Documentary: The Oviatt Building on DVD

[Marc Chevalier]

My DVD arrived today. I'm hoping to watch it today or tomorrow. :eusa_clap

Hooray! :eusa_clap Please do post a review!



(Should I mention that Seth and I made this documentary on an absolute shoestring? lol)

.

 

[Dagwood]

I don’t know why I find this so fascinating!

I've spent a year trying to find files of the original 1929 U.S. Customs case against which Oviatt appealed....Many of these decorations have long since disappeared, and no other photos of them are known to have survived. I need these case pictures! lol

Sorry I can’t help in tracking down the photos, but this information may help you track down people, who know people, who...well, you get the idea: (1) Lawrence A. Harper (of San Francisco) and J. L. Klingaman argued on behalf of OVIATT, (2) Charles D. Lawrence, William Whynman and Ralph Folks argued on behalf of the United States and (3) oral argument was on April 4, 1933, by Mr. Klingaman and Mr. Folks.

By the way, the opinion was written by Finis James Garrett, a Coolidge appointee who was later elevated to Presiding Judge by FDR. Garret had an interesting history. Served in the House of Representatives from 1905 to 1929 (nominated 3 times to be Speaker of the House). More from a 1937 Time Magazine article: “If Finis Garrett had stayed in the House in 1928, he would almost certainly have been elected Speaker by the Democratic majority of 1931. If Finis Garrett had been Speaker, John Nance Garner would not have been boomed for the Presidency in 1932. Without the Garner boom the famed deal whereby California and Texas delegations gave their support to Franklin Roosevelt at the Chicago Convention of 1932 would have been impossible. Without the Hearst-Garner-McAdoo deal, Franklin Roosevelt might never have become President of the U.S.”

Also, found a 1941 case wherein it notes the following:

1. The taxpayer is a California Corporation, the legal title of which is OVIATT'S, with head office at 617 South Olive Street, Los Angeles, California.

2. The President of the Corporation is JAMES OVIATT.

3. The taxable year, in respect to which the petition has been filed, is the fiscal year ended January 31, 1937.

4. The taxable net income for that year was $34,351.64 [about $513,000.00 in today’s dollars]

5. The taxpayer paid a normal income tax for that year of $4,104.33 [about $61,000.00 in today’s dollars]

Pretty darn good for a business during the Depression!

Ah yes ... a very interesting and oft-cited appeals case, which Oviatt lost. Actually, his argument was a strong one -- but it's hard as heck to beat the Federal government.

Ha! Along those lines, the 1941 case also went against Oviatt and affirmed the US government who had found a “deficiency in petitioner's income tax for the fiscal year ending January 31, 1937, in the amount of $5,802.22.”

 

[NicknNora]

I'm late getting this up but we LOVED the Oviatt documentary! We both watched it the weekend that it came in the mail. We loved the music, the narration, the old photos and of course the fascinating story. You guys did a fabulous job! There was one thing, however, that we didn't like but it had nothing to do with your creation.

It was really disheartening to learn that the gorgeous Lalique ceiling from the Oviatt is in storage and not on display! It really made us wonder how many other beautiful treasures are collecting dust in a vault somewhere. It kind of reminds you of the scene in the movie Citizen Kane where after Kane dies they show a giant warehouse where all those lovely treasures that he collected were hidden away in crates, no doubt never to be seen again. What a pity.

For the excellent documentary we give: :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

For hiding the Lalique ceiling we give:

 

[Mike in Seattle]

Ah yes ... a very interesting and oft-cited appeals case, which Oviatt lost. Actually, his argument was a strong one -- but it's hard as heck to beat the Federal government.


I've spent a year trying to find files of the original 1929 U.S. Customs case against which Oviatt appealed. (The files, if they're still intact, are in Washington, D.C.) Why my interest? Because during that original case, some very detailed photos were taken of the Oviatt Building's glass decorations: Lalique chandeliers, clock, doors and windows, etc. Many of these decorations have long since disappeared, and no other photos of them are known to have survived. I need these case pictures! lol

.

Have you tried enlisting the aid of state and federal senators & congress? file a Freedom of Information act request and include that you're searching for one of a kind photos of an architecturally and historically significant building. It seems with that sort of thing if they get hit from several sources at once, they move it to the head of the line because they know they're going to have to deal with it sooner or later, and having congress and senate members riding them about it seems to grease the skids a bit.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Have you tried enlisting the aid of state and federal senators & congress? file a Freedom of Information act request and include that you're searching for one of a kind photos of an architecturally and historically significant building. It seems with that sort of thing if they get hit from several sources at once, they move it to the head of the line because they know they're going to have to deal with it sooner or later, and having congress and senate members riding them about it seems to grease the skids a bit.

Thanks for the suggestion. I don't think it's a restricted file at all; the difficulty will be in tracking it down. I'll do as you suggest!

As for the photos, the truth is that they were probably thrown out long ago, but who knows? Eventually, I'll go to D.C. and do the file search in person.

.

 

[happyfilmluvguy]

Haven't been in here for well over a year, but I thought I'd say I GREATLY appreciate this kind of attention towards the documentary. It shows me that people are actually watching it, without my even knowing, might I add, and that's what's most important to me. A film without an audience is not worth making.

-Seth S.

 

[Tomasso]

Haven't been in here for well over a year, but.....

Your name again?