Rivoli Theatre
1620 Broadway,
New York,
NY
10019
1620 Broadway,
New York,
NY
10019
50 people
favorited this theater
Showing 726 - 750 of 1,004 comments
With the upcoming revival on Broadway it should get the deluxe restored treatment at the Ziegfeld. It won’t though because it’s a musical(ugh!) So Film Forum will show Cabiria because its got the art house cache(definately not one of Fellini’s best.)
Although Charity must have looked and sounded great at the Rivoli it probably should have opened at the Music Hall. It would have had a big success there.
If I had to choose two films that could’ve and maybe DID finish the Roadshow concept, it has to be “Star” and “Hello Dolly”. These turkeys were/are so bloated and over produced. It was Hollywood at it’s most excessive.
However, “Sweet Charity” is definately not bad at all. Wildly dated, yes. But it’s got some great songs and most importantly, some of Fosse’s best dance sequences around. Like I mentioned above, there are some misguided film revisionists that try to make “Star” sound like a misunderstood, under appreciated masterpiece when it’s not. But “Charity” deserves far more recognition than it’s gotten over the years.
Unless the Rivoli booked some fillers in between those shows. “Charity” played the Pantages Theatre in Hollywood.
William I thought Charity was a bigger roadshow flop than Star only making it until the early summer. I’m pretty sure it was showcase by then. Correct me if I’m wrong.
By the way its better than Cabiria and one of Fosse’s best. Ah, to have seen it at the Rivoli.
“Star” had its New York premiere on October 22, 1968 and opened the next day. It played till the end of March 1969. “Sweet Charity” had its New York premiere on April 1st. 1969 and opened the next day. It would play till mid December when “Hello Dolly” would premiere on December 16th and open the next day.
On this project…
View link
…we accounted for film that ran for about six months or longer. “Star!” is not present. “Sweet Charity” opened at the Rivoli on Apr. 1, 1969, so “Star!,” which premiered Oct. 22, 1968 could not have run for more than about five months. I don’t have access to my notes which might provide more details, so someone else will need to chime in. While recognized as a flop, the film played longer than one might expect in many places (21 weeks in L.A., for instance).
It might have played until Feb of ‘69 as they already had Sweet Charity planned for Easter. Does anybody have pictures of the Star billboards on Times Square and the back of the Riv? Saw these as a boy and they were great.
Does anyone know how long Star! played the Rivoli? I dont think it was more than a couple months.
Re whether or not both screens were 70mm-equipped, I may be able to answer my own question. In checking some notes and newspapers ads from a prior research project, it appears that “The Thing” was advertised in a manner suggesting it was being shown in 70mm on both screens.
As for the HPS-4000 sound system, I guess no one knows much about it.
Somewhere I have a picture of the install of the special curtain for the opening of “Oklahoma”. Yes, you could see the proscenium was covered. Which was a different story when UA installed the D-150 screen at their Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood. They destroyed the proscenium and moved the screen all the way back to the back stage wall. (moved 30 feet)
For Todd AO seating was lost not only from the front but from the sides as well with the new screen in front of the proscenium. From what I could tell the proscenium was covered not destroyed. One saw it rising above the new curtains for the curved screen.
When installing D-150, it usually involved extensive remodeling of the auditorium, with loss of seating to make room for the screen. The largest screen together with their masking and curtains, took up 40 feet of the depth of the auditorium. The Todd-AO screen that was installed in the mid 50’s was 60' x 30'.
I think what they had there was musical prologues as it was primarily a picture house. I had assumed there had to be some minimal stage space and dressing rooms for orchestra and performers and that this was the space used for the store.
Now that I know the Todd AO screen had been removed and the front of the theater moved up almost 20 ft in effect destroying the space I’m glad I never went back.
Vincent, even though there was no normal stage, you are right that there had to be dressing rooms someplace back there. On the 7th Ave. side sidewalk level, you were probably close to 10 feet up from stage level taking into account the desending auditorium pitch.
When you think about it, the Theatre faced East between Broadway and 7th Ave. and at that point there is not too much distance for a deep auditorium.
I could never go into the Rivoli after the twinning. The Criterion was horrible enough. I thought the cheapo store on 7th av utilized the former stage and dressing room area but I guess I was wrong. This means they had to completely destroy the proscenium and simply make the orchestra a smaller box turning a theater into a screening room. So for the twinning they had done enough damage precluding any possibility of landmark status.
The Rivoli never had a stage. Whatever live music they did way back when was done apparently in front of the screen.
When the Theatre was twinned they blew into the 7th Ave. back end of the Theatre about 18 feet to put in some retail gift stores to get some extra rental income. This is why the downstairs house new screen
was moved so far forward.
In the upstairs house they had to build a new projection booth in front of and 8 feet lower than the original booth for the beam to hit the new smaller screen.
The downstairs house after twinning continued using the Balcony cut
booth put in for the 1955 remodel for 70mm.
In the lower lounge area at the Warner Beverly Hills Theatre they also had plaques from the films that premiered at the theatre. When the theatre was being razed their was still a few of them in that area.
Concerning the plaque to Robert Wise listing his films and the length of their engagements at the Rivoli. I asked once if he received it on the demolition of the theater. Not only did he not receive it but he said he had completely forgotten about it.
So I wonder who took it.
The upstairs screen was so small that the three speakers behind it were practically touching eachother. It was freestanding and there were no curtains reminding me of a small drive in theater screen,almost appearing to be a temporary structure. Downstairs, the gigantic wraparound drapes were removed along with the D-150 screen and frame. A small slightly curved screen was installed just within the procenium along with small red drapes, however the procenium arch was sealed off with plasterboard slanted inward to accomodate the new small screen. The renovation was a big disapointment to anyone who had experienced watching 70MM presentations on the huge Todd-AO/D-150 screens.
I believe the upstairs screen had curtains also.
I can confirm that the orchestra screen showed the 1982 remake of “The Thing” in 70mm, but I don’t know about the upstairs. The most memorable part of that trip to the theater was when I discovered a plaque on a wall dedicated to Robert Wise and his long-running films that played the Rivoli. It must have been put up at the opening of “Star!”, even though that one didn’t play quite as long as the other three.
Was 70mm projection available on both screens at this point? And which was the HPS-4000 screen?
The Rivoli was divided into an upstairs section with an incredibly small flat screen. The orchestra fared somewhat better with a slightly curved screen with curtains.
Richard,
You’re incredible! You are distorting the facts in a clear attempt to discredit me and to win some sympathy for yourself from the Cinema Treasures readers. The letter I sent to your publisher could hardly be called nasty. It was written in plain language with a clear purpose including a sensible solution to the situation.
And to claim that I provided a list of spelling errors and typos again is misleading as if those were the only items on the list of corrections. For the record, typos and spelling errors represent only a fraction of the errors found in your book. To claim I’m bizarre in this instance is outrageous. I’ll tell you what’s bizarre: That you do not seem to think it is a problem to have HUNDREDS of errors, both factual and grammatical, in a book for which readers are expected to pay $30+ to me seems quite bizarre.
If you say you were unfamiliar with me and my work prior while preparing your book, fine. You should have no difficulty, then, in explaining the many similarities our works share (the 70mm section). Whether or not you knowingly or unknowingly used previously published works for your own, the fact is you used sources that are not credited in your book’s bibliography, several of which you mentioned to me in our email exhanges (copies of which I have saved). I’ve also saved a printed copy of your outrageously deceptive “review” posted on Amazon.com before it was recently removed, I suspect as a result of some embarrassment it may have caused due to it being mentioned in some recent Internet discussions about your book and my review. (What kind of person would write a review of their own work, writing it as if it were someone else, then crediting their own name to the review??!!)
And what’s all this nonsense about my reference to “Class Of Nuke ‘Em High” in the review? Big deal, all I provided was a bit of background info on you, all of which was obtained from your book and an interview I read online. And my reference in the paragraph you cite was actually meant as a compliment, not an attempt, as you say, to discredit you by linking you to Troma. What I was suggesting was that you’re a better filmmaker than an author. That’s my opinion based on the work of yours that I am familiar with. It’s an opinion, which I’m entitled to. You don’t have to agree with it. But, if you’re so stuck on downplaying having made “Class Of Nuke 'Em High,” why then is it mentioned multiple times in this Rivoli thread? You mention it in at least one post plus the intro paragraph for the theatre at the top of the page. Whatever.
As to whether you are as credible as you think you are, let the book’s readers decide. Here’s a link to my review. If people actually take the time to analyze the list of corrections and judge them in a suitable context, they can decide for themselves if they fall within or outside an acceptable margin of error, which was the thesis of my review.
View link
Personally, I really think that if you or I or anyone else wishes to continue discussing this matter it should be taken over to another thread, perhaps the link on this site for your book, or starting up a fresh one. This thread REALLY should get back to being about the Rivoli. Speaking of which…
Who is familiar with the Rivoli after it was twinned and became known as the United Artists Twin? My questions are:
1) How was it divided? Balcony become one screen, main floor become another? Or split straight down the middle?
2) John Allen (of HPS-4000 fame) told me that upon the twinning, his sound system was installed on one of the screens, making it the first (only?) such house in Manhattan and the first 70mm-equipped house anywhere with HPS-4000. So…which of the two screens had the HPS-4000 system? And was this ever promoted in the newspaper ads (it wasn’t in any of the ones I can remember)?
And regarding the crediting of “70mm” as a presentation format in newspaper ads for blow-up titles that were also roadshows…
You’re right that “70mm” was not often included or emphasized in the ads during the ‘60s. Generally, it was the reserved-seat aspect of the show that was the “gimmick” emphasized in the advertising.
However, re “The Sand Pebbles,” the Long Island engagement ads (or some of them) did include “70mm” in addition to the “Panavision” and “DeLuxe” credits. And in Los Angeles, both “Funny Girl” and “Oliver!” did include mention of 70mm in their ads. But most of the blow-ups didn’t; one would need to consult a secondary source to determine if a 70mm print was what was shown.