Regulating Early Nickelodeon Theatres

The increasing number of nickelodeon theatres opening in the 1906-1909 timeframe may have been a boon for lovers of entertainment, but it created headaches for many municipalities, particularly larger cities. These small businesses were multiplying at an astonishing rate, so they taxed the resources of the building and fire officials charged with monitoring them. While many cities would eventually enact theatre-specific regulations (often around the licensing of operators, the handing of nitrate film, etc.), early on most addressed concerns through their existing municipal code, which sometimes wasn’t up to the task and could vary widely from location to location.

The September 1909 issue of Nickelodeon carried an article surveying the various municipal regulations impacting picture theatres around the country. (See Charles F. Morris, “Regulation of Picture Theaters,” Nickelodeon, September 1909, Pages 90-122.) This was a cross-section of what was going on around the United States, and included information on the regulatory frameworks in Seattle and Spokane.

Data from that survey was pulled from questionnaires sent to the mayors of 115 U.S. cities by the publication Insurance Engineering. The goal was to get feedback on six basic questions highlighting the various approaches being used by local governments to manage the growth of nickelodeon picture theatres. Neither Seattle nor Spokane were unusual in their responses, but their approaches (and those of other cities as well) paint a picture of how these venues were being monitored and regulated near the height of the nickelodeon period.

The first survey question was whether the municipality had specific rules or regulations governing moving picture theatres and/or the exhibition of films. Seattle responded that they had an ordinance in place, but did not give specifics on what it actually contained. Spokane, on the other hand, simply noted that they adhered to the National Electrical Code, suggesting that their top concern was to ensure proper electrical (and thereby fire) safety, as opposed to regulating the building or location of nickelodeon theatres.

The second and third questions in the survey concerned the number of businesses operating within each city. At the time Seattle reported a total of 14 picture theatres, most of them located downtown, while Spokane had 13. Interestingly, though it was the larger of the two cities, Seattle had no film exchanges operating as of mid-1909, whereas Spokane had two. That would change over the next decade; eventually Seattle would become the film distribution center for Washington state, and where all its major exchanges were located. (Some, however, operated branch offices in places like Spokane so they could better service clients in eastern Washington to as far away as Montana.)

The remaining survey questions were around safety. Nickelodeon theatres required electricity to power their projectors, and in some locations (particularly rural ones) the local service was less than exemplary. Coupled with the fact that the pictures themselves were printed in nitrate film stock, which was highly flammable even in good conditions, many local governments put strong effort into keeping these spaces safe from fire.

A specific concern for Insurance Engineering was whether the municipality had any moving picture shows in buildings that were also used as apartments or other types of living spaces. Many cities prohibited that from occurring, since a theatre fire on the ground floor would likely burn upwards, potentially resulting in a greater loss of life if the building also contained dwelling units. Interestingly, this was one area where Seattle and Spokane weren’t on the same page, at least in 1909. Whether by accident or design (their response doesn’t really indicate), Spokane had no moving picture theatres in buildings that were also being used as housing. Seattle, obviously, did not have this stipulation in their municipal code. Of their 14 nickelodeon theatres, nine were in buildings that were also being used as living spaces. Neither city reported any fatalities from theatre fires, but Spokane was so concerned with the potential that they required ALL interior work on moving picture theatres to be fully inspected by the city electrical and gas departments. In addition Spokane had a strict no-smoking ban inside projection rooms (not a bad idea), likely due to the presence of nitrate film stock, specific rules around clutter and cleanliness, and even regulated the number of individuals who could be in the booth at any given time.

Finally, like almost every other city in the survey, moving picture theatres were regularly inspected by city officials to make sure they adhered to existing city codes. The final survey question was around these inspections, and again the two cities had entirely different approaches. In Seattle these were done by municipal building and fire officials, though their response failed to indicate how often they occurred. In Spokane, however, inspections were done on a weekly basis, and sometimes more frequently, with picture venues getting regular (and sometimes unannounced) visits from electrical and fire inspectors.