On that we can heartily agree, Vincent. “Gladiator” certainly deserved a proper palace for its premier presentation, rather than the unceremonious standard-issue wide release it was given. Even that granddaddy of the modern Hollywood blockbuster imperative, “Jaws” had the magnificent Rivoli for its gala premier back in ‘75.
Beautifully written, Jeffrey1955… I signed Tom’s petitiion, but I fear the site’s fate is sealed. But man, that letter frm Chuck Apelian is revolting. The Chair for the NYC BSA couldn’t have written it better herself (in fact, it was probably precisely as she dictated it to Mr. Apelian in exchange for some backroom deal we’ll never know about).
Thanks for pointing that out, Mike… I meant to say that those theaters had no lengthy history showing films (as opposed to the Lunt-Fontanne, Mark Hellinger, Broadway, Palace, 42nd Street grinders, etc). The “Gigi” engagement was more like a one shot deal, wasn’t it? Or were there other runs like this at the Royale and/or other erstwhile legitimate houses?
Anyway… I agree with TJ in principal. At least corporations have paid their way onto the marquees of theaters by contributing money towards restoration, renovations and maintenance. The Shubert situation smacks a bit of vanity.
The Shuberts have recently renamed a couple of their legitimate theaters after board members… therefore the Royale is now named after deceased and former long time President of the Shubert Organization, Bernard Jacobs; and the Plymouth is named after the current (and therefore very much alive) chairman, Gerald Schoenfeld. At least the Jujamcyn group continue to honor the artistic history of Broadway by renaming thier Martin Beck and Virginia theaters after famed caricaturist Al Hirschfeld and playwrite August Wilson, respectively. Anyway… none of these theaters have ever had a history of exhibiting films, so this is probably a topic better explored elsewhere than on Cinema Treasures.
How about “Paint Your Wagon” or “Song of Norway”, Vincent? You have to draw the line somewhere, right? Seriously, I’m with you on that point… I’d take any of those turkey’s (plus “Hello Dolly!”) just to see an old fashioned road-show engagement at The Rivoli, Capitol or Strand as well.
As for your other point… not every actor is cut out for every role. I wouldn’t want to see Pacino, Costner or Reeves in an old time biblical epic. That’s no reason to denigrate the fine work he has done in his own idiom. Pacino is a wonderful stage and screen actor. While he has certainly chosen to ham it up and become caricature in much of his recent work – “Scarface”, “Heat”, “Scent of a Woman” and “Devil’s Advocate” leap immediately to mind – he is also capable of beautifully nuanced, even sublime performances such as those in the first two “Godfather” movies, “Scarecrow”, “Panic in Needle Park” and, more recently, “Donnie Brasco” and “Insomnia.” But I sure wouldn’t want to have seen him as Judah Ben-Hur. Costner has his charms when confined to his limited range (playing washed up jocks seems to be work for him). Reeves… OK, you have me there.
My problem with Heston is that he always played Heston. I guess that can be said of most iconic movie stars from the golden age of the studios, but Heston’s emotional range is rather limited and his personality as square as his jaw. Compare him to a current star like Russell Crowe who has great range and can command the screen for a costume epic like “Gladiator” or “Master and Commander” – he’s probably one of the few contemporary actors who can pull off those sort of Heston-like roles and lend to them an emotional core that was missing with Heston. Anyway… I seem to recall from other comments on this site that your cinematic preferences don’t particularly favor the sort of European-influenced filmmaking and acting styles that were ushered in during the ‘70’s. To each his own. I respectfully bow to your opinion.
I rather like the ‘59 “Ben-Hur,” though I’d have to agree that too much praise has been heaped upon it over the years. I’ve only ever seen it on the small screen (though, via a nice widescreen DVD on a 60 inch LCD projection monitor) and would salivate at the opportunity to see a proper big-screen presentation. Having said that, Heston is pretty wooden and the film occasionally suffers from the usual lumbering weight that all 1950’s Hollywood biblical epics carried around with them – not to mention that it lacks a certain poetry that the original silent version was able to achieve. Still, I find it a stirring entertainment all-around.
mkl… Your last question has been posed on this page as well as on the page for the Fair Theater wihtout any definitive resolution. I know of these two theaters for sure, and there is the Playpen (former Adonis/Cameo) in Manhattan. Beyond that, I’m not sure what exists anymore. I’m also not sure if there is ANY theater in NY that still exhibits adult films via projection onto the big screen.
Thanks, Joe, for clearing that up! Once the weather here gets a bit sunnier and the days a bit longer, I’ll make my way back and see if I can visit the restaurant as well as the bingo hall.
Woody Allen did open his 1975 “Love and Death” simultaneously at the Sutton and Paramount (the subterranean theater at the Gulf and Western building near Columbus Circle) according to the New York Times online archive of movie reviews. Not the most scientific means of determining what films played where, but the Times often would continue the tradition of listing the premier or first-run house in its reviews through the ‘70’s and very early '80’s – before opening wide became the standard operating procedure. A look at reviews for some of Woody’s other films in the '70’s mention the 68th Street Playhouse, Baronet, Coronet and Little Carnegie theaters, but, interestingly, not the Beekman.
Woody’s contemporary Mel Brooks might have a stronger connection to this theater, opening both “Blazing Saddles” and “Young Frankenstein” – widely considered his two best films – at the Sutton, each one at either end of 1974. While his bi-centennial follow-up “Silent Movie” had its NY debut at the Cinema 1 & 2 a few blocks away, Brooks returned to the Sutton for 1978’s “High Anxiety.”
Yes, dave-bronx… I recall the church occupying the Boulevard in the ‘90’s as well. I visited the website of the current occupants and found this page which details how one can rent the theater space for $1000.00 a night (includes 4 hours with a sound tech). There is a small photo of the theater space, which I clipped and linked to below. Looks like it’s basically the original balcony with a streamlined decor (possibly just dry wall over the original walls). Can’t see if anything remains of the ceiling. I called the theater to discuss the space and they say that this is the only theatrical space in the building and that the bar and restaurant occupy all of the 1st floor. Trying to reconcile that with Warren’s initial description above, perhaps this is the only theatrical space they are renting out, and therefore didn’t discuss the other auditoriums. I guess only a visit to the restaurant will settle this issue.
I also clipped these small photos from the site, which depict the bar area on the 1st floor and seem to show that some of the original ceiling decoration (from either the old lobby or under the balcony over-hang) is still in existence:
Hey folks. Just watched the Scorcese flick “Mean Streets” the other night and there is a scene at the end of the film where the Harvey Keitel and Robert DeNiro characters place a call from a public phone in the lobby of a theater where they’ve been watching Roger Corman’s “Tomb of Ligeia.” The theater location is not identified, but I’m thinking it was a Duece grind-house. The wide shot of Keitel on the phone shows a glimpse of the interior decor, including a squared column with a sort of simple Art Deco vertical motif as well as a busy mosiac tile pattern on the flat wall where the pay phone is mounted. There is a soda-vending machine next to the phone and big lobby cards advertising the “Tomb of Ligeia” and “X: The Man with X-Ray Eyes” as co-features. Another set of cards advertise Lee Marvin’s “Point Blank” and another feature I can’t recall as coming attractions. It’s drving me crazy… the decor looks so familiar, but I can’t place it exactly. The thing is, “Mean Streets” was presumably filmed in 1972 or ‘73 (released in '73) and all of the films advertised in those lobby cards (including the “coming attractions”) are from the early and mid 1960’s.
I understand that Scorcese might have fictionalized the films being shown in the theater (after all, the two currently featured movies are Roger Corman productions and Scorcese was fresh from Corman’s school of low-budget movie-making) and I realize that much of the itnerior work for “Mean Streets” was filmed in L.A., but I’d love to nail down the location for the shot one way or the other.
It’s been a while and I’m wondering if anyone is aware of what sort of progress is being made with the conversion of the Liberty’s auditorium to new use? Last I knew it was to be a catering/event hall.
Thanks for following up on my query, guys! I’ll have to look for that Naylor book. For my X-mas present, my better half found a used copy of Hall’s out of print “Best Remaining Seats.” I’ll have to set my sights on the Naylor book next.
Ha… I walked passed here on December 30th on my way to see the tree and that “wet paint” sign shown in the 1st of davebazooka’s photos from December 19th is still taped to the entrance!
That’s my point, Bway. As painful as it is to see a great old theater like the Keith’s in its death throws, I think we would live to regret not making an effort to document whatever vestiges of its former glory remain before the wrecking ball pounds it to dust.
Tom S. I am in complete agreement. Do you have any idea how to obtain such permission? I wonder if Patrick would be interested in getting involved or at least sanctioning such an expedition under the auspices of the Cinema Treasures web site. I imagine the greatest challenge will be safety concerns. I would love a chance to get inside the Keith’s one last time.
Went in to see “The Producers” at the Ziegfeld the other day – now that the prices have dropped back down to $10.75. I liked the movie and thought it was very entertaining. It isn’t much of a film, per se — as others have noted, it is basically a filmed version of the staged play. But as such, its existence is justified for preserving on film for all to see the dynamic pairing of Lane and Broderick and the inspired performances of Roger Bart and Tony-winner Gary Beach, who recreate their supporting stage roles here. Unfortunately, the equally impressive stage performances of Brad Oscar and Tony-winner Cady Huffman are left only to the memories of those lucky enough to have seen the original cast, but, we are compensated with excellent turns by Will Ferrell and Uma Thurman in their respective roles. I laughed nearly as hard and long as I did in the St. James Theater 4 years ago.
As for the theater itself… I went there with the thought of taking a fresh look at the decor and re-assessing my opinion of the place. It’s certainly not as horrible or tacky as it may have been in my memory and it is a wonderful space to enjoy a film – nice big screen, spacious auditorium, comfy seats – but it still stands in my estimation as an ersatz palace. The auditorium is a big box, not unlike those ‘60’s suburban standalone’s built by Century’s and Loew’s, but the walls are adorned with thick red-velvet carpeting and there is some decorative rope-like patterns of gold that break up the monotone. At either side of the screen (I wouldn’t call it a proscenium, exactly) there is a panel with a flourished “S”-shaped motif in relief and then there is the theater’s finest touch – the magnificent drapery and curtains. The photo posted above by HowardBHass on December 26th depicts all of this beautifully. It is a shame that the theater allows commercial slides to be projected on the screen between show times. It’s sort of absurd to watch as the traveling curtain is closed only to be opened again seconds later for the trailers. Actually, there are a series of annoying commercial spots that precede the trailers, but I try to forget about their existence.
Had I taken my camera along, I might have snapped some shots of some of the detail work that sets the theater apart from other modern-era houses. These include the detailing at the end of each row of seats along the aisles, the fanciful signs for the bathrooms (using a rendering of stylish early 20th Century footwear to identify each gender), and the chandeliers that hang from the ceilings in the various portions of the lobby. Too bad the lobby was designed with such segmentation and low ceilings. When one enters from street level, you are in a small square vestibule, where you’ll find the box office. Through another set of doors is the inner lobby where your ticket is ripped and you are sent along your way upstairs to the mezzanine foyer (where the restrooms and candy counter are located). You enter the auditorium on either side at the point where the orchestra seating ends and the raised rear stadium-style loge seating begins.
What might have really abetted the attempt at old time splendor would have been a more open atrium approach to the lobby design that might have showcased the handsome set of stairs used to get to the mezzanine foyer (there is also an escalator along the opposite wall that runs parallel to the stairs). At least there are those wonderful display cases along the lobby and staircase walls featuring vintage photos and posters from the previous Ziegfeld Theater as well as from various Ziegfeld presentations at other theaters (like the Selwyn and New Amsterdam).
Thanks for sharing that Tom… Did the Reception House stand where the parking lot is now in place for the converted Quartet retail space? I seem to recall that there was a building that abutted the theater on that side, but I can’t say for sure what it was.
The balconies at the Hall are also set very far back from the stage, so they still afford a more level viewing angle than smaller theaters where the angles are much more steep.
Greenpoint… I’m glad you’re posting queries like this using the “Help Wanted” news topic. I always thought this site needed a forum to identify “mystery theaters” and such and I never thought about posting them here as you did. Makes perfect sense to me.
Greenpoint… I posed this very question on the Loew’s 42nd Street E-Walk page but didn’t get a response. I’m glad you asked it again here. If you go to the E-walk page, and scroll to a comment from Septmeber 10th, there is a photo of the storefronts (including the ex-Harem) just before they were demolished to make way for the new multiplex.
Actually, judging from the photo and the arrow pointing around the corner, I should think it was on West 50th street. So when you walked in through the lobby, the theater was to the left?
On that we can heartily agree, Vincent. “Gladiator” certainly deserved a proper palace for its premier presentation, rather than the unceremonious standard-issue wide release it was given. Even that granddaddy of the modern Hollywood blockbuster imperative, “Jaws” had the magnificent Rivoli for its gala premier back in ‘75.
Beautifully written, Jeffrey1955… I signed Tom’s petitiion, but I fear the site’s fate is sealed. But man, that letter frm Chuck Apelian is revolting. The Chair for the NYC BSA couldn’t have written it better herself (in fact, it was probably precisely as she dictated it to Mr. Apelian in exchange for some backroom deal we’ll never know about).
Thanks for pointing that out, Mike… I meant to say that those theaters had no lengthy history showing films (as opposed to the Lunt-Fontanne, Mark Hellinger, Broadway, Palace, 42nd Street grinders, etc). The “Gigi” engagement was more like a one shot deal, wasn’t it? Or were there other runs like this at the Royale and/or other erstwhile legitimate houses?
Anyway… I agree with TJ in principal. At least corporations have paid their way onto the marquees of theaters by contributing money towards restoration, renovations and maintenance. The Shubert situation smacks a bit of vanity.
The Shuberts have recently renamed a couple of their legitimate theaters after board members… therefore the Royale is now named after deceased and former long time President of the Shubert Organization, Bernard Jacobs; and the Plymouth is named after the current (and therefore very much alive) chairman, Gerald Schoenfeld. At least the Jujamcyn group continue to honor the artistic history of Broadway by renaming thier Martin Beck and Virginia theaters after famed caricaturist Al Hirschfeld and playwrite August Wilson, respectively. Anyway… none of these theaters have ever had a history of exhibiting films, so this is probably a topic better explored elsewhere than on Cinema Treasures.
How about “Paint Your Wagon” or “Song of Norway”, Vincent? You have to draw the line somewhere, right? Seriously, I’m with you on that point… I’d take any of those turkey’s (plus “Hello Dolly!”) just to see an old fashioned road-show engagement at The Rivoli, Capitol or Strand as well.
As for your other point… not every actor is cut out for every role. I wouldn’t want to see Pacino, Costner or Reeves in an old time biblical epic. That’s no reason to denigrate the fine work he has done in his own idiom. Pacino is a wonderful stage and screen actor. While he has certainly chosen to ham it up and become caricature in much of his recent work – “Scarface”, “Heat”, “Scent of a Woman” and “Devil’s Advocate” leap immediately to mind – he is also capable of beautifully nuanced, even sublime performances such as those in the first two “Godfather” movies, “Scarecrow”, “Panic in Needle Park” and, more recently, “Donnie Brasco” and “Insomnia.” But I sure wouldn’t want to have seen him as Judah Ben-Hur. Costner has his charms when confined to his limited range (playing washed up jocks seems to be work for him). Reeves… OK, you have me there.
My problem with Heston is that he always played Heston. I guess that can be said of most iconic movie stars from the golden age of the studios, but Heston’s emotional range is rather limited and his personality as square as his jaw. Compare him to a current star like Russell Crowe who has great range and can command the screen for a costume epic like “Gladiator” or “Master and Commander” – he’s probably one of the few contemporary actors who can pull off those sort of Heston-like roles and lend to them an emotional core that was missing with Heston. Anyway… I seem to recall from other comments on this site that your cinematic preferences don’t particularly favor the sort of European-influenced filmmaking and acting styles that were ushered in during the ‘70’s. To each his own. I respectfully bow to your opinion.
Is anyone aware of any progress on renovations and conversion work here? Ecko was slated to open by the start of 2006… and here we are!
I rather like the ‘59 “Ben-Hur,” though I’d have to agree that too much praise has been heaped upon it over the years. I’ve only ever seen it on the small screen (though, via a nice widescreen DVD on a 60 inch LCD projection monitor) and would salivate at the opportunity to see a proper big-screen presentation. Having said that, Heston is pretty wooden and the film occasionally suffers from the usual lumbering weight that all 1950’s Hollywood biblical epics carried around with them – not to mention that it lacks a certain poetry that the original silent version was able to achieve. Still, I find it a stirring entertainment all-around.
mkl… Your last question has been posed on this page as well as on the page for the Fair Theater wihtout any definitive resolution. I know of these two theaters for sure, and there is the Playpen (former Adonis/Cameo) in Manhattan. Beyond that, I’m not sure what exists anymore. I’m also not sure if there is ANY theater in NY that still exhibits adult films via projection onto the big screen.
Thanks, Joe, for clearing that up! Once the weather here gets a bit sunnier and the days a bit longer, I’ll make my way back and see if I can visit the restaurant as well as the bingo hall.
Woody Allen did open his 1975 “Love and Death” simultaneously at the Sutton and Paramount (the subterranean theater at the Gulf and Western building near Columbus Circle) according to the New York Times online archive of movie reviews. Not the most scientific means of determining what films played where, but the Times often would continue the tradition of listing the premier or first-run house in its reviews through the ‘70’s and very early '80’s – before opening wide became the standard operating procedure. A look at reviews for some of Woody’s other films in the '70’s mention the 68th Street Playhouse, Baronet, Coronet and Little Carnegie theaters, but, interestingly, not the Beekman.
Woody’s contemporary Mel Brooks might have a stronger connection to this theater, opening both “Blazing Saddles” and “Young Frankenstein” – widely considered his two best films – at the Sutton, each one at either end of 1974. While his bi-centennial follow-up “Silent Movie” had its NY debut at the Cinema 1 & 2 a few blocks away, Brooks returned to the Sutton for 1978’s “High Anxiety.”
Yes, dave-bronx… I recall the church occupying the Boulevard in the ‘90’s as well. I visited the website of the current occupants and found this page which details how one can rent the theater space for $1000.00 a night (includes 4 hours with a sound tech). There is a small photo of the theater space, which I clipped and linked to below. Looks like it’s basically the original balcony with a streamlined decor (possibly just dry wall over the original walls). Can’t see if anything remains of the ceiling. I called the theater to discuss the space and they say that this is the only theatrical space in the building and that the bar and restaurant occupy all of the 1st floor. Trying to reconcile that with Warren’s initial description above, perhaps this is the only theatrical space they are renting out, and therefore didn’t discuss the other auditoriums. I guess only a visit to the restaurant will settle this issue.
I also clipped these small photos from the site, which depict the bar area on the 1st floor and seem to show that some of the original ceiling decoration (from either the old lobby or under the balcony over-hang) is still in existence:
View link
View link
Here is the photo of the theatrical space:
View link
Hey folks. Just watched the Scorcese flick “Mean Streets” the other night and there is a scene at the end of the film where the Harvey Keitel and Robert DeNiro characters place a call from a public phone in the lobby of a theater where they’ve been watching Roger Corman’s “Tomb of Ligeia.” The theater location is not identified, but I’m thinking it was a Duece grind-house. The wide shot of Keitel on the phone shows a glimpse of the interior decor, including a squared column with a sort of simple Art Deco vertical motif as well as a busy mosiac tile pattern on the flat wall where the pay phone is mounted. There is a soda-vending machine next to the phone and big lobby cards advertising the “Tomb of Ligeia” and “X: The Man with X-Ray Eyes” as co-features. Another set of cards advertise Lee Marvin’s “Point Blank” and another feature I can’t recall as coming attractions. It’s drving me crazy… the decor looks so familiar, but I can’t place it exactly. The thing is, “Mean Streets” was presumably filmed in 1972 or ‘73 (released in '73) and all of the films advertised in those lobby cards (including the “coming attractions”) are from the early and mid 1960’s.
I understand that Scorcese might have fictionalized the films being shown in the theater (after all, the two currently featured movies are Roger Corman productions and Scorcese was fresh from Corman’s school of low-budget movie-making) and I realize that much of the itnerior work for “Mean Streets” was filmed in L.A., but I’d love to nail down the location for the shot one way or the other.
It’s been a while and I’m wondering if anyone is aware of what sort of progress is being made with the conversion of the Liberty’s auditorium to new use? Last I knew it was to be a catering/event hall.
Thanks for following up on my query, guys! I’ll have to look for that Naylor book. For my X-mas present, my better half found a used copy of Hall’s out of print “Best Remaining Seats.” I’ll have to set my sights on the Naylor book next.
Ha… I walked passed here on December 30th on my way to see the tree and that “wet paint” sign shown in the 1st of davebazooka’s photos from December 19th is still taped to the entrance!
That’s my point, Bway. As painful as it is to see a great old theater like the Keith’s in its death throws, I think we would live to regret not making an effort to document whatever vestiges of its former glory remain before the wrecking ball pounds it to dust.
Tom S. I am in complete agreement. Do you have any idea how to obtain such permission? I wonder if Patrick would be interested in getting involved or at least sanctioning such an expedition under the auspices of the Cinema Treasures web site. I imagine the greatest challenge will be safety concerns. I would love a chance to get inside the Keith’s one last time.
Happy New Year to the entire Cinema Treasures family and extended community. I hope it is a prosperous one for all.
Went in to see “The Producers” at the Ziegfeld the other day – now that the prices have dropped back down to $10.75. I liked the movie and thought it was very entertaining. It isn’t much of a film, per se — as others have noted, it is basically a filmed version of the staged play. But as such, its existence is justified for preserving on film for all to see the dynamic pairing of Lane and Broderick and the inspired performances of Roger Bart and Tony-winner Gary Beach, who recreate their supporting stage roles here. Unfortunately, the equally impressive stage performances of Brad Oscar and Tony-winner Cady Huffman are left only to the memories of those lucky enough to have seen the original cast, but, we are compensated with excellent turns by Will Ferrell and Uma Thurman in their respective roles. I laughed nearly as hard and long as I did in the St. James Theater 4 years ago.
As for the theater itself… I went there with the thought of taking a fresh look at the decor and re-assessing my opinion of the place. It’s certainly not as horrible or tacky as it may have been in my memory and it is a wonderful space to enjoy a film – nice big screen, spacious auditorium, comfy seats – but it still stands in my estimation as an ersatz palace. The auditorium is a big box, not unlike those ‘60’s suburban standalone’s built by Century’s and Loew’s, but the walls are adorned with thick red-velvet carpeting and there is some decorative rope-like patterns of gold that break up the monotone. At either side of the screen (I wouldn’t call it a proscenium, exactly) there is a panel with a flourished “S”-shaped motif in relief and then there is the theater’s finest touch – the magnificent drapery and curtains. The photo posted above by HowardBHass on December 26th depicts all of this beautifully. It is a shame that the theater allows commercial slides to be projected on the screen between show times. It’s sort of absurd to watch as the traveling curtain is closed only to be opened again seconds later for the trailers. Actually, there are a series of annoying commercial spots that precede the trailers, but I try to forget about their existence.
Had I taken my camera along, I might have snapped some shots of some of the detail work that sets the theater apart from other modern-era houses. These include the detailing at the end of each row of seats along the aisles, the fanciful signs for the bathrooms (using a rendering of stylish early 20th Century footwear to identify each gender), and the chandeliers that hang from the ceilings in the various portions of the lobby. Too bad the lobby was designed with such segmentation and low ceilings. When one enters from street level, you are in a small square vestibule, where you’ll find the box office. Through another set of doors is the inner lobby where your ticket is ripped and you are sent along your way upstairs to the mezzanine foyer (where the restrooms and candy counter are located). You enter the auditorium on either side at the point where the orchestra seating ends and the raised rear stadium-style loge seating begins.
What might have really abetted the attempt at old time splendor would have been a more open atrium approach to the lobby design that might have showcased the handsome set of stairs used to get to the mezzanine foyer (there is also an escalator along the opposite wall that runs parallel to the stairs). At least there are those wonderful display cases along the lobby and staircase walls featuring vintage photos and posters from the previous Ziegfeld Theater as well as from various Ziegfeld presentations at other theaters (like the Selwyn and New Amsterdam).
Thanks for sharing that Tom… Did the Reception House stand where the parking lot is now in place for the converted Quartet retail space? I seem to recall that there was a building that abutted the theater on that side, but I can’t say for sure what it was.
The balconies at the Hall are also set very far back from the stage, so they still afford a more level viewing angle than smaller theaters where the angles are much more steep.
Greenpoint… I’m glad you’re posting queries like this using the “Help Wanted” news topic. I always thought this site needed a forum to identify “mystery theaters” and such and I never thought about posting them here as you did. Makes perfect sense to me.
Greenpoint… I posed this very question on the Loew’s 42nd Street E-Walk page but didn’t get a response. I’m glad you asked it again here. If you go to the E-walk page, and scroll to a comment from Septmeber 10th, there is a photo of the storefronts (including the ex-Harem) just before they were demolished to make way for the new multiplex.
Was this the old Adonis Theater porn house? It was formerly the Tivoli and is listed here on this site.
Actually, judging from the photo and the arrow pointing around the corner, I should think it was on West 50th street. So when you walked in through the lobby, the theater was to the left?