URBAN JOURNAL: Rename the Eastman Theatre? Surely not!
By Mary Anna Towler on Apr. 15th, 2008
In all the celebration over Kodak's $10 million gift for the Eastman Theatre last week, some blockbuster news slipped under the radar.
The University of Rochester is changing the theater's name. It'll be called Kodak Hall.
OK: Its full name will be Kodak Hall at Eastman Theatre. I guess 
that's supposed to make the name change palatable. But it doesn't. The theater is too significant, and has too much history, for us to change its name cavalierly.
Kodak's gift is a fabulous thing. But there's a difference between giving a gift and buying naming rights, and this feels very much like buying naming rights.
Renaming the War Memorial "Blue Cross Arena" was bad enough. Changing "Eastman Theatre" to "Kodak Hall" is a sacrilege.
Kodak does itself no favors by changing the name of a cherished community institution. Neither does the University of Rochester.
The name change won't happen until the big expansion and renovation at the theater are complete - in late 2009 or early 2010 - so it's not too late for Kodak officials to change their mind.
And maybe nobody cares but me. The Eastman School says that "the Eastman Theatre" is much more than the performance hall - the theater -so it's perfectly appropriate for the performance hall to get a different name. But to me, "the Eastman Theatre" is the theater, that big room with the stage and the murals and the chandelier. And I don't like calling it Kodak Hall. (If somebody besides me does care, maybe you'll pass around petitions. Write letters. Stage little protests in front of the Eastman School and Kodak.)
User Comments
Here is what others say about this article. City Newspaper isn't responsible for the content of comments.
Brion Erickson on April 16th, 2008
Isn't this the Department of Redundancy Department? Eastman is Kodak and vice versa. Perhaps the people heading Kodak (and the Board of Directors), not being from Rochester, have no understanding of history, even of the company they are heading. There is already the Kodak Theatre in LA, and it is in the public eye at Oscar time annually, so the corporate self-promotion is in place already. Why not sell the naming rights to the Lilac Festival next?
Louis richards on April 16th, 2008
So, there is more to the Eastman Theatre than the performance hall (the big room with the chandelier). And, what exactly would that be? Cloak rooms and toilets, and that's about all: I know because I've haunted the building for over 50 years. Everything else has a name, distinctly separate from the Eastman Theatre: Kilbourn Hall, Main Hall, etc. It is quite possible that the Eastman School is too polite to take Kodak's money and deny them "naming rights"; fortunately, many members of our community are not quite so shy. I say "Take the money!" and now let's teach the morons at EKCo a new lesson in Civic Activism and Respect for Local Tradition!
Carrie Wilson on April 17th, 2008
It's Eastman KODAK -- Eastman THEATER. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth; take the $10 million and and improve a Rochester institiution and promote our city simultaneously. What do out of towners think when they hear "Rochester"- lilacs, garbage plates, and mostly Kodak! As Kodak continues to evolve and repair from past damage, it can only be beneficial to buy "naming rights" to the theater. Yes, it's a bit cheesy, I'll agree. But sometimes it takes a little cheese to make a great dish. Let's continue on this trend to improve the Rochester city "dish" and make our area more attractive: from the arts, to the businesses, and so on. Even if it takes aligning the name one of our (former) biggest employers (and what built this city!) to this great cultural institution. I don't believe George Eastman would mind at all.
Laura Yovanoff on April 18th, 2008
Eastman = Kodak. Kodak would not exist without Eastman and I think it is a sign of disrespect to George Eastman to change the name of the theatre simply because Kodak has donated millions. The theatre and it's name is part of Rochester history, which Kodak should recognize. Naming rights should not be automatic because of a large contribution. I think the meaning of "donating" has gone out the window. Mr. Eastman was one of the biggest philanthropists of his time, showing what it means to give back to the community. Kodak should take a little lesson from it's father and donate to help Rochester, not to have it's name prominently displayed.