Rivoli Theatre

1620 Broadway,
New York, NY 10019

Unfavorite 50 people favorited this theater

Showing 701 - 725 of 1,005 comments

Mikeoaklandpark
Mikeoaklandpark on May 24, 2005 at 1:08 pm

Has anybody else noticed that since the summer 99% of the films coming out have been in cinemascope. Does this mean m,aybe they are about to start up 70mm or even Cinerama or Todd-Ao again?

RobertR
RobertR on May 20, 2005 at 8:38 am

Here is a vintage shot of the Rivoli.

Hibi
Hibi on May 4, 2005 at 8:44 am

Vincent, You’re right! I’d forgotten about his leg. I remember reading about that years ago.

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on May 4, 2005 at 8:43 am

I love this movie and think it is one of the American greats. So where did the geniuses at AFI put it on their list of great American films? Before or after Star Wars? Or Rocky?

Hibi
Hibi on May 4, 2005 at 8:28 am

I know she’s supposed to be a villainess, but I had sympathy for the Regina character. She was a woman of her time trapped and trying to get out of her circumstances. Granted, she sat there and watched her husband die, but she didnt plan it that way. Herbert Marshall comes off as a rather preachy prig. I never saw or read Another Part of the Forest that explains their background…..

chconnol
chconnol on May 4, 2005 at 8:23 am

TJ: the stairway scene is a total classic. Again, it’s melodrama to the extreme but the way Wyler photographs it is perfect. He actually places Marshall out of focus while maintaining the camera firmly on Davis. We read Davis' look as nervous anticipation. Without a single word of dialogue she conveys everything with her eyes and her stillness: she knows that if someone comes in, they will save Horace and her goose is cooked. But if they don’t….

It’s one of the finest performances captured on film and fine direction by one of the masters. I’ve heard that Davis' performance pales in comparison to Bankhead’s on Broadway but we’ll never know.

Again, sorry about the off topic film discussion but it’s all part of the same subject.

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on May 4, 2005 at 8:20 am

Though that’s not Herbert Marshall. When he goes off camera for a moment some other guy takes his place. Marshall had a fake leg so he couldn’t do it.
I wish I didn’t know this stuff it ruins the illusion.

chconnol
chconnol on May 4, 2005 at 8:18 am

I have read every single one of Hellman’s plays as I happen to like her stuff a lot. Yep, it’s melodrama to the extreme and some of it, by today’s standards, is corny especially the original text of “The Children’s Hour” (Hellman revised some of it for a later production). So of the setups in that one are howlingly bad. But “The Little Foxes” is grand melodrama at it’s finest.

With regards to her changing the script for the movie, I saw a special on Samual Goldwyn and Hellman DID say that she did have to make changes though she was not specific. But she did say she liked Goldwyn very, very much because he appreciated writers and unlike other studio heads, respected their talents.

Hibi
Hibi on May 4, 2005 at 8:14 am

Not to mention Herbert Marshall crawling up the stairs as Bette glowers in the foreground….

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on May 4, 2005 at 7:40 am

Part of the effect of that scene is its brilliant direction and cinematography. They don’t make them like that anymore.
Maybe someone who’s a Hellman expert has some more information on the screenplay and what she’s was forced to add.

chconnol
chconnol on May 3, 2005 at 9:16 am

I find it hard to believe that Hellman would’ve willingly added that character. I believe she created Alexandra out of her own desire to create a strong, independent female character. In the play, there are no scenes showing Alexandra’s doubting of herself. When she realizes that her mother was/is responsible for killing Horace, she’s not horrified. She’s realizes that her mother is a monster and that she won’t be like her and leaves. The first time I saw the movie after reading the play in High School, I was stunned by the creation of the boyfriend character. I think it was Goldwyn and the Hollywood censors who asked to have that added for “moralities” sake.

But I also agree that “The Little Foxes” holds up extremely well over the years because I don’t think they took OUT much if any dialogue from the play. They kept the nastiness of the characters such as the stunning scene where Birdie gets viciously slapped. Potent stuff.

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on May 2, 2005 at 2:27 pm

To give Goldwyn his due he was also a businessman. So reuniting the lovers in heaven was his way of giving the customers a happy ending. Todays producers are guilty of far worse sops to insure higher grosses for their films.
And by the way Hellman herself might have been responsible for Richard Carlson in order to give the film a stronger social conscience.

Hibi
Hibi on May 2, 2005 at 1:15 pm

Yes, I agree. I hate the added boyfriend, but the movie holds up very well over the years. Wyler and Davis feuded during the making of it, but you cant tell by what’s on the screen…..I watched it again last night.

chconnol
chconnol on May 2, 2005 at 12:48 pm

Vincent, I was clicking through the channels last night and saw that “The Little Foxes” was on TCM. I don’t get that channel with my subscription (they won’t let you get only one channel…it has to be part of a package…stupid). Anyway, that’s a great one EXCEPT that I loathe some of the changes they made from the play like the creation of the boyfriend for Alexandra. His sole reason for being was so that at the end, Alexandra would have someone to go off with. God forbid the movie censors back then allow a woman to wander off without a man. In the play, Alexandra has no boyfriend and leaves her Mother defiantly alone at the conclusion. But still, Wyler and Davis kept most, if not all, of Hellman’s dialogue and did it in a grand style. It’s a great movie.

As for other changes, Goldwyn made Wyler shoot the scene at the very end of “Wuthering Heights” of the two ghosts of Kathy and Heathcliff. Wyler hated the shot but Goldwyn was a sentimentalist to the core.

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on May 2, 2005 at 7:02 am

Speaking of which I was watching last night Little Foxes on TCM and imagining I was seeing it at the Music Hall in ‘41. So why did the Wyler/Goldwyn Wuthering Heights play at the Rivoli rather than the Music Hall? And why 66 years after the fact am I asking this question?

chconnol
chconnol on May 2, 2005 at 6:50 am

“When did this become a forum for old movies? I thought it was about theatres. Only asking.”

I knew someone, sometime would bring this up. But in my opinion, you cannot have a discussion about movie theaters/palaces without it digressing naturally (and IMO, pleasantly…) into a film discussion as well. They work hand in hand. I personally LOVE to hear people talk about the movie palaces, what they saw there and what they thought of the films.

Vito
Vito on April 30, 2005 at 4:21 am

Now now Vincent, let your brother Warren play or I’ll send you both to your rooms without any supper.
But I like the idea of an old movies forum.

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on April 29, 2005 at 2:10 pm

Warren you’re getting cranky again. A few loose threads always add interest.

Coate
Coate on April 29, 2005 at 1:27 pm

“Universal did a great diloyalty to Charity on DVD. The soundtrack and stero surround is horrible. The rere3corded it in 4.0 and it is just the pits. The VCR version was great.”

I bet the “4.0” version on the DVD (which is mislabeled on the packaging) is a direct transfer of the original master. (Little known secret: many of the six-track mixes used on 70mm films were based upon four (and sometimes even three)track master mixes.

You really think the “VCR version” is great? Pan-and-scan and 2.0 audio…

bruceanthony
bruceanthony on April 29, 2005 at 1:19 pm

I personally didn’t care for “Sweet Charity” but Shirley MacLaine gave it her all. It was a major Box Office flop. “Hello Dolly” was one of the top grossing films of the year but its cost of $24 Million which was triple of what most of the musicals cost during that era. The film lost $10 Million at the time but became very popular on VHS and DVD in later years. The following musicals were flops and poor grossers “Sweety Charity”, “Star”, “On A Clear Day”,“Half a Sixpense”,“Goodbye Mr Chips”,“Finnean’s Rainbow”,“The Happiest Millionaire”,“Darling Lili”,“Doctor Doolittle”, “Paint Your Wagon” and “Man of La Mancha”. The Major Hits of the 1960’s were “My Fair Lady”, “West Side Story”, “Mary Poppins”,“The Sound of Music”,“Thorougly Modern Millie”,“Funny Girl” and “Oliver”. The last successful roadshow musical was “Fiddler on the Roof”. “Hello Dolly” was the most expensive musical ever made during that era and if you take inflation into account no current musical comes close. It would probably cost $150 Million or more to produce today. Its ironic that 20thFoxproduced both “Cleopatra” and “Hello Dolly” in the same decade.Brucec

Mikeoaklandpark
Mikeoaklandpark on April 29, 2005 at 11:03 am

Sweet Charity was a flop for Universal. It didn’t play long at the Stanley in Phila or the Virgina in Atlantic City. It opened May 29 in Atlantic City and a little earlier in Phila. Both thetaers pulled it in Aug and on Aug 15 opened Krakatova East of Jave. Both theaters showed the 70mm verszion not the Cinerama version.
Universal did a great diloyalty to Charity on DVD. The soundtrack and stero surround is horrible. The rere3corded it in 4.0 and it is just the pits. The VCR version was great. I think it may just be Universal because the same thing happened with Jesus Christ Superstar in it’s conversion to DVD. I love Charity, but think it will flop this time on broadway. Christina Applegate is absolutely terrible.

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on April 29, 2005 at 10:41 am

The point I was trying to make was that Sweet Charity is one of the last of the great Hollywood musicals and is fully deserving of a major film revival as it was originally presented on roadshow. There have been in the last few years a number of opportunities to see Cabiria in a theater and none to see Charity. I happen to disagree with the consensus on Cabiria and think that both Fellini and Masina have done finer work(I find her waif thing cloying though her final moments are wonderful.) And Simon improves on both the character of Oscar and the sequence with Vittorio. The Pompei Club is Fellini if he were making a Hollywood musical. Sensational!
But still I resent the thinking that started during the American new wave of the late 60’s and early 70’s that musicals were somehow lesser forms of film ‘art.’ When a great film musical is properly presented it is one of the most exhilarating experiences you can have in a cinema.
And by the way I definitely do not want to see Charity letterboxed at Film Forum.

Gerald A. DeLuca
Gerald A. DeLuca on April 29, 2005 at 9:46 am

Re: “art house cache.” “Le notti di Cabiria,” on which “Sweet Charity” was based, is one of Fellini’s most magnificent and enduring masterpieces, with wife Giulietta Masina in her finest role, in my opinion and the opinion of many.

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on April 29, 2005 at 8:53 am

Kander and Ebbs cheap cynicism was another death knell for the musical.

ErikH
ErikH on April 29, 2005 at 8:31 am

Regarding “Star!” The DVD edition released last year includes an extensive discussion of the film’s production history and release (roadshow, cuts made during the roadshow engagements, general release and re-release under a different title with an hour removed).

The “Star!” DVD also includes a history of the roadshow concept and features several shots of the huge billboard for the film in Times Square.