Rivoli Theatre

1620 Broadway,
New York, NY 10019

Unfavorite 49 people favorited this theater

Showing 751 - 775 of 1,005 comments

Coate
Coate on April 28, 2005 at 3:55 am

Richard,

You’re incredible! You are distorting the facts in a clear attempt to discredit me and to win some sympathy for yourself from the Cinema Treasures readers. The letter I sent to your publisher could hardly be called nasty. It was written in plain language with a clear purpose including a sensible solution to the situation.

And to claim that I provided a list of spelling errors and typos again is misleading as if those were the only items on the list of corrections. For the record, typos and spelling errors represent only a fraction of the errors found in your book. To claim I’m bizarre in this instance is outrageous. I’ll tell you what’s bizarre: That you do not seem to think it is a problem to have HUNDREDS of errors, both factual and grammatical, in a book for which readers are expected to pay $30+ to me seems quite bizarre.

If you say you were unfamiliar with me and my work prior while preparing your book, fine. You should have no difficulty, then, in explaining the many similarities our works share (the 70mm section). Whether or not you knowingly or unknowingly used previously published works for your own, the fact is you used sources that are not credited in your book’s bibliography, several of which you mentioned to me in our email exhanges (copies of which I have saved). I’ve also saved a printed copy of your outrageously deceptive “review” posted on Amazon.com before it was recently removed, I suspect as a result of some embarrassment it may have caused due to it being mentioned in some recent Internet discussions about your book and my review. (What kind of person would write a review of their own work, writing it as if it were someone else, then crediting their own name to the review??!!)

And what’s all this nonsense about my reference to “Class Of Nuke ‘Em High” in the review? Big deal, all I provided was a bit of background info on you, all of which was obtained from your book and an interview I read online. And my reference in the paragraph you cite was actually meant as a compliment, not an attempt, as you say, to discredit you by linking you to Troma. What I was suggesting was that you’re a better filmmaker than an author. That’s my opinion based on the work of yours that I am familiar with. It’s an opinion, which I’m entitled to. You don’t have to agree with it. But, if you’re so stuck on downplaying having made “Class Of Nuke 'Em High,” why then is it mentioned multiple times in this Rivoli thread? You mention it in at least one post plus the intro paragraph for the theatre at the top of the page. Whatever.

As to whether you are as credible as you think you are, let the book’s readers decide. Here’s a link to my review. If people actually take the time to analyze the list of corrections and judge them in a suitable context, they can decide for themselves if they fall within or outside an acceptable margin of error, which was the thesis of my review.

View link

Personally, I really think that if you or I or anyone else wishes to continue discussing this matter it should be taken over to another thread, perhaps the link on this site for your book, or starting up a fresh one. This thread REALLY should get back to being about the Rivoli. Speaking of which…

Who is familiar with the Rivoli after it was twinned and became known as the United Artists Twin? My questions are:

1) How was it divided? Balcony become one screen, main floor become another? Or split straight down the middle?

2) John Allen (of HPS-4000 fame) told me that upon the twinning, his sound system was installed on one of the screens, making it the first (only?) such house in Manhattan and the first 70mm-equipped house anywhere with HPS-4000. So…which of the two screens had the HPS-4000 system? And was this ever promoted in the newspaper ads (it wasn’t in any of the ones I can remember)?

And regarding the crediting of “70mm” as a presentation format in newspaper ads for blow-up titles that were also roadshows…

You’re right that “70mm” was not often included or emphasized in the ads during the ‘60s. Generally, it was the reserved-seat aspect of the show that was the “gimmick” emphasized in the advertising.

However, re “The Sand Pebbles,” the Long Island engagement ads (or some of them) did include “70mm” in addition to the “Panavision” and “DeLuxe” credits. And in Los Angeles, both “Funny Girl” and “Oliver!” did include mention of 70mm in their ads. But most of the blow-ups didn’t; one would need to consult a secondary source to determine if a 70mm print was what was shown.

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on April 26, 2005 at 6:30 am

Wouldn’t Robert Wise have an original road show cut in his vaults?
Also Funny Girl and Oliver don’t mention 70mm only Panavision. The thinking being that if it was not genuine 70mm it was false advertising to mention it. I have to agree. If it was not filmed in the process even ‘presented in 70mm’ while literally true is misleading.
I do believe though Wagon and Charity advertised 70mm but were filmed in 35mm.

Richardhaines
Richardhaines on April 26, 2005 at 4:08 am

Micheal,

I haven’t been evasive about anything to you. Your telephone
call to my private residence and nasty letter to my publisher
was way out of line although they certainly didn’t take you seriously. To say the least, to make a list of spelling errors
or typos is a little bizarre and speaks volumes. You certainly have a lot of time on your hands. In any event, our major point of contention is that prior to your phone call I never heard of you nor did I recognize you as the leading authority on 70mm. Your request that I give you credit in my bibiography was unfounded. Had you been more civil I might have considered it as a courtesy in the future.
Regarding your reference on “Class of Nuke Em High” in your second to last paragraph of your ‘review’, allow me to update you. That was an exploitation film I worked on 19 years ago and did not author. I know it’s become a common practice to link me to Troma when someone wants to discredit me but that was before my filmmaking career started. I don’t even consider it one of my pictures and I’ve been out of the exploitation genre for many years. My career begins with “Space Avenger” in Technicolor in 1989 and continues with “Run for Cover” in 3-D, my film noir, “Unsavory Characters” through my latest, “Soft Money” which is near completion. If you want to critique my pictures, fine, but at least screen them first
which you apparently haven’t. It’s like linking Ron Howard to “Grand Theft Auto” rather than “A Beautiful Mind” without watching either.
In terms of my credibility as a film historian, I believe it’s intact despite your condemnation. Yours is literally the first bad review I’ve received on either book. Some of your comments are worth debating but others I consider very petty. You approach is confrontational if not snide which is not constructive. I suppose my best move would be to just ignore you but it appeared that you were baiting me in your previous comment about MASH in 70mm. I probably over-reacted.

For those who would like to read a different perspective
on my book, they can see Erwin F. Erhardt’s review and “Film & History: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Film and Television Studies”. It’s available on line.

Veyoung,

Both of my books are available on line from various sources including the publisher. I also did some articles about Technicolor and restoration in The Perfect Vision and Film History magazines which can be found on ebay if those subject matters interests you.

And now, back to the discussion of the Rivoli…

What’s interesting in the sixties is that 70mm wasn’t as big a selling tool as it became in the late seventies and eighties when
it was often prominently featured in the newspaper ads and on the
theater marquee. If you log onto The Sand Pebbles website, they have the Roadshow ads for the Rivoli and even though it was a 70mm blow up presentation, it’s not mentioned in the ads. Just the Panavision
and DeLuxe credits. This is where compiling a comprehensive list of 70mm titles becomes controversial. For example, I wasn’t a hundred percent confident that “The Great Race” was given that type of presentation (all 35mm prints were mono Technicolor) until a faded 70mm was discovered in LA.
Many years ago I had a film collector friend who found one 70mm reel of “The Sand Pebbles”, possibly from the Rivoli run. Since it was completely faded, I assumed it was junk. In hindsight I should’ve tried to salvage it since it might’ve had one of the scenes cut from the Roadshow. That reel is long gone now. Fox is currently restoring the movie on DVD. It will be interesting to see if the extra footage enhances the movie or slows down the pace.

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on April 25, 2005 at 10:50 am

To CC,
I understand that Dress circle for the new Star Wars in the Odeon Leicester Square in London will be $35 a ticket reserved seats. So that if it were a roadshow presentation with the distribution that implies you probably could get $45-50 a ticket.

Coate
Coate on April 25, 2005 at 8:14 am

***** (QUOTE)
“Mich[ae]l Coate,
I could not confirm "MASH” was blown up to 70mm although it was listed in some places as released in this format. I utilized
Booking and Buying Guides when I compiled my lists and cross referenced them with newspaper ads, studio publicity and film collectors who salvaged some of the original release prints.
In many cases it was a judgment call since distributors often
listed materials in their booking guides that were not manufactured
or used. Newspaper ads and studio publicity were not always accurate either. When compiliing lists, all you can do is use the
data that’s available at the time and update it if new data surfaces.
I know you are a fanatic about 70mm but there will always be a margin of error unless you personally attended the presentation which would be impossible when discussing films shown thirty years ago. In at least one case I was present when the NYC cinema advertised on the marquee and in the newspaper as “Die Hard” being presented in 70mm. I visited the booth and the projectionist showed me that the copy had been damaged in a platter and they had switched to 35mm Dolby without informing patrons.

For those unaware of your activities, let me inform them
that your have been trashing me and my book on other sites, posting derogatory comments and even contacting at my private home to start arguements, all of which has been saved in my records. I would appreciate it if you did not engage in these activities here.“
*****(END QUOTE)

Whoa, chill out, dude! What makes you think I’m picking on you here? Re “MASH,” all you had to do was respond by stating that you came across information on it after completing your book. It should be obvious that I’m asking because, given my “fanaticism” about the subject of 70mm movies, I’m genuinely curious as to how you located details on any 70mm prints having been struck for that title.

Moving on, your “Die Hard” example makes no sense as I do not understand how this relates to your comment about there always being a margin of error in research. This example is not the same as when (or if) a distributor or exhibitor deceptively advertises a film in 70mm when no such prints were made. In the case of “Die Hard,” the 70mm status has never been in question as its distributor did in fact strike a number of 70mm prints (one of which I saw in its initial Los Angeles engagement). I don’t, by the way, believe it was common practice for a film to be promoted in 70mm DURING its release when in fact no prints were even struck. Likewise, I don’t think the opposite occured regularly either: a 70mm print being screened and NOT advertised as being in 70mm.

Richard, I wasn’t intending to debate the merits of your book in a thread on the Rivoli, but since you brought it up…. To state that I have been trashing you and your book on other sites is incorrect. Where has this occurred? If you’re referring to the book review that is posted on my own (and Bill Kallay’s) website, www.FromScriptToDVD.com, then I think it is incorrect to state you’re being personally trashed. I think you’re just pissed off that I gave your book a thumbs down review. If you want a positive review, next time write a better book! Despite our prior communication, I believe my review was objective and loaded with examples and evidence to support my claims. And as for the telephone conversation you mentioned, I did not call to initiate an argument; I called to ask you if you had received and looked over my list I had sent of corrections to your book’s many errors and to ask if you had any intention of having the book reprinted with the corrections incorporated. In fact, you’re misleading the readers here by failing to mention that, for the majority of the duration of the call, we had a pleasant discussion which lasted a good thirty minutes…long enough for you to plug your movies that are available on DVD in the hope that I would purchase and/or review them.

The fact is I wrote you and your book’s publisher in an attempt to address the issue of the book’s many errors and for some references that I thought had been ommitted from the book’s bibliography, a subject on which you have been evasive. The reason I keep bringing up your book, whether it be here on Cinema Treasures, my website, or elsewhere is because I believe potential readers ought to know of its pros and cons and, through exposure, wish for your book to sell in high numbers…so you and the publisher can justify a second printing, which would enable you to make the appropriate revisions and improve it to the point that it would be a worthwhile addition to one’s bookshelf, which in turn would help improve your own credibility as a scholar/historian.

Now, can we return the discussion to that of the Rivoli….

veyoung52
veyoung52 on April 24, 2005 at 2:42 pm

“ me and my book on …"
Mr. Haine, I would be interested in seeing your book. You seem very informative. Can you give us more information about it, please.

Richardhaines
Richardhaines on April 24, 2005 at 1:29 pm

Micheal Coate,

I could not confirm “MASH” was blown up to 70mm although it was listed in some places as released in this format. I utilized
Booking and Buying Guides when I compiled my lists and cross referenced them with newspaper ads, studio publicity and film collectors who salvaged some of the original release prints.
In many cases it was a judgment call since distributors often
listed materials in their booking guides that were not manufactured
or used. Newspaper ads and studio publicity were not always accurate either. When compiliing lists, all you can do is use the
data that’s available at the time and update it if new data surfaces.
I know you are a fanatic about 70mm but there will always be a margin of error unless you personally attended the presentation which would be impossible when discussing films shown thirty years ago. In at least one case I was present when the NYC cinema advertised on the marquee and in the newspaper as “Die Hard” being presented in 70mm. I visited the booth and the projectionist showed me that the copy had been damaged in a platter and they had switched to 35mm Dolby without informing patrons.

For those unaware of your activities, let me inform them
that your have been trashing me and my book on other sites, posting derogatory comments and even contacting at my private home to start arguements, all of which has been saved in my records. I would appreciate it if you did not engage in these activities here.

Coate
Coate on April 23, 2005 at 6:21 am

Richard Haines wrote: “As noted above, some counter-culture pictures were given a large format release. Apparently "MASH” was blown up to 70mm and shown this way.“

Richard,
Really??? Why is this title not included in your “Moviegoing Experience” book’s 70mm filmography?

DavidHurlbutt
DavidHurlbutt on April 23, 2005 at 5:59 am

In the 1930s and 1940s the Rivoli featured many notable films, many of which have become classics: These included Les Miserable (35) Ghost Goes West(36) These Three (36) Wuthering Heights (39) Grapes of Wrath (40)How Green Was My Valley (41) Wake Island (42) For Whom the Bell Tolls (43) Ox Bow Incident (43) Wilson (44) Lost Weekend (45)My Darling Clementine(46) Crossfire (47) Snake Pit (48) and Pinkly (49).

Richardhaines
Richardhaines on April 23, 2005 at 4:14 am

1969 was the beginning of “New Hollywood” dominance over the medium.
Their dominance was short lived but impact long term. They
completely re-defined the very nature of the medium. Obviously, big
budget mainstream Roadshow movies were not part of their concept of
what cinema should be and were linked to “Old Hollywood”. What interesting is how quickly the medium switched from PG type entertainment to R and X. Within a few years, the bulk of the product was restricted which permanently changed the audience demographic and doomed the large screen cinemas.

Simultaneously, many classics were revived like “The Ten Commandments”, “Lawrence of Arabia”, “Giant”, the Connery Bond
films and Disney classics in the late sixtes and early seventies. It was a strange era to go to the movies
since one week would be a stuido classic like “Giant” with it’s superior craftsmanship and the next week the same theater would play a counter-culture film like “Putney Swope” that looked like it was made by amateur films students. Prior to the seventies, you knew what to expect when you went to the theater. After 69', you had
no idea what you were in for. For some, it was an exciting
time for the medium. For the general audience, many adults felt like they were under assualt. Their values and beliefs were being attacked and deconstructed. I imagine many were apprehensive going to the cinema afterwards and many stopped going on a weekly basis
as a matter of habit.

As noted above, some counter-culture pictures were given a large format release. Apparently “MASH” was blown up to 70mm and
shown this way. It was an amusing and stylish film in some respects
but probably didn’t warrant this type of presentation. The photography was too de-saturated and grainy to hold up in the optical
enlargement. Only fully exposed negatives photographed in the classic style worked in 70mm.

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on April 22, 2005 at 9:36 am

CC There is also an interesting article from the summer of 69 in the NY Times about the waning of the roadshow as a preferable means of launching a big budget movie(not to mention the fact that big budget Hollywood movies were very quickly becoming a thing of the past in 69.)
After Todd AO Dolly left the Rivoli in the summer of ‘70 Fox put in the grainy slapdash Altman MASH.
Can anything be more symbolic?

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on April 22, 2005 at 8:44 am

CC I have to agree that not all these films are four star winners but a couple are first rate and I would have happily seen the others in such gilt edged presentations. Yeah Star is mediocre and all the revisionists can’t change that but boy do I wish I could have seen it at the Rivoli in Todd AO. I also think Chitty isn’t very good but again if only I could have seen it in 70mm at the State 2.

By the way in the summer of ‘65 you also had Magnificent Men at the Demille. Wow!!!

chconnol
chconnol on April 22, 2005 at 7:45 am

Vincent: Wow?

Funny Girl…classic. Deserves all the praise it gets and more.

Oliver!…underrated, somewhat forgotten musical classic. One of the best. Great direction by the late, great Caroll Reed.

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang…a poor attempt to redo and perhaps overdue “Mary Poppins”. This is one of the movies that began to destroy the Roadshow concept (IMO).

Shoes of the Fisherman…dull, plodding.

Star…major turkey. Can be and IS cited for bringing down two institutions: the Roadshow and Julie Andrews. Some revisionists try and make a stand that “Star” is under rated. It’s not. It’s a really poor movie. Andrews is wildly miscast.

Ice Station Zebra: not bad but not classic either.

Finian’s Rainbow…amazing considering it didn’t kill off Francis Ford Coppola’s career. If it had, we’d never had gotten our “Godfather” films. This baby’s a surreal trip. Check out the “funky” rendition of “Old Devil Moon”. Too funny…

Perhaps go back only four or five years when “My Fair Lady” and “Sound of Music” were around then I’d have to agree with you on “Wow”.

The batch of films cited above, while some are good to excellent, were obviously the waning days of the Roadshow. And as I said, they were representative of what killed the concept off.

But does anyone have any ideas of their own how and why the Roadshow concept died? You cannot blame home entertainment like VCRs because they weren’t around until the mid to late 70’s.

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on April 22, 2005 at 7:11 am

Times Square Roadshow
Christmas ‘68

Criterion-Funny Girl
Loew’s State 1-Oliver
Loew’s State 2- Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
Demille- Shoes of the Fisherman
Rivoli-Star
Cinerama-Ice Station Zebra
Penthouse-Finian’s Rainbow
Wow!

And if the Capitol hadn’t been closed a few months earlier
2001 would probably have still been playing as well!

Richardhaines
Richardhaines on April 21, 2005 at 3:50 am

DennisZ,

Everything you say is true but I don’t blame the audience entirely. They react to the level of showmanship and presentation.
If the cinema looks like a theater with curtains and plush decor
and the management treats the viewer like a customer then they
will react accordingly. If the cinema is the equivalent of a
fast food restaurant in a suburban mall then the audience will
behave according to those conditions. In a fancy restaurant,
the customer is catered to and given top quality food and a courteous
waiter. In a fast food place they are treated like cattle. The
same applies to cinemas. It’s up to the management. My experience
is that when the theater really makes an attempt to ‘put on a show’,
the audience is appreciative and even applauds at the end.

dennisczimmerman
dennisczimmerman on April 20, 2005 at 7:18 pm

Adding some more to my two cents…..moviegoing has changed because people have changed. No one complains about being hearded like cattle into a hallway of the local megaplex to wait for the theatre to clear. Then when you finally get in to the stadium seating area of the shoebox, you are bombarded with 20 minutes of commercials that you could stay at home and see on your TV. Then there is the eight or so trailers that are shown. Then the movie finally starts. As someone commented earlier, most people think they are sitting in their living rooms. They talk amongst themselves or on their cell phones, make upteen trips in and out of the shoebox. And God help you if you sit near someone who has seen the movie before and is explaining everything ahead of time to the person or people they came with this time! When I think of the dignified manner people attended the movie palaces most of the time. You were out in public and on your best behavior. Now is there such a thing?! So as long as the moviegoing public is willing to put up with today’s presentation standards it will continue. Perhaps that is why the money taken in at the box office may increase,mostly due to higher ticket prices, but the number of admissions decreases. Even with today’s gas prices, I would still travel the 60miles to Center city Philadelphia to see a film in 70MM Stereo Sound!

Richardhaines
Richardhaines on April 20, 2005 at 4:46 pm

Sorry for the confusion. I didn’t mean “Jaws” itself had 900
prints made, I was referring to the trend to making more and more
release copies throughout the late seventies for the saturation
booking. I was aware that this type of formula had been tried
in the past by indies but it was unusual for the majors to operate
in this way if for no other reason than to keep the larger cinemas
in business with their window of exclusivity.

“The Godfather” actually had about 400 Technicolor release prints
made. Then they made another batch of prints at Movielab from
a CRI which looked awful in comparison. The dye transfer prints
were supervised by the cinematographer to generate the pitch black
blacks and vibrant fleshtones as desired. The Movielab prints were supervised by no one (which was typical for all high speed release copies) and looked it. That’s probably why Willis supervised the
last new feature to be printed in the process in 1974 which was “The Godfather II”. One of the many advantages of the IB process is that
once the creative people approve the ‘look’ of the film, every print
will look the same. You can actually watch the release copies being
made and each dye imbibed on the print. In China, at the end of the dye transfer line was a high speed projector where the staff watched
the prints projected as they were run off. If there was a problem,
the line could be stopped and adjustments could be made. No way to do that on a high speed printer. They are cranked out at the rate of 2000 ft. per minute on a ‘one lite’ setting and you don’t know if they came out until the next morning. No matter how they look, they are shipped out and I doubt whether any facility will reprint 2000 copies if the color or contrast is off. No one cares.

I agree that the DVD release is considered far more important than exhibition these days which is tragic to those of us who miss the
classic moviegoing experience. I guess as time goes on, there will
be fewer and fewer of us left to discuss this and new generations
will have a completely different concept of what cinema is. At least there is a great deal of showmanship put into many DVD releases. Some are like film history lessons with the commentary
tracks and other suppliments and the masters are made from either first generation materials (IP or EK low contrast print) or even the camera negative itself.

As I suggested, the only way to improve the theatrical experience is to get the cooperation of the distributors. If they won’t spend the extra money to make quality release prints, there’s little the theater can do. They have to play what’s sent them even if it’s not the optimum quality.

Some things the cinematographers could do is to shoot in the ‘classic studio’ style with more light on set, higher f.stops
and fully exposed negatives. The better the EK, the better the
intermediates will look. Color could and should be used as an integral element in the story, not just used functionally. Shooting in large format negatives and printing down would improve the sharpness and resolution. For example, the new high speed 35mm prints of “2001” still look quite good because they were shot by a master DP in 65mm.

Coate
Coate on April 20, 2005 at 3:43 pm

This discussion about the origins of saturation booking seems to be the current theme of the thread, however it is not unique or specific to a discussion of the Rivoli Theatre, the main subject here. (This type of “drift” to me is normal and does not bother me in the least. Others, though, might be getting annoyed by the drift.)

At any rate — to cause further drift :) — the 400+ prints of “Jaws” was certainly a huge amount for its time, but “The Trial Of Billy Jack” the year before and “King Kong” the year after each had nearly three times the number of opening day prints.

Oh, and I think “The Godfather” (1972) is noteworthy in this discussion of the origins of saturation booking. I recall the film having four or five simultaneous New York City premiere engagements, which was big news at the time. And that the film made a ton of money — quickly — certainly influenced studios' decisions to adopt the saturation approach in the ensuing years.

veyoung52
veyoung52 on April 20, 2005 at 2:58 pm

Joseph E. Levine and his Embassy Pictures distribution arm used the term “saturation” bookings as early as the Summer of 1960 with the release of “Hercules.” (Check out the “trades.”) As I stated, “Jaws” probably had the greatest number of prints working, but – and I thought this was the theme of the thread – the move away from single-theatre openings followed by multiple-theatre bookings in the “nabes” began in 1962 with UA’s “Premiere Showcase.”

Coate
Coate on April 20, 2005 at 2:53 pm

“Jaws” began the “saturation” style of exhibition. An enormous number of prints were made (between 500-900)

“Jaws” opened in 409 theatres.

veyoung52
veyoung52 on April 20, 2005 at 2:34 pm

It should also be remembered that the long-established method of downtown release (usually in one house)-followed by neighborhood wide release (in many houses) – was changed irrevocably in 1962, when United Artists, reportedly hypnotized by the sucess of the “saturation” booking pattern mastered by Joseph E. Levine, announced a policy of opening films in several New York City neighborhoods at once. They termed it “Premiere Showcase,” and the first film was 1962’s “Road to Hong Kong.” It changed everything. One of UA’s favorite Manhattan showplaces was the Astor (NOT the Astor Plaza). Once “Showcase” caught on, check out the papers and “Variety” and count the number of films that played there each year. Going out on a limb, I’d say, maybe 6 or 7 in 1959, because it had the NYC territory to itself. After showcase, the number of films increased, because each film’s run became shorter due to the competition from the boroughs. And by the late 1960s,, the poor Astor showed no films whatsoever. “Jaws” was indeed wide release, probably the largest number of prints at the time, but the “showcase” movement which altered time-honored distribution patterns —– not only in New York, but all across the country — began in earnest in 1962. “Showcasing” had a number of flavors: there was even a semi-roadshow showcasing of the film “Cast A Giant Shadow,” whereby the film opened on semi-roadshow-reserved performance run at several NYC area locations. Single-theatre openings, then as now, still mainly are found among independent and foreign-film entries.

Benjamin
Benjamin on April 20, 2005 at 2:21 pm

When one talks about movie going habits, etc. during the roadshow “era,” I think the whole thing makes a lot more sense when one reflects upon just how different the world was in those days. Obviously, not only didn’t the DVD/VCR, cable/satellite TV, etc. exist, but even much of today’s suburbs — let alone their mall multiplexes — didn’t exist then either. So, in those days, centrally located (reachable by subway and commuter train) downtown movie palaces and hard ticket, reserved seat, theaters for “event” movies made a lot more sense given the technology and demographics of the time.

I remember, for instance, in the late 1950s when I would stay for the summer with relatives out in Kings Park, Long Island, you would go by seemingly mile after mile of farm land (potatoes?, lettuce?) before you would ever get to Kings Park. There were basically only six TV stations (which would go off the air at night after the “Late Show” or the “Tonight Show”). All the “good” movies advertised on TV (“Rodan,” Disney’s “Sleeping Beauty,” “Old Yeller,” etc.) seemed to be playing only in downtown New York City theaters — and wouldn’t get to play Long Island for many, many weeks (or so it seemed to me as a child). And those that did play Long Island, seemed to first play at only one theater in Commack (?).

Perhaps an even better illustration is the circus. These days Ringling Bros. plays Madison Sq. Garden and (I believe) the Nassau Coliseum and Continental Arena. In the late 1950s, it played only Madison Sq. Garden (the other two venues not being built until the mid-1970s, early 1980s?). (I believe Long Island did, however, get the smaller Clyde Beatty Circus at some precursor to the Nassau Coliseum [the Commack Arena?]. And I suppose some places in New Jersey got the Clyde Beatty Circus also.)

So given the options (or lack thereof), traveling downtown to wait on a long line to see a movie / stage show or to see a special “event” movie (with reserved seats) made a lot of sense!

chconnol
chconnol on April 20, 2005 at 2:18 pm

If anyone is interested, a new book out called “The Big Picture” goes into rather extraordinary detail about how movies today are “made”. It’s a somewhat depressing read but in a nutshell, these days its all about home entertainment especially DVD.

Richardhaines
Richardhaines on April 20, 2005 at 2:12 pm

“Jaws” was one of the movies that changed the pattern of distribution. Prior to the seventies, most major films
were released regionally rather than nationally. It made
sense from a business perspective since depending on the movie,
it might play extended engagements in some areas. Roadshows
were part of that venue. There was a ‘window’ between Roadshow
and general release and another window before the film was available for network broadcast. This enabled the various types of theaters
to derive as much income as they could from the release pattern.
Roadshow presentations had the exclusive in their area and of course
charged more because the screens were bigger and they offered 70mm
and six track stereo sound. Some had deeply curved screens too.
After Roadshow there was first run in other areas, often with 35mm
Technicolor prints in four track magnetic stereo of the same title,
reduction printed from the 65mm original. These were usually the uncut version too. Finally came general release, often cut, at popular prices. Overtures and intermissions were cut for these
screenings and the shorter running enabled more than just two screenings a day. There was another six months to a year before
the film was broadcast which enabled second run, double bills and drive ins. Some “A” prints remained in the exchanges for future
Repertory bookings. The advantage of this type of release is that the distributor could make a limited number of top quality release prints (between 100-400) off the original negative for optimum quality regardless of whether it was shot in 65mm or 35mm. In addition, the costs of advertising and marketing could be amortized
as the film played in each venue. Some of the profits from the Roadshow could be rolled over to advertise the general release and
so on.

“Jaws” began the “saturation” style of exhibition. An enormous number of prints were made (between 500-900) off of sub-standard
duplicate negatives (CRI’s at the time which generated inferior
resolution and increased grain) and booked simultaneously in the major markets. If the film was a hit, it worked, if it wasn’t it
was pulled since the marketing costs were not amortized and it was sink or swim in a few weeks. The window was dramatically reduced so that the films played on network shortly afterwards rather than continuing in the second run and drive ins. Later, home video and cable became so popular that theatrical exhibition was considered just another part of the marketing expenses and little if any effort was made in terms of getting good quality release prints or exhibiting them with showmanship. The window between saturation run and the ancillary markets was barely long enough to play many films second run much less make them available for drive ins. This also altered the content and more adult fare was phased out to a great extent because those types of features played better regionally than in saturation bookings. Of course the cost of saturation bookings was far greater since all of the advertising had to be paid for upfront and there were upwards of 2000 (junk) release prints cranked out by the labs from duplicate negatives. Only studio personnel got to see camera negative prints any more which were relabeled “Showprints”. Prior to the seventies they weren’t ‘showprints’ but the actual prints that audiences were charged to see.

About the only venue to see quality prints after the seventies was in 70mm blow up presentations. There was a small ‘window’ (sometimes only a few weeks) for these shows prior to being shown in 35mm junk prints for general release. I guess they were a type of Roadshow presentation in that the multiplexes usually kept one screen large enough to show the format and the image and sound were far superior to the 35mm high speed copies. Many 70mm blow ups were derived directly from the 35mm camera negatives which made them first generation blow ups. In many cases, they looked quite good as in the first release of “Star Wars” in 70mm at the Loews Astor Plaza in NYC. By the mid-nineties, even these types of shows were gone as was the 70mm format.

Today, outside of industry screenings and a handful of first run houses, the megaplexes all get the same quickly processed high speed
release prints. Unfortunately, the bigger the screen, the worse these copies look.

One way of telling that you’re seeing a camera negative showprint is that the cue marks will be scratched onto the release copy. They are no loger scribed onto the camera negative as they were in the past. You’ll also notice that the image is much sharper and finer grain. It doesn’t have that murkiness of the high speed prints.

veyoung52
veyoung52 on April 20, 2005 at 2:02 pm

Probably. But I understand that Mr. Todd as well as the Stanley-Warner/Cinerama, Inc. folks thought – someright rightely – that their particular entertainments were far ahead of and far better than ordinary “movies.” And thus, so it was believed, that popcorn was “beneath” their particular presentations.