Palace Theatre

1564 Broadway,
New York, NY 10036

Unfavorite 19 people favorited this theater

Showing 51 - 75 of 221 comments

techman707 on April 7, 2012 at 4:39 am

rivoli157, I agree with you. I HATE the way they used the air space above the Palace to build that hotel. All I can say in favor is that at least they didn’t demolish the theater, like they’ve done to the rest of them. I only wish they would have saved the Loew’s Capitol that way.

rivoli157 on November 17, 2011 at 12:19 pm

techman, I too enjoyed “Mr. Chips. Hey, I was 13. And although not the best film, I did rather think it interesting the way the songs(not all of them ) were used, as if we were in their minds, thoughts if you will. I do have the say that the London is London number is one of my favorites. Thank you for clarifying the "Ben -Hur” dates, I took and still have) a photo of the marquee then ,but there was no date.

Btw, I hate how the hotel has been built around the theatre , yes, it saved and retained the theatre, but we lost the facade and great marquee! Just waht they did to the Broadway as well.

techman707 on November 15, 2011 at 12:44 am

The film version of “Phantom” was a great musical. Minnie Driver as Carlotta was great. That was the best role she ever played.

They only come out with a “decent” picture every few years. I think the last one before that was “Forest Gump”. I really liked that.

robboehm on November 14, 2011 at 11:41 pm

What didn’t get any respect is the other Phantom musical. I’ve only seen it in local productions but found some really good stuff in it. The Carlotta part is a hoot.

techman707 on November 14, 2011 at 7:11 pm

saps-I never had must respect for critics of films and that goes double for Vincent Canby. While it’s not the BEST musical ever made, and is no My Fair Lady or Camelot, for what it is, it was a sad but enjoyable musical. Like I said, I happen to like musicals, like the ones they DON’T make anymore. I also loved Phantom of the Opera, and believe it didn’t get the respect it deserved.

telliott on November 14, 2011 at 5:59 pm

Me too Techman707, one of my favourite musicals!

Mike (saps)
Mike (saps) on November 14, 2011 at 4:47 pm

The problem with Mr. Chips is not that it was a musical but that, according to Vincent Canby’s NY Times review, “Everything [except the restrained, affectingly comic performance of Peter O'Toole in the title role] in this British public-school romance is either out of symmetry or out of date…so much of the film [is]so bland…all of which brings me — unfortunately — to the score by Leslie Bricusse.

“The 12 songs haven’t been so much integrated into the book as folded into it. Like unbeaten egg whites in a soufflé, they do nothing for the cause of levitation. The lyrics mostly depend on the numbing repetition of words like "together,” “someday,” and “flowers,” and the tunes are, at best, reminiscent.

“Let me put it another way: When I returned to my seat after intermission, I found myself trailing a gentleman who was humming a song from ‘Camelot.’”

techman707 on November 14, 2011 at 1:52 pm

Rivoli157 – The 70mm re-release of Ben-Hur opened at the Palace on June 18, 1969. And, was followed by “Goodbye Mr. Chips”, on November 15th, 1969. Tomorrow will be the 43rd anniversary of “Mr. Chips” premiere. Had Mr. Chips not been booked to open in 70mm, Ben-Hur would have never been shown at the Palace in 70mm, since, Mr. Chips was the reason the Cinemechanica 70mm Victoria VIII’s were installed, not Ben Hur. I remember when I was at the MGM studio in Culver City in January 1969, the big water tower was painted with the wording “THIS IS THE YEAR OF MR. CHIPS”. While the film was a big disappointment to MGM, I happened to like it, but, then again, I like musicals.

rivoli157 on November 13, 2011 at 7:15 pm

ok Judy Garland played the Palace, 1951, 1956? and 1967. She sold the joint out. I have been in here only to see shows,a revival of OKLAHOMA! in the 70s,a couple of benefits,and BEAUTY AND THE BEAST.

I do know that in 1969 MGM premiered the musical version of GOODBYE MR. CHIPS starring Peter O'Toole and Petula Clark.And I believe somtime around 1968 a re-release of BEN-HUR played an engagement

The current legit tenent at the Palace is PRISCILLA,QUEEN OF THE DESERT,a musical play based on the film of the same title

techman707 on July 23, 2011 at 11:42 am

Tinseltoes, Unfortunately, you’re never going to see “The Reluctant Dragon” in a “real” theatre again.

Children $.25, now you’re talking.

techman707 on February 23, 2011 at 2:28 pm

Of all the theatres that remain today, the theatres on the west coast, especially in the LA area, are MUCH better than “what’s left” here in the New York area. While there may be some exceptions, overall they have NO RESPECT for old movie palaces.

One of my best friends (now deceased) was a vice president of the Fox Film Company in 1925. Before he passed away in 1982 he gave me pictures of himself and William Fox. One of the pictures was of the “Fox Film Baseball Team of 1925” and everyone, including Mr. Fox, is in a baseball uniform. He used to tell me about some the theatres they operated across the country and how Mr. Fox “insisted” that every theatre be built as opulent as possible. It used to depress me thinking about how I missed that parade.

William on February 23, 2011 at 1:22 pm

techman, Every theatre has issues. We were just talking about names. And your right many of the true theatres built for Loew’s and RKO during that time are real movie palaces. I’m a Fox West Coast Theatres person.

techman707 on February 23, 2011 at 12:34 pm

When you’re talking MOVIE THEATRES, to even mention a theater like the Palace in the presence with MOVIE PALACES (no pun intended) like the Roxy or Capitol is insulting, especially to the Roxy. While the Palace might be famous, it’s certainly not a good theatre for movies when compared to a “real” movie theatre….especially all the theatres built by Loews and RKO in the years of 1928-29.

William on February 23, 2011 at 11:52 am

I think his meaning is that this was in the US The Palace. Which like the Roxy, Paramount Times Square the ones that legends were made. To many people this was the main Palace no matter what year it was built. So many hundreds of theatres around the country were inspired to be named the Palace.

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on February 22, 2011 at 7:44 am

That 1963 engagement of “55 DAYS AT PEKING” was neither exclusive nor roadshow. It was a four theatre break advertised as filmed in 70mmm but not exhibited that way.

techman707 on February 22, 2011 at 12:43 am

“And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
posted by saps on Feb 21, 2011 at 7:30pm”

Don’t believe in angels.

Mike (saps)
Mike (saps) on February 21, 2011 at 10:30 pm

And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

techman707 on February 21, 2011 at 3:52 pm

All I know is at the time I was told that the portable booth was the FIRST TIME that 70mm was being shown at the Palace. So I doubt that 55 DAYS AT PEKING could have been shown in 70mm. As for Super Technirama 70, that was shot like VistaVision, 8 perf 35mm horizontal pulldown and blown DOWN to 70mm. The only film shot in 55mm (55.625) were the Cinemascope 55 films. 70mm release prints are shot on 60mm and printed on 70mm print stock to make room for the 6 mag tracks.

bigjoe59 on February 21, 2011 at 12:45 pm

hello again. reading my fellow poster’s comments always prompts
new questions on my part. here goes. the 1/21/11 note by William
states that 70MM didn’t arrive at the Palace till the June 1969
roadshow re-issue of BEN-HUR. since it was a tiny bit before my
time i’ve always assumed the Oct.1963 exclusive roadshow engagement of 55 DAYS AT PEKING at the Palace was in 70MM. i make this
assumption because Samuel Bronston’s two previous roadshow epics
EL CID and KING OF KINGS were shot in 70MM Super Technirama. so
regardless of the name of the actual process they were shot in
55…. wasn’t shot in 70MM like the other two films?

techman707 on February 21, 2011 at 11:21 am

I believe the late opening of Ben-Hur was because the portable booth and installation wasn’t ready. They probab;y never figured on the new booth.-LOL

Coate on February 20, 2011 at 11:34 pm

The 1969 re-issue of “Ben-Hur” mentioned in several recent comments actually began in February 1969, though it didn’t open in New York until June 18. “Goodbye, Mr. Chips” premiered on November 5, 1969.

View link

techman707 on January 21, 2011 at 7:13 pm

Bob, I only worked a few shifts at the Palace. One of my partners (Louis Romeo) at the DeMille came over from the Palace and worked there for many years. My other partner, Jack Linn, was ALSO a stagehand at the Music Hall, and would frequently leave to run up the block to the Music Hall to do his shift.

It’s funny you should mention the short focal length lenses at the Palace. I can’t remember the specific name of them at the moment, but Bill Nafash installed these giant lens magnifiers (like Magnacoms only five times the size)in front of the prime lenses. After “Mr. Chips” finished, he took them back and left them wrapped in brown wrapping paper in the store, which is where I found them. When the Oceana Theatre in Brooklyn was being triplexed (it was later turned into a sixplex), we built a projection booth on the front of the first 3 rows of the loge. The throw was only 45ft, but the scope screen was 42ft wide. I used those magnifiers in front of the shortest focal length lenses Schneider made at the time. Like in the Palace, it required the lens to be slipped forward to open the gate on the XL’s. However, we had a vignetting problem with scope when using regular anamorphic lenses. In the end, Schneider wound up making us special short focal length lenses that NO LONGER required the lens to be moved forward to open the gate. For Cinemascope, to gave us what they said was the last set of “Cinemascope 55” anamorphic lenses that they still had in Germany. With the new prime lens, they fit the FULL XL lens mount without an adapter. I would mention the cost of those Schneider lenses, but it’s too obscene to put in type. However, that’s when I learned that you can do anything if you have enough money.-lol Cost aside, Schneider makes the BEST lenses I have seen to date.

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on January 21, 2011 at 12:09 pm

My mistake, William. That was indeed a popular price/continuous show run on “Can-Can”.