Loew's Jersey Theatre
54 Journal Square,
Jersey City,
NJ
07306
54 Journal Square,
Jersey City,
NJ
07306
98 people
favorited this theater
Showing 976 - 1,000 of 1,509 comments
Seems like we have a lot of Loews Jersey customers here. I am a big fan (from afar) of the building and am curious about a few things:
1) What is the average crowd like for one of their presentations? I understand the balcony is closed. But have they ever filled up the main floor?
2) Several years ago I got the impression that they were accomplishing amazing feats with mostly volunteer labor (fixing the clock tower, fixing the marquee, tearing out the triplex walls, etc). But I get the impression that momentum has slowed. Am I wrong and are they still accomplishing projects like this on a regular basis, or have circumstances changed somehow?
3) What is the real threat posed by this political disagreement I have read about, and why did it come about? I was under the impression that the city supported the notion of reopening the Jersey.
4) What is the ultimate goal of the Jersey project? Is it strictly to be a venue for classic cinema, or are they planning on expanded their offerings to include other types of events at some point? Classic cinema is certainly cool. But there are movie palaces (like the Orpheum in Madison, WI) that are making it by putting together a creative and wide array of uses to offer the public.
Many thanks to anyone who takes a moment to consider these questions.
Attended the James Dean “double-feature†Saturday night (March 11th â€" “Rebel Without a Cause†and “East of Edenâ€) and had a terrific movie-going experience. This has to be one of the biggest entertainment bargains out there (10 dollars for two movies â€" and good ones at that!). The time just flew by (and these were full-length, almost two-hour-long features).
The picture was clear (projection quality was consistent for both films – steady and focused throughout); the “sound stage†was just right (volume, tone, spaciousness and balance, well-anchored dialogue â€" loved the slight echo “slapping†off the walls). Every seat in the house was a good one.
The crowd was varied in age and composition â€" everyone from just a few young “20-somethings†to senior citizens (the vast majority were around my age: “30-somethings†and early 40s, mostly young urban professional types). It was a nice sampling of the local population, and with a decent turnout (I estimated about 300 for each film) shows that there is interest in the community and an audience for these films. During the Q&A session following “Rebel†(a nice touch), the audience was asked “How many of you saw this movie for the first time?†Surprisingly, only about half of the audience raised their hands! This theatre presents an incredible opportunity for introducing younger audiences to classic cinema. Thankfully, it succeeds at attracting a more “serious†sophisticated lot (well-behaved, quiet, courteous â€" unlike the “multiplex†and “mall rat†crowds). It is a historical and cultural icon that must be preserved! It is part of the busy Journal Square shopping district, and fits right in with its surroundings. City officials would be foolish to let all of this go to waste.
What this place needs is more programming and much better publicity and promotion â€" it has so much potential for use. Yes, it’s in Jersey, but so what? Come on you “city†people…get over your “it’s not Manhattan†attitude and take a chance on this place. It has so many positives in its favor, even by “city†standards â€" uniqueness, location, transportation/access and especially cost value. There are NO excuses:
(1) Easy, fast access: The PATH train station is JUST ACROSS THE STREET in Journal Square.
(2) Convenient, cheap parking: DIRECTLY BEHIND the theatre (at the end of Magnolia Ave) is the Square Ramp garage. One gripe: the theatre does NOT do enough to inform their customers that they are entitled to HALF-PRICE parking! (They have a special deal with the garage, but customers have to hunt for the vouchers – I found them in a small pile on the snack counter next to the Milk Duds and Reese’s). They should be prominently displayed on an “information table†or by the entrance where tickets are sold, so that we can see them on our way in and out. With the voucher, I only paid $3.50 for five hours â€" a bargain!
(3) Safety: there is plenty of activity and street traffic during “business hoursâ€, and the side alleyway allowing quick access to the garage is brightly lit and under security camera surveillance.
(4) Atmosphere and character: how many old movie palaces still exist and operate in NYC, and how many show classic (or any) films?
How about announcements or listings in the New York Times or Village Voice (print and online), not to mention numerous other local arts and entertainment media? I have never seen any, and if there were some, I didn’t notice them. Be creative! You have a unique, colorful venue â€" you need to engage in variety of promotional activities to showcase it.
I made an evening of it with an acquaintance of mine (who just happens to live in Jersey City). He says he has passed this place dozens of times en route to the PATH train station and never gave it a second thought. After attending the shows, he remarked “What a great way to spend a Saturday night.†So impressed was he by this “tarnished jewel†of a building and the efforts of the staff (many of them volunteers, busy at “work†making everyone feel welcome and comfortable) that he has expressed interest in offering suggestions and help with future programming and activities, and donating some time as a volunteer.
It looks like we have another “convertâ€.
While it makes more sense to run a film optically I would like to see the “Vitaphone” process used (Even if just for a short) just to experience what it would have been like back in 1928-29 to view and hear a film using that process.
Maybe. If someday the Loews gets their sound-on-disc projector to work, but then would you want to run an archival print and disc on a machine that old and unreliable in the first place? Wouldn’t it just make more sense to run the film optically? The amount of sync control and quality in presentation is so much better that way.
And I agree, it would be nice to see the day the balcony opens. Perhaps some day they’ll finish remolding and painting the plaster work, too.
I’m just hoping they can open the balcony sometime in the near future. The “Vitaphon Project” has complete sets of discs to many early films so I guess it is possible (But highly unlikely) that the Jersey could screen a film using the Vitaphon process.
Vincent, “true” VistaVision isn’t 8 perf VistaVision. In fact, it was only the first few films that were shot in VistaVision that were even printed 8-perf!
Paramount made it clear when they introduced it that the REALITY of VistaVision is that it was designed to ensure finer-grained 4 perf 35mm prints for blow up to widescreen, not to be projected in 8-perf! 8-Perf prints were special cases for special venues.
I highly doubt (in fact, I’d stake money on it) that any 8 perf prints for actual projection purposes have been struck in almost 50 years.
As for the Jersey: Before I go into my rant, please note that I have the utmost respect for the Jersey and its staff and I appreciate what they’re doing, but I have to tell it how it is before things start getting ridiculous on this board.
Don’t raise your hopes for 70mm anytime soon either. They have the equipment, but it hasn’t been installed in the booth and is literally sitting in pieces up there. It took them months to actually get those pieces up there, and my guess is that it’s going to take many more months to finally get it all up and working.
Don’t expect magnetic or Vitaphone either. The readers they have up there are just for show (not to mention— WHO THE HECK MAKES VITAPHONE DISCS ANYMORE???). They’ve got a Perspecta integrator, but never use it.
Folks, don’t expect pipe dreams of cinema at the Jersey. It’s a fantastic venue, but being realistic as all good venues are, they’ll be running 35mm, carbon arc, mono sound on a 50 foot screen for now. That is IT and that is fine by me.
Wow!, Thanks for the info. Wish I had been old enough to see White Christmas screened that way. Really must have been something to see.
Somebody somewhere on one of these pages said that Vistavision looked better at the Paramount than the Music Hall. But then the Hall only showed one movie in Vistavision though a number of its films were filmed in that process.
I wonder when the last time was when a film was shown in NY in true VistaVision whether first run or revival.
If only Ben Olevsky had written a long article or book!
“White Christmas” would have the same aspect ratio if projected at 1.85 (one of the suggested ratios), however if projected at the same size as a vertical 35mm print would appear much sharper, since the film area is much larger. VistaVision is eight perfs wide or two frames of 35mm film. If an eight perf horizontal print is slightly squeezed and unsqueezed as in the Technirama format it ends up being 12 perfs wide or just about the same width as a 70mm image. As a brash teenager in Illinois when “White Christmas” opened at our local Balaban & Katz theatre I remember the manager telling an audience that he had seen it in Chicago at the State/Lake and we were in for a treat. He saw a horizontal print, and we had a normal print, but still the image was amazingly sharp since it was printed from a negative made from a reduction of the VistaVision negative. I (in my youthful “wisdom”) commented that someday they would combine VistaVision with CinemaScope to come up with a picture that was both wide and sharp. Of course they did that the next year with “Oklahoma” in Todd-AO shot on 65mm film. My predecessor at Radio City, Ben Olevsky, always thought that VistaVision at the Hall was better looking than 70mm, but at the time “White Christmas” came out, few had seen projection from a larger-than-35mm print, and of course most of the 70mm material that Ben ran at the Hall was a blow-up from 35. The work print material I ran at Sound One for the three films that used VistaVision looked great of course, but it was projected on a 10' wide screen, so it didn’t have the impact it would have if presented in a theatre. By the way, projecting it is impressive since it runs at double the normal speed. At 180' a minute it moves! That’s faster than 70mm at 24 FPS which runs at 112.5 feet a minute. Ben said he could hear the projectors running during “White Christmas” when the elevator to the booth got to the First Mezzanine level, and they had to drape the spot ports on either side of the VistaVision projectors with Duvateen to cut the noise down in the house.
Thanks REndres for the “VistaVision” info. Any idea how “White Christmas” looked when screened horizontally. Would it have looked much the same as it does today. I was at the screening of WC at the Loews 34th st last Dec.
Thanks Rob for another entertaining and informative post. Where would we be without REndres contributions to Cinema Treasures
EdSolero, thanks for letting know about the posting. That booklet was done shortly after I arrived at the Hall in ‘74 and was the last souvenir booklet they did. I still have a couple of copies of it. Chris Rober is pictured in the maintenance photo. I worked with both Chris Sr. and his two sons who are still at the Hall along with (I believe) a third generation of Robers. It really is a family. By the way, “Crossed Swords” was shown in 70mm at the Hall.
REndres… I posted some images from a 1978 RCMH souvenir booklet over on the Hall’s page here. It features photos and mention of a lot of folks who worked at the Hall at the time (yourself included), if you care to check it out. You probably have a number of such booklets in your possession, but I thought I’d mention it. I posted them about a week or so ago. I purchased the booklet while attending the Easter Show that year, which featured what was to have been (but wasn’t) the Hall’s final attraction, the movie “Crossed Swords”.
It is highly likely that the Jersey will be showing the same print that I am running at the Lafayette of Rebel without a Cause; it was struck in Feb. 2005 in the 2.35 ratio and Dolby SR sound. I don’t believe the Jersey has mag stereo capability, nor are there any Rebel prints in circulation with good color and mag tracks.
In reference to the above: the 2.55 ratio was the original ratio for CinemaScope 35mm composite magnetic releases. The ratio was achieved by printing on stock with narrower than normal perforations (Fox hole sprockets had to be installed on projectors to run composite four-track mag prints.) I wonder if the Jersey will be able to secure (or run) the original mag prints. When we did the restoration of “A Star Is Born” at Radio City we ran a 35mm optical print interlocked to four-track 35mm full coat mag reels, since the only four-track prints weren’t in good enough condition in terms of picture. They recorded the mag tracks from the composite over to mag 35mm full coat, and used the best existing 2.35 optical print or negative to strike the picture (which also carried the 35mm optical track.) I raised the issue with Doug Edwards of the Academy about the original aspect ratio being 2.55, and we debated whether or not to cut plates that would crop the top and bottom of the frame to give a 2.55 ratio. I thought that Cukor would have preferred to have all of the picture information available used, so we ran it 2.35. Interestingly enough, I bought a copy of “The Robe” on LaserDisc only to find that it was 2.35. The DVD copy came out advertised as being 2.55, and sure enough it is, but putting a still frame of each up and switching between the formats revealed that Fox had cropped the top and bottom of the frame to achieve the 2.55 ratio — the sides were basically the same.
In regards to the VistaVision projector question — there are a number of the machines around. Boston Light & Sound has two, and I ran VistaVision dailies on “Men In Black”, “Jungle 2 Jungle” and “Michael” at Sound One in New York, where Vista Vision was used for some of the action and for plates. While we had one of the two B.L.& S. machines, the other was at Bob Harris'place where he was working on the “Vertigo” restoration. In addiiton, I worked with the Hansards of background projection fame, and they may have had some of the original projection heads and did have the Mitchell VistaVision process projection heads that had been used at Paramount where the Hansards had worked during the glory days of VistaVision. One of the stories they told me (which may be apocryphal) was that Paramount’s head process D.P. Farciot Eduart was eventually let go, and in retaliation he took the index he had of stock footage plates in the Paramount vaults. Thus Paramount had thousands of feet of VistaVision plates with no way of identifying what was on each roll.
By the way, I believe only the first three films were actually shown in horizontal VistaVision in theatres in this country. They would be “White Christmas”, “The Far Horizons” and “Strategic Air Command”. The VistaVision machines we had at the Hall were taken out after the “White Christmas” screenings. Unlike 70mm projectors which could screen normal 35mm prints, VistaVision projectors could only screen horizontal prints (that might have included Technirama if they had released enough prints at the same time) and most booths couldn’t accomodate those machines and the standard 35mm machines at the same time. Radio City was one of the few booth that even had four machines, and there the VistaVision mahcines were placed in the effects ports just outside of the main booth.
Interesting Vincent… Can you elaborate? Was that because venues equipped with VistaVision (such as the NY Paramount) were unavailable? Amazing that such a high profile production for Paramount filmed in the studio’s own proprietary widescreen process would not be exhibited in their flagship theaters to take advantage of that process. This movie premeired at the Criterion Theater in NYC, didn’t it? I always wondered why it didn’t bow at the Paramount or Radio City.
Ten Commandments was never shown in VistaVision. Not even on its original roadshow engagments.
I saw a rerelease of “The Ten Commandments” at the Loews Oriental around 1964 so I am really looking forward to seeing it at The Jersey. Have one question. Does anyone know if any original Vista Vision (Horizontal) projectors are still in existance?
I believe you are correct, Bob. I just eyeballed the new print of Rebel without a Cause that I’m running this Saturday, March 4, at the Lafayette in Suffern and it appears to be the standard 2.35 ratio.
Saw the Ten Commandments at the old Savoy in Brooklyn during one of its initial releases. Having seen it several times since, there is no comparison to having seen it on the big screen, probabably in Vistavision.
With the upcoming early cinemascope coming to Loews at a 2.55 ratio the screen will be fairly small. Maybe almost half the size of a screen used for 1.85.
I saw it once at the Music Hall for a revival of Seven Brides and it was was amazing.
But, Bob, didn’t the director and cinematographer frame shots with a specific aspect ratio and composition in mind? I didn’t realize that this was a selling point to exhibitors as much as it was a level of lattitude afforded the film makers themselves. So, did filmmakers create images that would stand up to cropping, provided the framing guide at the head of each reel was used as a template?
I’m no expert in the field of widescreen processes, but this aspect of VistaVision seems similar to that of the Super 35 format.
Thanks for the info SteveJKo… It’s almost understandable that during the widescreen craze of the roadshow era a reissue of “Gone With the Wind” would have been gussied up in stereophonic sound and cropped to a 1.85:1 ratio. It’s hard to imagine, however, that in the “enlightened” era of late 80’s film restoration (when “GWTW” was itself restored in full 1.37:1 Academy ratio), a film like “The Ten Commandments” would have its image cropped for reissue.
Ed, from what I understand the 1989 70mm reissue of “The Ten Commandments” was considered a complete disaster. A significant amount of image was lost in the transfer to a full 70mm frame. They would have been smarter to transfer the image using the full 70mm frame height, but not the width, to protect the Vistavision frame. I’ve seen many 1.85:1 films presented this way and it works just fine.
From what I’ve read on this site, the Jersey is not equipped for 70mm presentation.
Ed Solero… I can
t say what version the Jersey will be showing, but Im sure it will be excellent anyway.I can`t remember what format it was released in in the 80s, but the version I saw was magnificent- and the color did NOT look bleached out like it looked in GWTW when I saw it at Radio City in the mid 70s.So it is written…..