REMEMBERING CINERAMA (Part 52: New Orleans)

It was not any enhancement of the original Cinerama process at all; it was just the way some of the newer, purpose-built Cinerama-equipped theaters and some of the 70mm Cinerama films were advertised (especially as a way of emphasizing that the “new” or “super” Cinerama was “seamless”). For example, see the poster advertising “Krakatoa, East of Java” on this webpage and the one for “It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World” in Spanish at the bottom of this webpage.

CSW got it right!

A little more detail. In 1961 CINERAMA had 53 theatres in the United States and Canada, with 30 more in Foreign Countries for a total of 83 theatres. This did not include SUPER-CINERAMA THEATRES WORLDWIDE!

From the 1961 CINERAMA Annual Report:

“CINERAMA THEATRES OF TOMORROW, CINERAMA’s new concept in theatre design — SUPER-CINERAMA—whereby giant curved screen constitutes the entire fourth wall of the theatre, from ceiling to floor and from wall to wall. SUPER-CINERAMA theatres are of ultra modern design, and the entire interior is decorated in one color, enhancing audience conentration on the motion itself.”

In 1961 7 theatres had been reconverted to SUPER-CINERAMA theaters:

Atlanta-Martain CINERAMA Brussels-Varieties Copenhagen-Kinopalet Lima-Republica Los Angeles-Warner CINERAMA New York-Loew’s CINERAMA Washington, D.C.-Uptown

14 newly constructed SUPER-CINERAMA theaters:

Boston-Commonwealth Chicago-Martin CINERAMA (never built as far as I know, to bad) Denver-Cooper CINERAMA Houston-Boone Minneapolis-Cooper CINERAMA New Orleans-Martin CINERAMA Omaha-Cooper CINERAMA Paris-Empire Abel Gance San Antonio-Martin CINERAMA San Diego-L&G CINERAMA San Francisco-Martin CINERAMA Seattle-Martin CINERAMA St. Louis-Martin CINERAMA (“to have screen using three walls”) Toronto-To be named

So thats a total of 21 SUPER-CINERAMA theatres, counting those that might not have got built.

That brings us to 104 CINERAMA theatres in 1961.

When “ITS A MAD WORLD” came out I was excited to see it without those darn two lines on the screen at the Loew’s CINERAMA in New York. If I understand it right 70mm CINERAMA had to mask a lot of the sides of the screen and at the top! I guess I got cheated, bring back the lines and the full screen. What good is wall to wall, ceiling to floor screen if its been masked off? So much for SUPER-CINERAMA theaters!

“KRAKATOA: EAST OF JAVA” in SUPER-CINERAMA, how much of the screen did that fill? I think its all a lot of fluff, like cotton candy!

Well all this Cinerama information is certainly exciting! This may either help or add to the confusion. At the Palace in Tampa all films in 70mm were presented with the screen masked approximately 10 to 12 feet on both sides and no masking at the top. The films were “Grand Prix” “Circus World” “2001” “Ice Station Zebra” “Krakatoa” and “Song of Norway.”

There were two exceptions: the 70mm engagements of “Mad Mad World” in 1963 and “Sound of Music” in 1965. I remember both films being projected from the Cinerama booth on the main level (just like the others) but the screen was masked not only on both sides but at the top as well. This is the same screen size that was used whenever 35mm scope films were projected from the old upstairs booth.

When “Sound of Music” returned in 1973 in 70mm, the top masking was removed but the sides remained masked. The image filled the screen ceiling-to-floor and out to the side maskings. But I never understood why the top of screen was masked for the 1965 engagement and the masking removed for the 1973 engagement if both engagements were in 70mm. I recall Michael Coate had commented on this awhile back saying it may be due to the theatre honoring their Cinerama licensing agreement by not utilizing the full Cinerama screen for a non-Cinerama film in 1965. This sounds like the most logical answer.

“Mad Mad World” was filmed in Ultra-Panavision but does anyone recall it being advertised as Cinerama? I could have sworn it was but now I don’t see the Cinerama logo on any of the posters online I’ve looked at.

The amount of top masking required in any particular theater when showing any film in 70mm would vary depending on the actual height of the screen in most cases.

According to the information on the Roland Lataille’s website about Cinerama theaters, the screen at the Tampa Palace was 75 feet wide and 32 feet high (and had a true Cinerama deep curve of 146 degrees). That would mean, if my math is right, that the unmasked screen would have a ratio of 2.34 to 1. So, the side masking you referred to makes perfect sense; the five films you mentioned beginning with “Grand Prix” would have had image ratios of 2.20 to 1 which would mean that without the side masking, there would have been white space left and right of the image if the screen had not been masked.

I am a little puzzled though as to why side masking was used on “It’s a Mad…World” (I am not though for the SOM, as that too would have a 2.20 to 1 aspect ratio if a 70mm print was shown). Projecting “Mad World” would have presented a different problem: the full projected images of those films would have been too wide for that screen, even with the screen full open. Perhaps a decision was made to standardize the projected width of all 70mm films shown there at the Palace, perhaps using a modified aperture plate as well as the side masking.

Regarding the “Sound of Music” situation you describe: I am wondering if the explanation could be found in a comment made by a Nunzienick on August 30, 2009 at 8:27 pm on the Palace’s page here on CT that indicates that the mid-1960s initial long run of the SOM at the Tampa Palace was in 35mm, (if it was, then it was no doubt a 35mm anamorphic print). If the 1965 run of the SOM was in 35mm rather than 70mm, then top masking would certainly have had to be used; the aspect ratio would have been 2:35 to 1 so the image would have filled the screen side to side but not top to bottom as 35mm images are only four sprocket holes tall as opposed to 70mm images which are six or nearly six sprocket holes tall.

If the 1965 run used a 70mm print, I can still think of a possible explanation for the top masking, but it is only a speculation and would require a fairly lengthy discussion, even longer than this one.

Finally, “Mad World” was indeed promoted as being presented in Cinerama in its initial roadshow runs; it was the first film shown the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood; I still have my souvenir program proudly announcing, “Stanley Kramer presents in Cinerama “It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World” with a whole page in it proudly announcing the “technological breakthrough” of single lens Cinerama projection.

Here is a webpage from the Widescreen Museum website showing a poster promoting the film; it’s identical to the LP album cover of the original soundtrack in my collection. As Martin Hart points out, when the film went into general release, all they did was print new posters without the Cinerama logo.

You are very welcome, Nick. Actually, I think you are most likely correct and your friend was incorrect about the ability to project 35mm from the Cinerama booth.

The vast majority of theaters that showed 70mm Cinerama used Phillips Norelco DP 70s (also known AA IIs). There were some Century JJs in use and possibly a few Bauer U2s. But all of these were capable of showing both 70mm and 35mm. The listing of DP 70s on the in70mm.com website does not show any DP 70s used at the Tampa Palace, so I would think the 70mm projectors there were most likely Century JJs.

What I am now wondering though is whether, instead of using a 70mm print at the outset, the initial print shown at the Tampa Palace may have been one of the 35mm anamorphic prints with four track magnetic stereo; there were some of these struck (see below). That might well explain why, when the switch was made to projection from the upstairs booth, there was no change in the masking. Initially, the Cinerama booth may have had to be used because the projectors there would have had magnetic sound heads which those in the upstairs booth most likely did not.

If the run did in fact start with a 70mm print, then the top masking may well have been he result of Cinerama requiring the screen to be masked down. The switch to a 35mm anamorphic print later though would been the result of the fact that 35mm image was not as tall as that from the 70mm print; essentially the 35mm images reduced from the original 70mm Todd-AO elements were identical to CinemaScope images.

The fact that you say that the sound went from stereo to mono almost certainly means that the later-used 35mm print had an optical soundtrack instead of the six-track magnetic soundtracks on the original 70mm prints or the four-track magnetic 35mm prints. If the information on the IMdB is correct with regard to the SOM’s audio, there were some stereo 35mm prints made (probably a mix-down to four magnetic tracks with some image reduction to accommodate them), but most of the 35mm prints were, in fact, mono.

I am a bit surprised though that images you saw later in the run were noticeably more grainy; normally, 35mm prints reduction printed from 70mm elements are very sharp.

The switch to a 35mm print was probably both for economic and practical reasons. Properly projecting 70mm requires highly skilled projectionists even when they are using such a superb machine as the DP 70. Switching over to a standard 35mm print could easily have meant that the projection crew could now be less sophisticated or experienced (i.e., paid less), and I would think the studio would have charged less of a rental for a 35mm print with optical sound. If management really thought moviegoers would not notice the downgrade in terms of both picture quality and sound, I would imagine that it would have made the switch. But obviously you noticed the difference, and I certainly would have too.

I had live visual contact with the marquee of this theatre 48 years ago. While vacationing in New Orleans in the summer of 1964, my uncle picked us up one evening and drove us across town to my aunt’s house. Driving on Interstate 10 I remember seeing the lit marquee of the Martin Cinerama Theatre off the Interstate as we passed by. “Circus World” was the Cinerama engagement playing at the time. As eager as I was to see both the theatre and the film I never had the chance during my vacation there.

I don’t know about New Orleans, but in some cities the booth unions insisted on a crew of two for 70mm. This could have been the reason the Palace switched to 35mm?

Thanks again Michael, look at the interesting coments you generate!