Ziegfeld Theatre

The Ben Hur presentation sounds wonderful! Realize, though, it might be that these movies were too long to include the commercials.

Thanks for the Gladiator attendence, but I don’t expect much during M to Thursday, and have nothing to compare. How’s Ben Hur doing during those days?

I’ve learned a lot volunteering to get a film program at Philadelphia’s Boyd when it reopens, and one thing is that it doesn’t cost much to get a new lens cut for the projector, to show the film in the correct aspect ratio. Since they showed Metropolis correctly at the Ziegfeld in 2002, they SHOULD already have the lens sitting in a box. We found many lens at the Sameric (the Boyd’s name when it closed), whole boxes full, so they likely have this at the Ziegfeld. Lens are particular to each auditorium, as Vito indicates above. Of course, “should” doesn’t always happen, so we will see soon.

Hey Howard,

Not bashing Clearview at all – I’m happy to see the revivals! However, at Chelsea Classics, they throw 1.33 movies up on the 1.85 screen and crop the image top and bottom.
Perhaps there are prints of Singing… in which it has been optically printed (“windowboxed”) onto the 1.85 frame?? As in the last releases of Gone With The Wind and Wizard of Oz…
I won’t complain – either way I’m happy to see it since I have never seen it projected at all.
Gladiator on Monday night attracted perhaps 75 people.

Bravo Howard, that needed to be said, I am as guilty as anyone here for Clearview bashing, however they have been listining to our comments and appear to be trying, quite frankly I do not think they simply thought,the heck with it just show the darn movies. I am willing to bet Clearview has a better understanding of what they should be doing to present these films properly, and will in the future do the classics justice. As for “Singing in the Rain”, I suggest Clearview contact their equipment vendor with the screen size and projection throw to optain proper prime lenses for 1.33 projection. Once that is done it will be a simple matter of masking the screen accordingly. National Amusements has a classic film day once a month in many locations and have purchased lenses to ensure movies are presented in the proper 1.33 ratio.
Clearview should do the same.

Singing In The Rain… that’s in 1.33 isn’t it? Now THERE’S a possibility for catastrophe…

This is pretty disappointing to read but not surprising. The Loew’s Jersey presented Ben Hur beautifully.

The Ziegfeld should be the top of the line.
Clearview you should not be presenting a film just because somebody wants to see it. You should be getting the best prints and presenting them as they should be shown reel to reel. You are not a college film society which orders up a print willy nilly.
A pristine print of a 70mm Zhivago was just shown in LA.
Why are YOU showing it in 35mm?
There is absolutely no excuse but laziness and sloppiness.
You are professionals. BE PROFESSIONAL!
Get Bob Furmenek as a consultant.
It took you long enough to listen to our pleas.
Now do it right!
And don’t get all defensinve on us and say screw you buddy.
You are not doing your job as it should be done and somebody has to tell you.
The suburbs have been doing this 10 times better than you for years now and you are just waking up. Well good morning!

I thought the Ziegfeld did have reel to reel capability (REndres' post on 1/18/06). Maybe this is why they got the 70mm print of “Lawrence of Arabia”.

Bob, my 3-d days were as an apprentace (reel boy) on Staten Island.
I worked the Paramount, St. George, Ritz, and latter on Lane
I can’t remember titles to well but I do remember The Paramount with “Man in the Dark” and a movie I can’t recall the title of but I do remember the opening shot of a girl on a swing, I recall that one because it was my first time with a major screw up, the images were out of sync, so to our horror we watched the swing go once on the left eye and then again on the right eye, yikes!
“House of Wax” was at the St.George and Ritz, we started out with a 3-D print of “French Line” at the Ritz but had to go to flat (too many problems) The glases were always a problem, people seemed to hate them. Improvements came with the new “Scoop” plastic frame glasses, which were more popular. 3-D projection was plagued with problems, I think it was one of the reasons exibitors started to shy away from it, in addition the novelty soon wore off and the public became disinterested. An other thing I hated weas when we had a film break, in those days it was all safety film which is not as strong as the mylar we use today. If let’s say the left eye print broke and you had to remove any frames, you would have to slug the print with black leader to make up for the lost frames in order to keep the two prints in sync. We NEVER cut the same number of frames lost in the left print out of the right print to even it out. So if you ever remember watching a 3-D movie and suddenly saw your right or left eye go black for a second, that’s what happened.
You are quitw right about the studios not allowing pristine prints run on a platter, however I understood the Ziegfeld had two projectors but were using only one with a platter. If so they could get the prints and run reel to reel, has that situation changed? I never understood running a platter in a single screen when you have two projectors.

I’ve enjoyed the 2 movies I’ve seen in this series (Chinatown, Ben-Hur). But I do wish the presentations were better, the prints in better condition, and I wish never to hear that young reviewer speak again — he didn’t know what he was saying. (He spoke about Chinatown.)

I needed the intermission in Ben-Hur to go to the bathroom, but since it had been removed, I had to go anyway during the scene when Heston talks to the horses in the tent, and I planned to buy some snacks, but the concession stand was closed at this point, of course. Overall, I’d give the experience about a B-.

Better presentations, please.

Only 5 boothmen for Cinerama? The former biz mgr for the now defunct Philly local told me recently there were 6 at the Boyd; and story goes that the reason the Chicago premiere at the Palace was delayed was because the union insisted on 12 operators. As for the Philly setup I can only imagine – because the last known C'rama operator in the area is now either dead or is unlocatable – 1 man for each of the A/B/C projectors, possibly one for audio and/or picture control, one for the 35mm operation upstairs (prologues and breakdown reels), and one who who go behind the screen and start the curtain motor. (This guy was recognizable in that he could easily be seen walking down the side aisle to the edge of the screen curtain, and disappearing, and then reappearing before and after each of the two acts.
As for the 2-man rule for 70mm presentations, I always thought it was something like that for here whenever a 70mm roadshow began to fail, the feature would go off roadshow policy and go grind, but a 35mm print would be substituted. “Fall of the Roman Empire” at the Stanley comes immediately to mind, but with some thought I can recall others.

And you wouldnt actually see or hear – multichannel mag striping on the actual projection prints until “The Robe,” for which Hazard Reeves (by that time supervising the technical activities at Cinerama, Inc.) won a technical Oscar.
However, there were a slew of 2-D features before the introduction of CinemaScope’s 4-track-mag-on-film that did incorporate interlocked 4-track: “From Here to Eternity,” “The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T,” “Gilbert and Sullivan”, “Julius Caesar,” “Mogambo,” “Shane,” quite a few others including a reissue of “GWTW.” It wasn’t always a welcome event, according to some critics. In the NYTimes review of “From Here to Eternity” on 8/5/53, it was reported “…is being shown on a wide screen and Stereophonic Sound. It does not need these enhancements. It has scope, power and impact without them.” Earlier in April of that year, the Times, equally disappointed in Warner Bros.‘ 4-channel-interlocked “WarnerPhonic Sound” introduced with the 3-D “House of Wax” sighed “Dimly we forsee movie audiences embalmed in three-dimensional wax and sound.”

Another point about all this is, we were overwelmed with all the new sound and picture formats we were hit with in the early 50s. It’s a little difficult to remember what we ran and how we presented it, I had enough trouble remembering what the heck we were doing at the time, plus I’m an old man :) Bless you Bob for keeping it all straight.

Vito, thanks for the compliment!

However, I should point out that KISS ME KATE was never presented in Perspecta. It was originally shown in stereophonic sound with an interlocked full coat 35mm magnetic track which had the left, center and right channels. KATE opened at Radio City Music Hall (flat only) in November, 1953 and then played wide (in 3-D) on the New York Loew’s circuit for Christmas, 1953.

MGM’s first Perspecta release in the U.S. was BETRAYED with Clark Gable, which opened in September, 1954.

Memo to Clearview: Hire Bob Furmanek