. New York: Sanborn Map &

Publishing Co. Ltd., 1904. South Caroliniana Library Digital Collections.

digital.tcl.sc.edu. Web. Accessed 19 February 2023.

7. “Shepard’s Pictures,” The State 20 Sep. 1904, Tues. morning ed.: 4. Blackboard.sc.edu.

Web. Accessed 19 February 2023.

8. “Columbia Theatre,” The State 21 Sep. 1904, Wed. morning ed.: 4. Blackboard.sc.edu.

Web. Accessed 19 February 2023.

9. “Howe’s Moving Pictures,” The State 20 Oct. 1904, Thurs. morning ed.: 4.

Blackboard.sc.edu. Web. Accessed 19 February 2023.

10. “At The Theatre,” The State 28 Dec. 1904, Wed. morning ed.: 4. Blackboard.sc.edu. Web.

Accessed 19 February 2023.

11. “Shepard’s Pictures,” The State 21 Sep. 1905, Thurs. morning ed.: 4. Blackboard.sc.edu.

Web. Accessed 19 February 2023.

12. “Shepard’s Pictures,” The State 12 Mar. 1906, Mon. morning ed.: 4. Blackboard.sc.edu.

Web. Accessed 19 February 2023.

13. 1600 block of Main St, between 1904-1909. Richland Library, Columbia.

blackboard.sc.edu. Web. Accessed 19 February 2023.

14. Walsh's Columbia South Carolina City Directory for 1910. Charleston, S.C.: W. H. Walsh

Directory Company, 1910. South Carolina Digital Library. Digital.tcl.sc.edu. Web.

Accessed 19 February 2023.

15. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Company, Columbia, 1910. New York: Sanborn Map &

Publishing Co. Ltd., 1910. South Caroliniana Library Digital Collections.

digital.tcl.sc.edu. Web. Accessed 19 February 2023.

16. “Lyric Theatre,” The Columbia Record 9 Jan. 1910, Sun. morning ed.: 4.

Blackboard.sc.edu. Web. Accessed 19 February 2023.

17. “At The Lyric,” The Columbia Record 20 Jan. 1910, Thurs. morning ed.: 4.

Blackboard.sc.edu. Web. Accessed 19 February 2023.

18. “The Lyric,” The Columbia Record 21 Jan. 1910, Fri. morning ed.: 4. Blackboard.sc.edu.

Web. Accessed 19 February 2023.

19. “At the Grand,” The State 3 Jan. 1910, Mon. morning ed.: 4. Blackboard.sc.edu. Web.

Accessed 19 February 2023.

20. “The Motion Picture Stands Now In The Forefront Of Amusements And Industries,” The

State 23 Feb. 1913, Sun. morning ed.: 4. Blackboard.sc.edu. Web. Accessed 19 February

2023.
21. “The Broadway Theatre,” The Gamecock 19 Dec. 1914, Sat. morning ed.: 4.

Blackboard.sc.edu. Web. Accessed 19 February 2023.

22. Walsh's Columbia South Carolina City Directory for 1917. Charleston, S.C.: W. H. Walsh

Directory Company, 1917. South Carolina Digital Library. Digital.tcl.sc.edu. Web.

Accessed 19 February 2023.

23. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Company, Columbia, 1919. New York: Sanborn Map &

Publishing Co. Ltd., 1919. South Caroliniana Library Digital Collections.

digital.tcl.sc.edu. Web. Accessed 19 February 2023.

24. Main Street from the State House, between 1914-1918. Richland Library, Columbia.

blackboard.sc.edu. Web. Accessed 19 February 2023.

25. Walsh's Columbia South Carolina City Directory for 1922. Charleston, S.C.: W. H. Walsh

Directory Company, 1922. South Carolina Digital Library. Digital.tcl.sc.edu. Web.

Accessed 19 February 2023.

26. “A Negro In News,” The Southern Indicator 12 Aug. 1922, Sat. morning ed.: 4.

Blackboard.sc.edu. Web. Accessed 19 February 2023.

27. “New Royal Theatre To Be Taken Over By Mr. G. Lee Ratilff,” The Southern Indicator

27 Aug. 1921, Sat. morning ed.: 4. Blackboard.sc.edu. Web. Accessed 19 February 2023.

28. “The Committee Appointed,” The Southern Indicator 19 Feb. 1921, Sat. morning ed.: 4.

Blackboard.sc.edu. Web. Accessed 19 February 2023.

29. “The Royal Theatre,” The Southern Indicator 12 Feb. 1921, Sat. morning ed.: 4.

Blackboard.sc.edu. Web. Accessed 19 February 2023.

30. “South Carolina State House: The State House History.” South Carolina State House |The

State House History, https://www.scstatehouse.gov/studentpage/Explore/history.shtml.

 Notes

1890s-1906:

1. 1890s Vaudeville troupe on Main st photo

This photo shows Main Street looking toward the state house grounds. On the corner is the

Municipal Opera House, housed in the 2nd and 3rd floors of Old City Hall. In the middle is a

vaudeville troupe in a horse-drawn carriage. This photo shows the prominence of vaudeville and

other stage acts, like opera, in this era. It also illustrates the difference between the Municipal

Opera House and the Columbia Theatre building, which was on the same land. The Theatre

building, shown in another photo from 1905 (source 2), looks drastically different from the opera

house. This source is important for my research because it helps establish the background from

which movie theaters and the movie-going experience evolved.

2. Columbia Theatre photo 1905

This photo shows the Columbia Theatre on the corner of Main and Gervais in 1905. In

conjunction with the photo from the 1890s which shows the Municipal Opera House, this photo

illustrates the change in the usage of the building from an opera to a theater between the 1890s

and 1905. This information is important for my research because it is important to note that the

shift from other forms of entertainment to movies came along with a shift in the architecture of

the areas where theaters were and a shift in the types of businesses in the area surrounding

theaters.

3. Main Street photo between 1903-1913

This photo shows a view looking from the state house down Main street in Columbia. There are

very few people on the street and very few buildings that stand out from the others. One of the
buildings that does catch the eye, however, is the Columbia Theatre on the corner. This photo

could show that there was not a huge market for the businesses present on Main Street at this

time because there seems to be almost no foot traffic on the street. It also shows that the

Columbia Theatre was one of the biggest and most prominent buildings in this area of Columbia

at the time. These observations are important because the lack of foot traffic on the street at this

time gives a baseline with which to compare the amount of traffic in other years or at other times

and the prominence of the theater building suggests that this theater served a unique purpose in

the area, as it was the only one in Columbia at the time.

4. Today’s Attraction in At the Theatre in The State Newspaper September 23, 1904

This newspaper article entitled “At the Theatre” in The State discusses the coming attractions at

the theater in Columbia. In the beginning of the article, they discuss the theater playing a

Shepard Moving Picture Company show called “Hiawatha” at the Columbia Theatre on the

Friday that the paper was published. They say that the show has incidental music and special

mechanical effects. They go on to describe the plays going on at the Columbia Theatre in the

coming week, “Human Hearts” and “Candida”. They also discuss the fact that theaters in the

year 1904 did not do very well because of the enforcement of ordinances on defective theaters

that caused theaters to shut down and shows to move from theater to theater. This source is

important for my research because it establishes that, while movies were around at this time, they

were still second to plays and other live shows in the eyes of the public.

5. Columbia City directory, 1905

In the Columbia city directory for 1905, there is only one theater listed, the Columbia Theatre.

Its address was 1201-1205 Main Street, on the corner of Main and Gervais. It was located in the

same building as city hall and the manager was one Fitzhugh Brown of F L Brown & Bro. He
also managed the Columbia Orchestra and the Hyatt Park Casino, according to the directory. In

the directory, there are both black and white employees listed for the theater in 1905, but it was a

segregated theater for white patronage only. This source establishes a background for the

changes in the movie-going experience in the next 2 decades, as it shows that there was only one

theater in the city, and it only catered to a specific audience.

6. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map 1904

The Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from 1904 shows the Columbia Theatre, the only theater in the

city, on the corner of Gervais and Main. The building also housed city hall, and it was beside a

police station and the state house. The theater was a brick building with 3 stories, a stage with

electric and gas, and heat and steam lights. This source shows the kind of buildings that

surrounded the theater, and thus what kind of theater it was meant to be. If the theater was in the

same building as city hall, beside a police station, and across from the state house, it can be

deduced that this theater was a place for non-rowdy entertainment and high class people who

wanted to be protected at the theater. This information is important for showing the difference

between the types of buildings surrounding theaters at the beginning vs. the end of the next 2

decades.

7. Shepard’s Pictures in At the Theatre in The State September 20,1904

This article in The State in September of 1904 talks about a show going on at the theater on

Friday, Shepard’s moving picture show. They say that the show is 2 hours of enjoyment and that

Shepard’s pictures are the best ever shown in the South. They also say that this entertainment is

suitable for ladies and children, and that they need not fear that they will be offended, as Mr.

Shepard eliminates anything objectionable from his movies. They say that he has the approval of

the press, pulpit, and public. This source gives information about the types of movies that were
playing at this time. It shows that these movies were meant to have light subject matter that

didn’t offend anyone. It also shows that women and children were attending movies at this time,

because the article takes pains to say that the movies are suitable for them. This source can be

used to show differences in the content of movies from the beginning of this period to the end,

and how a diversity of content led to increased accessibility of movies.

8. Ad for the Columbia Theatre in The State 9/21/04

This ad in The State advertised the showing of Shepard’s “High Class” Moving Pictures at the

Columbia Theatre, and touted them as “unique”, “artistic”, “instructive”, and “amusing”. The

advertisement lists the prices: 25 cents for adults and 15 cents for children at the matinee and 25,

35, or 50 cents for the evening show. This advertisement offers insight into the types of people

theaters were advertising to, because they use a lot of words like high class to describe the

movies in order to get people to want to see them. The prices also offer insight into how

expensive the theater was at the beginning of the decade.

9. Howe’s Moving Pictures in the State newspaper October 20, 1904

This article in The State in October of 1904 discusses the movie shown at the Columbia Theatre

the previous night, which was edited by Lyman H Howe. They say that movies were not a very

popular amusement as they were new, but that the film was instructive and edifying. They go on

to describe the subjects of the film, including scenes of the Japanese war interspersed with lighter

scenes, saying that they were popular and that the pictures were very clear. This source shows

that movies were not a particularly popular pastime in 1904 and that movies were not made with

completely serious content at the time. People did not want to go to the movies to see something

sad, but rather wanted happy, light content. This is important to my claim that the content shown
in movies at the beginning of the 2 decades in question was much less diverse than the content

showed at the end.

10. Section 2 in At the Theatre. in the state newspaper December 28 1904

In article 2 of the At The Theatre. section in The State in December 1904, the author discusses

the mediocrity of the current theater season in Columbia, saying that very few stars came to the

city and listing the “mediocre” productions seen on the stage in the season. The author goes on to

say that there were 10 nights of movies shown at the Columbia Theatre in the 1904 season, and

that the attendance on these nights was not enough to fill the house. The author claims that

Columbians don’t care for movies as a source of entertainment, except as side-shows. He also

says that the manager of the theater, F L Brown, did not want to play the movies, but that the

theatre trust made him do so. The author ends the article by describing 2 minstrel shows that

played during the season. This source gives valuable information about the public perception of

movies in Columbia and the way in which movies were played. It shows that Columbians were

not fond of movies for entertainment, that there were only a few reserved nights of movies in the

theater season, and that the theatre trust made theater managers show movies. This is important

to my claim that movies became more accessible because later, there are advertisements showing

that movies ran all day in theaters rather than just on certain nights.

11. Shepard’s Pictures in At the theatre in the state newspaper September 21, 1905

In this article, the author says that there will be a showing of Shepard’s moving pictures Friday

aafternoon and evening. He says that the show has a good reputation in the city and that there

will be a big crowd to see the movie. The author also says that Mr. Shepard has lots of new

movies this year and they are all enjoyable sources of entertainment. This source shows that, in

the span of less than a year, Columbians seemed to have changed their minds about movies. The
increasing demand for movies shown in this article later on led to increasing supply of theaters

and thus more access to different demographics within Columbia.

12. Shepard’s Pictures in At the theatre in the State March 12, 1906

In the Shepard’s Pictures article in March of 1906, the author says that there will be a showing of

Shepard’s pictures at the Columbia Theatre during the week. He also states that with each return

of Shepard’s pictures to the theater, there is an even larger crowd and that this class of

amusement is becoming more popular. Lastly, the author states that the Wednesday matinee and

night shows will include many new movies. This source shows the increasing demand for

movies in Columbia at the time and also the limited showings of movies. The fact that the

movies were shown on a Wednesday afternoon and evening indicates that only higher classes

would be in attendance, as working class individuals would be busy that day.

1907-1915:

13. 1600 block of Main Street between 1904-1909 photo

This photo looking down the 1600 block of Main Street shows a line of people lined up outside

of what would have been the Grand Theatre at the time. This shows an increased interest in

movies by the general public as well as increased access to theaters because there was more than

just one by this time.

14. Columbia city directory, 1910

The Columbia city directory for 1910 lists 4 movie theaters: the Majestic Theatre, the Columbia

Theatre, the Lyric Theatre, and the Grand Theatre. The Majestic Theatre was located at 1316

Assembly street and was owned by one Geo Storfer, a black entrepreneur. The theater was
segregated and meant for only black patrons, indicated by the (c) beside the theater’s listing in

the directory. The Columbia Theatre was still located at 1201-1205 Main Street, as it was in

1905, and it had the same manager, F L Brown. The theater employed black and white men, and

had a woman clerk. The Lyric Theatre was listed at 1417 Main Street and had a white manager

named Chas Kessnich. The theater listed black and white employees, and one woman cashier.

There are also musicians in the directory who were employed by the Lyric Theater. The Grand

Theatre was listed at 1621 Main Street and the manager was listed as Carl Davenport, a white

man. The theater employed musicians, like the Lyric, and had both black and white employees

and a woman cashier. This source is important in showing the difference in the number of

theaters between 1905 and 1910, and also the difference in the types of theaters, as one of these

theaters was made to cater to black audiences instead of white audiences. The owner of the

Majestic Theatre was a black entrepreneur, showing that opportunity was expanding in the movie

business for people in different communities.

15. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map 1910

The Sanborn Fire Insurance Map in 1910 shows the Majestic Theatre, the Lyric Theatre, the

Columbia Theatre, and the Grand Theatre. The Majestic Theatre was the only one of these not on

Main Street, and it was much smaller than any of the other theaters listed. It was located between

a restaurant and a cobbler shop and was a brick building. The Lyric Theatre was set back behind

a tailor and an office and was across from several retail stores. It was in a brick and frame

building on the second floor. The Grand Theatre was bigger than the Lyric and the Majestic, but

smaller than the Columbia Theatre. It had a kinetoscope studio and a stage, and was surrounded

by a Chinese laundry, a dentist, and a photo school. It was also across from a department store

and a bakery. The building it was housed in was brick and frame and the theater was on the
second floor. The Columbia Theatre was very much the same as in 1904. This source gives a lot

of information on what kinds of businesses surrounded the theaters at this time and this

information is pertinent because of how the theaters’ locations may have affected their

patronage. It is also important to note that all of the theaters were spread out between multiple

blocks in this era, but their locations were still fairly close together and limited to Main street and

Assembly.

16. Lyric Theatre in the Amusements section of the Columbia Record paper Jan 9. 1910

This article in the Columbia Record newspaper in 1910 describes the coming attractions at the

Lyric Theatre, which include a shadowgraph show, a play, a blackface act, and 6 feature films.

They say that the pictures will be changed Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and that admission

for any part of the house is 5 cents. They also detail other attractions for the theater including

apple-eating and cracker-eating contests. This source shows the increasing competition between

theaters at the time as the paper describes the events at multiple theaters instead of just the

Columbia Theatre. It also shows a decrease in the prices at theaters and an increase in the

showtimes, both of which made theaters more accessible to the working class. There also seems

to be a shift in what types of amusements happened at the theater which may have reflected a

shift in theater patronage. Apple-eating and cracker-eating contests do not seem like the

amusements of the uber rich. The theater did still exclude and caricature black people, however,

as shown through the inclusion of a minstrel show in their weekly program.

17. At the Lyric in the Columbia record Amusements section January 20, 1910

This article starts off by touting the clarity and beauty of the movies shown at the Lyric Theatre,

going on to say that there will be a showing of the movie “Rally Round the Old Flag” at the

theater on Friday and Saturday and that there will be a singing act with the movie. The article
goes on to describe a play being put on at the Lyric the following week, and lists the prices of the

play as 5 and 10 cents for the matinee or 10 and 20 cents for the night show. This article

illustrates the fact that movies were made more for the working class than traditional stage shows

were, as the movies were being shown on weekends with lower prices, and the plays were being

shown during the week and were more expensive. This demonstrates the greater accessibility of

movie theaters versus stage theaters in this era.

18. The Lyric article in the amusements section of the Columbia Record January 21, 1910

The Lyric article in the amusements section of the Columbia Record published in January of

1910 describes the upcoming events for the week at the theater. There was to be a song followed

by a showing of 65 slides from the biblical passion play which would be narrated by the singer,

Mr. Williams, and 3 new movies later in the week. The Lyric was also doing a promotion at the

theater giving coupons away beginning Monday, and then the person with the lucky coupon at

the theater on Friday would win a prize. This source shows the tactics that theaters employed to

attract audiences. This is important for my claim because it shows that they were targeting the

middle class (promotions wouldn’t appeal very much to upper-class theater goers.)

19. At the Grand in The State January 3, 1910

The At the Grand Article in The State details the upcoming events for the Grand Theatre,

including a vaudeville show, a night of entertainment including magic, juggling, and acrobats,

and comedy and drama films. They also discuss a promotion that the theater was doing for

children who attended the theater on Friday afternoon, saying that they would get a souvenir.

This source is another example of tactics that theaters used to attract their audiences. This is

important for my claim that theaters wanted to attract working class customers because the

offering of promotions is targeted towards lower or middle class people.

 20. The Motion Picture stands now in the forefront of the amusements and industries article

in the Motion Picture News in the state February 23, 1913

This article claims that the film industry was growing in strength and influence daily and that it

was a huge part of the economy. The author says that this sort of amusement is frowned upon by

some, but that everyone will agree that films should be free of physical and moral dangers. He

also says that as of now, movies pose no moral threat. He says that there is no sanctioned

censorship of movies at this time, but that film companies know that they need to make moral

films to appeal to their audiences. This source illustrates the fact that the movie industry was

booming by 1913 which is important for my claim that supply and demand for movies both

increased dramatically in the early cinema period.

21. Ad for the Broadway Theatre in the Gamecock in 1914

This advertisement for the Broadway Theatre in the Gamecock calls the theater Columbia’s

modern movie and says that they show licensed films. It also says that they are open daily from

11 AM to 11 PM, with an admission cost of only 5 cents from 11-6 and 10 cents from 6-11. This

source is important for establishing that theaters were extending their hours in this period, which

made movies more accessible to the working class.

1916- 1922:

22. Columbia City Directory 1917

The Columbia City Directory for 1917 lists 7 theaters: the Astoria Theatre, the Columbia

Theatre, the Ideal Theatre, the Pastime Theatre, the Broadway Theatre, the Strand Theatre, and

the Royal Theatre. The Astoria Theatre was listed at 1414 Assembly street and had a (c) beside
the listing, indicating that this was a segregated theater for black patronage. The manager of the

Astoria was listed under the “colored department”, meant to denote that the people listed in this

section of the directory were not white. The Columbia Theatre was listed at the same address as

in 1905, 1201-1205 Main Street, with the same manager, F L Brown. The Ideal Theatre was

listed at 1323 Main Street, with a manager named G C Warner, who was listed in the white

department, indicating that he was white. There are also musicians listed for the Ideal Theatre,

showing that the theater still employed other forms of entertainment than movies. The Pastime

Theatre was listed at 1415 Main, and Eugene Rawls, listed under the white department, was the

president of the theater. This theater also employed musicians. The Broadway Theatre was listed

at 1426 Main and its manager was S W Craver, listed in the white department. The Strand

Theatre was located at 1438 Main and its manager was L T Lester, who was listed in the white

department. Finally, the Royal Theatre was at 1012 Washington Street and had a (c) beside it in

the directory, like the Astoria, indicating that this theater was for black patrons. The theater was

also owned by a black entrepreneur named Lee Radliff. This source is important for many

reasons: 1. It shows that there were 2 theaters for black patrons in 1917, and one of them was a

black owned business. 2. It shows that the number of theaters shot up from the last directory,

which listed only 4 theaters. The number of theaters increasing meant that there was more

competition for patrons, which would have driven prices down. The fact that there was a

black-owned and operated movie theater in Columbia shows that the movie industry was

expanding at this time to include marginalized communities and people who would have been

barred from white theaters.

23. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map 1919

The 1919 Sanborn Fire Insurance map shows 10 different theaters in the city of Columbia: the

Rivoli, the Ideal, the Pastime, the Broadway, the Strand, the Astoria, the Columbia, the Royal,the

Dixie, and the Lincoln. The majority of these theaters were within a few blocks of each other on

Main Street, the Pastime and the Broadway were even directly across from each other. The

proximity of the theaters to each other illustrates that the Main Street area was a hot spot for

entertainment in 1919, and also that these theaters had a lot of competition with each other for

patronage. The Rivoli was a brick theater with a stone front that was beside 2 hotels. The Ideal

was parallel to where Majestic Theaters used to be, and it was behind a barber shop and a bank.

The building was brick with an iron awning. The Pastime and Broadway were both brick

buildings and the Broadway had an iron awning. The Pastime was behind a drug store. The

Strand Theatre was right up the street from the Pastime and the Broadway, on the same block. It

was across from a candy kitchen and beside a hotel, and the building was brick and frame with

an iron awning. The Astoria was not labeled on this map, but would have been exactly parallel to

the Pastime on the 1400 block of Assembly street. The Astoria was a brick building. The

Columbia Theatre was in the same spot as it had been since 1905, but it looks as if it expanded

from 1201-1205 to 1201-1207 Main. The Royal Theatre was a frame building and was mostly

surrounded by dwellings which were also frame buildings. The Dixie Theatre was labeled

“Electric Theatre” on the map and it was on the corner of the State and Meeting streets in New

Brookland. The building was iron clad and mostly surrounded by dwellings, except for the strand

of shops near it. The Lincoln Theatre was at 1017 Washington street. This information about the

locations of the theaters in 1919 and the types of business surrounding them is crucial to

establishing an idea of how these theaters drew in crowds and who might be in those crowds.

The Royal Theatre was in a different area of the city than most of the others, and this could have
to do with the demographics of the city at the time. This could indicate that the Royal Theatre

was made to be more accessible to black patrons based on its location. The Dixie Theatre was

also in a very different area of Columbia than most of the other theaters. In fact, this theater was

the first in West Columbia, and this may indicate that theaters were starting to cater toward the

working class who did not live within Columbia city limits, but there is only partial information

to support this hypothesis.

24. Main st photo between 1914 and 1918

This photo shows Main Street between 1914 and 1918 looking toward the Columbia Theatre

from the State House. In the photo, there are crowds of people walking on the left side of the

street where the Columbia Theatre was, and almost no one walking on the right. There is also a

tall building across from the Columbia Theatre that was not there in 1910. This source may

provide evidence that theaters chose their locations knowing that the types of businesses around

them would influence their business, or maybe that the theaters themselves influenced the

businesses that sprung up around them. There is only partial information here, as it is unclear

from this photo and the Sanborn Fire Insurance maps what the new building is. It is also unclear

exactly why all of these people are on one side of the street.

25. Columbia City Directory 1922

The Columbia City Directory from 1922 lists 10 movie theaters: the Lincoln Theatre, the Ideal

Theatre, the Rialto Theatre, the Imperial Theatre, the Imperial Theater, the Columbia Theatre, the

Rivoli Theatre, the Town Theatre, the Royal Theatre, the Dixie Theatre, and the Broadway

Theatre. The Lincoln Theatre was listed at 1017 Washington, and was not listed in the directory

from 1917. The proprietor was a white man named Alex Wallace. The Ideal Theatre was listed at

1323 Main, the same location as in 1917, and had a white manager named Jordan Bell. The
Rialto Theatre was located at 1438 Main Street, where the Strand was in 1917, and was owned

by L T Lester, the same man who owned the Strand. The Imperial Theater was listed at 1417

Main Street, 2 doors down from where the Pastime Theatre was in 1917. The manager of this

theater was C W Irvin, a white man, and the theater employed an organist. The Columbia Theatre

was still in the same location as it had been since 1905, and the president was still F L Brown,

although the theater was listed under the Brown-Propst Amusement Company in 1922. The

Rivoli Theatre was listed at 1228 Main Street, and the proprietor was L T Lester, the same man

who owned the Rialto and the Strand before it. The Town Theatre was located at 1012 Sumter

Street. The Royal Theatre moved 2 doors down to 1010 Washington street and was still a black

owned and operated theater, with the manager being A W Perrin. The Dixie Theatre was located

in Brookland and was not listed in the 1917 directory. Its proprietor was a white man named

Lemuel Hall and he was also the mayor of Brookland at the time. Lastly, the Broadway Theater

was listed at 1426 Main, the same place as in 1917. This directory shows the differences between

the theaters in 1917 and those in 1922. It shows that there were more theaters in more diverse

locations in 1922, but also that there were fewer black-owned theaters. This information can both

be used to support and dispute my claim.

26. Article titled “A Negro In The News” in the Southern Indicator on August 12, 1922

This article discusses the fact that white subscribers to newspapers were frequently enraged upon

seeing articles written about black people’s accomplishments. The article talks about how white

people wanted to see black people portrayed as criminals only, and that this preference

transferred to movies as well. The article says that in movies, the only actions of black actors

tolerated by white audiences were those that involved criminality or buffoonery. The author

wrote that exhibitors of films would even cut out parts that featured black actors acting in other
ways, as they knew their audiences would not be interested. This source shows the content of

popular films in this era and the fact that black stories were not often portrayed. This is important

for my claim because it serves as evidence that different theaters targetted different audiences by

having different content in their films.

27. Article titled “New Royal Theater to be taken over by Mr. G. Lee Ratliff” in the Southern

Indicator on August 27, 1921

This article informs readers that the Royal Theater was being taken over by G. Lee Ratliff, a

successful black businessman in Columbia. It says that the people of Columbia know the

character of Mr. Ratliff and he has a reputation as a good movie-theater manager. It also

advertises the price of admission as ten cents for children and fifteen cents for adults. This source

is important because it shows that black newspapers were advertising and writing about black

movie theaters, while white newspapers were not. This shows a counterpoint to my claim that

competition drove accessibility in the movie industry, because that claim was mostly limited to

white audiences.

28. Article titled “The Committee Appointed” in the Southern Indicator on February 19,

1921

This article discusses the ownership of the Royal Theatre treating its patronage badly. It says that

the owner is a white man but the theater is exclusively for black audiences, and that the

audiences have many problems with the theater. It goes on to inform the readers that a committee

has been established by the ministers to discuss terms with the owner of the Royal Theatre. It

also says that the theater should not be operated by a white owner when there are black people

with the experience to run and operate the theater themselves. This source provides a differing

account of events than the city directory, which listed G Lee Ratliff as the owner of the Royal
Theatre in 1917. This article was published years later, but says that the theater is owned by a

white proprietor. This source and the directory provide partial information which can be used to

illustrate the lack of representation given to black people in the movie industry at this time.

29. Article titled “The Royal Theatre” in the Southern Indicator on February 12, 1921

This article talks about the discovery that the Royal Theatre and the Lincoln Theatre, two

theaters with exclusively black patronage, were owned and operated by only white managers.

The author says that there are no black employees in any position of authority even though the

theaters survive off of support from black audiences alone. Later on, the author says that

ministers will make a committee to rectify this situation in the coming days. This source is

important because it gives more evidence to the claim that while the city directory in 1917 said

that the Royal was owned by Lee Ratliff, it was actually owned by a white businessman instead.

This can help to serve as an example of the change in leadership of theaters during this era to be

more representative of their patronage.