Where would our South Bay community be without the philanthropy of David Packard, son of the late Silicon Valley giant? I asked myself that question yet again last Sunday after attending a screening of the 1920 silent film, “The Mark of Zorro,” with expertly assembled and performed live organ accompaniment by Dennis James (always great) at the California Theatre. The film was preserved and the showing was supported by the Packard Humanities Institute; the theater was completed and the vintage Wurlitzer organ rebuilt with funds from the same foundation. Indeed, it is doubtful whether the restoration of the California Theatre, home to Symphony Silicon Valley and the San Jose Opera, would have happened at all without Packard.
Packard’s passion for and love of classic American cinema is the force that drives his efforts in film preservation and exhibition. It completely makes sense that he should have this calling when you find out that he is a classics scholar, an academic field that would hardly exist without preservation of ancient works through the many centuries since. And, as he has been quoted as saying, there is no point in preserving these great works of film art if you don’t make them available to the public and show them from time to time. Beginning with the renovation and reopening of the Stanford Theatre in downtown Palo Alto in 1989, and recently joined by the California Theatre, Packard now has two marvelous examples of architectural restoration in which to give our lucky community a taste of what going to the movies was like in the golden era. It beats the hell out of the modern multiplex experience (and the tickets and popcorn are way cheaper)!
Packard’s foundation owns a vast number of silent and talking pictures from the 1910s through the 1960s, and through his work with the Library of Congress National Film Archive, the UCLA Film and Television Archive and the George Eastman House, countless films have been saved from self-destruction for future generations. The films shown on a daily basis at the Stanford and on occasion at the California are drawn from these sources. Some of the rare silent films shown are the only copies of an original, preserved print, and are unavailable on DVD. I have attended dozens of showings at the Stanford, and the prints are always much better than one imagines they will be, given their age, and the staff of the theater is far more professional, attentive and bent on perfection than you will find in a commercial cinema. Also, the showings are very well attended, even sold out sometimes, and audiences are always mixed in age. There were a number of children with their families at “The Mark of Zorro” on Sunday—probably seeing their first silent film—who obviously enjoyed the antics of Douglas Fairbanks as much as their great-grandparents did.
As a model for philanthropy, Packard is unique—but there is no reason other members of the wealthy residents club in the valley could not do something similar, if they had the will. David Packard has spent many millions and much of his time preserving a sizeable portion of the nation’s artistic heritage and sharing his passion and good fortune with our community. Having access to these great films that I had only read about in film history books has changed my life and meant a lot to me, and I know many others feel the same way. So, thank you, David Packard.
For further information:
http://www.stanfordtheatre.org
Thanks for calling attention this great philantropist Jack. The whole Packard Family have made great contributions to our society for many years. Not only David Jr’s involvement in the areas you pointed out but there is a great childrens’ hospital at Stanford made possible by the Packard Family as well as the fantastic Monterey Bay Acquarium shepherded by his sister. We are fortunate to have this great family in our midst.
This brings to light the entire problem we’ve been debating all week. It’s not about “civic pride”, it’s not about “arts funding”. It is about philanthropy.
David Packard was brought up in a lifestyle of philanthropy. “Old Money” Silicon Valley/Bay Area families knew that you could live well and still be philanthropic.
The “dot-Boomers” have not been raised in a lifestyle of philanthropy. They don’t know how to be “rich”. They just rake it all in and keep it for themselves.
People ask “where is the money from all those Silicon Valley millionaires”? It’s all in their bank accounts or mega-mansions. Philanthropy is not part of their lifestyle. Until philanthropy becomes part of the nouveau riche consciuousness we will continue to debate these questions ad infinitum.
Why are rich people automatically expected to be philantropists? It’s great when they are but there’s no obligation to be. We should spend less time telling others how to spend their money and more time minding our own business. If I donate, it should be because I want to, not because some self-righteous asshole says I must.
Right on #2, the old families had/have a vested interest in their communities. Many of the nouveaux riches do not have past ties to this community and in addition to what you have said, no passion or innate obligation to make this a better area.
#3 Well said.
Not only that but consider..
http://www.philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm
At the outset of his research, Mr. Brooks had assumed that those who favor a large role for government would be most likely to give to charity. But in fact, the opposite is true.
Mr. Brooks calls it a “bitter irony” that those favoring income redistribution are not doing much redistributing from their own bank accounts..
Mr. Brooks says the data show that religious people, on average, give 54 percent more per year than secular people to human-welfare charities. Some of those charities may be religiously affiliated, but their work is focused on charity and not religion, he says.
Will the left’s hypocrisy well ever run dry?
Thank you for recognizing the generosity of the Packard family, and the wonderful things they bring to our community. What’s amazing is Jack’s notion that “there is no reason other members of the wealthy residents club…could not do something similar, if they had the will.”
The wealthy (however you define it) pay for every public employee, every city service, every public building, every art and musical venue, and everyone else’s “free” education, healthcare, and retirement. On top of that, they donate their time, money and skills to particular areas of our community that they hold dear. Yet people still have the audacity, or ignorance, to speak in a manner that condescends their nobility. Even worse, they use that rhetoric to persuade political policy decisions.
It never ceases to amaze me how liberal thinkers view all of the problems in our community as the result of others not being as wise or as noble as themselves.
Once again, Novice (and this time with buddy Joe Average) find a way to blame it on the Left. In Novice’s world it seems everything is the fault of the Left, even when we are talking about philanthropy. If only Novice and his little band of followers would really step up to the plate and do something other than blame others—then we’d have something to talk about.
Philanthropy is an important component of our society – it crosses political lines (that might surprise Novice) and it crosses ethnic and religious lines. It even crosses economic lines. Everyone who can should give something—to the arts, education, etc. The wealthy should give more than the less wealthy—nothing Left or Right about that. If those that have the means to give but choose not to, that is their right, just as it is my right to criticize them.
It is amazing how topics on this blog tend to deteriorate into silly little tirades and name calling. Can’t we do better than this???
More excerpts from #5’s reference:
…He believes liberal Democrats must ignore their leaders who sometimes disdain charity, and demonstrate that the Democratic Party is still welcoming to people of faith, if they hope to prove that they are, in fact, the more compassionate party
…Near the end of the book, Mr. Brooks lays out the case that philanthropy is as good for the donor as for the receiver, citing data showing that giving makes one happier and healthier.
…Allow all people to deduct charitable contributions on their tax returns, rather than only the more-affluent people who itemize. Limiting tax breaks to people who itemize favors not only the rich, but also their preferred charities — such as private universities — over the religious organizations that poor people are more likely to support
…Teach philanthropic behavior to their children, either by discussing giving as a family or by taking the children to a house of worship
I believe that:
People can do whatever they want with their funds. In this area, newcomers cannot be held responsible for knowing what this area once was, and therefore may not be philantropically enthusiastic. However, I do know several old families who initiated and kept local charities and the arts going, this is a plain fact, not a slam at anyone.
I don’t think my former comments have anything to do with being a liberal or a conservative, but just for the record, my thoughts are along the lines of Wm. F. Buckley.
Philanthropy is the outcome but not the cause. I agree with #3 above who says that those with the means have no obligation to give. There should be no guilt invovled in this debate.
It is not about the extreme wealth, though that would be nice, it is about caring about the values of the community and being willing to privately invest in those institutions who enhance those values. When I look at successful and diverse cities, (and by cities I do mean the extended market that they serve- in San Jose’s case this would range from Palo Alto to Gilroy) I see a range of voices, often with access to the means, but not always financial heavyweights who participate in choices of a community.
The Silicon Valley is the hub with global influence. Many who live here are focused far beyond our region with their interests. We struggle to find those who find the here here important enough to invest of their time, talents and their treasure.
One banker some years ago decided Charlotte, N.C. needed to seen as a major city and he went about changing the profile of that town. Now many others see it that way too.
David Packard’s help with the Califormai Theatre is wonderful and right on point to this topic. He saw a building whose heritage should be retained and not bulldozed under. He wanted it returned to its early glory and then used well. That is the pride and purpose that I am advocating. Care about the outcome and the philanthropy will follow. it is no one’s obligation, it stems from a passion to make a difference. Hear, hear for his drive, and thank him also for the treasure that supported it.
Mr. Bales, you are the one that used the names of Medici, Rockerfeller and Carnegie on Single Gal’s blog yesterday. Today you state that “it is not about extreme wealth.” I too agree with that, but I questioned your knowledge of the demography of San Jose based on your mention of the aforementioned names.
Please clarify, “Philanthrophy is the outcome not the cause.”
Perhaps some of you could get Ms. Pelosi to donate some of the $$ she intends to take from the rich to your favorite arts group.
jmoc
Maybe Ms. Pelosi might want to take a few bucks from the rich; but at least she’s not asking to take the young and brave from the not-so-rich. Just a thought.
Bringing culture to San Jose is like putting a white swan into the sewage reclaimation plant holding pond and saying isn’t that a beautiful bird! But how come the white swan is now brown and stinks?
Hey everyone,
Check out Rich Robinson’s latest rants. He’s got some local and national stuff in there. I’m sure all of you will especially enjoy the recent rant about Chuck Reed.
http://rant.sv411.com/
Wonder Woman, the names I used were just a short hand for a long heritage of support that the arts required. I concur that list is all in the super wealthy class which is why I returned ot the subject to clarify it further.
When I wrote that “Philanthropy is the outcome, not the cause” I was noting the the flow of money follows the impulse to support the community. First you have to care about something before you then demonstrate that care with tangible support. Nothing more complicated than that. In Packard’s case it is clear that he cares about the heritage of the old movie palaces and wishes them restored to a pristine level. It toook his funds to accomplish it,but first he had to care.
You accurately noted that many here who have the means don’t really care and that in a nutshell is my entire thesis.
I hope that clears it up.
Good points about Packard. It’s too bad the valley doesn’t have more of his type. However, I agree with #3 – I don’t expect that the rich should automatically give – it’s their money and they can spend it as they see fit. However, I wouldn’t mind if we had more of those type who “wanted” to give.
Is part of the problem in SJ that so many of your rich have no roots here that they just have no interest in the area? Maybe it’s not “home” to them? Or perhaps they don’t see this area as ever being “home”?
My impression of SV has been that it’s a place that entrepreuners get rich in, they ‘strip-mine” it for all it’s worth and then when they decide that it’s time to slow down and enjoy life – they buy a mansion in Pebble Beach and direct their philanthropy to their new home region.
On a related note – Salinas and the Salinas Valley have a very strong record of giving and philanthropy. Those farmers don’t have the billions that the SV moguls possess, but they seem a helluva lot more connected to their communities than say, Larry Ellision is to his…
No law says that any person of great wealth has to give anything beyond taxes back to the community. I think the “looking in the mirror factor” is what should tell them what to do with their money, not us.
Part of the reason citizens do not give back to San Jose is that they are not made to feel part of the community. We do not respect celebrate or even define our unique heritage here in SJ. How can we expect new citizens to feel part of something they don’t even now exists? We need to define who we are and build on and market that rich heritage. I feel this is a good job for the new administration to undertake.
#14 – Thank you for your clarification. Too bad organizations can’t change their mind set and explore creative ideas whereby the Average Joe could be encouraged to contribute. Time and time again, I’ve heard that organizations want the big money and are not interested in small contributions. I’ve even seen small fundraising efforts eliminated in favor of large doners, specifically the dissolution of the Marillac League in favor of the Caritas Society. I would think if more small doners were encouraged to participate, there would be more energy around the cause, and the charity or arts organization would truly be part of the community at large. The Ballet fortunately caught the eye of Sigrun Corrigan and many of her friends, however, once again they are not residents of San Jose. Start brainstorming and come up with some ways the typical San Jose family can contribute to the longevity of organizations.
Different issues, David D #12, but we’re both right.
I knew Dubya was a bit thick, but this non-escalation escalation (according to Sect. Rice)is just too much.
As to why so few donors to SJ arts—few, if any, of those big techy moguls live in SJ. Of course they feel no connection to SJ. Why should they? Because it annointed itself Capital of Silicon Valley?
Most high tech companies are in other, smaller, cities.
Let’s see, I’m a tech gazillionaire and I live in Los Altos, Palo Alto, Woodside…and I want to catch some Culture. Hmm, I can drive down to San Jose, struggle to find a really excellent restaurant ( there are a few very good ones), or I can go to The City, have a choice of excellent restaurants, and Opera, Symphony etc.
What to do???? HHmmmm.
Same thing goes for giving $$$.
#17 “We do not respect celebrate or even define our unique heritage here in SJ.”
You don’t see me, but I’m giving you a standing ovation. You’ve nailed it.
I agree! It was a Gonezo thing to make us all feel that way. Great Post