Ziegfeld Theatre

GREASE was a moveover from either the Loew’s Astor Plaza or the Loew’s State where it originally opened. But of course it was better at the Ziegfeld.

posted by Bill Huelbig on Jan 28, 2006 at 11:51am

“Grease” was better at the Ziegfeld because it was a 70mm presentation! The initial run (at the State) was 35mm and began about two months earlier.

Al,
Nice list of Ziegfeld engagements! But what’s up with the approximate dates?

I made a goof – after consulting Al Alvarez' list, I see that “Raiders” played the Ziegfeld in 1982.

Anyone make it down the last couple of weeks to either the “Lord of the Rings” or “Indiana Jones” series? I wanted to get in for “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, but I’ve been waylaid with a bad case of strep. I’m curious about both the attendance for these two series as well as the quality of the prints (especially the Indy series). I’m wondering in particular if the “West Side Story” and “Ben-Hur” screenings were better attended than the “LOTR” screenings – which might make a statement about programming to the Clearview people either way.

I saw the first press showing of “Close Encounters” at the Ziegfeld in 70mm. A gala night. I recall Paddy Chayesky in the audience.

Come One, Come All to “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” starting Friday March 17th at 8:15 PM—-at the Ziegfeld, where the film premiered on November 16th, 1977. This will be the “Definitive Director’s Cut.” For this first showing only, there will be a very special introduction. Spread the Word!!!!

Close Encounters: Some deletions from the 1977 version included a scene that takes place in the power station before Dreyfuss' first encounter. One Special Edition scene that made its way to the recent Definitive iteration is the Gobi Desert sequence. Over the years, mixed versions have been broadcast on TV, so who really knows how many permutations are out there? I still consider the original 1977 release the best, one of the finest American films of the 70’s. I failed to see what was so “Special” in the 1980 edition. The 2001 version is a good compromise.

JSA

Without spoiling the film or going on too much about its critical merits, the story is that Speilberg felt rushed by Columbia to get the film into theaters by November of ‘77. He wanted to push back to the following summer, but the studio (which was in financial trouble at the time) wouldn’t budge. Speilberg always felt there were certain scripted sequences he didn’t have the time or budget to properly shoot and that the film didn’t fulfill his vision, so a couple of years later he convinced the studio to allow him to re-assemble his crew and actors to shoot additional scenes and tighten up the editing. They agreed under condition that the climactic “encounter” of the title be expanded with additional effects to entice viewers back for a 2nd look at the movie. I’m with Peter… I loved the original version just fine and when I saw the “Special Edition” that was released with great fanfare in 1980, I felt the padded scenes the studio wanted were superfluous.

Fortunately, the final edition that Speilberg assembled in 2001 eliminates those scenes and reverts to the original versions ending, while still retaining some of scenes and edits Speilberg had always wanted to include but couldn’t back in ‘77. It’s been so long since I saw the original edit, that I don’t know if I could honestly compare the experience of seeing this latest and supposedly “final” cut with that first “work in progress”, as Speilberg refers to it. Tinkering aside, it’s a film well worth seeing on the big screen.

Howard –

The print that Columbia/Sony currently offers of CE3K is the “Definitive Edition”, which is a re-editing of the original 1977 release, the 1980 “Special Edition” release, with some additions and deletions from both; it was created by Spielberg in 2001. It’s the version that Spielberg has said he prefers (I disagree, I think the original ‘77 version was the best) and is the only one they offer for theatrical play.

Yes, Peter and Ed: I recently saw a presentation of “Close Encounters…” at California State University, Long Beach. The film was introduced by none other than cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond, and he mentioned that the special effects sequences were shot in 70 mm, while the other dramatic scenes were shot in 35 mm. It would have been interesting to ask him Ed’s question! “Close Encounters…” is indeed a beautiful film, both visually and conceptually. A good 35 mm print will do justice to this important picture. But oh, that 70 mm/6-track…

JSA

I agree with Peter, Howard. Only the special effects sequences were filmed in 70mm (Super Panavision 70 in this case) to reduce grain and were then reduced to 35mm to match the rest of the footage. Most folks saw the film in 35mm when it was first released, anyway. It’s an awesome big screen experience in either format – provided the print is in good shape.

I wonder… in cases such as this – where some footage was shot on 70mm and the rest on 35mm – are those 70mm sequences transfered from original camera negative or are they first reduced to 35mm to match the rest of the footage and then blown back up? Does that question make sense?

Probably not, Howard. The film is regular 35mm Panavision, IMO the biggest reason for 70mm on a film such as that was the six-track stereo sound. The new 35mm prints that Columbia/Sony have are in SDDS/DTS/Dolby Digital sound and will give you 95% of the impact of the 70mm sound.

I never sugggested that Lucas shot in 70mm, but he did spearhead the return to making prints available in 70mm, which is my point.
By the way, I played a lot of films in the 60s as well that were blow ups, “Funny Girl, Oliver, the list goes on and on, in fact few films after the 50s were shot in 70mm, but we still enjoyed presenting the 70mm blow ups, however you could certainly appreciate the difference when viewing true 70mm films like "Sound of Music” and “West Side Story” among others. By the way, I’m glad you
mentioned VistaVision, which few people may realise is still used in production today.