Rivoli Theatre
1620 Broadway,
New York,
NY
10019
1620 Broadway,
New York,
NY
10019
49 people
favorited this theater
Showing 76 - 100 of 1,005 comments
“Patton” premiered at the Criterion Theatre on the night of February 4th, 1970, which is half-a-century ago.
So I reread my post. If Star had been a hit and Dolly opened at the Criterion where would Patton have opened? I see it at the DeMille.
Joe, based on your previous posts, it appears to me, and I mean this in the nicest way, that you do seem to have the worst taste in movies…
Hello-
to vindanpar- I read with interest your recent post about the roadshow engagement of Star at this theater. I am both a roadshow engagement buff(I’m in my 60s) and a Julie Andrews devotee. I saw the film say a month after it opened. I do remember liking it. whether I’d like it today is another matter. I have always enjoyed listening to the soundtrack album first on Lp then on cd. I have always hoped for a perfectly remastered Blu-ray disc of the original roadshow cut.
HELLO DOLLY WAS AT RIVOLI I WAS THERE OPENING NIGHT
Hello-
on pg. 2 of the photo section is a first rate photo of this theater’s front done up for the premiere of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde with Fredrick March. its to bad that though the currently available dvd of the film is referred to as “restored” its still not the complete film that opened here in 1933.
Concerning grindhouse’s series of STAR! ads Saul Chaplin writes in his auto bio that when the first ad was placed 17 months before the opening and in the midst of production they received thousands of responses. When in ‘68 these same people received mail order forms the responses were in the hundreds. People lost interest overnight in Julie Andrews roadshow musicals. You could say that in a year the world had changed which was true but a month before the STAR opening the old-fashioned Funny Girl was a big hit at the Criterion. And then Oliver opening in Dec was another big hit. The sad bitter truth is that STAR! was a terrible film. Even I who am a lover of 60s reserved seat film when I finally saw it in a roadshow cut at the Regency thought wow this really is a bomb. I got the dvd to find out if I was wrong but when I turned it off at intermission I had no desire to turn it on again. I really wanted to love it. I remember seeing the spectacular block long sign in Times Square and then the 7th Av Rivoli billboard. Both very impressive. Got the cutout LP and loved it. And ordered the souvenir book from National Publishers which was a beaut.
But then there was the film itself which was expected to have a run of at least a year and a half rivaling that of SOM. And nobody went. Gone by February. Though I wonder if it had been the hit they were expecting where would Sweet Charity and Hello Dolly had opened? The other prestigious houses were taken though I guess Sweet Charity could have opened at Loew’s State 2(what if CCBB been a hit?) and Hello Dolly could have opened at Loew’s State 1.
I don’t see either of them opening at the Demille, Palace(this might have had George M when Charity opened), or Cinerama or Penthouse. Maybe Dolly could have pushed out Funny Girl at the Criterion.
Isn’t “grindhouse” the latest ID for the person behind “NYer,” who departed several months back, taking all of their contributions with them?
Great stuff grindhouse. I love these ads. Thank you. Now if I had been older I would have been going to these gilt edged roadshow presentations several times per film.
Thank you vindanpar have you checked out the gorgeous ads at the Loews State page for Columbia Pictures announcing the Roadshow Engagement and Premiere for “Oliver”? If you pre-bought tickets they sent you a full color reproduction of the artwork.
http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/557/photos/308295
Well grindhouse you belie your name with all those SOM ads. They are much appreciated.
Rivoli marquee at 22:20 in video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpXnEvW0XD0&fbclid=IwAR2GTsgBZEZuZ87EDtbKV6j1ULsIXc8zGMuKNKgRCSl387N6hynE9UQ2axQ
bigjoe, Kennedy’s focus was more on the expensive Roadshows that tried to mimic “THE SOUND OF MUSIC” elements and failed. Movies like “STAR!”, “DOCTOR DOLITTLE” and “SONG OF NORWAY” from 1965 to 1972.
Hello-
to Al A.– as you said in a previous post Kennedy’s book begins with a negative slant so I shouldn’t be surprised by what he says in the book. in your last post you say “in that he is right”. well kind of if you’re talking strictly about box office returns maybe.after The Sound of Music finished its record run at this theater the studios released Oliver, Funny Girl and Fiddler on the Roof all on roadshow engagements. for instance many people consider FOTR the greatest musical ever made.
The whole slant of the Kennedy book is that Studios were failing to replicate the box office success of “THE SOUND OF MUSIC” by repeating that standard of sweet corn. In that, he is right.
Hello-
the link to the interview with Kennedy doesn’t seem to work but I did read the interview when the link was first posted. it seems just that he book was going to have a negative viewpoint. his statement referring to Hello Dolly as a “well dressed dinosaur” is the epitome of a left handed compliment. granted Streisand should have been twice the age she was but in terms of her performance Streisand WAS every inch Dolly Levi. I still don’t get the comments about “over produced” musical numbers. one of the things I liked about the film was its lush production numbers. to criticize a film version of Hello Dolly for “over produced” numbers is just plain bizarre.
also in the interview Kennedy refers to Doctor Dolittle as an “ugly bomb”. I always liked the film. plus the recent restord/remastered Blu-ray disc from Twilight Time is A++. people who have never seen the film and are just aware of its somewhat off reputation after viewing the Blu-ray disc will wonder what all the naysayers were talking about.
The thing about Magnascope was that it was very grainy wasn’t it? When the Music Hall after it ended its movie stage show policy showed some old films at 11am on weekdays, a single film for an entire week, I saw Good News and Showboat with what I assume was magnascope projection. Much larger than for example the screen size used for the week long run of Singing in the Rain in ‘75. That was a very small screen indeed but the image was brilliant in its definition and colors. Good News and Showboat on the much larger screen however were very grainy and soft looking in comparison.
The thing about Magnascope was that it was very grainy wasn’t it? When the Music Hall after it ended its movie stage show policy showed some old films at 11am on weekdays, a single film for an entire week, I saw Good News and Showboat with what I assume was magnascope projection. Much larger than for example the screen size used for the week long run of Singing in the Rain in ‘75. That was a very small screen indeed but the image was brilliant in its definition and colors. Good News and Showboat on the much larger screen however were very grainy and soft looking in comparison.
A resident orchestra and simulated sound effects were standard procedure at the Rivoli and most midtown “deluxers” during the silent era. The exceptional thing about the “Old Ironsides” engagement in 1926 was wide-screen Magnascope projection for the spectacular outdoor scenes.
That very shallow stage looks like a very crowded off Broadway theater production supported by a symphony orchestra in front of it. It must have looked like a postage stamp in the mezz and balcony.
Hello-
during the exclusive first run of Old Ironsides in 1926 not only did they have a live orchestra playing the score but they had people behind the screen doing sound effects during the battles scenes.
Thanks for pointing that out, vindanpar. I had no recollection of that image. If you go to page 10 of the photos, you’ll find a wider angle (not so cropped) of that same photo to see how small and cramped that stage would have been. Looks like the orchestra is maybe 4 or 5 people deep, and then an extra row of folks up on that niche at the back of the stage. The musicians look like they barely have room to move their bows! Compare that to the stage at Carnegie Hall or the Beacon Theatre. Even the tightest legitimate Broadway stage (and I’ve walked across a few) easily has triple or quadruple the depth of the platform depicted in that 1920 picture of the Rivoli. And more to the original question raised by NewYorkToursbyGary, it doesn’t appear likely that a stage was ever “added” to keep it competitive. Whatever facilities you see in that 1920 photo are probably about as much as the Rivoli could have offered – without building the stage inward, cutting into the seating area itself.
One can see on see on page 8 what the Rivoli live presentations looked like. It still involved a fair number of performers which would have required more than what you would find in a Broadway musical today. It looks like a small shallow proscenium stage. If the screen were behind that stage/platform rather than being brought down at the proscenium level than they would have had some sort of fly space along with common areas and dressing rooms for the performers no matter how cramped. One can go into any old Broadway theater and see how very cramped the facilties are. That is one big orchestra for a house the size of the Rivoli. Performers and musicians alone are close to 60 people. And did they do like 4 to 5 performances a day. That was quite an operation for that small space.
Thanks for the clarification, folks. Yes, when I was thinking of “stage” I meant like legit house stage, with fly space, dressing rooms, and other facilities capable of sustaining a rebirth of the Rivoli as a performance space or theatrical house.
To maximize seating capacity of a narrow ground plot between Broadway and Seventh Avenue, the Rivoli was a purpose-built cinema without stage facilities. During the silent era, “live” prologues were presented on platforms erected in front of the screen and along side walls.