Capitol Theatre

1645 Broadway,
New York, NY 10019

Unfavorite 42 people favorited this theater

Showing 151 - 175 of 687 comments

AGRoura on September 6, 2011 at 6:42 am

You are right Tinseltoes.

paula_eisenstein_baker on September 4, 2011 at 9:10 am

Hi Tinseltoes, thanks for the suggestions. I’ve been through the material at Lincoln Center, including the scrapbooks that the Capitol (NOT the Roxy!) kept, and I have read Variety, Billboard, many of the NY newspapers AND the papers devoted to the movies in the 1920s (as well as The Metronome, Musical Courier, Musical America, Musical Digest, etc.). Zeitlin was mentioned in a Capitol press release in 1927 (the text of which appeared in a number of papers), and his death, in 1930, was reported almost everywhere (from the NYTimes on down). So you certainly could have come across his name.

Zeitlin receives credit for a couple of his overtures in theatre programs that I have seen, but Yasha Bunchuk (the conductor at the Capitol, beginning in 1929) is credited with several others that (I think) may have been composed by Zeitlin. Hence my interest in finding programs.

paula_eisenstein_baker on September 3, 2011 at 7:25 am

Thank you for writing, Tinseltoes. Sorry! The man’s name was Leo Zeitlin (1884-1930), and I’ve been able to document that he composed many arrangements for the Capitol from the playlists kept by WEAF in the 1920s. Most of his arrs were played on the Sun evening Capitol Theatre radio program (the playlists are in the Lib of Congress Music Section, Dept of Recorded Sound), but by 1929-30 he was also writing overtures for the theatre, and those MAY have been credited to him in the theatre programs, which is why I’m eager to find any that I can.

A colleague and I have published Zeitlin’s chamber music (I can provide information about that volume, if anyone is interested), and we are working on an edition of one of his overtures (from Sept 1929).

paula_eisenstein_baker on September 2, 2011 at 11:03 am

I’m writing about a man who composed musical arrangements for the Capitol Theatre between 1925 and 1930. Does anyone know of collections of programs from the Capitol for that period other than those at the Theatre Historical Society? I’ve found only one posted on the web. (This query is addressed especially to Tinseltoes and Warren G. Harris, if they are still reading this list.) If private replies are appropriate, use

BobbyS on August 6, 2011 at 8:11 am

It is so wonderful to read all of these dates and I enjoy them so. In many ways you keep the Loew’s Capitol stll “alive”. Thank you.

Bill Huelbig
Bill Huelbig on June 18, 2011 at 7:11 am

BobbyS: It was the most incredible movie theater experience I’ve ever had, before or since. The size and shape of the Capitol screen, combined with the greatest science-fiction movie ever made – nothing else will ever come close!

BobbyS on June 17, 2011 at 9:00 pm

Thanks Bill. It must have been something to see at the Capitol. Going to see a major motion picture in a one screen palace really made the whole experience something special!!

Bill Huelbig
Bill Huelbig on June 15, 2011 at 7:48 am

43 years ago today – a life-changing event. I saw “2001” at the Capitol. I try to commemorate it every year here on this page.

Coate on May 4, 2011 at 10:36 am

AGR, there’s nothing wrong with thanking someone for a comment you appreciate, but in this case you look like a fool for having stormed off in a huff only to reappear a day later. And where’s the apology for your nutty YELLING claim of my ignorance? (Don’t you feel like an ass now that you realize I was correct all along?)

AGRoura on May 4, 2011 at 9:29 am

Michael, I was not commenting or giving an opinion, just wanted to thank REndres. Anything wrong with that? He deserves my thanks for the detailed explanation, period.

Coate on May 4, 2011 at 9:02 am

AGR, you’re back. What happened to “OVER AND OUT”?

AGRoura on May 4, 2011 at 8:49 am

REndres, thanks for the detailed explanation.

BobbyS on May 4, 2011 at 8:29 am

Did the Capitol or any theater other than Radio City or the Roxy have a chorus line on the payroll?

RobertEndres on May 4, 2011 at 5:47 am

I’m sorry, but the urge to weigh in on the VistaVision discussion is irresistible for an “old timer” who’s been hanging around projection booths from B.C. to A.D. —“Before CinemaScope” to “After Digital”. Not only was I very much aware of the VistaVision process when it started in 1954 with “White Christmas”, I was later to spend 25 years in the theater that first ran it in New York, Radio City Music Hall, and was a VistaVision dailies projectionist for three features: “Men In Black”, “Michael” and “Jungle 2 Jungle” all of which used VistaVision plates in their production.

The confusion above is thinking that two frames of 35mm equal 70 or 65 mm image size. Since VistaVision is a horizontal process, the frame width of 8 perfs is less than two normal 35mm frame widths. If you hold 8 perfs of 35mm up against a 70mm frame, they will cover about 2/3 of the width. While a few theatres did run VistaVision on horizontal machines, most of the prints were reduction prints to 35mm as noted above. In 1954 the non-anamorphic ratio of 35mm could vary anywhere from 1.5 to one to 2.1 depending on the amount of cropping of the frame by the aperture plate in the projector, thus the multiple framing reference marks at the start of each reel of a VistaVision release print made in conventional vertical orientation.

In 1954 CinemaScope had been introduced,and Paramount decided to go for a less radical image in terms of width, and with better resolution than could be obtained with the anamorphic lenses used for CinemaScope at the time. As a know-it-all 15 year old I remember commenting to the manager of our local theatre that someday someone would combine the width of CinemaScope with image clarity of VistaVision, and a year later they did with the first 70mm Todd-AO releases of “Oklahoma” in 1955 and “Around The World In 80 Days” in 1956.

The horizontal VistaVision print of “White Christmas” at the Music Hall was run with an interlock sound track printed on conventional 35mm and played on the Hall’s normal 35mm projectors,as were the mag tracks for the dailies I ran starting with “Men In Black”. Running VistaVision is a trip since it is still running at 24 frames per second and thus the film speed is 180' a minute, twice the normal speed and faster than even a 70mm print.

One more note to fire up even more heated debate: the argument might be made that Super Technirama is the equivalent of 70mm in terms of image size. Technirama is an 8 perf horizontal system with a 50% anamorphic squeeze. Thus the image unsqueezed is equal to 12 perfs of 35mm film. If you hold 12 perfs of 35mm against a 70mm image, you’ll find that they match almost perfectly (try it). The process was used as recently as Disney’s “Black Cauldron” and yielded the 70mm release print we ran at the Hall.

(And yes, hdtv267 this really does have very little to do with the Capitol — sorry about that!)

BobbyS on May 3, 2011 at 9:34 pm

I do not believe VV was 65 or 70MM. I considered it more a 35mm stretched. I saw many films in VV in the theater presentations in the 50’s and they were never the same size as a cinemascope release!

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on May 3, 2011 at 8:49 pm


I think you are simply wrong and need to stop now.

AGRoura on May 3, 2011 at 8:46 pm


Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on May 3, 2011 at 4:39 pm

Although I think Wikipedia is always suspect, their simple description is pretty good.

Coate on May 3, 2011 at 3:47 pm

AGR: The 70mm information for Vertigo is in reference to the film’s 1996 re-issue, not its original release. VistaVision was a 35mm process. Deal with it.

AGRoura on May 2, 2011 at 2:17 pm

I had seen that before. Look at this part, and I quote:
“Using whatever sources were available, the restoration team created a new 35mm 8-perf negative from which a 65mm inter positive was generated. Although not noticeable on the screen, some elements were as many as eight generations away from the original negative. Both 70mm and 35mm prints were then made for theatrical showing.”
65mm interpositive — 70mm prints for soundtrack etc. — doesn’t that makes it a 65mm process? It was probably that way for the original Vertigo which is what they are talking about. I think it is very simple explanation. Anyway, I am not going to spend the rest of my life discussing if VV is 65mm or 100mm or whatever. Over and out.

Coate on May 2, 2011 at 12:41 pm

AGR, you’re not even close!

I find it too difficult to explain aspect ratio and film gauge concepts with words alone; I think it best to use visual examples for the concept to really sink in. Check out Page 5 of the VistaVision wing of the WidescreenMuseum for some VV frame samples that might clarify things for you.

View link

AGRoura on May 2, 2011 at 9:49 am

OK, technically VV was 70mm since it was a horizontally filmed two 35mm frames. But if a theater showed the horizontal print, the film image in the double frame would be 65mm since the other 5mm were for the sprockets and soundtrack(s), just like ToddAO and other 70mm systems. Can a CT commenter who is a projectionist or film technician clarify this? Or can you be more specific, Michael? I will appreciate a more detailed response.

Mark_L on May 2, 2011 at 9:16 am

The unique Vistavision Framing Guide appeared at the start of the reel after the changeover.

View link

Coate on May 2, 2011 at 8:47 am

VistaVision was not 65mm!!!

BobbyS on May 2, 2011 at 8:15 am

Thanks so much for the link. Enjoyed reading. I lived around the corner from the B&K Paradise in Chicago. The theater installed a taller screen, not cinemascope size to present VistaVision films I believe in the 1950’s. The Marbro theater around the corner got a huge Cinemascope treatment with “The Robe” and was the talk of the neighborhood. It didn’t make much difference for the Paradise was closed and razed in 1956, much to my distain!