Ziegfeld Theatre

141 West 54th Street,
New York, NY 10019

Unfavorite 108 people favorited this theater

Showing 3,826 - 3,850 of 4,056 comments

ErikH on January 20, 2005 at 2:16 pm

FYI. This week’s Village Voice has an ad for a reissue of “Raging Bull” that opens at the Ziegfeld on January 28 for an exclusive run prior to the release of the special edition DVD in early February.

Bill Huelbig
Bill Huelbig on January 18, 2005 at 4:30 am

SJL: I’d say the first time a Star Wars film played at the Ziegfeld was the Special Edition of “Star Wars” in 1997. You’re right about the Astor Plaza – that was always the big-screen home of Star Wars in New York when the films were new. I think I would’ve tried to see them at the Ziegfeld if any of them had played there as a reissue.

SJLinNYC on January 15, 2005 at 9:03 pm

Does anybody here know if any of the films in the original “Star Wars” trilogy played at the Ziegfeld prior to the 1997 Special Edition releases? I know all three opened at the Loews Astor Plaza (R.I.P.), but have been unable to determine whether they made their way over to 54th Street at some point during their initial or re-releases.

pianoman on January 8, 2005 at 5:28 am

Wait- there are 3 Peters? Peter Pagano, Peter Appruzzese, and me- Peter Huffman?

Vito on January 8, 2005 at 5:12 am

Vincent, that was a shocker, David lean wanted to film Zhivago in 70mm, however MGM said no. The end result, shot in Panavision, did look better than most blowups. But you are so right, Zhivago was so right for 70mm, so was River Kwai for that matter. Kwai did not even get the blow up treatment, in fact the only prints I recall were 35mm optical (mono). Columbia did not even make mag stereo prints available at the time.

VincentParisi on January 7, 2005 at 2:42 pm

Yes the overture was played with the screen stark naked(I averted my gaze to avoid the ugliness.) However they closed the screen for the intermission but I don’t think they did at the end, though I might have left before the restoration credits fully unfurled. Why does it take more people to restore a movie than to make it?

As for Lean what was up with Zhivago? Boy if there was a movie that needed 70mm it was that one. And this was ‘65 when every roadshow was filmed in the process. How could he have possibly filmed it in Panavision and then shown it as a blow up? Though probably I would have been the only one to notice.

Vito on January 7, 2005 at 2:17 pm

Vincent, with respect to “Lawrence”, In the early days of the films release, David Lean insisted that if you did not play it in 70mm you could not show it at all. For my money, “Funny Girl” was better in 35mm four track than the awful washed out 70mm blowup, which I imagine Stradling had to have hated. As for the “Funny Girl” showing at the Ziegfeld, I can only imagine what a unprofessional cookie cutter presentaion that was, I’m guessing the overture was played with a white bare screen? Well…. there ought to be a law. To think I almost went to see it, sure glad I didn’t.

VincentParisi on January 7, 2005 at 8:29 am

Vito it’s too bad about Funny Girl. The Stradling cinematography is excellent and the the Callahan production superb. And it had the Criterion(reserved in the summer of 67 while the film was in production)which had the premiere 70mm presentations of two of the greats-Lady and Lawrence.
At the Ziegfeld you had an exposed screen and what seemed like a half an hour of commercials before the overture even started! There was a time when you paid to see a movie and that’s what they showed you.

Vito on January 7, 2005 at 4:40 am

Don, projectionist no longer have the control over the show we had in my day. It’s all automated, a push of the button and what ever happens is very mechanical now. Curtains have all but disapeared and most of the theatres that still have curtains leave them open for those damm slides.
Vincent, I guess once the studio’s realised they could get away with filming in 35mm and doing a 70mm blow up they saw $ signs in the savings on raw stock during filming.I so much agree that the result was a washed out pale comparision of true 70mm, By the way the original 70mm “Funny Girl” was no better than the reissue at the Ziegfeld. Those blow ups at RCMH were awful as well, the changeover to xenon lamps from carbon arc just added to the problem at RCMH, there just wasn’t enough light. By ther way, if you thought the lines for Woolf were long, you should have been there in 1954 when Jane Russell’s “French Line” played the Criterion in 3-D, the lines were so long you would have thought they were giving away money.

longislandmovies on January 6, 2005 at 8:52 pm

You should have seen the BUZZ when this theater played Last temptation of Crist. WOW

Bill Huelbig
Bill Huelbig on January 6, 2005 at 2:09 pm

The theater CConnolly, Pete and BoxOfficeBill are talking about, the Cinema I, is in the news today. It’s going to be torn down this spring, unless it can somehow be saved. I’ll never forget going there to see “The Exorcist” on its third day – the most frightened audience I’ve ever been a part of.

chconnol on January 6, 2005 at 8:23 am

PeterApruzzese: thanks for the info. I wish I could remember the source of the Kubrick story.

As for cleaning of the screens, some multiplexes ought to do it more often especially the Loews Palisades Center. I’m getting sick and tired of a movie’s image being marred by some of the giant smears that I see on some of their screens.

BoxOfficeBill on January 6, 2005 at 8:06 am

“A Clockwork Orange” opened in NYC at Cinema I — did the management there do that? Whew!

PeterApruzzese on January 6, 2005 at 7:55 am

I might not be correct regarding the color of the walls in the Kubrick section of my post above – it might have been white and not orange. I will check out my references.

PeterApruzzese on January 6, 2005 at 7:46 am

CConnolly –

Most theatre screens are made out of vinyl, which is then stretched around a frame of some sort. The are small perforations in the material to allow the sound to transmit through from the speaker(s) behind it. The front surface of the screen is generally a matte white surface (silver is sometimes used – that’s what we use at the Lafayette Theatre – mostly for installations that plan to run 3-D) that has a slight bit of reflective material in it. Cleaning a screen is difficult, most products will remove the coating and the screen darkens in those sections. There are companies that professionally clean screens, but it’s expensive and can not always remove the dirt & stains.

The Kubrick story is that when A Clockwork Orange was set to premiere in New York, the theatre had a screen mounted on the front wall (not projecting on the wall itself) with no curtaining or masking on the surrounding wall. The theatre painted the wall and ceiling around the screen an orange color, which would look awful with a projected image in the middle of it. When Kubrick heard about this (he always sent representative to the first-run theatres to check their presentations), he demanded the wall be painted the proper flat black color. I don’t know of any theatres that use the wall, but I’m sure there’s one someplace.

chconnol on January 6, 2005 at 6:47 am

Question for the theater professionals on this site (and forgive me for asking if it seems like a stupid question) but what, in general, were or are movie theater screens made of? Additionally, how do theaters clean them (or should I say, should clean them…some theaters these days don’t look like they ever do!).

I either read about this (maybe on this site) or heard about it in a documentary that Stanley Kubrick wanted a theaters wall (where the movie was projected) painted black for “A Clockwork Orange” but that the theater made a mistake and painted it a different color. Anyone know that story and what color they actually painted it? And how many theaters simply projected onto a wall?


VincentParisi on January 6, 2005 at 6:42 am

Though I didn’t see Funny Girl or Oliver during their original roadshow runs(saw them in the burbs)the restored FG at the Ziegfeld just looked like any other Panavision film. Why these films couldn’t have been shot in a 70mm process is beyond me after all in the same period CCBB and Star were. However I don’t think the sound is as good in these restored prints as it was back in the days of true 6 track sound. Blow up 70mm at the Music Hall looks especially bad as I remember Scrooge and Tom Sawyer looking grainy and washed out.
By the way I hate exposed screens. It’s like staring at an unattractive naked person.

hudsony777 on January 6, 2005 at 6:35 am

You’re all absolutely correct. Most theaters now have no showmanship. However, it’s good to know the Ziegfeld is still open. Not a movie palace, but an interesting, pleasant, middle size theater that is idiosyncratic and plush in its interior, even if the exterior is just a box.

Just found out they are showing, “Phantom of the Opera.” A great place for this movie.

As someone once said to me, “The Ziegfeld. Best projection in the city.” Who knew this was a craft, now that it’s disappearing?

DonRosen on January 6, 2005 at 5:25 am

Vito…I remember how perfectly the curtins were timed with the movie ending. Now, it’s a white screen with ads from a slide projector before and after the movie. Whatever happened to showmanship?

DonRosen on January 6, 2005 at 5:24 am

Vito…I remember how perfectly the curtins were timed with the movie ending. Now, it’s a white with ads from a slide projector befor and after the movie. Whatever happened to showmanship?

Vito on January 6, 2005 at 4:55 am

Vincent, Bill, “South Pacific” was of course a true 70mm
(Todd-AO I think) presentation at the Criterion, “Funny Girl”, “Oliver” and many others were a blow up from the 35mm neg which in my opinion never compared to the real thing. We were bombared in the 60s with these 70mm blowups and I thought they paled by comparision. The image was sharp but dull, and the colors a bit faded. However, the magnificent six track magnetic sound made up for the picture quality. Would you agree?

Vito on January 6, 2005 at 4:38 am

RCDTJ, I know a lot of projectionists who still take a lot of pride in the job. However, you must admit, in most cases. it’s just not the same now as before automation, platters and multiplex’s. In my day we “put on a show” Dimming house lights as the last of the intermission music began to fade, then opening the curtain just as the stage lights were dimming, and opening/raising the curtain being carefull not to expose any white screen. Then there were the reel changes every 15-20 minutes where you took great pride in timing the changeover perfectly as not to interupt the presentation. Ending the movie had to be perfect as well, the curtain had to be in the full closed position as the title faded, again no white screen or titles running over the closed curtain, with the stage lights to full up position at the same moment the curtains finished closing. Of course the big days came with the Roadshow presentations with overtures, intermissions and exit music, all coordinated perfectly.
Now a days it’s all automation, you thread a platter set a timer and your finished. I prefered the days before I retired when we were showmen, is all I am saying.
Bill, I could be wrong but I don’t remember the Criterion installing VistaVision projectors for “10 Commandments”, I thought it was a reduction print.The only VistaVision projectors I recall were at RCMH and Paramount. In fact I recall when “White Christmas” opened at the Hall, they had temporary VistaVision projectors installed without sound heads, the sound had to be interlocked with two projectors untill the finished projectors were built and installled.
Do you have more info on how “10 Commandments” was projected?

rcdt55b on January 5, 2005 at 6:03 pm

Vito, some of us still take pride in being a projectionist.

VincentParisi on January 5, 2005 at 11:02 am

I’m sorry you didn’t see Funny Girl there I would like to have known what that was like.
I understand for Woolf the lines were down to Sixth Av! That must have been an amazing sight.
You must definately visit the Ziegfeld if you are in town. It is all that is left that in any way reflects what moviegoing was like for most of the 20th Century(though built in ‘69.) I have often disparaged it on this page as it in no way compares to the great NY cinemas but it was an attempt to recreate a Times Square house in the more friendly environs of 6th Av. Though it did not fully succeed(for me)I would rather see an epic or musical there today than anywhere else in Manhattan.