Some 70mm films were actually wide than the original Cinerama. Ben-Hur could be exhibited at 2.7:1 (although it never was actually shown that wide), and even the original Cinemascope AR was 2.55:1, very close to Cinerama’s 2.6:1.
I saw a double feature of Citizen Kane and Touch of Evil at the Loews/Sony Union Square, about 8 years ago (just slightly before DVDs) on a very big screen in a “stadium” style theater.
I don’t need to see Citizen Kane again, certainly not at the Ziegfeld, which I still contend isn’t a very good place to see a movie. Bad, echoey sound, poor prints, uncomfortable seats… and scheduling conflicts. Sorry for the rant.
I’m very much looking forward to the fall “classics” at the Lafayette in Suffern, NY. Now, there’s a place to see a movie.
I’ve enjoyed the 2 movies I’ve seen in this series (Chinatown, Ben-Hur). But I do wish the presentations were better, the prints in better condition, and I wish never to hear that young reviewer speak again — he didn’t know what he was saying. (He spoke about Chinatown.)
I needed the intermission in Ben-Hur to go to the bathroom, but since it had been removed, I had to go anyway during the scene when Heston talks to the horses in the tent, and I planned to buy some snacks, but the concession stand was closed at this point, of course. Overall, I’d give the experience about a B-.
This is of course, the truth about moviegoing in general, now. The presentations at nearly every theater are simply not what they were, even 10 years ago, let alone in the late 60s. Movie theaters can’t afford big staffs, or upgraded equipment.
Movies in the theater, I think, are doomed to be a niche part of the movie grosses — not dissimilar to the “hardback” edition of newly published books. Most people will wait for the paperback.
It’s true that Chinatown isn’t exactly a movie that needs to be seen at the Ziegfeld. The best experience I ever had at the Ziegfeld was seeing A Star is Born, in 1976, there. Both movies are now available for home viewing, and in 1080i high-definition. I suspect once high-definition broadcasts are the norm, a movie like Chinatown will never be seen in the movie theater again.
Vertigo, is an example of a movie with a very “dry” soundtrack, very little reverb built into the soundtrack. The recent restoration of the movie had re-recorded foleys (sound effects) to take advantage of the recovered stereo recordings of the music.
When I saw the movie at the Ziegfeld, I was surprised at how bad I thought the presentation was. The movie was shown in 70mm, with beautiful stereo surround music. But the picture wasn’t bright enough (the theater is too deep), and the dialogue was echo-y, reverberant, and wet, and because of that, it was hard to understand. This is a movie I know very well, and I was disappointed seeing it in all its glory at the Ziegfeld. I went again to it at another theater in town, and the experience was much better — the movie looked and sounded great. The problem wasn’t the movie, it was the Ziegfeld theater itself.
As I’ve said, it isn’t the sound system — it’s the house that’s the problem. The shape of the theater itself. There’s a lot of natural echo, which is great for music, and very bad for speaking. Our modern movies have very complex soundscapes, but to take advantage of them properly, you’d have to have a very dry room.
The Loewe’s is simply better suited to movies, in my opinion. I even think it’s nicer-looking. But it’s got a problem too — the bathroom is a mile away down a long narrow corridor.
I’ve also seen movies at Radio City Music Hall (the early 70s — saw Bedknobs and Broomsticks and many others there) and I think it’s actually a better place to see a movie than the Ziegfeld, even though monstrously huge.
And I went to the Rivoli too, though unfortunately, my recollection of it was that it was practically a ruin.
Haha, that IS a problem with the Loewe’s. I would always try to choose that theater based on the times it presented. If the movie had a 7 PM showing, and an 8 PM showing, I would choose the latter, because that 8:00 timeslot seemed more likely to be in the bigger Loewes. I know, it’s a crazy system of guessing, but it worked quite a few times.
I’ve seen many movies at the Ziegfeld, including some first-run movies in the 70s like A Star is Born, and the Lawrence of Arabia restoration from 1988, and the My Fair Lady restoration from 1994, and many others. I’ve never had a good experience there.
I know why people extol it, though, because they are trying to hold onto the experience of a large audience at a movie palace. As such, the Ziegfeld is close to the last remaining place in NYC to experience such a thing.
So, premieres are exactly what should be showing there.
But for watching the actual movie the way it’s meant to be seen? I think the Loews theater (the biggest one inside the Loews 68th Street multiplex) is the best theater in town to see a widescreen, 70mm, DTS kind of movie, particularly when you sit in the balcony. The sound is superb. The screen itself is bigger than at the Ziegfeld, and the number of seats is actually smaller.
The problem with the Ziegfeld isn’t the sound system — it’s the theater itself, its shape (a horizontal box that’s too deep), and the design makes the bathroom and refreshment areas seem like a mile away from the seats, and they’re too small.
Since there are no other movie palaces, the Ziegfeld must suffice, but overall, it’s a bad choice.
My opinion, of course. And of course, I don’t even go to the movies anymore — now it’s home theater.
I’m sure I’ve said this before, but the Ziegfeld is not a good place to see a movie. Most people don’t realize how bad the sound is in there. There were plenty of things in Chinatown that were barely audible (and I don’t think the movie was mixed that way).
The other odd thing about the Ziegfeld is that everybody thinks it’s some kind of movie palace with a great history, since it houses all those theatrical artifacts in the lobby. It is NOT the original Ziegfeld theater where Show Boat premiered, nor is it built on that site (it’s down the block from the original site).
It is a barn, and not particularly beautifully done — very 60s rococco (SIC), if you ask me.
There is an old movie palace in Manhattan that is worth preserving — the Beacon at 76th street. Also, the old Mark Hellinger theater, now Times Square Church, was built as a movie palace.
Some 70mm films were actually wide than the original Cinerama. Ben-Hur could be exhibited at 2.7:1 (although it never was actually shown that wide), and even the original Cinemascope AR was 2.55:1, very close to Cinerama’s 2.6:1.
I’m SO excited about Porgy and Bess!
I saw a double feature of Citizen Kane and Touch of Evil at the Loews/Sony Union Square, about 8 years ago (just slightly before DVDs) on a very big screen in a “stadium” style theater.
I don’t need to see Citizen Kane again, certainly not at the Ziegfeld, which I still contend isn’t a very good place to see a movie. Bad, echoey sound, poor prints, uncomfortable seats… and scheduling conflicts. Sorry for the rant.
I’m very much looking forward to the fall “classics” at the Lafayette in Suffern, NY. Now, there’s a place to see a movie.
I’ve enjoyed the 2 movies I’ve seen in this series (Chinatown, Ben-Hur). But I do wish the presentations were better, the prints in better condition, and I wish never to hear that young reviewer speak again — he didn’t know what he was saying. (He spoke about Chinatown.)
I needed the intermission in Ben-Hur to go to the bathroom, but since it had been removed, I had to go anyway during the scene when Heston talks to the horses in the tent, and I planned to buy some snacks, but the concession stand was closed at this point, of course. Overall, I’d give the experience about a B-.
Better presentations, please.
The Union Square UA multiplex has mice. I saw one there myself.
This is of course, the truth about moviegoing in general, now. The presentations at nearly every theater are simply not what they were, even 10 years ago, let alone in the late 60s. Movie theaters can’t afford big staffs, or upgraded equipment.
Movies in the theater, I think, are doomed to be a niche part of the movie grosses — not dissimilar to the “hardback” edition of newly published books. Most people will wait for the paperback.
It’s true that Chinatown isn’t exactly a movie that needs to be seen at the Ziegfeld. The best experience I ever had at the Ziegfeld was seeing A Star is Born, in 1976, there. Both movies are now available for home viewing, and in 1080i high-definition. I suspect once high-definition broadcasts are the norm, a movie like Chinatown will never be seen in the movie theater again.
Vertigo, is an example of a movie with a very “dry” soundtrack, very little reverb built into the soundtrack. The recent restoration of the movie had re-recorded foleys (sound effects) to take advantage of the recovered stereo recordings of the music.
When I saw the movie at the Ziegfeld, I was surprised at how bad I thought the presentation was. The movie was shown in 70mm, with beautiful stereo surround music. But the picture wasn’t bright enough (the theater is too deep), and the dialogue was echo-y, reverberant, and wet, and because of that, it was hard to understand. This is a movie I know very well, and I was disappointed seeing it in all its glory at the Ziegfeld. I went again to it at another theater in town, and the experience was much better — the movie looked and sounded great. The problem wasn’t the movie, it was the Ziegfeld theater itself.
As I’ve said, it isn’t the sound system — it’s the house that’s the problem. The shape of the theater itself. There’s a lot of natural echo, which is great for music, and very bad for speaking. Our modern movies have very complex soundscapes, but to take advantage of them properly, you’d have to have a very dry room.
The Loewe’s is simply better suited to movies, in my opinion. I even think it’s nicer-looking. But it’s got a problem too — the bathroom is a mile away down a long narrow corridor.
I’ve also seen movies at Radio City Music Hall (the early 70s — saw Bedknobs and Broomsticks and many others there) and I think it’s actually a better place to see a movie than the Ziegfeld, even though monstrously huge.
And I went to the Rivoli too, though unfortunately, my recollection of it was that it was practically a ruin.
Haha, that IS a problem with the Loewe’s. I would always try to choose that theater based on the times it presented. If the movie had a 7 PM showing, and an 8 PM showing, I would choose the latter, because that 8:00 timeslot seemed more likely to be in the bigger Loewes. I know, it’s a crazy system of guessing, but it worked quite a few times.
I’ve seen many movies at the Ziegfeld, including some first-run movies in the 70s like A Star is Born, and the Lawrence of Arabia restoration from 1988, and the My Fair Lady restoration from 1994, and many others. I’ve never had a good experience there.
I know why people extol it, though, because they are trying to hold onto the experience of a large audience at a movie palace. As such, the Ziegfeld is close to the last remaining place in NYC to experience such a thing.
So, premieres are exactly what should be showing there.
But for watching the actual movie the way it’s meant to be seen? I think the Loews theater (the biggest one inside the Loews 68th Street multiplex) is the best theater in town to see a widescreen, 70mm, DTS kind of movie, particularly when you sit in the balcony. The sound is superb. The screen itself is bigger than at the Ziegfeld, and the number of seats is actually smaller.
The problem with the Ziegfeld isn’t the sound system — it’s the theater itself, its shape (a horizontal box that’s too deep), and the design makes the bathroom and refreshment areas seem like a mile away from the seats, and they’re too small.
Since there are no other movie palaces, the Ziegfeld must suffice, but overall, it’s a bad choice.
My opinion, of course. And of course, I don’t even go to the movies anymore — now it’s home theater.
I’m sure I’ve said this before, but the Ziegfeld is not a good place to see a movie. Most people don’t realize how bad the sound is in there. There were plenty of things in Chinatown that were barely audible (and I don’t think the movie was mixed that way).
The other odd thing about the Ziegfeld is that everybody thinks it’s some kind of movie palace with a great history, since it houses all those theatrical artifacts in the lobby. It is NOT the original Ziegfeld theater where Show Boat premiered, nor is it built on that site (it’s down the block from the original site).
It is a barn, and not particularly beautifully done — very 60s rococco (SIC), if you ask me.
There is an old movie palace in Manhattan that is worth preserving — the Beacon at 76th street. Also, the old Mark Hellinger theater, now Times Square Church, was built as a movie palace.