My city has a now defunct movie theater that first opened in 1941. I have been going through the back issues of the city’s old newspaper and compiling a list of the films shown using the theater listings. I have come across a film I can’t identify. It calls itself Royal Wedding and apparently stars Dorothy Lamour. The listing is from 1948. I have included the listing below.
Park Theater Listing from 1948
Thanks in advance for your help. Here is a little bonus. A big ad for the sex ed feature film Mom and Dad (1945) that was shown at the theater in 1947.
Mom and Dad (1945)
I wonder if it might be a typo. It may be possible that the title “Royal Wedding’ might refer to the marriage of Princess Elizabeth and it may refer to the film of that wedding. I also note that Dorothy Lamour stared in “Road To Rio” with Hope and Crosby. I hope this helps.
I thought that too, but in these theater listings, the last movie is repeated in the next listing. It shows it the same way in that next listing. Could be a copied typo, but it was enough that I thought I would ask. The only entry for a Royal Wedding movie in IMDb around 1947 that I could find was The Royal Wedding Presents, but it’s an extremely bare entry.
You’re probably right, but let’s see if we can get a little consensus.
Yeah… I’m thinking typo too because Lamour starred with Hope and Crosby in “Road to Rio”. “Royal Wedding” had Astaire and someone named Lucille Lamarr as one of the dancers, not Dorothy Lamour as far as I know …
It couldn’t be that Royal Wedding because this listing is from 1947 and that film came out in the 1950s. I am agreeing about Road to Rio, but do you think I have the right film in IMDb for this Royal Wedding that is in the listing?
Yeah but the wedding of princess Elizabeth was 1947.
I am sold. The only remaining question is whether it was referring to this film or if this is some other film/newsreel that isn’t on IMDb.
I think “royal wedding” is a newsreel which were common in those days. That’s why we don’t see it on IMDb.
I wonder when they stopped showing newsreels at movie theatres.
The reason for that repeat may be that that part of the type may have been signed off on a proof read by mistake and that type may have been transferred over from the letter press. Just a repeating oversight
Michael, I’m afraid I’m adding my comments a bit after the discussion, but I agree with the notion that Dorothy Lamour’s name was probably meant to be included along with Hope & Crosby. Regarding the film titled “Royal Wedding”, I don’t think it is the film “Royal Wedding Presents”, but there is no reason it couldn’t relate to the wedding of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip. It wasn’t unheard of that films and shorts would carry over in theaters for a year. These are the days when a film wouldn’t need to make box-office receipts in a single weekend and simply disappear within a month.
Your comments are not late and discussions are perpetual here. I have gone through about six and a half years of the Park Theater’s listings and they have mentioned a short in the listing 1-2 times. It could just be that the Royal Wedding was such a big deal that it couldn’t go unmentioned, but this was also the era of the double feature and only Road To Rio is listed. When I get to entering this listing into my Letterboxd list, I will take a second look. That will give me some detachment.
you know I don’t have a clue…
Pat!! It’s been a long time. I have just come across another listing that included a film entitled Olympic Games of 1948. In IMDb there is a film from 1948 with that title that shows just what the title advertises. That really makes me think that this listing is for that UK film about the royal wedding that just happens to be largely undocumented on IMDb. Probably will never know for sure.
I thnk WordPress just ate my comment, so let me try again:
I know I’m really really late on this, but I agree it’s probably a newsreel of the wedding of Elizabeth II and Philip, which was in November, 1947. That’s just three months before these February showings. I wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t this specific newsreel:
Sorry it took a few days to get back to you. I watched that video and I think you are right. It makes perfect sense.
All this reminds me of a silly mistake on a Coming Features poster in my hometown when I was in high school in 1970. Among the upcoming movies was “Walt Disney’s ‘The Boys in the Band.’” Some little kids were in for a surprise.
That’s hilarious! A surprise indeed!