Page 16 - RD_2015_12

The proscenium was fine in all four,
but the influence of proportion made
for real differences in visual effect. The
prototype, South Yarra, was relatively
small and had less of an impact, but the
others were really impressive.
Adelaide’s was the finest of them,
with its arched and regally draped
boxes inset deeply into the truncated
ante-proscenium with finely detailed
decoration on either side. The Regent,
Sydney, cursed as it was with a shallow
site, had its boxes crowded hard up
against the main arch, and suffered
visually as a consequence. Even the
placing of the roundels was more
pleasing in Adelaide.
The decoration of the side-walls
was more elaborate in Sydney. Plaster
features adorned otherwise plain spaces
that in Adelaide were initially covered
with tapestries. It is a matter of
personal preference, but I liked the way
the Moroccan windows of Adelaide
were stepped down to follow the line of
the balcony floor, and the long-removed
tapestries.
It must be obvious by now, if it
hasn't been from the beginning, that in
my opinion the Regent, Adelaide was
architecturally the finest of all, because
it remained true to one vision. The
consistency and lack of excess from the
entrance doors to the stage, the fine
proportions that its site allowed, its
impressive façade - the focal point of
the city's main shopping street - and the
sparkle with which loving maintenance
and huge bunches of fresh flowers
endowed it, won me over. I admired
them all, but my first love was and is
my greatest.
* Euclid’s theorem with
implications for art and architecture.

From top:
Elegant understatement: A tapestry hangs
between the exit doors of the stalls.
Above it the balustrade of the vomitorium
is just visible. The spacious balcony c.
1938. Adelaide. The width between the
inner and outer proscenium allows full
expression of the box compared with its
cramped Sydney counterpart (far right).
Images: Top and centre, JTC; bottom,
Brian Pearson Collection (BPC)

16 2006 CINEMARECORD