Criterion Theatre
1514 Broadway,
New York,
NY
10036
1514 Broadway,
New York,
NY
10036
27 people
favorited this theater
Showing 526 - 550 of 611 comments
Am I right in assuming from the Cinemascope website article that what we are seeing in multiplexes now are cropped Panavision prints? We’re not seeing the whole picture? This is depressing…….
The Paramount had to cut into the proscenium for the VistaVision screen install. On sound it depended on what type of sound track they used for that location or engagement. VistaVision used three different types of sound. 1) Optical track Mono, 2) 4-Track magnetic stereo, 3) Perspecta sound optical track, very fake stereo. Perspecta sound used control tones to move sound information to speakers on stage and auditorium areas. Perspecta sound was a cheap version of stereo, that the studios could make extra money. So it depended on the size and format of that engagement to the full enjoyment of the sound.
A note seconding Vito’s comment that the Paramount’s VistaVision looked better than RCMH’s. I recall that when seeing “White Christmas” with my parents, we arrived late at the end of the morning show and took the last available seats in front row left, just next to the organ. The slanted perspective was grotesque, of course, but I remember wondering what all the fuss about sharpness and clarity meant, since the picture seemed just a picture. After the stage show, we moved back to the center auditorium to see the film from start to finish. Its sharpness and clarity appeared merely ordinary. Later I saw “Funny Face” and “North by Northwest” there (the latter from the third balcony, smoking cigarettes), and could say the same thing about the presentation.
RCMH’s screen was flat, and the size of the place dwarfed all critical proportion. And Stereo sound effects, if any, were lost completely (I believe that RCMH didn’t have true stereo until the ‘70s, no?). The Paramount’s magnificent curved screen certainly enhanced its presentation. In some theaters, such a screen covering the entire proscenium invited an awful shutter flicker that had a negative effect. (This was true especially at the Astor.) But at the Paramount, the VistaVision projection lived up to its reputation, and the Stereo sound reverberated as true stereo. I saw “The Man Who Knew Too Much” and perhaps a few others there. VistaVision at the Capitol (“Vertigo”) and the Criterion (“The Ten Commandments”) seemed wholly unexceptional.
Thanks! Have always wondered how all there processes differed.
Most of this information can be found in exhaustive detail on Marty Hart’s incredible website Screenhttp://www.widescreenmuseum.com/
This guy is amazing.
Only wish he had an actual theater museum here in New York to demonstrate it. Of course we would need a few theaters. Like the Criterion for Super Panavision 70 The Rivoli for Todd AO and the Paramount for VistaVision and the Music Hall or the Roxy for the original 2:55 ratio Cinemascope (rather than the later 2:35.)
This topic (Cinerama, Cinemascope, VistaVision, etc..) should have it’s own area on the website for discussion. It’s really fascinating.
Here’s a good website that gives a neat history of Cinemascope:
http://jkor.com/peter/scopehist.html
Yes, How did VistaVision differ from CinemaScope? When did Paramount stop using it? It had to be still around at least by ‘57 (Funny Face) And when did Panavision become the standard? Early 60’s? When did CinemaScope stop and Panavision start? How do they differ?Anyone want to educate us?
Was Vistavison like cinemascope? I am to young to remember it.
Are there any theatres left that could play a film in true “VistaVision?
Warren, you are quite correct, only RCMH and The Paramount installed VistaVision projection. Allow me to share a few articles regarding both VistaVision and Perspecta sound.
Perspecta sound was an optical sound system that created an ersatz stereophonic effect from a monophonic soundtrack. This system was initially promoted by Paramount Pictures Corp. in conjunction with its VistaVision photographic process. While it is often stated that the compatibility of the Perspecta system benefitted exhibitors because it was less costly than a magnetic sound system, the actual equipment and installation costs were not substantially different. With the exhibitor the primary cost savings would lie in not installing auditorium speakers since Perspecta sound was limited to directional information in the stage channels only. In fact, Perspecta would be attractive primarily to theatres that had already installed a full magnetic system. Cost savings were very real to producers and distributors since it was not necessary to have magnetic stripes added to final prints. At the time Perspecta was initially introduced, the compatible magoptical soundtrack had not yet been developed. While Perspecta “stereo” sound may have been able to provide effective directional effects, it was not able to equal the frequency response, dynamic range, and improved signal to noise characteristics of magnetic systems since it utilized the optical recording standards created two decades before. It was able to generate an increase in dynamic range through amplification of the soundtrack. Perspecta sound system was used extensively by Paramount and M-G-M, with a few Warner Bros and Universal films also mixed in the system. Perspecta sound was introduced in 1954 and the last films made in the process were released in 1957.
As for VistaVision, Paramount Pictures promoted the 1.66:1 aspect ratio as THE ideal shape for movies. But when VistaVision came into being they quickly changed their tune and strongly supported a ratio of 1.85:1. Their framing guide, which shows up twice at the top left hand corner at the start of every reel, made provision for showing films at 1.66:1, 1.85:1 and 2:1. For struggling theatres Paramount felt that they could use 1.66:1 and not need to spend a huge amount of money installing a new screen and having major achitectural changes to their prosceniums. For theatres that had put in big screens for CinemaScope, Paramount felt that the Technicolor print could hold up to being cropped to an aspect ratio of 2:1, though it was not a recommendation. It was good old 1.85:1, the same shape that the other studios were quickly adopting for their cropped wide screen films that Paramount recommended for VistaVision. And compared to your run of the mill cropped wide screen image, VistaVision just blew them away.
A final personel note, the VistaVision at the Paramount was far superior to that of RCMH.
I saw true VistaVision at the Paramount. The picture was large, bright, and crystal clear, significantly more impressive than regular 35mm presentations at the time. I was not impressed with the projected aspect ratio which seemed less than 1.85. Even less impressive was Perspecta Sound. The film was “Strategic Air Command.”
For those of you who were fortunate to have seen true VistaVision at either the Music Hall(Funny Face I imagine in 57 would be included)or the Paramount is there an appreciable difference?
Speaking of the TC can somebody verify what a previous post says that this was not shown in genuine VistaVision at the Criterion. It seems odd that a major New York roadshow presentation in 56 was not shown it its original film process. Kind of like the Criterion deciding in 62 to present Lawrence in a 35mm reduction instead of the available 70mm.
Warren— Last July you provided a link to photos from the opening in ‘36 — your post deserves repetition:
Some good photos of the Criterion and a history of the B.S. Moss family can be found at www.bowtiepartners.com I thank Barry S. Goodkin for bringing this to my attention.
posted by Warren on Jul 20, 2004 at 10:04am
The weird thing about the Gershwin is that as the second largest theatre on Broadway they would book the big shows in it that would fill it up like The Producers, but it’s usally a move over house.
Lots of great shots of the Criterion in the movie Kinsey. You can also see other theaters and the old Astor hotel.
a photo of this theater is in Rudi Stern’s book “The New Let There Be Neon”, on p.72, on the left of the department store.
When Urinetown The Musical was forced, during a successful run, to leave the soon to be demolished Henry Miller (now only the landmark facade remains) the producers looked into rellocating to the Embassy 1,2 and 3 site (once the Demille and Mayfair), logistically a perfect venue for that show, it was found to be too broken down for the move. On the subject of the Capitol, which had been later converted to the Cinerama format (a still, gorgeous auditorium remained behind the sreen a drapes), it would have been better had1633 was built over and around it. It’s 5000 seat capacity could have been reduced to make THAT a Broadway musical showcase, rather than the barn (THE GERSHWIN)that stands on that site!
Warren there is a huge demand for muscial theatres sitting between 1500-1800 seats. The Palace has been booked with a show ever since Disney announced the closing of “Aida”. Many times a producer will book and reserve a desired theatre way in advance to assure there production the proper theatre. The in coming musical “Spamalot” reserved the Shubert months ago. The in coming musical Lennon reserved the Broadhurst almost a year in advance. Vincent you are correct, the Strand(Warner) and Loew’s State could have been altered to house broadway musicals such as the Orpheum in San Francisco where they brought the stage into the Orchestra and reducing the capacity to make the theatre more intimate for broadway musicals.The cost of doing this would have been less than building a new musical theatre from the ground up. Then they could of built over these theatres like they did with the Palace. Broadway doesn’t want theatres larger than 2000 seats, where the road requires musical theatres larger than 2000 seats. A hit show on Broadway will usually run 2-17 years like Phantom,Chicago,The Producers,Rent,Beauty and the Beast,Mama Mia,Hairspray,Movin Out,42nd Street and Avenue Q. Even a flop on Broadway can run anywhere from 6 months to a year.Broadway on the road plays most theatres only for a few weeks and require a larger theatre to recoup there costs. A few markets such as Toronto,Boston,Chicago,San Francisco,and Los Angeles may have a long run with a Phantom or a Lion King but this is rare.brucec
Enough with the juke box musicals!
I guess we’ve now got to deal with decades of them.
Where’s my time machine?
It still sounds like the Embassy would make a good legit house.
I doubt that the Rivoli or the Criterion had the space behind the prosceniums to house a Broadway show. But the Loews State and the Strand would have been terrific as legit houses though maybe somewhat large. Though twice the capacity of the Gershwin they still would have been warmer more welcoming theatrical spaces than that aircraft hangar.
And the City Opera could have had a midtown opera house! The development in our city is a joke. I hope that Giuliani and Koch choke on their ill gotten gains.
The Lion King is still doing sell out business at the New Amsterdam which is the 3rd largest legit theatre on Broadway and it will be a few years before Disney will move it to a smaller theatre. The largest theatre on Broadway is the Gershwin and the Ford Center, soon to be renamed the Hilton Theatre, is the second largest. The Rivoli and the Criterion would have made great legit musical theatres if a stage house could have been built.Its a shame because the demand for a musical theatre seating between 1500-1800 is huge. Many musical shows are lined up waiting for a theatre of this size and many times have to postpone until the next season. The average hit musical is running longer and longer.Every theatre on Broadway is either running a show or is booked with a show coming in.brucec
Who ran the Embassy 2-3-4 when it was the Mark 1-2-3?
Well they are going to put in a Restaurant and bar into the space that once was the north side of the building where the fire exits once stood. It’s signage has already been put up, going tobe called Bond 50 Restauant.
The Times Square church really maintains the old Mark Hellinger, really well. They painted the lobby and relamped the lobby light fixtures in the last two months.
Disney may do what they did to “Beauty and the Beast” when it left the Palace and moved-over to the Lunt and Fontane Theatre. They down sized the show from what played and opened on Broadway at the Palace. So it could still play on Broadway but smaller to fit the other theatre.