Ziegfeld Theatre
141 W. 54th Street,
New York,
NY
10019
141 W. 54th Street,
New York,
NY
10019
131 people
favorited this theater
Showing 1,451 - 1,475 of 4,512 comments
There is a premiere scheduled this week.
What’s happening at the Ziegfeld? According to the Clearview web-site and Moviefone there are no screenings this week. Such information makes this fan very nervous.
Okay.
Nothing yet, BUT don’t rule it out.
KEEP WATCHING THIS SPACE!!!!!!!!!!!
Hi
Any news on a spring classics program at the Ziegfeld this year?
The film wrap I refer to was around my upper sprocket. The splice broke as it went through the sprocket and somehow stuck to it and just kept winding around it. The break was detected by the failsafe and the projector shut off. I knew I had a break because the screen went white, but I didn’t know I had a wrap until I went to look what happened. In those few seconds, the film had already wound deep enough to open the sprocket keeper almost to the point of jamming. A broken fiber gear is not something I need on a 70 year old projector! That was when I figured out what those “things” (the stripper) were for and adjusted them properly.
Thanks Jeff, striper is what it is called. it’s that little bugger on the intermittent sprocket that causes those rain scratchs in the middle of the frame when the loop is too big. If the boys at the Ziegfeld (and I doubt they are) have that phantom scratch problem they might try making the lower loop exactly the right size. The loop should not go beyond the round oil site on the movement when it is in the rest position. This will keep the film from slapping up against that stripper. Once I learned that my scratch problem disapeared.
Sorry to hear about your sprocket stripper experience, that must have been messy. Anyone who has tried to remove film wrapped around a sprocket knows the horror of that.
Vito, I know exactly what you’re talking about. It’s called the “stripper”. There is typically one on every sprocket. I found out just HOW important it is because one of them in my projector wasn’t set correctly, and guess what…?
Bill, yes indead I saw both films at the Roxy. I was working for Fox at the time and often attended the Roxy as guests of management.
Jeff, the scratch was a result of the lower loop being made to big causing the print to bounce up against the intermittent sprocket protector (not what it as called) which was a small piece of metal mounted parallel to the center of the intermittent sprocket to prevent the film from wraping around the sprocket in a film break.
Because of the pull movement of the intermittent the scratch always appeared in the same spot. Hope that’s clear.
Vito, yes, I know what you mean. That’s because the loops became so floppy they would slap into the case wall and would scratch the same spot on the frame each time. the result on the screen is a black line (or green emulsion line) in the center of the frame. It leave an interesting visual mark, which begs the question “how’d they scratch the exact same spot on every frame?”.
Thanks, veyoung. Too bad they never finished “Deluxe Tour” – it would’ve been something to see. Paul Mantz was an amazing aerial photographer. Some of the best moments of “It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World” were his work. He even gave his life for his profession – an accident while filming “The Flight of the Phoenix”.
…And also. there were three, not two, CinemaScope 55 productions. Paul Mantz, aerial photographer for Cinerama among other things, shot “several hundred thousand” feet of C55 footage for a travelogue that Zanuck had commissioned, “Deluxe Tour.” When Fox decided on the wider gauge Todd-AO, this production was halted, and the footage apparently junked. Also, C55, in the 16 or so engagements where it was actually presented, did offer at least two “improvements” over standard 35mm scope. First, since the soundtrack (6 channel) was on a separate dubber, the entire frame (without any mag tracks) was used so that the original scope ratio of 2.55:1 was returned…which meant a wider screen image than CS35. (The C55 installations were the same ones that premiered the original Scope 35). Also, aside from Cinerama and Todd-AO (which was only in 3 or 4 cities prior to “Carousel”), C55 provided six channels of audio (including Left-Center and Right-Center). All other commercially released multi-channel formats for scope, widescreen, 3-D, or flat had a maximum of four channels.
I stand corrected: after reading the Martin Hart article, it seems that the clarity and definition of the 35mm prints reduced from CinemaScope 55 were a big, noticeable improvement over the previous CinemaScope films. No matter how they were shown, I still wish I’d been able to see both those films at the Roxy, and I hope I can someday see them at the Ziegfeld.
The power of suggestion: all the people in that ad were fooled into thinking they were seeing some new motion picture breakthrough (“the process is the best I have seen to date”; “a tremendous advance”, etc.), and they really weren’t. It makes me wonder whether those quotes were actually written by the Fox publicity department. But even on DVD, that is a beautifully photographed film. I’m sure it would’ve fooled me as well. And I’m totally with that guy who came in “all the way from New Jersey” (East Orange) to see it – if I’d been old enough in 1956 I’d have done the same thing.
The old non-anamorphic DVD of “Carousel” had the “Introducing CinemaScope 55” title card at the beginning, but the new improved DVD just says “A CinemaScope Picture”. Apparently all prints of “The King and I”, even the ones shown on TV, say “A CinemaScope Picture in CinemaScope 55”.
Martin Hart’s American Wide Screen Museum has a section devoted to CinemaScope 55:
http://widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingcs6.htm
Vito: did you see “Carousel” and/or “The King and I” at the Roxy?
Absolutly correct Bill, Thanks for shaking my memory :)
The advertising for CinemaScope 55 as well as for VistaVision probably should have read “filmed in” since very very few theatres actually projected the pictures in those formats.
Jeff, it’s all about the size of the loops, actually when set up correctly 70mm prints glided along very nicely.
Oversized loops were problamatic, in particular the Century JJ 35/70 machines. If the lower loop at the bottom of the intermittent was not just right,scraches would soon appear in the form of rain in the center of the image.
The rule of thumb for the Century machines, like the one at the Ziegfeld,is the loop should be one perf larger than when wrapped around the open idler arm.
A lot of manufacturer had suggestions for loop sizes for various projectors, but most of the boys had their own way of looping, often making them too big.
It was 20th Century-Fox’s “Carousel” that Frank Sinatra walked off the set of, refusing to shoot the picture twice unless he was paid twice. It was the first film in CinemaScope 55, and they were going to shoot it again in CinemaScope 35 for theaters outside the big cities. After Sinatra quit and Gordon MacRae replaced him, Fox discovered a way to reduce the 55mm version to a 35mm print, so the film was only shot once after all.
The next (and last) film shot in CinemaScope 55 was “The King and I”. Both films played the Roxy in NYC in 1956, but I believe neither one was actually shown in CinemaScope 55, even though they were advertised as such:
View link
Thanks Vito.
Anyone whose seen a 35mm projector cranking along at 24fps, watching that film flap in the upper and lower loops, and wondering “why doesn’t that just fly apart?” can only imagine doubling that size to 70mm, and then upping the speed to 30fps! Wow.
“The DVD of the Todd-AO version of "Oklahoma” came out all blurry for some reason. I’M SURPRISED THE RODGERS & HAMMERSTEIN ORGANIZATION LET THAT GET RELEASED. I’m hoping for a corrected Blu-Ray edition sometime in the future.“ – Bill Huelbig
yes it’s appalling bad. I can’t wait to see the bluray release of ‘South Pacific’ Would also love to see how the Cinemascope 55 films, ‘The King and I’ and ‘Carousel’ will look in hidef.
Jeff, as I recall, only the first two Todd-AO pictures were shot at 30fps, “Oklahoma†and “Around the World in 80 daysâ€. At the Syosset on Long Island, where I played many 70mm prints, we had two Norelco AA-11 projectors which were designed for “Oklahomaâ€; they had two drive motors so we were able to play both speeds.
As William pointed out, “Oklahoma†was indeed shot twice but not simultaneously. In fact it was the reason Frank Sinatra pulled out of playing Curley, the role that went to Gordon McRae, Sinatra refused to shoot the picture twice.
As I recall, the reduction process was developed during the time Oklahoma was being shot which would have eliminated the need to shoot in 35mm Cinemascope as well as 70mm Todd-AO.
JSA, You are correct, “Around the world†was shot in both speeds, but unlike “Oklahoma†the cameras were set up side by side and the picture shot just once with both camera rolling simultaneously.
This is what I recall, perhaps someone else might elaborate
I understand that “Around the World in 80 days” was shot in Todd-AO at both 30 and 24 fps. The 30 fps was used for the full 70 MM Roadshow engagements and the 24 fps were used for the 35 MM reduction prints. A few years ago, the Egyptian screened what is probably the last surviving Todd-AO 30 fps print of “Around the World…”
JSA
“Oklahoma” was shot in Todd-AO (30 frame) plus they also shot it in CinemaScope as a safety. Because at the time they could not print down the Todd-AO material for General release. So the setup of scenes are different between both versions (Todd-AO & CinemaScope). By the time “Around the World in 80 Days” came out they could make the print down.
Some of these early 70mm Todd-AO films were shot at 30 frames per second, instead of the normal 24 FPS to smooth out the judder and motion flicker (in fact, I think some were shot twice, with two cameras one at 30, the other at the standard 24).
Vito, can you add anything about this?
Thanks, Vito. I’ve never seen “Oklahoma” in a theater. If it played the Ziegfeld in 70mm I’d be there like a shot.
The DVD of the Todd-AO version of “Oklahoma” came out all blurry for some reason. I’m surprised the Rodgers & Hammerstein Organization let that get released. I’m hoping for a corrected Blu-Ray edition sometime in the future.
Thanks for the link, vito. Observing what goes on behind the scenes in a film projection room was interesting.
Many of us often write about 70mm here on the Ziegfeld page.
Some of you may have seen this but here is a clip that chocked me up a bit. It’s from the projection booth at the Heights theatre in Minnesota projecting “Oklahoma” in 70mm
Oh the wonderfull memories.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfMKz6bmCXc