The LA Times is in the microfilm collection at the New York Public Library – Main Branch. I assumed only New York papers would be there, and they have all of them, but it was a pleasant surprise to see they carried LA as well. And it’s a self-service system, which is a big timesaver if you want to look at a lot of different dates. I’ll be going back for more very soon.
The “Kane” print was fine – just some scratches near each reel change. And practically no missing footage either. I think only one word of dialogue was missing from the print.
The comment cards are once again available in the lobby, so it looks like the Classics will be an ongoing event. I wrote down “Cleopatra” in 70mm – no harm in asking :)
To all the Ziegfeld gripers and naysayers who are skipping “Citizen Kane” because the schedule is too familiar, too TCM, etc.: to paraphrase Mr. Kane, it’s your loss.
The film was perfectly framed and I was in the third row, which meant the movie was literally towering over my head. Not only did I notice lots of important details I’d never seen before in almost every scene (and I’ve seen the movie about 100 times), but entire sequences like the after-election campaign headquarters (with the camera placed in a pit below floor level) and especially the final tracking shot flying over Kane’s accumulated “stuff” (you can spot Rosebud coming from a long way away at the top of the screen) became truly jaw-dropping from that perspective. I’m willing to bet that “Kane” hasn’t been shown in New York in quite the same amazing proportions since the Palace in 1941.
The sound was turned up good and loud, too. Bernard Herrmann’s climactic Rosebud music gave me goosebumps. And the audience was noticeably startled by the screeching cockatoo, which was probably why Welles put it in there in the first place. If anyone had fallen asleep (there were people complaining on the way out, “How could anyone call that the best movie ever made?”), that cockatoo would’ve woken them up all right.
Only three more shows. Don’t miss it – it’s terrific!
I wonder if it was the same woman who ruined “Doctor Zhivago” in February by complaining about the volume? I hope they respond so quickly to me if I complain that today’s “Citizen Kane” show is not loud enough!
“Journey” was my favorite of all the “4:30 Movies”. Remember how exciting it was when a beloved movie showed up in next week’s TV Guide? It’s a good thing to be able to own the movies now and see them whenever we want, but something very special has been lost at the same time.
Vito: was that 16mm print in CinemaScope? That must have been quite a show down there in your basement. It was probably still playing in neighborhood theaters at that time.
“Journey” was my favorite of all the “4:30 Movies”. Remember how exciting it was when a beloved movie showed up in next week’s TV Guide? It’s a good thing to be able to own the movies now and see them whenever we want, but something very special has been lost at the same time.
Ed: was that 16mm print in CinemaScope? That must have been quite a show down there in your basement. It was probably still playing in neighborhood theaters at that time.
On closer inspection of the ad, there weren’t midnight shows every night – only Fridays and Saturdays. Still, that’s pretty cool – I would’ve loved being able to stagger out of the Dome at 3 AM onto Sunset Blvd. after seeing “Mad, Mad World”.
Warren: on the website it only says it was written by “Variety staff”. But I have a xerox copy at home of the original review as it appeared in the paper, and the nickname should be listed there. I’ll let you know tonight, in this space.
Ed: Strange thing about the 1969 Almanac’s Movies page – all the 1968 releases were listed with their star ratings EXCEPT “2001”!
Tonight I’ll post the New York Post’s negative “2001” review. Critic Archer Winsten was baffled and annoyed by it, and called it the first time Stanley Kubrick lost touch with his audience. At the end of the year, he included it in his list of the Top 10 films of 1968!
I know, Don – she couldn’t resist giving that away. Even worse is the “Psycho” review in Variety, posted below. The critic reveals practically everything that happens in the movie. Hitchcock must have been furious.
Psycho
Paramount. Director Alfred Hitchcock; Producer Alfred Hitchcock; Screenplay Joseph Stefano; Camera John L. Russell; Editor George Tomasini; Music Bernard Herrmann; Art Director Joseph Hurley, Robert Clatworthy. At DeMille Theatre, N.Y., June 16, 1960.
Norman Bates – Anthony Perkins
Marion Crane – Janet Leigh
Lila Crane – Vera Miles
Sam Loomis – John Gavin
Milton Arbogast – Martin Balsam
Sheriff Chambers – John McIntire
Dr. Richmond – Simon Oakland
Anyone listening hard enough, might almost hear Alfred Hitchcock saylng, “Believe this, kids, and I’ll tell you another.” The rejoinder from this corner: Believability doesn’t matter; but do tell another.
Producer-director Hitchcock is up to his clavicle in whimsicality and apparently had the time of his life in putting together “Psycho.” He’s gotten in gore, in the form of a couple of graphically-depicted knife murders, a story that’s far out in Freudian motivations, and now and then injects little amusing plot items that suggest the whole thing is not to be taken seriously.
The “Psycho” diagnosis, commercially, is this: an unusual, good entertainment, indelibly Hitchcock, and on the right kind of boxoffice beam. The campaign backing is fitting and potent. The edict against seating customers after opening curtain (as observed at New York’s DeMille Theatre) if respected may add to the intrigue. All adds up to success.
Hitchcock uses the old plea that nobody give out the ending — “It’s the only one we have.” This will be abided by bere, but it must be said that the central force throughout the feature is a mother who is a homicidal maniac. This is unusual because she happens to be physically defunct, has been for some years. But she lives on in the person of her son.
Anthony Perkins is the young man who doesn’t get enough exorcise (repeat exorcise) of that other inner being. Among the victims are Janet Leigh, who walks away from an illicit love affair with John Gavin, taking with her a stolen $40,000, and Martin Balsam, as a private eye who winds up in the same swamp in which Leigh’s body also is deposited.
John McIntire is the local sheriff with an unusual case on his hands, and Simon Oakland is the psychiatrist who recognizes that Perkins, while donning his mother’s clothes, is not really a transvestite; he’s just nuts. Vera Miles is the dead girl’s sister whose investigation leads to the diagnosis of what ails Perkins.
Perkins gives a remarkably effective in-a-dream kind of performance as the possessed young man. Others play it straight, with equal competence.
Joseph Stefano’s screenplay, from a novel by Robert Bloch, provides a strong foundation for Hitchcock’s field day. And if the camera, under Hitchcock’s direction, tends to over-emphasize a story point here and there, well, it’s forgivable. Further, the audience’s indulgence is not too strained with the inevitable appearance of Hitchcock himself. He limits himself to barely more than a frame.
Saul Bass' titles are full of his characteristic trickiness, Bernard Herrmann’s music nicely plays counter-point with the pictorial action and editing seems right all the way.
1960: Nominations: Best Director, Supp. Actress (Janet Leigh), B&W Cinematography, B&W Art Direction
Wanda did like it! She wrote about it in the 1969 World Almanac’s Movies section and called it a “grand spectacle”. There was also a Daily News editorial written soon after the premiere which praised the movie. I looked for it today at the New York Public Library, but I didn’t know the exact date and was unable to find it.
The one and only Steven McQueen in:
View link
Just posted a new one here:
/theaters/1986/
The one and only Steven McQueen in …
View link
Forgot this one:
/theaters/18/
I recently posted more LA ads on the following pages:
/theaters/1/
/theaters/4/
/theaters/33/
The LA Times is in the microfilm collection at the New York Public Library – Main Branch. I assumed only New York papers would be there, and they have all of them, but it was a pleasant surprise to see they carried LA as well. And it’s a self-service system, which is a big timesaver if you want to look at a lot of different dates. I’ll be going back for more very soon.
Here’s another ad from December 1959 featuring L.A. area drive-ins: 39 of them! (wow)
View link
From the Los Angeles Times, 12/14/61: a groundbreaking gay movie:
View link
From the Los Angeles Times, December 1961: a rare, non-Hitchcock instance of a director starring in the ad for his own movie:
View link
The “Kane” print was fine – just some scratches near each reel change. And practically no missing footage either. I think only one word of dialogue was missing from the print.
The comment cards are once again available in the lobby, so it looks like the Classics will be an ongoing event. I wrote down “Cleopatra” in 70mm – no harm in asking :)
To all the Ziegfeld gripers and naysayers who are skipping “Citizen Kane” because the schedule is too familiar, too TCM, etc.: to paraphrase Mr. Kane, it’s your loss.
The film was perfectly framed and I was in the third row, which meant the movie was literally towering over my head. Not only did I notice lots of important details I’d never seen before in almost every scene (and I’ve seen the movie about 100 times), but entire sequences like the after-election campaign headquarters (with the camera placed in a pit below floor level) and especially the final tracking shot flying over Kane’s accumulated “stuff” (you can spot Rosebud coming from a long way away at the top of the screen) became truly jaw-dropping from that perspective. I’m willing to bet that “Kane” hasn’t been shown in New York in quite the same amazing proportions since the Palace in 1941.
The sound was turned up good and loud, too. Bernard Herrmann’s climactic Rosebud music gave me goosebumps. And the audience was noticeably startled by the screeching cockatoo, which was probably why Welles put it in there in the first place. If anyone had fallen asleep (there were people complaining on the way out, “How could anyone call that the best movie ever made?”), that cockatoo would’ve woken them up all right.
Only three more shows. Don’t miss it – it’s terrific!
I wonder if it was the same woman who ruined “Doctor Zhivago” in February by complaining about the volume? I hope they respond so quickly to me if I complain that today’s “Citizen Kane” show is not loud enough!
The Variety review of “Psycho” was written by “Gene”.
View link
My favorite Variety critic from those years was “Tube”. He wrote some very funny reviews for those beloved old Grade B sci-fi movies.
Archer Winsten’s New York Post review (4/4/68):
View link
Vito: sounds to me like your basement qualifies as a Cinema Treasure in its own right!
Sorry about the double post. See how flustered I get when the conversation turns to “Journey to the Center of the Earth”?
“Journey” was my favorite of all the “4:30 Movies”. Remember how exciting it was when a beloved movie showed up in next week’s TV Guide? It’s a good thing to be able to own the movies now and see them whenever we want, but something very special has been lost at the same time.
Vito: was that 16mm print in CinemaScope? That must have been quite a show down there in your basement. It was probably still playing in neighborhood theaters at that time.
“Journey” was my favorite of all the “4:30 Movies”. Remember how exciting it was when a beloved movie showed up in next week’s TV Guide? It’s a good thing to be able to own the movies now and see them whenever we want, but something very special has been lost at the same time.
Ed: was that 16mm print in CinemaScope? That must have been quite a show down there in your basement. It was probably still playing in neighborhood theaters at that time.
On closer inspection of the ad, there weren’t midnight shows every night – only Fridays and Saturdays. Still, that’s pretty cool – I would’ve loved being able to stagger out of the Dome at 3 AM onto Sunset Blvd. after seeing “Mad, Mad World”.
Warren: on the website it only says it was written by “Variety staff”. But I have a xerox copy at home of the original review as it appeared in the paper, and the nickname should be listed there. I’ll let you know tonight, in this space.
Ed: Strange thing about the 1969 Almanac’s Movies page – all the 1968 releases were listed with their star ratings EXCEPT “2001”!
Tonight I’ll post the New York Post’s negative “2001” review. Critic Archer Winsten was baffled and annoyed by it, and called it the first time Stanley Kubrick lost touch with his audience. At the end of the year, he included it in his list of the Top 10 films of 1968!
I know, Don – she couldn’t resist giving that away. Even worse is the “Psycho” review in Variety, posted below. The critic reveals practically everything that happens in the movie. Hitchcock must have been furious.
Psycho
Paramount. Director Alfred Hitchcock; Producer Alfred Hitchcock; Screenplay Joseph Stefano; Camera John L. Russell; Editor George Tomasini; Music Bernard Herrmann; Art Director Joseph Hurley, Robert Clatworthy. At DeMille Theatre, N.Y., June 16, 1960.
Norman Bates – Anthony Perkins
Marion Crane – Janet Leigh
Lila Crane – Vera Miles
Sam Loomis – John Gavin
Milton Arbogast – Martin Balsam
Sheriff Chambers – John McIntire
Dr. Richmond – Simon Oakland
Anyone listening hard enough, might almost hear Alfred Hitchcock saylng, “Believe this, kids, and I’ll tell you another.” The rejoinder from this corner: Believability doesn’t matter; but do tell another.
Producer-director Hitchcock is up to his clavicle in whimsicality and apparently had the time of his life in putting together “Psycho.” He’s gotten in gore, in the form of a couple of graphically-depicted knife murders, a story that’s far out in Freudian motivations, and now and then injects little amusing plot items that suggest the whole thing is not to be taken seriously.
The “Psycho” diagnosis, commercially, is this: an unusual, good entertainment, indelibly Hitchcock, and on the right kind of boxoffice beam. The campaign backing is fitting and potent. The edict against seating customers after opening curtain (as observed at New York’s DeMille Theatre) if respected may add to the intrigue. All adds up to success.
Hitchcock uses the old plea that nobody give out the ending — “It’s the only one we have.” This will be abided by bere, but it must be said that the central force throughout the feature is a mother who is a homicidal maniac. This is unusual because she happens to be physically defunct, has been for some years. But she lives on in the person of her son.
Anthony Perkins is the young man who doesn’t get enough exorcise (repeat exorcise) of that other inner being. Among the victims are Janet Leigh, who walks away from an illicit love affair with John Gavin, taking with her a stolen $40,000, and Martin Balsam, as a private eye who winds up in the same swamp in which Leigh’s body also is deposited.
John McIntire is the local sheriff with an unusual case on his hands, and Simon Oakland is the psychiatrist who recognizes that Perkins, while donning his mother’s clothes, is not really a transvestite; he’s just nuts. Vera Miles is the dead girl’s sister whose investigation leads to the diagnosis of what ails Perkins.
Perkins gives a remarkably effective in-a-dream kind of performance as the possessed young man. Others play it straight, with equal competence.
Joseph Stefano’s screenplay, from a novel by Robert Bloch, provides a strong foundation for Hitchcock’s field day. And if the camera, under Hitchcock’s direction, tends to over-emphasize a story point here and there, well, it’s forgivable. Further, the audience’s indulgence is not too strained with the inevitable appearance of Hitchcock himself. He limits himself to barely more than a frame.
Saul Bass' titles are full of his characteristic trickiness, Bernard Herrmann’s music nicely plays counter-point with the pictorial action and editing seems right all the way.
1960: Nominations: Best Director, Supp. Actress (Janet Leigh), B&W Cinematography, B&W Art Direction
… and a midnight show every night! Those really were the good old days.
Wanda did like it! She wrote about it in the 1969 World Almanac’s Movies section and called it a “grand spectacle”. There was also a Daily News editorial written soon after the premiere which praised the movie. I looked for it today at the New York Public Library, but I didn’t know the exact date and was unable to find it.