Concerning GWTW. I saw this film in 70mm at the Rivoli and the Bellevue in New Jersey back in the 70’s. The prints were pristine and the showmanship first class. Not having been that familiar with the original ratio I thought it was pretty wonderful(especially seeing it in those two theaters with their large 70mm screens.) I wonder what I would think today though we’ll probably never get that chance again.
Pablo I was talking about 2001. I did see This Is Cinerama at the Ziegfeld and was very disappointed.
Bill its really too bad that there are no theaters left like the Warner Cinerama or the Rivoli so we could have that same experience again. I’m all for saving the Beekman(which I love) and the Cinema 1(which was ruined when they twinned it) but where were these people who were powerful and claimed to love film Like Scorcese when the great midtown theaters were torn down.
However to be fair even people like Christoper Reeves and Joseph Papp couldn’t save the Morosco and the Helen Hayes from the wrecking crew. Now according to the Post there is a play glut and not enough theaters to put them in!
I can’t believe it. Finally somebody there who can program films suitable for a movie palace. Sorry for the sarcasm guys but it’s been too long. Keep up the good work!
I’m sure that even if it had occured to anybody at Cablevision or Disney(not that it would) the powers that be would not have seen any point to it. When I worked at SONY years ago they didn’t see any reason to release the soundtrack to My Fair Lady because they already had the Broadway cast album out. It took them years to put it on CD(of course all that time it was available in Europe.)
Ah, to make a lot of money sucking up to the right people and making bad decisions.
Bill I’m told that the original one strip Cinerama is no different from the 70mm print. I saw it in ‘77 at the Rivoli in Manhattan and at the end of the print it said in Cinerama. I told this to an expert in wide screen matters and he said it was the same thing.
However that being said that '77 presentation was unlike any other that I’ve been to. The depth and brilliance of the print sucked you into that huge curved screen so that this was for me a truly spiritual and religious experience. Well we all have our own individual beliefs.
The restored film should have been shown with an abreviated Christmas show in November to launch the DVD. That way people would have been able to see the film as it was mean’t to be seen(they would have been stunned.) and there would have been enormous publicity for the Hall and the DVD.
Why are the powers that be so obtuse? Can somebody please tell me?
By the way I remember that during this run of Butterflies in July there was what seemed like a 20 minute trailer for the Christmas attraction 1776.(Interesting because Blythe Danner created the Goldie Hawn role but was in 1776 instead.) And I remember seeing Cool Cool Considerate Men. But when I saw the film at Christmas the number didn’t exist at all!
Yes the overture was played with the screen stark naked(I averted my gaze to avoid the ugliness.) However they closed the screen for the intermission but I don’t think they did at the end, though I might have left before the restoration credits fully unfurled. Why does it take more people to restore a movie than to make it?
As for Lean what was up with Zhivago? Boy if there was a movie that needed 70mm it was that one. And this was ‘65 when every roadshow was filmed in the process. How could he have possibly filmed it in Panavision and then shown it as a blow up? Though probably I would have been the only one to notice.
Vito it’s too bad about Funny Girl. The Stradling cinematography is excellent and the the Callahan production superb. And it had the Criterion(reserved in the summer of 67 while the film was in production)which had the premiere 70mm presentations of two of the greats-Lady and Lawrence.
At the Ziegfeld you had an exposed screen and what seemed like a half an hour of commercials before the overture even started! There was a time when you paid to see a movie and that’s what they showed you.
That book for me was a great disappointment. The photos of the stage productions look like they were taken by a tourist with an instamatic(they probably were) and there are so many factual eras that it was truly a wasted opportunity. A coffee table book in conjunction with the Hall is needed.
I saw Butterflies at the Hall(on a weekday morning I couldn’t get a seat in the orchestra!) One of the best programs of the ‘70s with the last appearance of the Undersea Ballet.
'72 was probably the last year the Music Hall showed films of any quality.
Vito,
Though I didn’t see Funny Girl or Oliver during their original roadshow runs(saw them in the burbs)the restored FG at the Ziegfeld just looked like any other Panavision film. Why these films couldn’t have been shot in a 70mm process is beyond me after all in the same period CCBB and Star were. However I don’t think the sound is as good in these restored prints as it was back in the days of true 6 track sound. Blow up 70mm at the Music Hall looks especially bad as I remember Scrooge and Tom Sawyer looking grainy and washed out.
By the way I hate exposed screens. It’s like staring at an unattractive naked person.
I’m sorry you didn’t see Funny Girl there I would like to have known what that was like.
I understand for Woolf the lines were down to Sixth Av! That must have been an amazing sight.
You must definately visit the Ziegfeld if you are in town. It is all that is left that in any way reflects what moviegoing was like for most of the 20th Century(though built in ‘69.) I have often disparaged it on this page as it in no way compares to the great NY cinemas but it was an attempt to recreate a Times Square house in the more friendly environs of 6th Av. Though it did not fully succeed(for me)I would rather see an epic or musical there today than anywhere else in Manhattan.
But BOB in the Variety review of South Pacific it seems to say the Criterion installed a large curved screen just for this presentation. He comments that the heads look like the heads on Mt Rushmore.
Vito the first time I was in the Criterion it was for MFL in the summer of ‘65 as a fluke. It was raining and we couldn’t go to the World’s Fair. It was a matinee and as a little boy I was amazed that people were all dressed up for the movies. In the suburbs it was even at that time very casual. I had never heard of MFL and thought it was a bore. The experience itself of going to a deluxe Times Square roadshow house was however unforgettable. I have since revised my opinion of the film and had I been an adult at the time I certainly would have been a frequent visitor to that late and deeply lamented movie theater(the last time I was in it was for Alien though god knows I wish it had been some wide screen epic or musical from the 50’s or 60’s.)
What was the Criterion like before the 10 C? Was it much different?
CC were you ever in the Rivoli or the Criterion before they were sliced and diced?
As for my previous post about the empty perf at the Ziegfeld I got my info from a talkinbroadway site. The home page has a beautiful color interior of a picture palace. Does anyone know which it is?
Do they know they have a movie theater to epitomize a legit house?
Speaking of which a little while ago a Japanese Decca cd line had an opera series which used what they obviously thought was the interior of a great European opera house on its cover. Well that great European opera house was the Paradise in the Bronx!
On the choral staicases were lit religious statues which the attendants would flank giving the entire auditorium the atmosphere of a church. It was quite beautiful. The last year these were used was in ‘76(though they were fewer than in the past.) I guess they were tossed along with the original Nativity sets and the Glory of Easter altar and windows.
Both of these pageants though religious in tone were never offensive but highly theatrical. Much like walking into a beautiful European church that can be appreciated on its own terms as an expression of human art and hope.
On a theater chat site a writer who was at the Ziegfeld to see Phantom last night(a Sunday!!) says there were about 14 people in the audience. This was built in ‘69 to be an exclusive theater not a competitor on showcase. How long can this go on?
I know I’m beating a dead horse but you guys have got to have a Todd AO anniversary festival to bring more than 20 people into the theater. Install a larger screen in front of the old one like the one you had for Cinerama in '73, get the PR and watch the crowds come. I mean have any of you who currently work for Clearview or Cablevision ever heard of Todd AO or Cinerama?
I’m probably speaking a foreign language that’s been lost.
Good for you BOBill. The Marriott Marquis is one of the greatest architectural tragedies to ever happen to this city. The theater is a disgrace. The fact that a great NY block was destroyed still has me sputtering in disbelief. Tom tell your selfich greedy employers to cough up some of their ill gotten gains and pay you to do the work you want other people to do. Better yet ask Ed Koch!
The cherry blossom curtain was used again for the revival of The Sting in the mid 70’s(too bad it didn’t open there. It looked and sounded,without visible speakers, terrific at the Music Hall.)I can’t believe they didn’t restore the motors for the curtain. What a bad joke! So it doesn’t cascade up and down?
I think I read in Variety on microfilm years ago the the crowds for Top Hat were so enormous that extra morning perfs were added accounting for 134k. The excitement at the Hall in those days must have been incredible. It’s hard to imagine today the Music Hall being full and having lines around the block all day long during the week.
It’s amazing that Little Women would beat out Rio by almost 20k. I would have thought that Rio would have played to capacity for both holiday weeks. And considering how cheap seats were that’s a lot of admissions.There must be some reason for this. Extra perfs perhaps?
Concerning GWTW. I saw this film in 70mm at the Rivoli and the Bellevue in New Jersey back in the 70’s. The prints were pristine and the showmanship first class. Not having been that familiar with the original ratio I thought it was pretty wonderful(especially seeing it in those two theaters with their large 70mm screens.) I wonder what I would think today though we’ll probably never get that chance again.
Pablo I was talking about 2001. I did see This Is Cinerama at the Ziegfeld and was very disappointed.
Bill its really too bad that there are no theaters left like the Warner Cinerama or the Rivoli so we could have that same experience again. I’m all for saving the Beekman(which I love) and the Cinema 1(which was ruined when they twinned it) but where were these people who were powerful and claimed to love film Like Scorcese when the great midtown theaters were torn down.
However to be fair even people like Christoper Reeves and Joseph Papp couldn’t save the Morosco and the Helen Hayes from the wrecking crew. Now according to the Post there is a play glut and not enough theaters to put them in!
I can’t believe it. Finally somebody there who can program films suitable for a movie palace. Sorry for the sarcasm guys but it’s been too long. Keep up the good work!
I’m sure that even if it had occured to anybody at Cablevision or Disney(not that it would) the powers that be would not have seen any point to it. When I worked at SONY years ago they didn’t see any reason to release the soundtrack to My Fair Lady because they already had the Broadway cast album out. It took them years to put it on CD(of course all that time it was available in Europe.)
Ah, to make a lot of money sucking up to the right people and making bad decisions.
Bill I’m told that the original one strip Cinerama is no different from the 70mm print. I saw it in ‘77 at the Rivoli in Manhattan and at the end of the print it said in Cinerama. I told this to an expert in wide screen matters and he said it was the same thing.
However that being said that '77 presentation was unlike any other that I’ve been to. The depth and brilliance of the print sucked you into that huge curved screen so that this was for me a truly spiritual and religious experience. Well we all have our own individual beliefs.
The restored film should have been shown with an abreviated Christmas show in November to launch the DVD. That way people would have been able to see the film as it was mean’t to be seen(they would have been stunned.) and there would have been enormous publicity for the Hall and the DVD.
Why are the powers that be so obtuse? Can somebody please tell me?
BOB Why do you say “on that dark day?” Is it a bad movie or was this during the strike?
By the way I remember that during this run of Butterflies in July there was what seemed like a 20 minute trailer for the Christmas attraction 1776.(Interesting because Blythe Danner created the Goldie Hawn role but was in 1776 instead.) And I remember seeing Cool Cool Considerate Men. But when I saw the film at Christmas the number didn’t exist at all!
Yes the overture was played with the screen stark naked(I averted my gaze to avoid the ugliness.) However they closed the screen for the intermission but I don’t think they did at the end, though I might have left before the restoration credits fully unfurled. Why does it take more people to restore a movie than to make it?
As for Lean what was up with Zhivago? Boy if there was a movie that needed 70mm it was that one. And this was ‘65 when every roadshow was filmed in the process. How could he have possibly filmed it in Panavision and then shown it as a blow up? Though probably I would have been the only one to notice.
Vito it’s too bad about Funny Girl. The Stradling cinematography is excellent and the the Callahan production superb. And it had the Criterion(reserved in the summer of 67 while the film was in production)which had the premiere 70mm presentations of two of the greats-Lady and Lawrence.
At the Ziegfeld you had an exposed screen and what seemed like a half an hour of commercials before the overture even started! There was a time when you paid to see a movie and that’s what they showed you.
But BOB did they do that in this stage show? I seem to remember them doing an Hawaiian number in grass skirts. Maybe I’m just dreaming it.
That book for me was a great disappointment. The photos of the stage productions look like they were taken by a tourist with an instamatic(they probably were) and there are so many factual eras that it was truly a wasted opportunity. A coffee table book in conjunction with the Hall is needed.
I saw Butterflies at the Hall(on a weekday morning I couldn’t get a seat in the orchestra!) One of the best programs of the ‘70s with the last appearance of the Undersea Ballet.
'72 was probably the last year the Music Hall showed films of any quality.
Vito,
Though I didn’t see Funny Girl or Oliver during their original roadshow runs(saw them in the burbs)the restored FG at the Ziegfeld just looked like any other Panavision film. Why these films couldn’t have been shot in a 70mm process is beyond me after all in the same period CCBB and Star were. However I don’t think the sound is as good in these restored prints as it was back in the days of true 6 track sound. Blow up 70mm at the Music Hall looks especially bad as I remember Scrooge and Tom Sawyer looking grainy and washed out.
By the way I hate exposed screens. It’s like staring at an unattractive naked person.
This is the last great cinema in New York. There is nothing else like it.
I’m sorry you didn’t see Funny Girl there I would like to have known what that was like.
I understand for Woolf the lines were down to Sixth Av! That must have been an amazing sight.
You must definately visit the Ziegfeld if you are in town. It is all that is left that in any way reflects what moviegoing was like for most of the 20th Century(though built in ‘69.) I have often disparaged it on this page as it in no way compares to the great NY cinemas but it was an attempt to recreate a Times Square house in the more friendly environs of 6th Av. Though it did not fully succeed(for me)I would rather see an epic or musical there today than anywhere else in Manhattan.
But BOB in the Variety review of South Pacific it seems to say the Criterion installed a large curved screen just for this presentation. He comments that the heads look like the heads on Mt Rushmore.
Vito the first time I was in the Criterion it was for MFL in the summer of ‘65 as a fluke. It was raining and we couldn’t go to the World’s Fair. It was a matinee and as a little boy I was amazed that people were all dressed up for the movies. In the suburbs it was even at that time very casual. I had never heard of MFL and thought it was a bore. The experience itself of going to a deluxe Times Square roadshow house was however unforgettable. I have since revised my opinion of the film and had I been an adult at the time I certainly would have been a frequent visitor to that late and deeply lamented movie theater(the last time I was in it was for Alien though god knows I wish it had been some wide screen epic or musical from the 50’s or 60’s.)
What was the Criterion like before the 10 C? Was it much different?
CC were you ever in the Rivoli or the Criterion before they were sliced and diced?
As for my previous post about the empty perf at the Ziegfeld I got my info from a talkinbroadway site. The home page has a beautiful color interior of a picture palace. Does anyone know which it is?
Do they know they have a movie theater to epitomize a legit house?
Speaking of which a little while ago a Japanese Decca cd line had an opera series which used what they obviously thought was the interior of a great European opera house on its cover. Well that great European opera house was the Paradise in the Bronx!
On the choral staicases were lit religious statues which the attendants would flank giving the entire auditorium the atmosphere of a church. It was quite beautiful. The last year these were used was in ‘76(though they were fewer than in the past.) I guess they were tossed along with the original Nativity sets and the Glory of Easter altar and windows.
Both of these pageants though religious in tone were never offensive but highly theatrical. Much like walking into a beautiful European church that can be appreciated on its own terms as an expression of human art and hope.
On a theater chat site a writer who was at the Ziegfeld to see Phantom last night(a Sunday!!) says there were about 14 people in the audience. This was built in ‘69 to be an exclusive theater not a competitor on showcase. How long can this go on?
I know I’m beating a dead horse but you guys have got to have a Todd AO anniversary festival to bring more than 20 people into the theater. Install a larger screen in front of the old one like the one you had for Cinerama in '73, get the PR and watch the crowds come. I mean have any of you who currently work for Clearview or Cablevision ever heard of Todd AO or Cinerama?
I’m probably speaking a foreign language that’s been lost.
And to add some bad taste it seems that the Marriott’s grand atrium makes a perfect place for suicides. Could they be architectural students?
Good for you BOBill. The Marriott Marquis is one of the greatest architectural tragedies to ever happen to this city. The theater is a disgrace. The fact that a great NY block was destroyed still has me sputtering in disbelief. Tom tell your selfich greedy employers to cough up some of their ill gotten gains and pay you to do the work you want other people to do. Better yet ask Ed Koch!
The cherry blossom curtain was used again for the revival of The Sting in the mid 70’s(too bad it didn’t open there. It looked and sounded,without visible speakers, terrific at the Music Hall.)I can’t believe they didn’t restore the motors for the curtain. What a bad joke! So it doesn’t cascade up and down?
I think I read in Variety on microfilm years ago the the crowds for Top Hat were so enormous that extra morning perfs were added accounting for 134k. The excitement at the Hall in those days must have been incredible. It’s hard to imagine today the Music Hall being full and having lines around the block all day long during the week.
It’s amazing that Little Women would beat out Rio by almost 20k. I would have thought that Rio would have played to capacity for both holiday weeks. And considering how cheap seats were that’s a lot of admissions.There must be some reason for this. Extra perfs perhaps?