Ziegfeld Theatre

Originally planned for Cinerama but it was only installed briefly for THIS IS CINERAMA (70mm version) from 11 May 1973 until 12 August 1973

In February 1983 I was almost stuck in the Ziegfeld overnight. It was after a showing of GANDHI while a blizzard was socking New York. I was considering asking the Ziegfeld staff if I could sleep in the theater instead of going out into the brutal storm. I always regretted not having done it! New York's best theater by far.

How I can book a ticket (October 21)?

Can Someone help me a friend of me said something about "The famous yellow letters appeared in the Ziegfeld Theatre" and i gotta find out what it means

is the Harry Potter and the chamber of secrets premiere going to be in ziegfeld? if so how much is the ticket, and when is it?

I will be in New York from mon dec9 thru dec 13 and wanted to know if you will be previewing a movie that week . we always see a movie at your theatre. Please let me know thanks

Free Premiere TIX!!
http://home.attbi.com/~j.duponte/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html

Still a great place to see a movie and one of the all-too-few premier "opening night" theaters remaining in the city (the other being the similarly modern but plush Loew's Astor Plaza on West 44th). It features a very large yet simple streamlined modern auditorium with none of the baroque architectural flourishes of the classic movie palaces. Like the Astor Plaza, the balcony rises at the back of the theater, rather than being vaulted over the orchestra seats. Also like the Astor Plaza, the theater is located underground with the large structure visible from street level serving as a spacious lobby area. The seats are plush, red velvet and the giant screen is concealed behind a heavy curtain that still opens and closes between each showing.

Vintage photos and programs line the walls of the upper and lower lobbies, depicting former Ziegfield shows and performers from the roaring days of the famed Follies at the New Amsterdam and Selwyn Theaters on 42nd street. Sound and projection are state of the art.

The theater is on West 54th Street (an adjacent open plaza stretches to West 55th) just west of 6th Avenue on the north-east fringe of the theater district in midtown Manhattan.

The Ziegfeld is NOT underground. The lobby is at ground level and the theater is one level up.

To clarify just a bit further, the concession area and theater entrance are indeed one level up.

Once on the second level, the main auditorium is accessed through two short passageways just adjacent to the concession area. The passageways flow to the left and right, wrapping around the balcony seating area.

At their opposite ends, the passageways stop at the foot of the balcony seating, and from here, the auditorium slowly descends towards the large screen, which, presumably, is located at or near ground level.

(The open plaza that Ed mentioned is formed in part by the right wall of the auditorium.)

Went to a revival screening of "Funny Girl" here not too long ago...and during the intermission (remember those??), I laughed at the realization that it was the perfect place to see this film, as not only is Flo Ziegfeld portrayed in the film by Walter Pidgeon, but as previous posting writer Ed Salerno wrote, the antique programs of the Ziegfeld shows are behind glass in the lobby, and one can find the listings for Fanny Brice in some of them! Going back for the rest of the film after intermission, it was like having absorbed a DVD supplementary program!

An odd personal side note: the night John Lennon was killed less than 20 blocks north, I passed the rear of the theater that has its own vertical marquee, and the Ziegfeld was showing "Rock Show", a little known Paul McCartney concert film! I was drunk on sake from a nearby sushi bar, when i took in Paul's hitting-a-note look on the poster...and then i got home to the news. Freaky! (I think the film only showed that week.)

The Zieglfeld and the Astor Plaza were always a pale copy of the great NY cinemas. It's a great shame that they survived and the Rivoli, the Criterion, and the Warner Cinerama(Strand) were torn down. And this well after there was supposed to have been a renewed interest in historic theaters.

Vincent
I agree 100% not one of the real Broadway palaces survived even though many were open into the eighties or ninties. When you think of what was there and destroyed, The Rivoli, The Warner Cinerama, The Capitol, Loews State, The Criterion, The Paramount and to a lesser degree the Strand and DeMille. I am sure I am forgetting some but unlike other cities that have restored at least one palace, NY tears them down. Remember a few years ago when they had the idea to build above Radio City and keep the theate intact? Why could that idea not have been used for The Rivoli or State?

Well it was pretty heart breaking when the restored Lawrence of Arabia and My Fair Lady were playing at the Ziegfeld and the Criterion was sitting there in Times Square all chopped and falling apart. And this was at one time the top booking for the biggest films. I kept thinking why don't they turn the Ziegfeld into a Toys R Us and restore one of New Yorks great buildings. This was also one of New Yorks greatest blocks with the stupendous advertisements that floated and blinked above the Criterion day and night. Now these ads are straight from Tokyo and don't have a thing to do with NY.
When I saw Funny Girl at the Ziegfeld there seemed to be 20 minutes of ads before the film. I wonder if this happened when it first played the Criterion...

I'm sure there was not. I remember when I was a kid it was a big family outing when we all went to the Rivoli to see "The Sound of Music" with my parents and both grandmothers. How special those roadshows were. The only real place that compares at all is Radio City Music Hall and I cant remember the last time they had a movie or premiere there. I dont know why I missed "This is Cinerama" when the Ziegfeld first opened, I have always wanted to see this and doubt they will ever go to the trouble to run it again.

You're lucky you missed it it was lousy. One strip Cinerama and no curtain. Maybe some day NY will present a restored 3 strip Cinerama print. I mean NY has not see this in 40 years what are we waiting for? Must we fly to Seattle? Where are all the influential film lovers who can make this work? Maybe all they want to do is go to the Angelica. By the way I wish I could have seen SOM at the Rivoli.

A friend in LA saw all of the Cinerama revivials at The Dome some were 3 projector also. New York always seems like a step child for film. When is the last time anyone played 70mm? Although they are not as frequent anymore LA has had a few recent 70mm engagements.

The current Ziegfeld Theatre is a joke in comparison to the original one, which was designed by Joseph Urban and Thomas Lamb and first opened in February,1927 with the namesake producer's stage musical, "Rio Rita," followed later that year by "Show Boat." The 1,600-seat auditorium broke convention by being egg-shaped, with the stage opening at the narrow end. A huge and exquisitely-colored mural, "The Joy of Life," a stylized version of a medieval tapestry, covered the ceiling and side walls. To pay for its $2.5 million cost, Ziegfeld had to borrow from newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst, who took control of the theatre when the producer died in 1932. Hearst rashly leased the Ziegfeld to Loew's Theatres, which for nearly ten years ran it as a movie house. Due to its location on the west side of Sixth Avenue between 54th and 55th Streets, the Ziegfeld was considered too far from the Broadway-Times Square theatre district for first-run product, so Loew's showed double features with program changes twice a week. Finally, in 1943, producer Billy Rose bought the Ziegfeld and returned it to stage plays, also repairing whatever damage Loew's had done to the interior decor. After more failures than hits, from 1955-63 Rose leased the theatre to NBC for use as a TV studio. Rose then once more tried stage bookings, but in 1965, the short-lived "Anya" proved the Ziegfeld's last attraction. Rose decided to sell the property to a real estate developer. Ironically, he died while negotiations were going on, but his executors finally made a deal for $17.1 million with Fisher Brothers, which demolished the Ziegfeld in September,1966 to make way for an office tower.

The saddest thing of all to me was UA's moronic closing of Cinema 150 in Syosset. It put the Zeigfeld to shame with a huge dimension 150 screen. It was totally renovated in the early 90's with all new seats, drapes, carpet, screen and lighting. They never advertised the theatre for what it was. I introduced friends in Manhattan to the place and they used to travel on the LIRR after that to see films there.

Robert, you're killing me. I'm getting bent all out of shape by what I missed. Why couldn't anybody save it? It was so recent. There is nothing left in NY!

Here is a link to a photo of part of the facade the original Ziegfeld Theatre.

I was there on the opening day of the theatre. They showed a few movies dealing with Ziegfeld. Included was "The Great Ziegfeld," and "The Ziegfeld Follies." A reception was held in the concession area where champagne was served. Many of the original Ziegfeld "girls" attended. Although senior citizens, they still maintained a poise & beauty that singled them out from the average woman...I also saw Lowell Thomas introduced in the theatre when they showed his "This Is Cinerama." It was owned by Walter Reed Theatres for a while. One should put this beautiful movie theatre in perspective and not get carried away, comparing it to other theatres.

Walter Reade (not Reed) was a pioneer movie exhibitor. By the time of the building of the new Ziegfeld, he had died and the circuit was run by his son, Walter Reade, Jr., who later died in middle age in a skiing accident. During the son's lifetime, the company also ran Continental Distributing, Inc., which acquired and released "foreign" films for showings in art theatres.

Sorry for the misspelling of Walter Reade, but it has been a long time since I have seen his name in print. Other premiers I saw during the 1970's at this theatre were THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT & TOMMY.

I agree you have to put the Ziegfeld in perspective. It is not a Movie Palace but its the best house to see a movie in NYC.Its to bad NYC didn't save any of there film palaces in Times Square with the exception of the Mark Hellinger(Warner Hollywood)which is now being used as a church. brucec

I worked as a projectionist at the D-150 in Syosset. We had been hearing for years that the landloard wanted UA out in order to redevelop the valuable property the theater stood on. We were told the rent was increased many times and finally to a point where UA could not operate the theater with a profit. It weas a sad time because we had already just recently lost the last of the major Long Island Roadshow theatres, the Syosset, which had been cut up into three theaters, or should we say screening rooms,and then torn down.While it may not have been a movie palace, the D-150 was still the best place on Long Island to see as well as hear a movie with it's amasing sound system (thanks Joe Kelly)

I seen Oliver Stones "The Doors" here in 1991. I was like 16 and snuck in the side exit. I walked in backwards and then reversed myself for the ultimate walk up the stairs against the crowd and managed to get into the theatre for the next showing.That was a fun memory from a fun time in life.

It is very disturbing that the majority of the grand Times Square theaters have been demolished, with the exception of the Astor Plaza.
The Rivoli, Criterion, State, Cinerama, Forum, Embassy, Victoria and even the more modern National, are GONE !
Instead, there are those bizaare 10 or 20 story multiplexs on 42 street. As far as New York theaters, the Astor Plaza, Ziegfeld and the Beekman are truly the last of single screens that I/m aware of.

The Astor Plaza is on its way out also.

I/m not surprised. Really pretty sickening.

We really need to protect our landmarks better.
A lot of old theaters around the country have either been closed or met with a worse fate.
Some of these theaters were classics!
The Ziegfeld not only belongs here, but it fits in well with everything around it.
I agree with Rubi.
Thank you.
George Vreeland Hill.

Just wanted to mention that the upper portion of the original Ziegfeld is also visible in the classic Men on Girder, 1930 photograph of Empire State Building construction workers taking a lunch break -- hundreds of feet in the air. (The theater can be seen at bottom center.)

The ironic thing is seeing the new Empire and the Loews on 42nd street, both of which try so hard to replicate the look of a genuine movie palace (well, at least on the outside--especially with the Loew's gargantuan vertical marquee). Then around the corner is the old marquee for the Paramount, and the theaters in the Virgin Megastore are called "Loews State." Just makes me sad, especially since the preservation movement was pretty much born here with the demolition of Penn Station.

Our ray of hope: the Loew's Kings still sits in brooklyn, relatively intact. As the burough gentrifies at an amazing pace, no doubt soon the affluent will discover the old houses of Flatbush, and it will be econimically viable to open the Kings again. I mean...did you ever think the Loew's Jersey in sketchy Jersey City (no offense) would actually ever be reopened?! It still amazes me.

Let's hope NYC will get a genuine operating movie palace once again--I'm afraid the Ziegfeld just doesn't cut it for me.

As I've mentioned about Loew's Kings, it is in the heart of probably the biggest West Indian community in this country, likewise, a renovated entertainment center for that community, and for that matter, everybody else, just seems so perfect. Especially with the municipal parking lot just behind it.
I realize that it would cost millions, buts its interesting, that the Kings just sits there, and has not been turned into a church, supermarket, or anything else.
I can only be hopeful that something positive will happen !

The original facade is also visible in the Jack Lemmon movie How to Murder Your Wife. If memory serves he is walking along a girder on one of the skycrapers going up on 6th Av and you can see it in the background.

Tell me I'm not paranoid, but there is nothing listed for the Ziegfeld on either Clearview's site or on Yahoo Movies. Has the grim reaper unexpectedly arrived???

Perhaps not, Andy. I just checked with the theater. The woman who answered the Ziegfeld's box office hotline said the theater is closed until March 5 for renovations.

Thanks Patrick --- I'll keep my fingers crossed for the best. With so few single-screeners left (and the recent news about the Astor), it's hard not to worry.

I couldn't agree more. It'd be a real shame to lose the Ziegfeld.

"Closed for renovations" is another way of saying that we're not doing enough business to keep open. The Ziegfeld has been known to cancel performances, especially during weekday matinee hours, when not even one person turned up to buy a ticket.

The ZIEGFELD should return to it's policy from back in the 1980's and maybe earlier, which is that whichever movie was playing there, could not show at another theater in Manhattan.
The last few times I went, the place was pretty filled up, so hopefully they are just doing some basic renovations, and keeping it as a single house.
When I saw CHICAGO there, there was not an empty seat to be found, and when we left, the line went down 54 st, up 6th av, and back up 55 street.
I/m cautiosly optimistic !

I am the Division Manager for Clearview---the Zieg is reopening on 3/5 with "Hidalgo"....not to worry, the Ziegfeld is here to stay!

Great to hear !!! Thank you for the good news, even I was getting a little worried..
Thanks again.

It's unfair to compare the Ziegfeld, built in the 1960s, with the movie palaces built in the 1920s and 30s. The fact is, plaster ornamentation, fancy carpeting, hidden basketball courts and cloud ceilings aside, those old theaters would be terrible places to see modern films with digital 5.1 channel soundtracks today, in spite of the fact that many of them played 70mm 6-track films.

Those old theaters were built with long reverberation times because amplifiers were very low powered in those days. Today, you want just the opposite: very short reverberation times to increase dialogue intelligibility and perceived channel separation within a broad sound field.

The Ziegfeld remains (IMHO) the best place to see a movie in NYC. My understanding is that it's not profitable, but it is used for many premiers and it's great that Clearview elects to keep it open as a single-screener. The single-screen Astor Plaza is closing soon and that is also a big loss.

If the Ziegfeld doesn't find a replacement soon for "Hidalgo," which is currently also playing at eight other Manhattan theatres, I suspect that it will be posting another "Closed for Renovations" sign.

The problem with most Manhattan Theatres is that they charge the full admission prices right from the time they open their doors. In older days and up until the late 1970's, There was a matinee price that changed at 5 P.M. to the evening price. Theatres that opened prior to 12 noon usually had an early bird special that changed to the matinee price at noon. This encouraged people to attend matinees since they could save a buck or so. Manhattan Theatres don't offer the so-called bargain matinee where usually shows starting before 2 P.M. are at the children's/senior price. It would make sense to do this since the theatres are empty anyway. This is why the corporate executives who run these chains have no idea of the art of running theatres and are not the showman and entrepeneurs of executives from past decades. After all, if there were a reduced admission for matinees, they would be able to sell more the over-priced concession items that they offer. How about it Clearview Cinemas in Manhattan, be the leader, not just a cable operator with theatres to sell home cable to customers.

I'm just guessing at this, but I suspect that all first-run theatres in Manhattan, at least, have an un-written agreement to not cut prices except in the cases of seniors and adults. Distributors probably also insist on it because the boxoffice takings will be less. In the boroughs outside Manhattan, some price-cutting does exist. The Center in Sunnyside, Queens, for example, charges only $3.50 (or possibly $4.50) every Tuesday from opening to closing.

Some of the Manhattan theatres in more fringe areas like The Metro and Olympia when they were Cineplex theatres did have bargain matinees. I susupect you are right about the unwritten laws about cutting prices. It would take a chain like Clearview to make a statement by doing so.

After a discouraging re-opening with "Hidalgo," the Ziegfeld is again "Closed for renovations." If it ever re-opens, it should be interesting to see what those "renovations" amounted to, if anything.

The Ziegfeld will reopen on 4/9 with "The Alamo".

If that's the new Disney movie, I predict another quick closure. The Ziegfeld might do better with an exclusive 70mm revival of the John Wayne epic of the same title.

I just spoke to someone at the Theatre and she said there are no "renovations" going on.She said people come but not enough to cover their operating expences.

It made me feel very sad.It may not be a "movie palace" like the Roxy,Paramount or Loews Paradise,but it is one the best places to see a movie in the city.Sitting in the balcony area with a full hosue as the rich heavy gold curtian parts and the movie magic begins. I have enjoyed many movies there.There is an atmosphere in a large one screen house that can't be mached even in the largest screening room in a multi-plex.

We will soon loose the Astor Plaza,which has the best sound system I have ever herd.If the Zig goes we will all be loosing the last great theatre in the greatest City in the world.

What great experiences I had watching APOCALYPSE NOW and the revival of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA in that empyrean. At the Ziegfeld on Sunday, October 15, 1972, I was the first person in line for the opening of FELLINI'S ROMA; so I bought the first ticket sold in America for that film! The night before I had seen the world premiere of Bertolucci's LAST TANGO IN PARIS (untrimmed)at the New York Film Festival. After the Fellini film I went to Truffaut's TWO ENGLISH GIRLS at the Fine Arts on 58th Street. Good weekend!

We might be looking at the destiny of the Ziegfeld from this point on. Much like the El Capitan in LA - which isn't open at all times, but instead is 'closed for renovations', sometimes for weeks-plus stretches - with the exception of not showing exclusively Disney product (unlike the Mouse House-owned El Capitan), maybe the Ziegfeld will only be open for special engagements (say, a three-week run of 'The Alamo' come April 9th, and then closing or moving directly onto the next appropriate big-screen-type film).

One quick thing to keep in mind when having noted in the past that the Ziegfeld was 'closed for renovations' - quite frequently (in the NY Post and Time Out NY, at least), when a theater closes, even if it's closing permanently, publications which run film listings will, as a placeholder, note that the theater is 'closed for renovations'. Why that's done I'm not quite sure (except perhaps for a lack of basic research) but I suspect it's at the discretion of the listings editor.

Most multiplexes have at least one screen change per week. The Ziegfeld seems doomed unless the industry comes to its rescue by permitting a weekly change of program. Each week, the Ziegfeld could be part of one of the new saturation openings. I don't see how that would hurt any rival theatres because the Ziegfeld really isn't near any that play mainstream movies (the artie Paris is probably the closest). With a new show every week, the Ziegfeld would stand a better chance of making a profit. That was what made theatres of old like Loew's Paradise and Loew's Valencia successful. As soon as they had to run their programs for more than a week, they became big losers.

I would assume that Clearview makes back some of its loses on the Zigfield when it four-walls the place for the many red-carpet world premieres it does for studios. The theater has a lot of prestige in the industry for these star-studded events, and I am sure that the theater is going anywhere...yet.

Any chance they could program some recent classics there. Would love to see a film like Titanic on that big screen. They should try to get the new Harry Potter movie. Bet they could make money showing that film.

Lets get Clearview to put in Cinerama (3proj) and give the east coast a chance to see the magic the west coast sees at the dome.

Remember that when the Ziegfeld showed Cinerama it was the one strip version which I assume was some form of 70mm. They didn't even have a curtain to give you the impression of an everexpanding screen. Also the fact that there is no back to the orchestra only an aisle separating it from the elevated loge would probably preclude it from the proper presentation of Cinerama unless it was feasible to project it from the very back.

That could be an issue but I seem to remember seeing a picture of a Cinerama theatre where they shot all three projectors from an elevated booth. Does anyone else know? Also what did the Zeigfeld look like when they ran "This is Cinerama". Was it a screen hung in front of the one now? Also without curtains it must have looked really odd. Back then all theatres still had curtains even the cut up ones.

Let's not be too hard on Clearview or any other operators of movie houses these days; the cut-throat competition by the movie makers and distributors now spell the rules by which exhibitors (movie houses) live! The distributors are in cahoots with the movie makers, of course, and now make exhibitors sign huge, terrible contracts that make the distributors the virtual owners of the theatres, and almost no theatres can play what they want when they want. The 'big fish' will always seek ways to eat the 'little fish' and now with DVD/tapes out almost as soon as the title appears ont he screen, the theatres are mere fodder for the big fish. Have sympathy. (And read all about it at www.bigscreenbiz.com)

The 1973 re-issue of "This is Cinerama" was a single strip 70MM version which slightly cropped the original image. The three Cinerama theatres here had ground floor booths. To put Cinerama into the Ziegfeld, you would cover the front half of the theatre with drapes and a larger curved screen. The Ziegfeld was not designed for those larger aspect ratio films.

It was a curved screen in front of the current one and it was odd. In place of a curtain there were simply lights reflected on the screen. Read Vincent Canby in the NYT Arts and Leisure from this time('73.)He wrote a Sunday piece about how disappointing the presentation was.
I'm surprised Lowell even agreed to it.

Concerning what Jim wrote the proper presentation of classic films can only done now as a not for profit enterprise. It is now a lost art like ballet or opera and needs the support of those who feel passionate about it and have money or time. We should have great presentations of Lawrence or How the West Was Won just as one goes to the Met to hear Tosca or see Sleeping Beauty.
Why do people find this such an odd idea and not worthy of consideration? What's wrong with a film museum with a truly magnificent screen that can properly show 70mm, Todd AO and Cinerama? The visceral impact is one of the greatest joys of moviegoing.

What are your thoughts on The Gramercy? That theatre would be convertable to Cinerama. MOMA is leaving there but again it would take people with alot of money to create a film museum.

Three strip is the only way to see Cinerama. Still remember seeing How The West Was Won in that format. They would have to cut half the seats out of the Ziegfeld to show three strip and they would never do that.

Three strip is the only way to see Cinerama. Still remember seeing How The West Was Won in that format. They would have to cut half the seats out of the Ziegfeld to show three strip and they would never do that.

I think the Ziegfeld will be around for awhile. The studios use it for all the major premieres and is the only one with the capacity for such premieres unless they start using Radio City again.There are plenty of big summer popcorn movies coming to keep the Ziegfeld open. I think New Yorkers should support Loews Jersey when they show films because here is a true movie palace.brucec

"Troy" premiere was here tonight (5/10/04.

What is the deal with the Ziegfeld right now?? Is it going to stay closed and be used only for premieres? It seems that they won't be playing new releases since they're playing at all the multiplexes anyway.

Will be re-opening on May 28th with 'The Day After Tomorrow'

Sometimes theatres close when there is a lack of real product or they do maintenance to the theatre before the busy time of the year. Back in the golden days, some of the big Times Square houses closed for short periods of time because of product and maintenance.

Last night I went to see The Day After Tomorrow at the Ziegfeld.There were about 700 there for the 7:oopm show.I was struk be the beauty if this theatre with its red velvet on the walls and the thick yellow curtian that covers the screen.

I sat in the "balcony area dead center.The sound and projection was 10++ the curtian closing and opening adds to the movie experience.

Watching a movie about the New York City getting hit by natures furry in the the LAST movie palace in NEW YORK was BREATHTAKING!!

I was happy to learn the Ziegfeld is presenting Day after Tommorrow in 35mm film format rather than with Digital projection, which the theatre had installed and recently removed. I want to see movies on film and no other way. Digital projection is ok I guess on a small screen but NOT on the Ziegfeld screen.

I am really sorry to hear that the Ziegfeld is not open as much as it used to be. I had no idea. I admidt, I haven't been there in a while, but when in Manhattan, and in the mood for a movie, I always used to check to see what was at the Ziegfeld first, before going to a movie.
The last movie I saw there was "A Thin Red Line". I have seen many movies there, and nothing beats the screen there. It's a great "old feel" theater.

The Ziegfeld is open---we're now showing "The Terminal" and will open "I, Robot" there on 7/14.

That's great to hear. I didn't think anything other than that till reading this thread, so was a bit sad at first.
I no longer live in Brooklyn, so don't go to the Ziegfeld as much as I used to. I have been planning to see "The Terminal" anyway, and I think your post just made me plan a trip to the city with a friend, with a sidetrip to see "The Terminal" at a certain theater...

Joe....do you work at the Ziegfeld?? Will there be any special programs coming up like restored epics? classic movies? or will it just be the standard releases?? also are 70MM films that were great at the Ziegfeld now kaput??

Re: Digital projection ...I had no idea the Ziegfeld removed their equipment....whic is a good idea, I saw Attack of the Clones in digital there and was extremely unimpressed...Last year I saw Lawrence of Arabia in 70MM and was blown away. The Ziegfeld is one of THE best theaters in the country, I hope they don't give in to the masses and just play the contemporary crap. It would be great to see some re-releases on that big screen. It's something to look into. Go to the Astor Plaza discussion and you'll see what I mean. If the Ziegfeld staged some kind of retro festival...it would do big business...

Rhett wrote: If the Ziegfeld staged some kind of retro festival...it would do big business...

That's probably true! Going back through the NY Times, especially during the 1970s, The Ziegfeld and Radio City Music Hall ran either film retrospectives or special engagements of the "biggies;" "Gone With The Wind (in its tilt-and-scan psuedo-widescreen format), "Doctor Zhivago," and "2001: A Space Odyssey." There were also runs of "The Sound Of Music" and "The Bible...In The Beginning."

But by the 1980s, the only 70mm re-issues around Manhattan you could see were of the "Star Wars" Trilogy and "Raiders Of The Lost Ark" (not that I would be complaining if I lived in Manhattan at that time!)...and return engagements of "Poltergeist," "Rocky III," "Annie" and "Gandhi." Of course, there was the fantastic re-issue of "Lawrence Of Arabia" in 1989. There were a few in the 1990s, but few and far between.

I've never had much luck with the Ziegfeld. I saw CLOSE ENCOUNTERS there, and every other reel was out of focus. Two years later, I went back to see APOCALYPSE NOW -- and every other reel was out of focus. I haven't been back.

That's too bad Ken, you must've had the bad luck days when you went or just bad coincidence. I saw Apocalypse Now in 70MM twice at the Ziegfeld, and it was the best experience. What you comment on is basically what happens at mostly all theaters these days because the theaters are run by hacks with no feel for the moviegoing experience or teenage dunces.

Too true. The half of Apocalypse Now I saw in focus was a stunning experience.

I worked for Century Theatres in the 60s (I was an usher at the Queens) back in the days of single-screen theatres, union projectionists operating carbon-arc projectors, managers who regularly checked image and sound, and ushers who maintained law & order. Today that sounds like an impossible paradise. The only theatre I've been in recently that upholds these standards is Cinestudio in Hartford CT.

The Zieg does employ union projectionists, full time!

Just my luck I draw the one who's cross-eyed.

Funny Ken.....your so right though. There's nothing worse than having a lousy premiere movie experience. I bet everytime you think about Apocalypse Now, you remember it as blurry.

I agree with your assessment of the golden times of movie theaters. My very first job was at a theater in NJ as an Usher. I kept law and order. Back when there where smoking sections. The projectionista (all union) were great guys and back then when a picture went out of frame or out of focus, it was quickly repaired. You didn't have to wait 5 minutes, get out of your seat, trek though an entire multiplex to find some kid at the candy counter and tell them to fix it. Those were the days.

Ken F: Are you familiar with the Century Plainview on Long Island? It ran some 70mm during the '70s and I'm curious to find out anymore information about it. There is a Plainview theater listed here on this site, but there's not much info on it. Thanks.

Indeed, times have changed in regards to getting a "cinematic" experience anymore. Though it's not totally absent, film presentation quality is subpar these days and has been for a long time now. At least (from my memory), there was greater care in how films were presented in the finer theaters in my area during the 1970s & most of the 1980s.

I could go to an AMC or one of the mall UA theaters in Orange County and be guarenteed that a film would look terrible, sound terrible and the screen would be very tiny. But if I went to the Orange Cinedome, Edwards "Big" Newport and some of the better Edwards theatres, I would usually be given a good-to-great presentation. There were times when the Dolby Stereo soundtrack, advertised as such in the newspaper, wasn't turned on. There were times when the picture would *briefly* be out-of-focus, but overall, I kept attending those theatres because of their A) Ability to put on a good show, B) Ability to get either Dolby Stereo or better yet, 70mm prints, and C) Ability to maintain and upgrade their theatres.

Now we're given hype on how big the screens are nowadays, but in truth, the screens are big for 1.85:1 films, then the masking is brought down on the screen to fit in a 2.39:1 frame. This method truly takes out the scope in 'scope! Most shows on a Friday or Saturday night are sold-old, even when the film is on five screens (in bigger auditoriums, too). And we're paying much higher prices at the box office and especially at the snack bar for less presentation-wise.

Now, the Cinedome is gone and the property in sat on for 30 years still remains empty while throngs of teens attend the oversized and sterile AMC and Century (who owned the Cinedome) megaplexes down the street. Big Newport and its chain, Edwards, is now a part of Regal. The Big 1100+ auditorium (I know, nothing compared to the old NYC palaces :)) was refurbished, but the last time I was there, Regal was showing those annoying digital pre-show video ads. And most of the Edwards theaters have gone downhill or have been shuttered.

To Ken F: I too remember the Plainview, having worked there for a few years. unfortunatly it is gone now having been converted into office space. It was run by Century theatres, the best cicruit in it's day. The booth had three Century JJ 35/70 projectors with Peerless corelight carbon arc lamps. Many 70mm roadshow engaements like "Ben Hur" were presented there. The last 70mm I believe was a re-issue of "sound Of Music". Like all Century theatres, the first show of the day began with a showing of the National Anthum.

The first 70mm film I saw at the Ziegfeld was A Star Is Born in 1976. I rememebr being totally upset because WB masked off the film as if it was filmed as a flat.Other films were done the same way Altered States adn ET. The first true 70mm I saw at the Ziegfeld was The Muppet Movie. After that I saw Fame in 70mm. To me if a film is done in 70mm than it should be shown in widescreen not masked off than called 70mm. Anybody else have any other comments on this?

But those films were blow up which is simply a marketing tool. To have seen "true" 70mm at the Ziegfeld recently you would have had to have seen Lawrence and Lady.

The Ziegfeld should show Lady again for its 40th anniversary in the fall and Music in the spring in Todd AO for its birthday. And get Wise to come to New York to celebrate its world premiere in New York at the Rivoli 40 years ago.

70mm does not necessarily mean full widescreen. All 70mm indicates is that the projected film is 70mm wide.

70mm presentations were not just for width. Some directors chose 70mm for better quality 6-channel sound. Coppola's ONE FROM THE HEART was framed at 1.37 and it had at least one 70mm print.

STAR IS BORN, ALTERED STATES and ET were all 1.85 films.

I know that a lot of film studios don't want to do 70mm anymore becuase they said when it does to DVD or video or for TV they loose to much.

Thanks Vito for the information on the Plainview. Do you remember how many seats the theater had?

In regards to some 70mm films being "flat," a number of films shot in the 35mm 1.85:1 aspect ratio were blown up to 70mm. Some include "Days Of Heaven," "Lethal Weapon," "Empire Of The Sun," "Who Framed Roger Rabbit," "Stakeout," "Adventures In Babysitting," "Good Morning, Vietnam," "Batman," and the list goes on. Tati's "Play Time" was filmed in 65mm, but masked for 1.85:1 projection.

Many studios, but mostly directors I think, like to shoot safe for eventual television broadcast. This is a phenomenon that has occured for years. Directors like Sidney Pollack have shied away from shooting in widescreen because of their horror of seeing their beautiful compositions ruined on television. But with the long time practice of letterboxing available since the days of Laser Disc and now DVD, there's no reason why some directors can't choose widescreen again.

There are numerous reasons for the lack of shooting in 65mm for commercial films. There is a perceived notion that it's more expensive and cumbersome than shooting in 35mm and now digital. Truth is in the scheme of a movie's budget, shooting in 65mm isn't that expensive. And considering that studios are paying for digital intermediates to improve picture quality on Super 35mm films, and that Warner Bros. spent a considerable amount on IMAX DMR prints of "Harry Potter 3," the arguement against shooting in 65mm is quite ridiculous.

Yes Vincent, it would be great to see "My Fair Lady" and "The Sound Of Music" at the Ziegfeld for their anniversaries. In fact, how about a Todd-AO 50th Anniversary Festival? "The Sound Of Music," "Hello, Dolly," and "Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines" have been restored by 20th Century Fox. Heck, I'd even see a 70mm print of "South Pacific."

Joe Masher what is the possibility of this?

It's entirely possible and something we've been talking about....for now it's "The Terminal" followed next month by "I, Robot".

I honestly do not remember the number of seats the Plainview had. The orchestra had at least 800 and the balcony another 300 so perhaps 1100 in all.

ZIEGFELD THEATRE [1969- ]
54TH STREET
NEW YORK, NY
70mm 6-Channel Stereo [1969]
Marooned [1969]
Gone With The Wind (70mm) [1970]
The Bible ... In The Beginning [1970]
The Sound of Music [1970]
Doctor Zhivago [1970]
Ryan's Daughter [1970]
Cleopatra [1971] (186 mins.)
2001 a space odyssey (70mm) [1972]
This Is Cinerama (70mm) [1973]
Earthquake (Sensurround) [1974]
Rollerball [1975]
The Ten Commandments [1975]
Close Encounters of the Third Kind [1977]
Apocalypse Now [1979]
Quest For Fire [1982]
Gandhi [1982]
Brainstorm [1983]
Antarctica [1984]
A Passage To India [1984]
Lawrence of Arabia [1988]
The Abyss [1989]
Spartacus [1991]
My Fair Lady [1994]
Vertigo [1996]

ZIEGFELD THEATRE [1969- ]
54TH STREET
NEW YORK, NY
70mm 6-Channel Stereo [1969]
Marooned [1969]
Gone With The Wind (70mm) [1970]*
The Bible ... In The Beginning [1970]*
The Sound of Music [1970]*
Doctor Zhivago [1970]*
Ryan's Daughter [1970]
Cleopatra [1971] (186 mins.)
2001 a space odyssey (70mm) [1972]**
This Is Cinerama (70mm) [1973]
Earthquake (Sensurround) [1974]***
Rollerball [1975]
The Ten Commandments [1975]***
Close Encounters of the Third Kind [1977]
Apocalypse Now [1979]
Quest For Fire [1982]
Gandhi [1982]
Brainstorm [1983]
Antarctica [1984]***
A Passage To India [1984]***
Lawrence of Arabia [1988]****
The Abyss [1989]
Spartacus [1991]
My Fair Lady [1994]
Vertigo [1996]

Thanks Archives for the Ziegfeld titles in 70mm. I have some additional notes on some of the titles. I also have some additions.

*These titles were part of the "4 For The Ziegfeld" series.

**I don't recall finding a "2001: A Space Odyssey" re-issue in 1972 in the NY Times, but I do have records of it playing in 1970, 1974, 1975 & 2001/2002. Do you have an opening date for the 1972 engagement?

***These titles were shown in 35mm. "Earthquake" seemed to have had 70mm engagements around the world, except for the U.S. "The Ten Commandments" did have some 70mm engagements, but not in NYC at that time, unless you have some info on that. Thanks.

****"Lawrence Of Arabia" was re-issued in 1971 at the [UA] Rivoli (though, a 70mm print is unconfirmed) and in 1989 in its restored version.

Some additional titles that played at The Ziegfeld in 70mm:

That's Entertainment [1974]
The Jolson Story [1975]
That's Entertainment, Part 2 [1976]
The Return Of A Man Called Horse [1976]
A Star Is Born [1976]
Tommy [1977/Re-issue]
Grease [1978]
The Muppet Movie [1979]
The Rose [1979]
Saturn 3 [1980/70mm presentation unconfirmed--Advertised February 10, 14, 15 & 17 only]
Fame [1980]
Can't Stop The Music [1980]
Raise The Titanic [1980]
Close Encounters Of The Third Kind "Special Edition" [1981--originally opened at the New York Twin on August 8, 1980]
The Jazz Singer [1980]
Grease 2 [1982]
Raiders Of The Lost Ark [1982/Re-issue]
Pink Floyd The Wall [1982]
Yes, Georgio [1982]
Staying Alive [1983]

--through mid-1985

Bill I beleive the '71 reissue of Lawrence at the Rivoli was in 70mm but it was cut so badly to allow more frequent performances that the NY Times published a piece in its Arts and Leisure section detailing the mauling. Reading this kept me from going.

Joe Masher that's great news. With a lot of publicity and increasing interest in Todd AO and 70mm you should get some sizeable crowds and you won't have to share the films with anybody else like you have to with Terminal. But is there any way to get rid of the detritus now shown before the film. When you showed Lady, Spartucus and Lawrence years ago it was so classy.

Joe Masher is the guy in here we need to seduce...Joe, do you need a new car??

I think it's great someone affiliated with the Ziegfeld is in on this dialogue..it gives all us film lovers hope, especially that Joe is a member here. I think it'd be great to see a 70MM fest at Ziegfeld, especially since the Astor is going going.....

BTW...does anyone know if there are any DVD's or Laserdiscs that were mastered from a 70MM print??

Rhett:

You ask about Laserdisc remasters from 70mm prints.

STAR!, the 1994 pressing of SOUTH PACIFIC and OKLAHOMA, 1991 pressing of WEST SIDE STORY, Box set of CLEOPATRA,SOUND of MUSIC,MY FAIR LADY were all from the 70mm masters. It is unclear whether MGM used the 70mm master of GOODBYE MR.CHIPS for the laserdisc.

Another two exceptionally high quailty discs were the Box set of THE KING AND I and the 1991 pressing of CAROUSEL both from the CinemaScope 55 masters.

I have been following with great interest all the comments about 70mm film presentations. Being from Lancaster, PA I have never attended a film at the Ziegfeld. However, back in the good old days of movie going I did patronize the Loew's Capitol, Loew's State (prior to "piggybacking"), Criterion, Rivoli, Warner, DeMille Theatres on visits to NYC and the desire to see "70MM Roadshow presentations." When NYC was not on the plans, there was always the center city Philadelphia Theatres - Boyd, Stanley, Fox, Randolph, Goldman, Midtown. Now all but the Boyd in Phila. and DeMille in NYC are history. Count me in as a possible attendee of 70MM films at the Ziegfeld. I would love to sit in a theatre, actually see the curtains open as the lights dim, and then see a "giant screen presentation." If anyone gets to the Central Penna. area, I would strongly suggest you check out the Allen Theatre in Annville, Pa. It was a small town run down theatre that a theatre lover restored. It actually has a curtain that "hides" the screen. And, although, it may not be a 70MM size screen, it is certainly the largest in the area that we have available. Anyway, bring back the old days when movie going meant more than sitting in a shoebox. The show started at the box office!

Remember the days when presented in 70 mm and Dolby stereo actually meant something. I still remember seeing Indiana Jones and the temple of doom in 1984, what a thrill! I wish we could go back to those days of showmanship by movie theatres.

Here's a list of 65mm film-to-tape transfers for Laser Disc/DVD:

2001: A Space Odyssey
Baraka
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
The Greatest Story Ever Told
The Hallelujah Trail
Hello, Dolly!
Lawrence Of Arabia
Oklahoma!
The Sound Of Music
South Pacific
Spartacus
Star!
Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines
Tron
West Side Story

-courtesy of Mike Coate in Widescreen Review's new "The Ultimate Widescreen DVD Movie Guide"

Thanks Bill....BTW....how's your NJ list of 70MM presentations coming?? when will it be available?

Thanks also to Porter.

Hi Rhett and fellow readers of Cinema Treasures:

We are aiming for sometime in July or early August for the list to be finished and posted.

Manhattan is pretty well finished. Mike just came back from a short trip to NYC this week and filled in details for missing Long Island engagements (from 1955 to about 1974). He is scheduled to go back to the NYC and NJ next month and will fill in NJ engagements during that same time period. As you know, a lot of 70mm engagements weren't advertised in the NY Times for NJ and Long Island until around 1974 with a re-issue of "Gone With The Wind."

We hope you'll enjoy this list when it's published. I was going back on my notes and realized we actually started this project in 2002! There's quite a bit of 70mm presentation that occurred in Manhattan, Long Island and Northern New Jersey. There will be pictures and ads in the publication, as well. Thanks!

If I remember correctly, when the theatre opened in 1969 weekend evening performances were supposed to be attended with men with sports coats and ties only and women in dresses, but I think this practice only lasted a week or two.

In remembrance of Marlon Brando, I can't help but remember 8/15/79, the premiere of "Apocalypse Now". Reserved seats were $5.00. I remember the anticipation through the whole film, waiting for Brando to come o, you could feel it in the audience.

In the opening scene, I actually thought there might be a band with a tamboreen (spelling?) behind the screen and that there might be a helicopter in the theater. I had never seen or heard anything like it, all in 70MM 6-track stereo. I can't believe it was 25 years ago, it seems like yesterday. It's too bad the Ziegfeld doesn't show 70MM flims anymore. It was grand theater presentation.

70mm is a dead issue. Clearview will never spend the $$$ necessary to do it right. Trust me- the Dolan's don't give a damn and never will.

JTH...it is a damn shame too. There is nothing like a 70MM presentation, that will even make bad movies a fine movie memoriy. I saw Staying Alive in 70MM , it was great. It seems that they are relying on this Digital Projection as the new thing and I must tell you I am unimpressed. I saw Attack of the Clones (at the Ziegfeld) in Digital Projection and I was not awed at all. Give me a good 35MM print anyday. In fact the 35MM I saw of Attack of Clones was much better than the digital.

I saw Lawrence of Arabia in 2002 at Ziegfeld in 70MM. AWESOME. Little did I realize that that would be the last one. Movies, as well as presentations are consistently going downhill, thanks to the youth oriented, quick buck making garbage of today.

The interior of the Ziegfeld and its lobby are featured in the last scenes of Woody Allen's "Celebrity" back in '98, one of the most underrated movies I can think of. (Allen's masterpieces weren't the comparatively tame "Annie Hall" and "Manhattan" back in '77 and '79, they were the incendiary "Deconsructing Harry" and "Celebrity" twenty years later.) Oddly, though, the movie didn't run at the Ziegfeld (which would have been a truly bizarre experience); the Brad Pitt flop "Meet Joe Black" ran there at the time instead.

Camden

Great place. I worked here in the early 90's. It had to be 1990 when Prince's "Graffiti Bridge" premiered. It is my most memorable moment. Prince is my favorite singer and the manager knew this. So she let me go into the theater and give him a Coke. When I walked up to him I boasted about how big of a fan I was. He just giggled and thanked me for the Coke. I came back a lot of times to see "Planet of the Apes", all the Star Wars movies and many more films. I love this place.

I urge everyone to write the Ziegfeld and request that they show a 70mm print of My Fair Lady to celebrate it's 40th anniversary in October.
Also request that they hold a Todd AO 50th Anniversary festival next year kicking it off with a Todd AO print of Sound of Music to celebrate its 40th birthday.
I hope that Robert Wise is already preparing prints for this milestone.
No Sing-a-alongs please though I went to the finale night of this at the Ziegfeld and it was one of the best cinema experieces. It was demented and people behaved as if they were at an absolutely electrifying rock concert. Except of course during the wedding when the entire audience stood in respectful silence as Maria walked down the aisle.

Ziegfeld Theatre is the name, not The Ziegfeld Theatre. See the marquee and wall sign in the photograph for proof of that.

Come on guys, you know it upsets Warren when you ad THE to a theatre name. He has told us often enough :)

I agree that we need to be more sensitive to The Warren.

Ooops --- all in good humor. Really!

Hey guys lay off Warren!
Vito, when are we getting those 1st Mezz, 1st row center tickets to the basketball games at the Music Hall? Spike Lee wants to come too! And we all know what a great filmmaker he is and what a great contribution he's made to american culture.

This is all a revelation to me. On a dollar bill it says "The United States of America" but on a quarter it says only "United States of America." In which of these places do I live? I feel woozy.

Vincent, my Italian heritage says it like this,
"I got ya front row tickets rii here" :)
I actually watched a bit of the game on MSN Friday, it's sorta like a car wreck you pass on the highway, some how you just have to stop and look at it. They had chairs set up in the wings for people to watch the carnage, oops, I mean game and the players were actually gushing about playing on the worlds greatest stage. The whole thing made me sick.

Vito, I can't I just can't.It would take me years to get the image out of my head, if ever.
Maybe if they have a swimming competition using a pool on stage which they can then use for the old Eleanor Holmes number.

Does anybody know how to get Shows and Dates and Tickets to movie premieres at Ziegfeld??

Movie Premieres are by invite only from the film distributors. They rent the Zieg from us for their event.

Isnt there a way when you or anyone can stand outside to see the red carpet part of the premiere?

How do we get Cinema Treasures to update the status of this theater to open. Why it is showing closed/renovationg is beyond me.

Every few days they go through the comments people make and update info on theatres on the site.

Great. It's been that way ever since I have been on Cinema Treasures.

Does anybody know how to be at the red carpet part of movie premieres?

You might try to find out from the theatre itself or watch for new reports on major film opening there. The Chinese Theatre lists up and coming events at their parent companies web site Mann Theatres.

http://www.manntheatres.com/

The heading for the Ziegfeld does not list the architect, and I didn't see it in all the comments. It was probably the same architect who designed the Burlington House (or whatever they are calling the office building fronting on Sixth Ave. these days), since the theatre was part of that development. However, the original interiors of this Ziegfeld were by Dolly Reade (Mrs. Walter Reade, Jr.) She also redecorated several other Walter Reade theatres.

I haven't been in the Ziegfeld recently. Are the lobby display cases with relics of the legendary "Ziegfeld Era" still there? I believe that most of the contents were on loan from the Ziegfeld Club, which is a charitable group that helps ex-showgirls and other showbiz old-timers.

Yes, the lobby cases are exactly as they were.

Will there be a way to find out about the time and date of the "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow Premiere" so that fans can at least attend the red carpet portion of the event? I don't see why fans should be kept in the dark without any details concerning these events, because after all, isn't the purpose of a glamorous movie premiere to provide the studio and actors a chance to promote their movies?!?

The West Coast premiere of "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" is set for Sept. 14th, at the Chinese Theatre. You should be calling Paramount Publicity to see if there is a New York premiere of the picture. Because they are the ones that are renting the theatres for premieres. Because it's the publicity departments job to let the press and public known about these events, not the Ziegfeld's. The Ziegfeld Theatre is just a rental location for the event.

Thank you William. It is the NY premiere that I'm looking for; I forgot to mention it. I'm looking for Paramount's number now, and with your help I hope I'll be able to find out about the premiere. Coming from Seattle and only having lived in NY for about a year, I have never seen a "classic" theater such as the Ziegfeld. It is for this reason that I am so curious about finding the date of the "Sky Captain" premiere, even if it is not at the Ziegfeld itself. That, and possibly catching a glimpse of Angelina Jolie. Again, thanks for your help!

Love this movie theater because I proposed to my wife there two days after Christmas, 2002, right before seeing "Chicago." I went to the concession stand, bought a huge bucket of popcorn, wrapped the ring box in napkins and stuck it down near the top. I got to the seat, she went to grab a handful and pulled out the box. I got down on one knee and said, "Jill, I love you so much. I want to spend the rest of my life with you." Of course, she said yes and everybody around us applauded....

....until this jerk is standing behind me, saying "EXCUSE ME, CAN YOU PLEASE MOVE OUT OF THE WAY!?" The rest of the audience around us started yelling at him. "Hey, shuddup, buddy...he's proposing to his girlfriend!" "Yeah, you moron!"

Ah, this is why I'm proud to be a New Yorker.

You are a real winning combo,CaptRonLI....a New Yorker and a romantic too. Keep up the romance.

Dbrusser, in my humble opinion, the Ziegfeld is not a "classic" movie theatre. If you want to see one of those, you should go to the Times Square Church on West 51st Street, just off Broadway, which is open to everyone during church services. This theatre was originally known as the Hollywood and designed by Thomas W. Lamb, one of the masters. And if you're willing to take a subway or bus uptown, visit the ex-Loew's 175th Street, an even larger movie palace and also designed by Lamb. It's also a church and open to the public during services.

Dear Cinema Treasures Readers,

After years of research, Michael Coate and I are proud to announce that "70mm In NY" has been posted on our site, www.fromscripttodvd.com

To navigate directly to this part of the site, copy and paste the following into your browser:

http://www.fromscripttodvd.com/70mm_in_new_york_main_page.htm

We've included a number of interesting features about "70mm In NY," including an introductory article about the history of 70mm In NY; a theatre list of 70mm equipped houses; a list of the longest running 70mm engagements in NY, and much, much more.

We feel the most exciting part of the site is the list of 70mm engagements. You can click on any year from 1955 through 2004 and find out information on which films played in the NYC-region in 70mm.

As we've seen on this wonderful site, there are quite a few 70mm fans from the New York/New Jersey region, and we hope that you will enjoy this look back on 70mm presentation in your area.

There are some sections of "70mm In NY" that are coming soon, so we please check back.

We encourage your feedback.

Best regards,
William Kallay
Michael Coate
"70mm In NY"

Just a few quick notes about Walter Reade, Jr. and his Ziegfeld. First, oldtimers might remember Reade as the first person Skouras and Fox went after legally in 1954 when Reade refused to run Fox scope films with 4-track mag. He had purchased so-called "integrators" which mixed the 4 channels down into one thus obviating the need and expense of 2 extra stage speakers as well as surrounds. For a number of years, Reade, as an executive of Allied States (independent theatre owner organization) fervently went tooth-and-nail against the Fox 4-channel policy. This is odd considering that this is the same man who a few short years later foisted the ridiculous AromaRama on a largely uninterested world. Later, his distribution arm, Continental, bought the rights to a 70mm documentary. Reade had it reprinted in something called "Wonderama" and ran the film as "Mediterranean Holiday" in a few houses in North Jersey. He even released it "in Cinerama" where it played the Warner for a short period. Later on, Reade was elected to the Board of Directors of Cinerama, Inc. and announced that Cinerama would run at his newly reopened DeMille. This never happened. In 1967, when plans for the Ziegfeld were announced, he claimed it would, too, be a 70mm Cinerama house. Also, according to a press release in the NY Times 12/22/67, "the theater will require formal attire on Saturday nights."
As for the 70mm version of "This Is Cinerama," the free-standing screen (measuring 27x63 feet) stood where the main curtain - which had to be removed - was located. Lights were shown on the screen to represent curtains, even to the extent of "draping" the prologue. This was a trick which was used for a time at the Times Square Paramount when the width of the original VistaVision screen left no room for screen curtains or masking.

Yep the '73 presentation of Cinerma was pretty bad(and never having seen a Cinerama movie I was looking forward to it. 63 feet for Cinerama and no curtain?!) Check out Vincent Canby Sunday Arts and Leisure piece in the Times when it came out. Will someone in New York please do it right?

Sad to say New York will probably never see Cinerama again :(

Don't give up hope. Keep in mind that back in 1995 somebody in Dayton, Ohio was probably saying "sad to say Dayton will probably never see Cinerama again."

As to Vincent's lament above. "63 feet for Cinerama and no curtain!". There were a number of CineMiracle presentations on screens in excess of 80 (EIGHTY) feet with no curtains. Not that I approve, but I'd take it today in a "New York heartbeat"!

If a screen were 80 feet I'd take it as well in a heartbeat!

Digital projection, which had been removed, has been returned to the Ziegfeld. :(

I had the pleasure of seeing a couple films in DLP at the Ziegfeld and did not see any problems with it. Seeing that 70mm seems to be a thing of history I don't see a problem with viewing an unscratched print of a film.
I am hoping that the Ziegeld will be showing 'The Phantom of the Opera' during the Christmas holidays. This would be the perfect theater in NYC for this engagement.

I have never seen anything in DLP, how does it compare?

DLP is O.K.; I've never been particularly blown away by it - I personally don't have any issues with celluloid, I suppose due to my familiarity with it and the vast majority of the 150-170 films I see per year in theatres which AREN'T presented in DLP - but that's just one man's perspective.

Face it: digital is the wave of the future. The only thing that's keeping it from sweeping through all theaters is who will pay for the upgrades? The theater owners or the studios? There was an aritcle in the NYTimes a few months ago about this. From what I've heard, the image is pristine but lacks the "glow" that comes from the celluloid and the projectors lamp.

I have mixed feelings about it. As much as I love the celluloid, there have been a lot of theaters where the image is not what it should be. Yes, it could be the theater's management trying to save a few bucks but it also might be because of the film's poor quality after having been run through so many times.

From what I understand, the term "silver screen" came from the projector's light source which produced a kind of shimmer to the image. With digital, we'll get that pristine image but without that special shimmer.

DLP may have a place in cinema today but I want no part of it. When I go to the movies I want to see a 35/70mm motion picture film projected. I will admit film does show signs of wear like scatches and focus drifts but DLP has it's flaws as well. In some of the theatres I am connected with we have DLP projection, and in a most cases a multipex theatre will be a showing a movie in DLP as well as a film version I have watched both DPL and film versions of the same movie and much prefer the film. As a matter of fact the theatre going public does not know or care about DLP. I remember when "Jurrassic Park" was released in DTS. In every location where a multiplex had two or more prints, it was the theatre showing the film in DTS that was always sold out. The public wanted the big sound. That is not the case with DLP, mainly because the public seems to see little or no advantage to movies projected that way. CConnolly hit the nail on the head with respect to cost, since there seems to be no real advantage for the theatre owners to install the very expensive equipment, it should be the studios who will have to pay at least a part of the expense. The studios of course save a ton of money on film costs and shipping and have the most to gain. By the way, silver screens are only installed today for 3-D engagements and IMAX.

Most people that I deal with as a projectionist do not want digital projection. They have been trying this since I started in the business. It will never match the effect of film.

Projectionist to not want digital because it is the begining of the end for them..

At Loews Raceway they run the promos before the film on video and the quality is very good but it does not have the kick that film does.

Automations and platters were the begining of the end for projectionists. I'm talking about the quality of the picture. Cost is an issue too. It will never look like film. There have been too many issues and problems with digital projection. Yes it looks good, but will never be as good as film. The whole transition to digital was supposed to start happening years ago. They were so up on doing it in the begining. Now I hear less about it then before. I,m not saying this just as a projectionist. I am saying this as a service tech, projectionist, and someone who has worked with and worked on digital projection. I do not see it being widespread any time soon.

The next two bookings at the Ziegfeld are 'Oceans Twelve', beginning December 10th, and, starting December 22nd, 'Andrew Lloyd Webber's The Phantom of the Opera'.

I would have to agree with RCDTJ, Digital projection may grow some, but it will be a long time, if ever, before it replaces film completly. Digital is flat and dull and yes it does have problems with breakdowns, and as I mentioned in another thread, the public just does not care about it.Automation and platters was the reason 25 years ago I switched from projection to management. I can still dable in the booth if I care to, but it is so boring now without lights, curtains and changeovers. I miss "putting on a show" The guys at the Ziegfeld have a platter which has to be, after the Maytag repair man, the worlds most boring job. Threading a projector once every two hours or so has to be dull. Even worse is digital, with nothing to do but babysit the thing.

Vito the public does not have to care about it the theater owners do , and as SOON as digital is perfected you will see it in all your chains..

Can I ask a question about digital? What exactly is the "medium"? Is it a DVD or something? How exactly does the movie get projected?

A few years ago, the NYTimes ran an extensive article about theaters that would receive the movie through a satellite transmission beamed from a source location. The issue was how to prevent hackers from getting the signal and sending it to some other place. Movie piracy of the highest order.

With digital, do the theaters receive a DVD or something of the movie to be shown?

The equipment installed in my theatres is run by a computor with the media (called platter) loaded on to the hard drive. So you might have one or two movies loaded as well as an array of trailers, both for upcoming movies and house specials, such as advertisements, which you would click on in order to show them. The "script" which contains the info you have programmed is them run each time you start the show. The movie is projected thru a lens either flat or anamorphic by means of the same type of Xenon light source, approx. 6000 watts, as film. I have not seen the system which is transmitted thru satellite as yet, I am not sure if that is being used yet.The entire operation is run by computor.

Longislandmovies, When I wrote about the public's lack of interest in DLP, I meant the theatre owners have little to gain here and therefore it will have to be up to thr studios to fit most of the bill to install the equipment. I suppose it's possible some day it will all work out and we will see the end of film in the theatres but I for one do not believe that will ever happen. We will more likely see a shared film and digital presentation for many many more years.

Digital still has a very long way to go. Until I see some major improvements I won't be preparing to switch over in my theater anytime soon.

I agree with Vito. One of the major problems with DLP is who will pay for it. If you make theater owner pay for it, you put all the independent theaters out of business. The theater owners definitely have nothing to gain because DLP is not going to attract more people to the movies. He is also right about possibly shared film and video. They will never replace film completely.

They want the theatre owner to pay for the equipment (last I heard, about $60,000. per screen, probably less now) that will enable the distributor will save the cost of manufacturing, shipping and storing prints - and that is not going to happen. Even if they get it to look exactly like film, the theatre has nothing to gain other than saving the cost of having an usher make up a show. Plus, they are going to have to have all the bugs worked out of it - theatres that got burned with the original SDDS unit, a $15,000. piece of junk, are going to be wary...

A number of entries here describe this theater as having a balcony.

There is NO balcony, only a rear area that rises at a steeper angle than the main orchestra level, and which is separated from the main area by a cross-aisle.

Sound balcony-esque to me LOL

What the Ziegfeld has is a stadium, which is the technical word that theatre architects used. Today the public thinks of that word meaning the entire auditorium on steps.

Years ago when big-splash premieres were done as a reserved-seat benefit with hard tickets at the Ziegfeld and Cinema I, the seat locations on the ticket were "Orchestra" or "Loge" and the row and seat number.

In the big old palaces where there was a real balcony (a cantilevered structure over the orchestra with the seats on steps), the seats were divided into loge (in the front), mezzanine (middle) and balacony (at the top), with the sections divided by cross-aisles.

Some of the larger palaces had the mezzanine on a separate level from the balcony. In the New York Paramount, for example, there was a mezzanine, and then, jutting out above that, was the balcony. At Radio City Music Hall, there were three separate mezzanines, one atop the other. The first, or lowest mezzanine, was operated on a reserved seats only policy. At peak times, such as the Christmas holidays, the second mezzanine was sometimes turned into a reserved-seat section as well.

Digital Cinema is HERE and like it or not it's soon to be at every theater near you. In fact numerous theaters currently receive their digital fature and trailer files via satellite including the Loews 42nd Street E-Walk on two screens locally. the Ziegfeld is not satellite equipped, but receives their digital "prints" on a hard drive which is loaded into the media servers. The files are compressed, encoded and encrypted. They are protected by "keys" which prevent any other specific equipment from playing back a pirated or duplicated file.

Theater owners have never been seriously thought by anyone to be required to pay for the conversion to digital. Sometime soon one or more studio backed financing plans will be in place to provide the funds. While people may not flock to DLP vs. 35mm, they will notice an increase in light output, more even light distribution from corner of image to corner of image and a rock steady picture without any degradation after multiple showings. Also, since the distribution cost will be significantly reduced vs. film, more theaters and markets will be able to show a wider variety of movies that otherwise would receive only limited distribution.

An earlier poster mentioned sound ... with a pristine digital sound file, the quality of sound will only be limited to the quality of the sound processing and speaker equipment in an auditorium.

There are limitations with the current 1.3K resolution DLP projectors in use. These will however, soon be replaced with newer 2K DLP projectors allowing screens the size of the Ziegfeld's to be completely filled and not cropped and still retain light, brilliance and clarity at least matching if not exceeding that of 35mm "analog" film. Furthermore Sony has in the works a 4K projection system.

Before "assuming" the world of cinema quality digital cinema is anything like internet based movie downloads, or even DVD like quality, consider the massive file sizes required for a cinema screen vs. a computer monitor or even a large screen HD television. DO not confuse "digital" home entertainment media with Digital Cinema.

One final thought for now ... those "pre-show" advertisements and mini-commercials shown at many theaters around the country are being projected via small NON Cinema grade projectors. They are low on light output and in most cases not designed to project the distances they are now being used for. On top of that, the source material is grainy and usually poor in quality as it was designed for use on television and has too low a level of resolution to be projected any actual distance and size.

The circuits using this pre-show technology to show "movies" are doing a disservice to the public and diminishing the quality of the experience. I suspect that the poor box office they have to date realized from their experiments may curtail it's use in the future, but that may be giving too much credit.

movieboss you hit the nail on the head

I have been hearing that Digital Cinema will be at every theater for 12 years now. If you are telling me that it will replace every screen in every theater, it will not happen. Digital Cinema is not film. You will always be able to tell the difference. I have seen the real Digital Cinema. I am not talking about the cheap imitations.

why didnt you tell me about the Aviator premiere at the Zeigfeld yesterday ;[

While 'The Aviator' was having its 'premiere' at the Ziegfeld last night, its little-publicized 12-day run (four-walled by Miramax for award-voting committees but with all remaining tickets to the public) at the Angelika was coming to an end.

As much as I cant wait to see the Aviator, I would not have wanted to see it at the Angelika. Oh by I miss the Syosset 150.

Again, why the HELL couldn't they open "The Aviator" at the Music Hall? Can you imagine seeing that there? Oh, that's right...they have the "Spectacular" there and it would interfere...

But as much as The Ziegfeld gets somewhat of a bad rep here on this site, I was there in 1995 to see "Braveheart" and I have to say I was mightily impressed with it's size, the screen and the sound. It was very nice inside though you'd never guess it from the outside. It's so plain.

I visited the Ziegefeld many times and never had problems with the film being out-of-focus. "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" was very clear.

YankeeMike mentions that he saw "How The West Was Won" in Cinerama. I also saw it in Manhattan in Cinerama but I can't remember the name of the theater. I thought it was named the "Loews Cinerama" but there is no listing for such a theater. It's true that 3 projectors were used and often the images did not exactly match and the colors of each were slightly different; making it annoying to watch. I also saw "2001, A Space Odyssey" at the same theater in Cinerama. Can anybody remember which Manhattan theater showed the 3-projector Cinerama?

Loew's Cinerama is listed here under its original name of the Capitol Theatre, one of the most signficant and influential "movie palaces" ever built.

"Can anybody remember which Manhattan theater showed the 3-projector Cinerama?
#1 the Broadway beginning 9/30/52. Then the Warner in June 53. Then the Capitol which was temporarily renamed Loews Cinerama in Aug of 1962. The 2 MGM films, Bros Grimm and HTWWW played there. Single projector "Cinerama" 70mm opened at the Warner 11/63. 3-projector CineMiracle ran at the Roxy from April through the Summer of 1958. The Russian Kinopanorama played - however briefly - at the Mayfair (before it became the DeMille). 3-projector Cinerama also ran at the Syosset (Long Island) and the Claridge (Upper Montclair NJ).

CC were you ever in the Warner Cinerama or the Rivoli or Criterion before they were twinned?
Then you'll know why we give the Ziegfeld a bad rap. Though today its the best game in town. I was hoping they would have a Todd AO retro next year for the anniversary but I doubt it. They should have had MFL for its 40th in Super Panavision 70 which they had in '93 and it was an enormous success. And how about the restored Mary Poppins for an engagement before its release on DVD(a re-premiere with Andrews and Van Dyke in attendance?) That of course would have been perfect for Nov at the Music Hall along with the Christmas show (which could have been cut in half with no loss.)But that would make too much sense. These high paid execs make too much money to actually know what they're doing.

Myron, the 3 projector Cinerama process had it's problems. You mentioned the colors not matching, this was a problem with the carbon arcs not keeping up as they burned in one or more projectors. This diference in the burning point betwen the arc and the projector gate, even if ever so slight, would cause one of the images to be slighty darker or off color. A good projectionist did not allow this to happen. Another projectionist error occured when the images did not match exactly, many problems contributed to that. First of all, the sync marks on the leader had to match on all three projectors and sound reproducer before the show started. Then from time to time there would be a film break, and when the film was repared mistakes were made. For example, a break in the film would require a splice be made, if you lost a couple of frames in the Baker print, for example, you would have to splice in a "slug" of black film to replace the missing footage, so that the three prints remained in sync.The alternative would be to remove the missing footage from the other two prints as well as the sound print, this to my knowledge was never done. In other words a film break in Cinerama was a NIGHTMARE. We had the same problem with two projector 3-D projection and it was handled the same way. I strangly miss those days. sigh

I believe the Broadway, Warner and Capitol theatres were the only ones in Manhattan that had the 3 projector system. I know it sounds crazy but I perferred seeing the lines between the films in the three projector system as opposed to the later version of Cinerama. Even know the screen was just as wide it just seemed different. While it's possible to see a 3-D movie in NY. (At the Film Forum) it's a shame there is no place in the area where a 3 projector Cinerama film can be screened. I believe the only theatre that can show those films is in Seattle.

I never saw any film in Cinerama. The first 70mm film I saw was Gone With The Wind in 1967 at the Randolph theater in Phila. It was a cinerama house so I was so awed by the curved screen.

To YankeeMike: The Arclight Cinemas Cinerama Dome on Sunset Blvd. in Hollywood can also show 3-strip Cinerama. Too bad both 3-strip theaters are on the West Coast, far away from us in the East. The closest remaining giant curved Cinerama screen is, I believe, the Uptown in Washington, DC. They played "2001" three years ago and it was overwhelming.

mikeeoklandpark, I am sorry to read your first experience with 70mm was "Gone with thw wind" which remains the worst example of 70mm
ever made.I am also sorry you missed out on Cinerama and hope some day you have a chance to experience one of the great inovations in film presentation.
Yankeemike,I would agree with you about 70mm Cinerama, it was just an improved 70mm format at best.I believe the first one I ever played was "Mad Mad World". Many people thought, gee if only they had waited a while and made all Cinerama films in 70mm it would have avoided a lot of cost with all that Charlie, Baker, Able stuff.
I never thought that way, 3 strip Cinerama was in a class of it's own and it just would not have been the same, when Mr. Thomas said "This Is Cinerama" and I pushed that button to open the curtain to show that roller coaster on that huge 3 strip screen, well...
it was breathtaking.

I was a little too young for "This Is Cinerama", but I was able to see all the other 3 strip films that came out in the 60's at both the Warner and Capitol theatres. When the train derailed in "How The West Was Won" the audiance reaction was almost the same as it would be for today's Imax 3-D films.

Some comments about the above comments.

-I saw MAROONED opening week in December 1969 at the Zeigfeld. There was a console in the theatre's center controlling everything. I assume it not there anymore.

-The Criterion used to closed down from time to time in the 70s waiting for good product. Question...what do you do with the employees during the down time? Fire 'em and rehire them?

-Here in Wisconsin, Marcus Theatres is installing "Ultra Screens" is some of their multiplexes. They make two auditoriums into one and install a 75 foot, floor to ceiling screen.

-There is guy in Ohio who has a 3 strip Cinerama print of HOW THE WEST WAS WON and shows it in a make shift sort of theatre (I think in his home!).

I hope someone in New York puts in one of those ultra screens but wont hold my breath :(

Don: I remember that console too. During a revival of WEST SIDE STORY in 1972 a guy was controlling the sound from there, and he kept making it worse. These really loud popping noises started happening - until he turned the console off and walked away, then everything was fine. I think the console is still there, only it's boarded up.

Yes Bill and Don, I was a projectionist in 1969 when Marooned opened at the Ziegfeld, at a time when automation was beginning to creep into our lives. There was a guy at that console telling people how he controlled everything including the projection. The idiot even went so far as to suggest they did not even need anyone in the booth, to which, with much sarcasum, I said "really, can you thread the projectors, control focus, and maintaine the booth from here as well"? I also reminded him and the other patrons that without the projectionist up there there would be no show. No comment came
from Mr. "I control everything".

Vito, I wonder if he was the same guy that I saw 3 years later. I'm surprised he was still working there after all that time. I think I remember some people in the audience applauding when he walked away from the console!

>>"Gone with the wind" which remains the worst example of 70mm
ever made...

Of course, Gone With the Wind wasn't made in 70mm, it was just monstrously blown up to that size 30-something years after it was made. I saw GWTW for the first time in that 70mm print at the UA Syosset 150, and I was shocked at the poor quality (everything was fuzzy and grainy) and the obvious cropping of the image at the top and bottom. I couldn't belive this was the biggest grossing picture of all time! The curved screen was pretty neat, as long as nothing was being projected onto it.

I later saw GWTW at RCMH in its proper aspect ratio, and of course it was magnificent.

Saps, I should have said the worst blow up, I knew of course it was not shot in 70, although 70 had been used in the early 30s, remember "The Big Trail" with John Wayne shot in "70mm Granduer"?
Even the 35mm magnetic four track prints of "GWTW" were horrible.
Of course many many 35mm films were blown up for the roadshow engaements, "Funny Girl", "Oliver" to name a few but they looked and sounded half way decent.
Bill, I guess the audience was made to believe that console guy actually ran the whole show. I would have had him arrested for being an impostor trying to dupe people into believing he was a showman.

Vito, I don't think I made myself clear when I mentioned the audience applauding. They clapped in the middle of the movie when he finally gave up, turned the console off and walked away. He was actually ruining the show, because all the sound glitches disappeared when he stopped whatever he was doing.

It would have been wonderful if The Phantom Of The Opera was filmed in 70mm. It would have been great on the huge 70mm screen at the Ziegfeld.

Oh Bill, I wish I had been there to witness that. In no stretch of the imagination was he "running the show", but more like ruining it. I imagine all he had was a remote sound control at the console, along with lights and curtain controls. The remote sound control is not uncommon, many producers and directors like to have one at their seat during a studio preview. As a matter of fact I sat with Arthur Hiller during his screening of the W.C. Fields life story. (forget the title)He played with it from time to time, raising and lowering the sound at will.

Vito, that showing of West Side Story in 1972 was the first time I'd been to the Ziegfeld, and when I saw the console I was sure impressed. It seemed like the theater of the future - until we saw and heard the thing in action, doing more harm than good. I have to look for it the next time I see a movie there.

Bill,I used to like to hang out around the console at RCMH to watch that guy in action. He would never really speak to anyone but he was busy taking care of business. His, in contrast to the Ziegfeld guy's, job was important to the presentation. By the way.,when you go back to the Ziegfeld and there is someone at the console, ask him what he does for a living and what his purpose is in being there. Then ask him to take a break and let the pros in the booth handle the show.(sarcasum)

I don't think anyone has actually operated the console in many years. I've seen lots of movies there and the only time I saw the console not closed up was that time in 1972. It might not even be there anymore - they may have taken it out when they replaced all the seats several years ago. I'll be sure to check for it the next time I'm there. The Phantom of the Opera is playing there now - sounds like a good movie to see at the Ziegfeld.

What would it take to convince exhibitors that there is a market for presenting movies in exclusive runs either at the Ziegfeld, RCMH or even the smaller Cinema I. Phanthom of the Opera, the Aviator, even Return of the Phoenix & Alexander among the current crop of releases deserved an exclusive run. Having seen Mike Nichol's Closer on opening day at the Loews' 19th St., felt like I was sitting in a bomb shelter during an air raid. Very different from having seen Carnal Knowledge at it's initial release at the Beekman. Poor Marcus Loew, a sad tribute to Loews on the company's 100th year anniversary.

Yes Astyanax, around this time of year many movies scheduled for wide release in early 2005 have an exclusive limited run in order to qualify for Academy Awards. Why not do something like that for perhaps 10 days - two weeks exclusively ay RCMH or Ziegfeld?
Bill, I was glad to see Phantom is being presented in 35mm film
(although 70mm would have been great),and not Digital as is is in some other locations. Wonder if they took they Digital equipment out again. I hope they did.

How many more years could this theater have in the world of high realestate values?

If this theatre goes bye-bye, where will those flashy premieres be held?

Article today in the Daily News. Appears safe for now.
http://nydailynews.com/front/story/267684p-229120c.html

Here's the article from the NY Daily News. These links eventually go away and you can't read the article later on.

It's not the most hard hitting article but at least The Ziegfeld is getting some press.

Ziegfeld defies multiplex trend
BY ETHAN SACKS
DAILY NEWS WRITER
Monday, January 3rd, 2005

When "The Phantom of the Opera" opened recently at the Ziegfeld Theatre, fans of New York's largest single-screen movie theater hoped the musical's song, "Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again," didn't prove prophetic.
Known as the place to have big premieres in the city, the Ziegfeld is in its own cinematic drama, fighting for its financial life against the more popular multiplexes. While Clearview Cinemas, which owns the 35-year old theater, shows no signs of giving up without a fight, it's clearly defying the trend.

The number of single screen theaters in the U.S. dipped to 1,684 last year from 2,280 in 2001, said Jim Kozak, spokesman for the National Association of Theater Owners. Multiplexes have changed the way movies are watched - from large, communal events to convenient ways of filling two hours.

"There's just something about those old single-screen theaters that are just so stately and interesting and harkens back to a different time," says Paul Dergarabedian, president of the movie trade group Exhibitor Relations.

"But if the business model is that teenagers love the stadium seating and they want to have a bunch of choices at the multiplex where they can decide to see one among ten different film, that's where the business is heading. The profitability of those theaters will dictate if they stay in business or go the way of the dinosaur." Degarabedian said.

The fossilized remains of what was recently the largest single-screen in Manhattan - by 130 seats - can be seen in Times Square. The marquee of the Loews Astor Plaza still advertises M. Night Shyamalan's "The Village," the film that closed the theater's 30-year run.

Real estate costs have driven many of these big single-screen theaters out of business - although Radio City Music Hall and the Beacon Theater were converted into live venues.

Clearview Cinemas spokesperson Beth Simpson reassures fans of the W. 54th St. icon, which boasts 1,195 seats. "Staying competitive with multiplexes is not really what the Ziegfeld does," said Simpson. "It's a completely different experience."

For the year-to-date, however, the Ziegfeld ranked 159th in ticket sales in New York, according to Nielsen EDI, a box office tracking service. The gargantuan AMC Empire 25 multiplex near Times Square ranked No. 1.

The Ziegfeld's house allowance - the cost of running the theater in a given week that is subtracted from the gross before a film's distributor can take its cut of the receipts - is reputed to be one of the highest in the nation.

Still, the Ziegfeld remains the popular choice to rent for gala premieres for movies like "Cold Mountain" and the "Harry Potter" films.

"The places in New York to have a premiere of what they do regularly in Los Angeles, they are pretty few and far between," said Ian Mohr, a film reporter for Variety. "If you want to get that vibe of the glitzy Los Angeles-style red carpet premiere in New York, it's very difficult to do unless you do it at the Ziegfeld. "

Celebrity glitz adds to the theater's historical legacy - the lobby showcases memorabilia from the original Broadway "Ziegfeld Follies," performed on the same site - but it's regular folks who will determine the theater's future.

"As long as there are passionate movie-goers out there who enjoy the Ziegfeld experience, I think that this theater can thrive," said Simpson.

The present Ziegfeld is not on the same site as the original Ziegfeld, but just west of it, between 54th and 55th Streets. The original Ziegfeld was on the site of a current Sixth Avenue office tower, and had its entrance on Sixth Avenue.

Vito: I was there on New Year's Eve and, sure enough, the control console is gone. It was replaced by the new seats. Phantom of the Opera was not so hot, unfortunately. What was dramatic and compelling on the Broadway stage becomes no big deal in the movie version. During the more boring moments I'm glad I had the Ziegfeld's walls and ceiling to look at!

Gone are the days sadly where Broadway shows make great musicals like Oklahoma and Sound of Music. I did love Chicago though. Was Phantom in scope?

With an over the top director like Joel Schumacher at the helm of "Phantom" what did anyone expect? But in a place like The Ziegfeld, it's the only place I'd even consider seeing something like that (and I won't).

"Phantom" was in scope and it did look great on the Ziegfeld screen, but something was missing from the whole enterprise compared to the Broadway version. Emmy Rossum sang beautifully, though. This was my second time seeing her at the Ziegfeld in 2004, the first being "The Day After Tomorrow".

I agree with you, RobertR, about "Chicago". That was a knockout when it played an exclusive run at the Ziegfeld. It felt like the good old days had returned, for a while at least.

Bill, I would have to agree Phantom is not very good. Sure glad the console is gone. Thanks for letting me know. I think the Digital projection is gone as well, Phantom, although available and playing in other theatres in Digital format, is on film.

Regarding the "house allowance" for the Ziegfeld referred to in the Daily News article. Until the mid-1990s or thereabouts, Variety published the grosses for individual theaters in Manhattan, and those entries often included the weekly "nut" for that theater ("house allowance" in Variety-speak). The Ziegfeld's weekly "nut" was in the $30,000 range; higher than any other film theater in Manhattan, including the Astor Plaza. As that figure must be at least 7-8 years old, I assume that the Ziegfeld's "nut" is significantly higher now.

I doubt that the current run of "Phantom" is clearing the weekly "nut"; I attended an early evening Ziegfeld showing on a weekday between Christmas and New Year's and there weren't more than several dozen people in the audience.

When the Ziegfeld has an NYC exclusive, it can do huge business; during the early weeks of "Chicago"'s run, many showings sold out hours in advance. But the "Chicago" exclusive run was an anomaly; the only other Ziegfeld exclusive in the past few years that comes to mind is the Disney animated film "Brother Bear." It stands to reason that the revenue from rentals for special screenings/premieres is the only way that Cablevision/Clearview can keep those doors open.

On a theater chat site a writer who was at the Ziegfeld to see Phantom last night(a Sunday!!) says there were about 14 people in the audience. This was built in '69 to be an exclusive theater not a competitor on showcase. How long can this go on?
I know I'm beating a dead horse but you guys have got to have a Todd AO anniversary festival to bring more than 20 people into the theater. Install a larger screen in front of the old one like the one you had for Cinerama in '73, get the PR and watch the crowds come. I mean have any of you who currently work for Clearview or Cablevision ever heard of Todd AO or Cinerama?
I'm probably speaking a foreign language that's been lost.

They're holding a 50th-anniversary Todd-AO festival in Bradford, England in March. I wish Clearview would listen to what Vincent is saying - there's no reason why we couldn't have that same festival right here at the Ziegfeld. People would come from all over the world to see it.

Ok Warren, Bill, Vincent and all, I say we buy the place, throw Clearview out and run it properly. Starting with a 70mm festival.

And with Vito in the booth we'd have one of the best projectionists in the business right off the bat. I'd sure love to have the chance to put my money where my mouth is ... if I actually had the money!

I would not blame The Ziegfeld for the poor turn out for "Phantom". The movie is not getting good reviews or word of mouth and it's being marketed poorly (probably because the releasing studio knows it's got a stinker).

In 1995, I saw "Braveheart" here and it was packed. I know some people here knock the Ziegfeld but I thought the place was awesome.

With the right movie, the place can be amazing. I like "Chicago" and I can only imagine that it must've been impressive there.

There are articles in the NYTimes about the dismal movie season. Yes, grosses are up for the studios but all the articles point out that it's because the ticket prices are higher. Actually ticket sales are down by about 6%. It's the second year in a row. There's been talk for awhile about posting actually number of tickets sold along side the grosses. But the studios are frightened by that prospect because it would reveal for all to see just how movie going is slipping.

Why are ticket sales down? Easy: the movies lately SUCK!

You want people to plant their money paying butts in theater seats, make something worthwhile.

CC were you ever in the Rivoli or the Criterion before they were sliced and diced?
As for my previous post about the empty perf at the Ziegfeld I got my info from a talkinbroadway site. The home page has a beautiful color interior of a picture palace. Does anyone know which it is?
Do they know they have a movie theater to epitomize a legit house?
Speaking of which a little while ago a Japanese Decca cd line had an opera series which used what they obviously thought was the interior of a great European opera house on its cover. Well that great European opera house was the Paradise in the Bronx!

Bill, thanks for the kind words, it was a lot of fun and we took a lot of pride in being a projectionist in those days. I dearly miss that.
Vincent, you mentioned seeing the Criterion before it was cut up, remember when it was renovated for the roadshow of
"10 Commandments"? curtains, seats, walls, everything was red.

Vito the first time I was in the Criterion it was for MFL in the summer of '65 as a fluke. It was raining and we couldn't go to the World's Fair. It was a matinee and as a little boy I was amazed that people were all dressed up for the movies. In the suburbs it was even at that time very casual. I had never heard of MFL and thought it was a bore. The experience itself of going to a deluxe Times Square roadshow house was however unforgettable. I have since revised my opinion of the film and had I been an adult at the time I certainly would have been a frequent visitor to that late and deeply lamented movie theater(the last time I was in it was for Alien though god knows I wish it had been some wide screen epic or musical from the 50's or 60's.)
What was the Criterion like before the 10 C? Was it much different?

My memory of the Criterion stretches back to "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" in July '48 and "The Life of Riley" in April '49, through various Disney features in the early '50s ("Alice in Wonderland," a revival of "Snow White") to "The Ten Commandments" and beyond. It seems to me that the theater remained the same throughout, clad chiefly in red plaster with a red traveller curtain. (See Warren's web link posite on the Criterion page last 25 July and my reply on 7 August.) I remember being slightly disappointed that the VistaVision screen for "The Ten Commandments" was not as large or curved as the Todd-AO screen at the Rivoli, but that kind of screen would have required alterations such as thrusting the viewing surface in front of the proscenium, which the Criterion refrained from doing. The theater might have been spruced up for its roadshows with brighter lighting and new fabrics, but in the original colors and with no change in design.

But BOB in the Variety review of South Pacific it seems to say the Criterion installed a large curved screen just for this presentation. He comments that the heads look like the heads on Mt Rushmore.

Vincent--that could be true. I did not see "South Pacific" there, but I did see "Anatomy of a Murder" which followed it there in Summer '59, and the house seemed unchanged (perhaps they had dismantled the special screen). The last film I saw at the Criterion was "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" (day-dating at the Tower East)in Summer '66. Same old trappings, but the audience was so garrulous that I decided to avoid Times Square for serious films and to take my business to the East side. I've never been to the Ziegfeld, since I decamped from NYC before it was built. Should I visit it if I happen to be in town?

I'm sorry you didn't see Funny Girl there I would like to have known what that was like.
I understand for Woolf the lines were down to Sixth Av! That must have been an amazing sight.
You must definately visit the Ziegfeld if you are in town. It is all that is left that in any way reflects what moviegoing was like for most of the 20th Century(though built in '69.) I have often disparaged it on this page as it in no way compares to the great NY cinemas but it was an attempt to recreate a Times Square house in the more friendly environs of 6th Av. Though it did not fully succeed(for me)I would rather see an epic or musical there today than anywhere else in Manhattan.

Vito, some of us still take pride in being a projectionist.

RCDTJ, I know a lot of projectionists who still take a lot of pride in the job. However, you must admit, in most cases. it's just not the same now as before automation, platters and multiplex's. In my day we "put on a show" Dimming house lights as the last of the intermission music began to fade, then opening the curtain just as the stage lights were dimming, and opening/raising the curtain being carefull not to expose any white screen. Then there were the reel changes every 15-20 minutes where you took great pride in timing the changeover perfectly as not to interupt the presentation. Ending the movie had to be perfect as well, the curtain had to be in the full closed position as the title faded, again no white screen or titles running over the closed curtain, with the stage lights to full up position at the same moment the curtains finished closing. Of course the big days came with the Roadshow presentations with overtures, intermissions and exit music, all coordinated perfectly.
Now a days it's all automation, you thread a platter set a timer and your finished. I prefered the days before I retired when we were showmen, is all I am saying.
Bill, I could be wrong but I don't remember the Criterion installing VistaVision projectors for "10 Commandments", I thought it was a reduction print.The only VistaVision projectors I recall were at RCMH and Paramount. In fact I recall when "White Christmas" opened at the Hall, they had temporary VistaVision projectors installed without sound heads, the sound had to be interlocked with two projectors untill the finished projectors were built and installled.
Do you have more info on how "10 Commandments" was projected?

Vincent, Bill, "South Pacific" was of course a true 70mm
(Todd-AO I think) presentation at the Criterion, "Funny Girl", "Oliver" and many others were a blow up from the 35mm neg which in my opinion never compared to the real thing. We were bombared in the 60s with these 70mm blowups and I thought they paled by comparision. The image was sharp but dull, and the colors a bit faded. However, the magnificent six track magnetic sound made up for the picture quality. Would you agree?

Vito...I remember how perfectly the curtins were timed with the movie ending. Now, it's a white with ads from a slide projector befor and after the movie. Whatever happened to showmanship?

Vito...I remember how perfectly the curtins were timed with the movie ending. Now, it's a white screen with ads from a slide projector before and after the movie. Whatever happened to showmanship?

You're all absolutely correct. Most theaters now have no showmanship. However, it's good to know the Ziegfeld is still open. Not a movie palace, but an interesting, pleasant, middle size theater that is idiosyncratic and plush in its interior, even if the exterior is just a box.

Just found out they are showing, "Phantom of the Opera." A great place for this movie.

As someone once said to me, "The Ziegfeld. Best projection in the city." Who knew this was a craft, now that it's disappearing?

Vito,
Though I didn't see Funny Girl or Oliver during their original roadshow runs(saw them in the burbs)the restored FG at the Ziegfeld just looked like any other Panavision film. Why these films couldn't have been shot in a 70mm process is beyond me after all in the same period CCBB and Star were. However I don't think the sound is as good in these restored prints as it was back in the days of true 6 track sound. Blow up 70mm at the Music Hall looks especially bad as I remember Scrooge and Tom Sawyer looking grainy and washed out.
By the way I hate exposed screens. It's like staring at an unattractive naked person.

Question for the theater professionals on this site (and forgive me for asking if it seems like a stupid question) but what, in general, were or are movie theater screens made of? Additionally, how do theaters clean them (or should I say, should clean them...some theaters these days don't look like they ever do!).

I either read about this (maybe on this site) or heard about it in a documentary that Stanley Kubrick wanted a theaters wall (where the movie was projected) painted black for "A Clockwork Orange" but that the theater made a mistake and painted it a different color. Anyone know that story and what color they actually painted it? And how many theaters simply projected onto a wall?

Thanks!

CConnolly -

Most theatre screens are made out of vinyl, which is then stretched around a frame of some sort. The are small perforations in the material to allow the sound to transmit through from the speaker(s) behind it. The front surface of the screen is generally a matte white surface (silver is sometimes used - that's what we use at the Lafayette Theatre - mostly for installations that plan to run 3-D) that has a slight bit of reflective material in it. Cleaning a screen is difficult, most products will remove the coating and the screen darkens in those sections. There are companies that professionally clean screens, but it's expensive and can not always remove the dirt & stains.

The Kubrick story is that when A Clockwork Orange was set to premiere in New York, the theatre had a screen mounted on the front wall (not projecting on the wall itself) with no curtaining or masking on the surrounding wall. The theatre painted the wall and ceiling around the screen an orange color, which would look awful with a projected image in the middle of it. When Kubrick heard about this (he always sent representative to the first-run theatres to check their presentations), he demanded the wall be painted the proper flat black color. I don't know of any theatres that use the wall, but I'm sure there's one someplace.

I might not be correct regarding the color of the walls in the Kubrick section of my post above - it might have been white and not orange. I will check out my references.

"A Clockwork Orange" opened in NYC at Cinema I -- did the management there do that? Whew!

PeterApruzzese: thanks for the info. I wish I could remember the source of the Kubrick story.

As for cleaning of the screens, some multiplexes ought to do it more often especially the Loews Palisades Center. I'm getting sick and tired of a movie's image being marred by some of the giant smears that I see on some of their screens.

The theater CConnolly, Pete and BoxOfficeBill are talking about, the Cinema I, is in the news today. It's going to be torn down this spring, unless it can somehow be saved. I'll never forget going there to see "The Exorcist" on its third day - the most frightened audience I've ever been a part of.

You should have seen the BUZZ when this theater played Last temptation of Crist. WOW

TYPO

Don, projectionist no longer have the control over the show we had in my day. It's all automated, a push of the button and what ever happens is very mechanical now. Curtains have all but disapeared and most of the theatres that still have curtains leave them open for those damm slides.
Vincent, I guess once the studio's realised they could get away with filming in 35mm and doing a 70mm blow up they saw $ signs in the savings on raw stock during filming.I so much agree that the result was a washed out pale comparision of true 70mm, By the way the original 70mm "Funny Girl" was no better than the reissue at the Ziegfeld. Those blow ups at RCMH were awful as well, the changeover to xenon lamps from carbon arc just added to the problem at RCMH, there just wasn't enough light. By ther way, if you thought the lines for Woolf were long, you should have been there in 1954 when Jane Russell's "French Line" played the Criterion in 3-D, the lines were so long you would have thought they were giving away money.

Vito it's too bad about Funny Girl. The Stradling cinematography is excellent and the the Callahan production superb. And it had the Criterion(reserved in the summer of 67 while the film was in production)which had the premiere 70mm presentations of two of the greats-Lady and Lawrence.
At the Ziegfeld you had an exposed screen and what seemed like a half an hour of commercials before the overture even started! There was a time when you paid to see a movie and that's what they showed you.

Vincent, with respect to "Lawrence", In the early days of the films release, David Lean insisted that if you did not play it in 70mm you could not show it at all. For my money, "Funny Girl" was better in 35mm four track than the awful washed out 70mm blowup, which I imagine Stradling had to have hated. As for the "Funny Girl" showing at the Ziegfeld, I can only imagine what a unprofessional cookie cutter presentaion that was, I'm guessing the overture was played with a white bare screen? Well.... there ought to be a law. To think I almost went to see it, sure glad I didn't.

Yes the overture was played with the screen stark naked(I averted my gaze to avoid the ugliness.) However they closed the screen for the intermission but I don't think they did at the end, though I might have left before the restoration credits fully unfurled. Why does it take more people to restore a movie than to make it?

As for Lean what was up with Zhivago? Boy if there was a movie that needed 70mm it was that one. And this was '65 when every roadshow was filmed in the process. How could he have possibly filmed it in Panavision and then shown it as a blow up? Though probably I would have been the only one to notice.

Vincent, that was a shocker, David lean wanted to film Zhivago in 70mm, however MGM said no. The end result, shot in Panavision, did look better than most blowups. But you are so right, Zhivago was so right for 70mm, so was River Kwai for that matter. Kwai did not even get the blow up treatment, in fact the only prints I recall were 35mm optical (mono). Columbia did not even make mag stereo prints available at the time.

Wait- there are 3 Peters? Peter Pagano, Peter Appruzzese, and me- Peter Huffman?

Does anybody here know if any of the films in the original "Star Wars" trilogy played at the Ziegfeld prior to the 1997 Special Edition releases? I know all three opened at the Loews Astor Plaza (R.I.P.), but have been unable to determine whether they made their way over to 54th Street at some point during their initial or re-releases.

SJL: I'd say the first time a Star Wars film played at the Ziegfeld was the Special Edition of "Star Wars" in 1997. You're right about the Astor Plaza - that was always the big-screen home of Star Wars in New York when the films were new. I think I would've tried to see them at the Ziegfeld if any of them had played there as a reissue.

FYI. This week's Village Voice has an ad for a reissue of "Raging Bull" that opens at the Ziegfeld on January 28 for an exclusive run prior to the release of the special edition DVD in early February.

Regarding the coming showing of Raging Bull at the Ziegfield:

It's lovely to see a classic movie up on the big Ziegfeld single screen, but when one considers this more carefully, it is probably yet another disaster for the theater. Perhpas part of a management plan to demonstrate the need to close the theater for good?

Theatrical re-releases right before a DVD release are just cost-effective marketing tools to sell the DVD. An ad gets printed in the movie sections of newspapers, where DVD buyers are likely to it. Local film critics provide further hype, doing pieces that are usually fed to them by the studios, prominently mentioning the coming DVD. The actual showing of the film is an afterthought -- making money on admissions is not what the re-lease is about. The film usually plays for a week at the smallest screen available -- because how many people will pay for a single viewing of a film they can own the next week for roughly the same price as a ticket and a popcorn? I've wondered whether anyone would notice if the theatrical re-release never really took place.

The recent pre-DVD release of "Donnie Darko" is a case in point. Even though the film has a strong cult following, and even though the re-release was the first chance to see a significantly altered version of the film, it played to nearly empty art-house auditoriums.

I hope I'm wrong -- NYC is full of true movie lovers -- but I predict that Raging Bull will play to a horribly empty Ziegfeld. What are the true motives behind this?

MGM Home Video is also releasing on DVD on the same date "New York, New York", "Boxcar Bertha".
Remember that "Raging Bull" was voted the Best Movie for the 1980's. The Special Edition of "Raging Bull" has been available in region 2 for a year now.

I noticed that the Ziegfeld was mentioned in yesterday's (1/20/05) "USA Today" article written by Ross Melnick and Andreas Fuchs, "Ten Great Places to Revel in Cinematic Grandeur." While, in a sense, I can understand why they included the Ziegfeld in the article (I can see how, in a narrow sense, it meets their criteria), the listing of it in such an article made me think of the concept and the expression, "defining deviance down."

I believe it was the late New York Senator and former Harvard professor (among other things), Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who coined this phrase. And if I understand it correctly, the idea of the phrase is to point out that a lot of behavior that was once considered bad is now considered "OK" because we have been unconsciously lowering our standards -- "defining deviance down."

So, in connection with the Ziegfeld, it seems to me that this theater is now considered a "great" place for seeing movies only because we have re-defined "cheap," "tasteless," and "uninspired" downward -- thus enabling the Ziegfeld to now be considered "great."

I've only been to the Ziegfeld a few times, and even the last time was probably many years ago. (I saw "That's Entertainment" there in the early 1970s, and I went there a time or two after that for movies I can't remember at the moment.) So my memories of it are probably a bit fuzzy. But when I first saw the theater I was kind of embarrassed at just how "tacky" it was -- even as a public space on its own, without even beginning to compare it with the truly beautiful, grand and imaginatively designed movie theaters and movie palaces that used to be the norm.

In a way this is strange for me to say, because I am all for exuberant decoration and the breaking of the "rules" of "good" modern design. But rather than being in "poor" taste (poor taste being the aesthetic preferences of a minority that happens to be out of favor with the taste "establishment"), the Ziegfeld struck me as being a place where nobody really cared about taste, and thus little real thought was given to its design. It seems to me that the owners/"designers" of the Ziegfeld just decided to use left-over materials from a "Gay '90s" steak house and to indiscriminately plaster the stuff around the inside of a plain "modern" box. (If I remember correctly, there was also some kind of New Orleans balcony type grill work also stuck up on some of the walls.)

When I noticed that the Ziegfeld began to be used for premieres, I believe I was embarrassed that such a "tacky" theater would be used for such functions in New York City and thus represent to Hollywood the "best" that the city had to offer -- when L.A. had (at least in my imagination, don't know if it actually was used for premieres) the magnificent Graumann's Chinese!

I realize, especially from reading the posts on this site, that movie theaters are more than just their architecture and design. Just as important -- actually, even more so -- is the way a theater presents a movie (e.g., the quality of the picture, the quality of the sound, etc.). And I don't mean to include this aspect in my comments about the Ziegfeld. As far as I can recall, I don't remember any problems in this regard.

While I realize the title of the piece was "Ten Great Places to Revel in Cinematic Grandeur," and thus implied theaters of a certain seating capacity (and pomposity), I wish the authors had chosen a slightly different title (say, "Ten Great Places to Revel in a Special Cinematic Experience") which would have allowed them to include smaller, luxurious (but less pompous) theaters in their article also. In that case, they could have included the endangered "Beekman" theater -- a handsome art moderne theater that offers, in my opinion, a truly special single-screen movie going experience in Manhattan.

In light of all the above pro and con about the Ziegfeld, I find the following paragraph from a NYT 12/22/67 article "A Ziegfeld Cinema to Rise on 54th St." interesting (and funny). It states, "For those who like a touch of elegance with their moviegoing, the theater will require formal attire on Saturday nights."

There is no greater disdainer of the Ziegfeld than myself Benjamin but it is all that is left in Manhattan. The very last!!
And I have to say it was better than the National or the Astor Plaza.
Talk about damning with faint praise. If it goes though I won't be too sorry. A 50 ft screen? Sheesh.

The Ziegfeld may not be ideal but it's one of the few theaters that attempts to recreate the grandeur of the old movie palaces. The only other surviving NYC movie theater (that continues to operate as a movie theater, that is) that even comes close is the Loews auditorium at the Loews Lincoln Square.

And seeing a classic film at the Ziegfeld in 70MM is a great experience (such as "My Fair Lady" in the early 1990s and the hit revival of "Lawrence of Arabia" that played the Ziegfeld for months in 1989).

I think we tend to put the Ziegfeld on a pedastal and worship her because sadly she is all we have left. In the good ole days she would have been just another movie house, and certainly not a movie palace. It sure feels good having Cinema Treasures and all of it's contributors to remember and perhaps to dream about those golden days gone by.

I saw "Raging Bull" at the Ziegfeld last night and the crowd was bigger than I expected, and very much into the movie as well. The presentation was quite good too - only 3 commercials and one trailer, and they opened and closed the curtains. It was also my first time seeing black and white on the Ziegfeld screen. I'm glad I went. Now let's see if they extend the exclusive engagement beyond the originally announced ten days - I'm sure they'll do better with this great classic than with the latest Hollywood dud they've got booked into the theater next.

Does the Ziegfeld always use the curtain? I saw "Braveheart" here in 1995 and they used the curtain. I loved it! The movie was OK but the theater, and that curtain, ROCKED.

Say what you will about The Ziegfeld but it's as good as it gets these days, theater wise.

In recent years I only remember the curtain being used for "Lawrence of Arabia" in 2002, and now "Raging Bull". It was definitely not used for "The Phantom of the Opera" on New Year's Eve - it might have made the movie a little better than it was.

Let me guess: they show those insipid ads on the white screen at The Ziegfeld? Is nothing sacred anymore?

One of the joys I remember as a kid was sitting in the movie theater and looking at the curtains and getting ready for the movie to start. Nothing was so thrilling (OK...there are and were but I was a kid) as the house lights dimming and the curtains slowly rising.

When I was kids during the 70's, every single theater I went to, from the first run houses on LI to the very lowest of the 2nd and 3rd run houses had and used curtains.

As a teen I worked at the local movie palace as an usher. One of my jobs was to "pull the curtain". Just before the 1:00 matinee I would go up the stairs and go backstage, the audience, mostly kids, knew then that the show was about to start and went wild with applause. The projectionist would then buzz me to open the curtain.
Ahh, to once again open that curtain and hear those cheers.

The curtain was working when I saw "The Day After Tomorrow" last summer. It was the only good thing about that movie!

Saw Raging Bull last night. They had the pre-film slide show which was out of focus. Then the curtains were closed, opened and the show began. There was a pretty large crowd for the 7 PM show. It was great to see this film on a large screen. The print and sound were terrific. Originally this film was going to be shown at the Film Forum in Jan. but it was pulled at the last minute. I am a regular at the Forum but I am glad they made the switch to the Ziegfeld. What a great place to see one of the finest films of all time.

The Film Forum has amazing booking but I would never travel there to see something like Raging Bull. But now that it's at the Ziegfeld that's another story. I don't mind seeing "smaller" films at Film Forum but even the restored print of Picnic a few years ago screamed to be shown on a huge Cinemascope screen, I would love to see that at the Ziegfeld or RCMH.

Regarding theater curtains: I remember wondering as a VERY YOUNG kid, whether the image that was seen when a movie theater's curtains opened or closed was an image projected upon a solid curtain or whether it was an image that shone through a thin curtain (like the sun shining through home window curtains). Of course as an older kid I realized that the image was being projected upon an opaque curtain, but when I first went to the movies as a four(?)-year old I wasn't sure.

As a pre-schooler, theatre curtains were one of the "mysteries of life" -- like figuring out whether the light inside the refrigerator was always lit, even when the door was closed, or whether it was built in some way so that it lit up as soon as one started to open the door.

- - - - - -

By the way, one scene from "Raging Bull" was shot just about down the block from the current Film Forum (that was, of course, 15[?] years or so before the Film Forum moved to its current location). The scene where Jake Lamotta first spots his future wife was filmed at the Carmine St. pool on W. Houston St. The dressing room vans (with one that was set-up to be a barber shop -- to give all the 1970s[?] long-haired guys1940s[?] haircuts) were parked on St. Luke's place. Antique cars were parked on W. Houston. And, if I remember correctly, the modern-day street lamps on W. Houston were dressed up with placards making them look like old-fashioned street lamps.

I saw Raging Bull at the Film Forum several years ago. While not like seeing it at the Ziegfeld it was still better than seeing it on a TV screen. There really are no large screen in NY devoted to classic films unless there is a special reason. In Raging Bull's case it was to promote an upcomming DVD release.

They have been running classic films at the Fox Theatre in Atlanta for the as long as I can remember in the summers. It is a wonderful experience complete with pre-show entertainment in the form of a real live (!) organ player leading crowd singalongs.

Coca-cola has sponsored this Summer Film Series for years (no ads before the show either). They have shown a mix of mostly (7 or 8) classics (e.g. 'Laurence of Arabia', 'Hitchcock') with maybe 2 or 3 current releases. I saw 'Gladiator' there when it was released and it was impressive to see on the large 50ft screen. While this may not seem special you must understand that beyond the 70s era cinderblock boxes and the new stadiumplexes of the New South, alone stands the Fox Theatre.

Now in NYC, I fear for the future of the Ziegfeld, especially with the Beekman passing, and plan to see every movie I can bear ('Robots' is playing currently, ouch) knowing that every bit counts. I suggest everyone take someone who hasn't been this summer, to help their business, if not for the uninitiated experience if it goes the way of the wrecking ball.

If the Ziegfeld ever goes away, I will soon follow.

There is a theater devoted to showing only classic films, but it's only one day per month. It's the theater of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences at the Lighthouse International building:

http://www.oscars.org/events/mnwo_yankees/index.html

Next up is "The Pride of the Yankees"; last month was "The King and I" in CinemaScope 55. I just found out this theater existed and haven't actually been there yet, but I hope to be going as often as I can.

How big is the theatre there?

A friend of mine went to "The King and I" and said the screen was very large, but he didn't say how big the theater itself was. But if it's the Academy's only theater in New York, I figure it's got to be a good one!

I wonder, did they have a mag stereo print of "King and I"?

The venue at the NYC Lighthouse is merely a small auditorium, not a real theatre.

So we're not talking about seeing The King and I at the Roxy, right?

Vito: here's the link to the "King and I" screening info. I hope they bring it back someday!

http://www.oscars.org/events/archive/mnow_king_and_i/index.html

I asked my friend how big the theater was. He said about 250-300 seats, but the screen was very impressive. So it sure ain't the Roxy, but I'm still sorry I missed this screening.

"The King and I" at the Lighthouse was a brand new restotation printdown to 35mm from the original 55mm negative. It was shown in a very wide aspect ratio with black bars at the top and bottom of the theater's cinemascope (uncurved) screen. The sound was remastered in 4-track Dolby Digital stereo. Sound seperation behind the screen was excellent however I could not hear any surrounds,unlike the presentation at the Roxy, so many years ago. This theater has small speakers in the ceiling. This print will soon be realeased to "art" theaters around the country according to the Fox restoration representative who spoke at the presentation.
OK Vito?

Pablo what does art theaters mean?
Cinema Village, Angelica, the Quad?
Maybe somebody at Fox has a functioning neuron in the brain(though I wouldn't count on it) and they'll show it at the Ziegfeld.

I sure hope Vincent is right and they show it at the Ziegfeld. If Fox promotes it properly, they should get a really nice turnout. All of us will be there for sure.

I would love to see this at the Music Hall during one of their dark periods, but I guess it's just wishful thinking.

We're lucky that in New York City "art" releases and mainstream releases often share the same venue, as at the Clearview Chelsea, Loews Lincoln Square, AMC Empire, and Regal 14th Street. Even the Ziegfeld just played Raging Bull, a picture more likely to be found at the Film Forum. So it is conceivable that King and I could have an arthouse release plan, yet play at a big screen house in NYC and the art rounds in other markets.

There is probably as much chance of Fox properly presenting this film at the Ziegfeld as there is of the studio rebuilding the Roxy at 7th and 50th and showing it with its original stage show.

Thanks Pablo, you mentioned "The King and I" had a Dolby Digital 4 track print. Dolby Digital is a 6 track process, which may explain the lack of surrounds. Perhaps only the stage speakers were used.
Generally the six Dolby Digital tracks are six descrete channels,
#1.Left #2.center #3.right #4.sub woofer and #5 are used for stereo surrounds,(left wall,right wall), and ex surrounds which create a rear speaker config. It still should have sounded great and I am sorry I missed it.

Wow Benjamin, who peed in your popcorn at The Ziegfeld? Gee, tough crowd when I'm defending this place. Hard to believe that I'm in the minority that considers The Ziegfeld a great theater. Is it a palace? No, I was cheated out of the great palaces. The Paramount, Capital, Roxy were all gone, The Rivoli, Criterion, & Warner were twinned when I came into my own as a serious moviegoer. I grew up on Long Island and as soon as I could, jumped on the LI Rail Road to the big city. The Ziegfeld was always considered first class. When you went there, it became an event. Rain or shine, you knew you were going to stand online down 54th Street and I gotta tell ya, no one complained. Getting online before you turned at the corner of 6th and you were guaranteed your favorite seat. In all my viewing, I can honestly say I never experienced a problem in any aspect of presentaion, and I can be a picky SOB.

I went to see films I had no interest in only because it was The Ziegfeld. If it was in 70MM I was there, a musical, I was there. I had the honor of seeing "Apocalypse Now" opening weekend. I still have the special program book with the full credits because the print didn't have them. If the theater was good enough for Coppola, it was good enough for me and hot damn if those helicopters didn't sound like they were above you. Musicals I saw there included, "Grease", "Grease 2" "Tommy", "Hair" "The Rose", "Fame" "Staying Alive", "Pink Floyd, The Wall" and yes (head down in shame) "Can't Stop The Music". But c'mon it was in 70MM at The Ziegfeld!!

Sci Fi was cool there too. "2001", "Close Encounters", The "Star Wars" Trilogy SE, 12 Monkeys. A piece of crap like "Saturn 5" was made better than it was by playing there. The thrill of 1100 people cheering when Apollo 13 landed safely, c'mon what more could you want plus fresh popped popcorn, take that Loews. Not going to continue boring you with all the titles, but I saw more films at The Ziefeld than my own neighborhood theater and I remember everyone of them too.

The last time I was there was for "Chicago". Miramax played it right with the exclusive and it payed off. You would think studios would learn but they are so afraid of not getting that $20 million first weekend, they are blind that exclusives can and do work. I've been to The Grauman's Chinese, been to London's Empire but I'll keep my Ziegfeld. Luxuriously comfortable seats with great sitelines, state of the art sound and projection, great bookings, it is a palace to me, with or without the gilded plaster cherubs.

BobT: When I think back on the best soundtrack experiences I've ever had in a theater, one of the best of them all was "Tommy" at the Ziegfeld.

BobT: You MUST'VE been a Ziegfeld junky to sit through dreck like "Grease 2" and "Staying Alive" not to mention "Can't Stop the Music" (you should be cited for your bravery, though).

If you look at the posts above, I too champion The Ziegfeld with much the same arguement that you make: that it may not compare well with the true palaces, it is at least comparable to some of the lesser ones such as The Mayfair/DeMille.

The place is maintained beautifully and it's a great theater to see an event film.

I was not sure where to post this, however since all of my Cinema Treasure friends visit this page I thought I would put it here
I came across and old newspaper movie listing from November 1963, if we had all decided to go to a movie that day we would have had quite a time decided where to go from the following choices.
Loew's Tower East, played "Fantasia" in 4 track stereo sound
Radio City Music Hall," On screen "The Wheeler Dealers"
On stage "High Spirits"
Rivoli, reserved seat engagement of "Cleopatra"
Warner Cinerama, reserved seat engagement of "Mad Mad World"
Loew's Cinerama, reserved seat engagement of "How the West Was Won"
Oh heck, let's just take the weekend off and visit all those fabulous theatres.

Vito: I also recently saw a paper from November 23, 1963, the day after JFK was assassinated. I noticed the ads for the two great Cinerama features playing three blocks away from each other, and I wished I was as old as I am now when that paper was new, instead of being only 9 . I would have been going to see them on a regular basis. Another great ad I noticed: Fellini's "8 1/2" playing at the New Embassy 46th St. in Times Square.

I have papers my mother saved from JFK's assasination and I think most of the Broadway theatres were dark in memorial to the president. Did it mention anything about movie theatres? Everyone was glued non-stop to the TV.

The Ziegfeld, when held in comparison to some of NYC's past movie palaces, doesn't hold up in the same league, but for what it is and for how much the filmgoing scene in the city (and in general) has changed in the last 30-40 years, it's the closest thing to a 'classic' cinema treasure we have.

I like the Ziegfeld and it is the best remaining theatre in New York City still showing movies. It does lack the showmanship that the exclusive reserved seat attractions it use to show. I went with a friend to see the "Road to Perdition" and was surprised at the lack professionalism at such a high profile industry theatre. The curtains never opened and closed during the presentation and the theate wasn't as clean that you would expect. My friend owns a theatre complex of his own with an Egyptian theme and curtains in each auditorium and was surprised that this was the one of the top screens in New York City.brucec

RobertR: The paper I saw had all the movie showtimes listed in a separate column called Movie Clock or something like that, but that was probably set up to be printed before the assassination. I don't know if the movie theaters actually closed, but I'm sure you're right about not too many people going to the movies that day.

You MUST'VE been a Ziegfeld junky to sit through dreck like "Grease 2" and "Staying Alive" not to mention "Can't Stop the Music" (you should be cited for your bravery, though).

Actually "Grease 2" was a treat because I got to go to the 70MM test run. They tested the print before the premiere. It was just a friend and I in the auditorium with the director Pat Birch and some producers in the back making sure things were working fine. I also got to go into the projection booth. Nothing like your own private 70MM screening at The Ziegfeld, which made it all the more sweet because I had been such a fan of the place. Like I said everything was better at The Ziegfeld.

While, in a sense, I can understand why they included the Ziegfeld in the article (I can see how, in a narrow sense, it meets their criteria), the listing of it in such an article made me think of the concept and the expression, "defining deviance down."

There is no greater disdainer of the Ziegfeld than myself . . . .
Talk about damning with faint praise . . . .

The Ziegfeld may not be ideal . . . .

I think we tend to put the Ziegfeld on a pedastal and worship her because sadly she is all we have left. In the good ole days she would have been just another movie house, and certainly not a movie palace . . . .

it's as good as it gets these days . . . .

Is it a palace? No, I was cheated out of the great palaces. The Paramount, Capital, Roxy were all gone, The Rivoli, Criterion, & Warner were twinned when I came into my own as a serious moviegoer.

I realize, especially from reading the posts on this site, that movie theaters are more than just their architecture and design. Just as important -- actually, even more so -- is the way a theater presents a movie (e.g., the quality of the picture, the quality of the sound, etc.).

Luxuriously comfortable seats with great sitelines, state of the art sound and projection, great bookings, it is a palace to me, with or without the gilded plaster cherubs.

Considering that I am bashing 20th Century Fox today may I continue?
Am I the only one to have noticed that the 40th Anniversary of the Rivoli's world premiere of The Sound Of Music in March of '65 has come and gone this month?
So where was the deluxe Todd AO print which should have been struck for this occasion with a run at(gulp)the Ziegfeld?
Pretty soon those of us who saw it in our youths will be gone and then who will go to see the thing in a theater ever again?

At least they played it in 70mm for the 25th anniversary at the Trans-Lux East (Gotham). It's my favorite film but I refused to see it in that sing along version.

So the Ziegfeld isn't the greatest theatre that ever existed. So what? I'm 37 and most of the greatest theatres that did exist were torn down or mutilated in some way before I was born. Nothing I can do about that. A palace it may not be, but for what's left in this city, I'll take the Ziegfeld or the Beekman as many times as I can as long as they're still here.

Seeing Tommy at it's premiere engagement at the Ziegfeld was truly an incredible experience. The pulsing stereo sound and Tina Turner's performance were incomparable. Could only be fully appreciated in the deluxe surroundings of the Z.

Tommy was one of the first movies I saw at the Ziegfeld and I can remember it as if it was yesterday. The sound and spectacle were awesome; and coming from the suburbs (RKO Twin, anyone?) the theater was a revelation. Who knew you could see a movie in such a glamorous and elegant setting.

CConnolly: Back in February you were posting on the Capitol Theater page about "The Ten Commandments." Well, the American Film Institute will be announcing their 100 Greatest Movie Quotes in June, and here is the link to the 400 nominated quotes they'll be choosing from. Check out #348.

http://afi.com/Docs/tvevents/pdf/quotes400.pdf

I was at a Q&A a couple of years ago where former NYT film critic Janet Maslin interviewed Harvey Weinstein of Miramax and in that discussion he expressed worry about the future of the Ziegfeld. I do remember walking by one night and they were having the premier for Quentin Tarantino's "Jackie Brown." In the lobby Harvey was there with Q, Mira Sorvino (Q's then paramour), Bridgit Fonda and I forget who else getting their picture snapped.

Some people might remember this, but I think shortly after Clearview took control of the Ziegfeld they put in place a dunderhead policy regarding "pick your seat." I'm not even sure how it worked, but I think it was tailored for people who reserved tickets over the phone. So, you couldn't just walk up to the box office, buy a ticket and sit anywhere you pleased (getting a good seat has never been a problem in the capacious Ziegfeld).) You would buy a ticket and have to pick where you wanted to sit. It was awful annoying and it was quickly abandoned. Anyone remember that fiasco?

And I remember going here to see one of the recent "Star Bores" films and specifically wanted to see it at the Ziegfeld because it was one of two places in Manhattan where they were projecting digitally. When I got there, they said the digital equipment had broken and they would be screening a regular film print.

I also remember viewing Scorsese's "Last Temptation of Christ" here on original release and kept thinking that someone had planted a bomb in the theatre. The screening went off, of course, without a hitch.

Bill: Thanks so much for the list! And my favorite quote is there!!!!

You're welcome, CC. The show will be on CBS June 21st (I think), and I hope the Moses quote makes the final cut.

Hardbop, I was at the Ziegfeld's first public screening of "Last Temptation" with the cops stationed at the exits and at the sides of the screen, and I too thought a bomb or some kind of big disruption was going to happen in the theater near the end of the movie.

They use the reserved seat ticket policy at the ArcLight Theatre complex (Cinerama Dome) in Hollywood. Tickets are around $14.00 and it works well. You go up to the box office and the cashier shows you a seating plan of the auditorium and then a screen shows whats available for that show. When you get to the auditorium the usher will show you to your seat. Just like the old Roadshow days in the theatres. Before Pacific Theatres built the ArcLight complex the Cinerama Dome was doing about the same amount of business as the Ziegfeld. Both are single screen First Run presentation houses.
But now since Pacific built the extra screens, this theatre complex is doing killer business. The arclight complex is what we really need in Manhattan. The only way this theatre is going to last is if Clearview could build a multi-screen plex next door and operate it like the ArcLight complex in Hollywood.

For $14 per ticket, it should work well, or I'd demand a refund! That's about $4 more than the going rate...Long before "the old Roadshow days," ushers showed patrons to their seats, regardless of the price of admission. Of course, many people preferred to find their own seats, but it was reassuring that you could ask an usher for help if you needed it.

Just look at the photo above, all that space over the theatre. Wonder who has the air rights? Leaving the main auditorium alone and building up would secure it's future.

BobT, Thats an idea.

Does Clearview own the building or are they just tenant with a lease?

There are a few companies that operate Deluxe type plex theatres that charge more than the going rate of admission.

When Funny Girl played at the Criterion in '68 a mezz seat(considered the best place for a movie though not by me) for a Saturday night was $6.00. A top Broadway musical for orch would cost you $15.00. This means that a roadshow mezz seat(which of course does not and will not never exit again- the Ziegfeld is really far back orch)would cost you today about $40.00. Then if in line with contemporary avarice we were to discuss Premium Seating a theater then could charge $100 for a hit roadshow film.

Good point from both you, Bob, and William and Warren, too, but, presuming Clearview either owns the building which houses the Ziegfeld or could, at least in theory, negotiate with the landlord to build an ArcLight-like complex around the Ziegfeld, what are the odds they'd actually do so? From what I can tell (at least based on their properties in Manhattan), Clearview has shown little motivation to build any new properties or add onto the ones they already own (or hold leases on) and with the ongoing financial troubles of Cablevision, such a venture would seem unlikely.

It looks like the Ziegfeld Theatre is at a point in it's life that the theatres in Beverly Hills went through in the mid 1970's. The three palaces in Beverly Hills (Warner Beverly Hills, Fox Wilshire, Beverly). They would still get booked with major releases during the year from the studios. And most of the year be only running evening performances during the week. And finally going to running the classic Roadshow prints that were available. At that time there was many prints to choose from, that were still runable and you had real projectionists manning the booths.
Pacific Theatres had a few locations that they showed little motivation in rebuilding. In Los Angeles there are a few of these Deluxe type theatres and they are doing killer business. The ArcLight in Hollywood, The Grove in Park La Brea area near the Farmers Market and The Bridge near Culver City & Marina Del Rey area of Los Angeles. For the $14.00 admission price you get the Deluxe service that was once availible for the price of any ticket and validated parking for about 3-4 hours.

I pretty sure that Clearview doesn't own the real estate. I worked with a guy whose brother-in-law was a mega-rich real estate mogul and he mentioned in passing that his brother-in-law "owned the Ziegfeld" among other things.

I'm not sure about this, but I always assumed that the Ziegfeld Theater was part of the same zoning lot as the skyscraper next door (and that the skyscraper got a zoning bonus for providing the through-block "park" separating the two).

If that's is the case, then I think there would some kind of constraint as to what could be built on the Ziegfeld site -- since the skyscraper next door had already not only utilized all the allowable commercial space for the zoning lot, but was bonused for the through block "park" to boot.

If this is true, and I'm not mistaken, this is actually a pretty clever use of space under the existing zoning regulations (whether these regulations are good urbanism or not, is a different question). On the Avenue, you have a tall skyscraper utilizing the allowable commercial space, with front and side "plazas" and a through block pedestrian "park" boosting the amount of space the skyscraper can have. Plus you have a low-rise theater, with a parking garage entrance (below the theater on the 55th St. side) on the side streets, utilizing the areas that cannot be built up too much. (And, I'm guessing, that the parking garage space extends beneath the through block "park.")

The latest and hopefully last of the "Star Bores" films will be opening next month I believe. I'm sure we'll start to see the fanatics camping out on the sidewalk waiting to get into the first screening. They literally pitch tents and camp out in Midtown Manhattan days, if not weeks, in advance of the "Star Bores" movies.

The Star Wars faithful will begin lining up outside the Ziegfeld on April 30th. This is a line for the best seats only - tickets have already been sold for the first show at midnight 5/19 (I got mine today).

The ZIG is not screening a film this week.The next attraction will be The Hickhikers Guide To the Galaxy(3-29),and then STAR WARS!

I'm so glad to have lived in NYC for a number of years and to have seen many a film at this fine theater. It remains in 2005 the premier screen in all of Manhattan, the rest of the big-screened movie houses all now gone and/or converted to retail spaces. The Ziegfeld has superb 70mm, digital sound and projection capabilities. I've seen such titles as "Brainstorm", "Roger Rabbit", "Yentl", "The Wall", "The Rose", "Lawrence of Arabia", "Fantasia", "Pennies from Heaven", "Victor/Victoria", "Grease 2" and many others at this spectacular house. Long may it live!

I'm curious as to why the Ziegfeld is dark until next week. I'm wondering if they are upgrading their digital projectors to the new 4K units out by Sony.

I'm sure it's dark because they have nothing to play.

According to information I heard from Clearview, the plan now is for the Ziegfeld to remain dark between major first-run engagements. And expect nothing to be playing September and October.

Do the employees go on unemployment between "major first run engagements"?

Isn't that a waste of money having a venue that isn't used? You would have at least some revenue coming in from a few patrons rather then to have nothing and still have to pay for your rent, electricity, etc. I've never heard of such a thing.

Don - I don't know. I guess it would depend on whether they were 'laid off' of if Clearview can temporarily put them in another location.

Jodar - I beleive the bigger theatres used to do this from time to time during the roadshow era, especially if they needed to do technical upgrades between engagements. Depending on the size of the venue, it certainly does cost more money just to open the doors for a handful of customers instead of being dark.

Quite a while back weekly Variety would list the weekly grosses of each theatre, and in parentheses would also indicate the "nut". This was the cost of operating the venue taking into account all expenses. Depending on the box split with the distributor for the week's revenue, it may not pay to remain open during slow periods.

They will probably make more in the rental for the upcoming Star Wars premiere and press screenings than being opened to empty houses.

At one time the Ziegfeld would fill in these dry spots with revivals of classics, many times in 70mm.

Not about The Zeigfeld, but a definite blast from the past. I rented the new DVD of "Finian's Rainbow" from Netflix because it had a full length commentary from Francis Ford Coppola. It was one of his first features and his first for a studio. It's a very entertaining commentary in which he describes what a Roadshow Engagement was and talks about 70MM. What I didn't know was the DVD has a 15 minute documentary of the World Premiere at The Penthouse Theatre on Broadway. Numerous shots of the marquee and it's sister theatre The Warner which was playing "2001". You could clearly see the old Latin Quarter across the street with Rick Nelson headlining. There are some shots of the outer lobby with the gilded mirror walls going up to the glass front doors. Fun to see the old Times Square again, worth the rental.

I went by the Ziegfeld the other day to see what was going on. 'Saharah' has already ended it's run there. They are re-opening Apr. 29 with 'Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy'. In the meantime they are selling advance tickets for the upcoming 'Star Wars' flick and from what I could see, some of the screenings were sold out already.

Funny when i was a boy in the 60's big budget Hollywood movies were for the most part for adults to which they could bring their children. Now its a guy in a gorilla suit running around with a laser in front of a computer screen. With of course some twinkie spiritual transcendental junk layered on top with a trowel.

So many comments...I'm amazed! Anyway, I'm a 20 year Southern Cali resident making my first trip to NYC later this month. Needless to say, I plan on hitting the Ziegfeld while I'm in town. They'll be showing Star Wars Episode 3 so that'll be fun. I'm a big fan of single screen theatres and complexes with very large main auditoriums. I've had more than my fair share of experiences with the great LA landmarks like the Cinerama Dome (saw the 3-strip Cinerama print of "How The West Was Won" in 2003...or was it 2004?), Grauman's Chinese, The Village & The National in Westwood and Big Newport in Orange County. I'm looking forward to checking out the Ziegfeld.

Went to the Ziegfeld tonight to see 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'. I can't remember the last time I was there. I know I missed a couple of great revival screenings in the past, but I was never jazzed about any of the first run stuff either. It must have been years since I was there last, and I am so glad that I went tonight. Even though many people on this blog think it pales in comparison to the the old NYC theaters of yore (which I'm sure it does), it's still an amazing place and pretty much all we have left in terms of grand old places of any kind. As far as 'Hitchhikers Guide' is concerned, I didn't know what the hell they were talking about! It seems like a movie geared to those who have already read the book. It get's points for creativity and great set design (and Zooey Deschanel is nice to look at too), but the story was muddled as hell. Kind of a shame since it was a really great looking film. The Ziegfeld screened it in digital projection with amazing clarity and sound, and coming from a Luddite like me that saying alot.

Once again all I can say is that this place is a jewel in the rough, and I hope I get to see many, many more flicks there in the future.

And just for old time's sake here are some I've seen there in the past:

Vertgo (revival screening early 90s)
The Doors
Edward Scissorhands
Jurrasic Park
Primary Colors

and probably more I can't remember. Hope they do more revival screenings soon.

Welcome to New York Chris, I would suggest you also check out the Beekman which sadly, is about to close. Take the Radio City Music Hall tour as well.

Chris, I very much hope you get a chance to see a movie at the "Loew's Jersey" and take a tour of the "Stanley." While both of these theaters are listed as being in New Jersey, they are both very, very close to mid-town Manhattan (which is just across the Hudson River from New Jersey). They are probably more convenient to mid-town Manhattan than many parts of the Bronx, Queens or Brooklyn (and certainly more convenient than Staten Island). (Both of these theaters have listings, with lots of info on them, on the Cinema Treasures website.)

As far as I know, the Loew's Jersey is the only remaining TRUE movie PALACE in the NYC area that still shows movies (albeit, mostly on weekends as a non-profit showcase, I believe). The Stanley, which is a block or two away from it, is also a TRUE movie PALACE that is used as a church -- but I believe the church gives tours of it. (Check out the Cinema Treasures listings for both theaters for more details.)

(To clarify the terminology a bit: it seems to me that the current Ziegfeld is a movie THEATER, rather than a movie PALACE. In the same sense, one would say that the Alden and the Merrick (two, modestly decorated, 1,000+ [?] seat, local movie theaters in Jamaica, Queens) were movie THEATERS. The nearby Valencia (a lavishly decorated, 3,000+ [?] seat, atmospheric), however, was a movie PALACE. The Stanley, by the way is also an atmospheric, and as a kid it reminded me of the Valencia.)

The thing I would emphasize is that despite the "Jersey City" location, both of these theaters are extremely convenient to Manhattan. They are just steps away from the Jersey City station of the PATH train. (PATH is a "subway" -- which in some ways is nicer than the NYC subway -- that connects Manhattan with towns in nearby New Jersey, just across the Hudson River.) In Manhattan, there are PATH stations at Herald Sq., 23rd St., 14th St., 9th St., Christopher St. and at Ground Zero. The trains taking the most direct route leave from the newly rebuilt World Trade Center terminal -- the other stations listed are on a train line that folows a more indirect route to Jersey City.

I have never been to the Loew's Jersey myself. But I did go to the Stanley as a kid (to see Jerry Lewis' "Visit to a Small Planet"), and this theater is a TRUE movie palace that will show people who missed the movie palace era what people are talking about.

I also second Vito suggestion about Radio City Music Hall and -- especially -- the Beekman. Radio City Music Hall will always be there (hopefully!), but the Beekman is slated to be torn down very shortly. In a way, the Beekman is an early 1950s art house version of the movie "palace" (albeit, the "Petit Trianon"?) -- it's the very embodiment of a certain movie-going way of life. Check out the page on Cinema Treasures (especially the links that someone has posted to photographs). I think you will be kicking yourself if you miss out on visiting it before it is demolished.

I'm only in New York for 2 days so it's highly unlikely that I'll go to New Jersey. And, as it turns out, it's been suggested that I see Star Wars Episode 3 at another theatre nearby. So the chances of my visiting the Ziegfeld are looking slim. Besides...I'm not interested in tours just for tours sake. I'd rather see a movie in these palaces!

"Do the employees go on unemployment between "major first run engagements"?"

We either get placed in another Clearview theater around town, or we just don't work. I worked there a couple years ago, and I'm thinking of working there again when I come back from college for the summer, but if they're only going to be doing limited engagements, I may have to go with a place that'll guarantee me more hours. It's a shame that such a wonderful theater isn't getting used as much as it could be.

When I worked there, the A/C didn't work for half of the summer, so we'd have to bribe people into the theater with discount tickets and free drinks. And a friend of mine who attended the "Kingdom of Heaven" premiere there the other night told me that part of the backlighting on the marquee was out. Little maintenance issues like that should not be plaguing one of the greatest movie houses in the world. I told the managers many times what I thought of how the place was being run, and all they could do was look at me and say "I wish it were up to me to change things".

Patrons should complain to Clearview management and do so with frequency and ferocity, perhaps then someone will fix the place, especially if its the AC. I'd be quite a livid patron, if I were to attend say, screening of the new Revenge of the Sith, in 90 degree+ indoor heat!

How is the digital projection at this theater? I know there are several brands out there, some newer and better than others, and of different quality.

So who has the best digital projection, this screen or the ones at AMC or Loews? Or are there others I should consider for the best digital presentation?

Boy, I sure am a happy boy this week. Movies for me are most definitely the films, most definitely the theatrical experience of walking into a designed house, but the excitement of getting in line for a movie, waiting for the movie, being in a room full of excited people, and enjoying the film in a packed house... unbeatable!

Wednesday night at midnight was just great. Camera crews, kleig lights, fans in costumes, packed lines, excitement! This isn't just some opening with a bunch of autograph hunters and celeb-watchers, this is a legitimate event! Three people from Clearview were there presenting the film, and Hedda Lettuce arrived with green hair to toss out prizes.

It's a little sad they've abandoned opening and closing the curtains this week, even with over an hour between shows during the marathon of screenings, but it's just great to have a great big lovely time at the movies.

I walked into one of the little teeny shoeboxes at a multiplex to catch the end credits of Revenge of the Sith and... yuck. Just 21 blocks up you could walk through a chandelieried lobby and past a curved entraneway through designed doors and sit in comfortable seats in a huge room with over a thousand laughing, clapping people with the movie projected on a large screen.

I've been to the Loews Jersey, many times. I'll be at Ninotchka at the Orpheum in LA for the Last Remaining Seats. The Ziegfeld is not an 80-year-old movie palace. It's a great modern theater. Great great great. It's just great. And it's five blocks from my apartment. Long live the Ziegfeld!

I guess the unhappy people will crap on my parade, but that's okay. I love being alive and enjoying life. Scowl your faces all you want and pooh pooh pooh on the extremely few American pleasures we have all you want, the Ziegfeld rocks!

Shade: I was at the midnight show too, which was everything you said it was, and I was there again on Saturday morning. I've been spoiled - I don't ever want to see it anywhere else except the Ziegfeld.

So, do you think is the best digital projection in the city?

I'm not sure about best digital projection (although Episode III looked better at the Ziegfeld than Episode II did three years ago), but I will say that the Ziegfeld is the overall best theater in the city, especially now that Radio City Music Hall isn't showing movies anymore.

There are so few nice places to see movies in New York. There are many places to see films, but a nice auditorium is fairly rare. We have screening facitilies here, and some are comfortable, and few have any design elements.

Loews 72nd Street East is a cool 1962 place to see a movie, but the entrance and lobbies are merely functional. This theat is a great place to see a movie though. Nice metal work on the stairs, comfortable seats (I believe taken from the Loews Astor Plaza), and two small balconies jutting out from either side of the projection booth. The upper auditorium at the UA 64th Street is very nice, and also sports a curved screen.

The Walter Reade is my favorite NY screening facility. Fresh popcorn, large indoor waiting area, often hung with posters or photographs, a single screen, comfy seats arranged smartly, and a screen that's right there in front of you. Great sound, etc.

As far as cool New York history, the Paris is pretty much it. The Paris is really good fun with a large auditorium, excellent descension to the popcorn area, and great design elements. After the Beekman goes next month (so unbelievably wrong and sad) it's really the single screen marquee theater showing new releases. I'm a big fan of the ImaginAsian (the retitled 59th Street East, aka the D.W. Griffith), and should also include that, as a departure from the airport-simulations of today's moviegoing 'experience.'

The Ziegfeld is really the best. As soon as you enter to buy a ticket, you're under a chandelier. You walk into a downstairs lobby adorned with display cases with the original theater's history and artifacts on display, then have a choice of ascending stairs or an escalator, with more chandeliers to guide you, then you're in a curved end exit/entrance lobby with black doors on one side, and then you enter the main concessions lobby with yet another chandelier, a large French My Fair Lady poster, a round soft couch, and fun signs for Mens and Ladies restrooms, and fresh popped popcorn (depends how busy). Then a choice of left or right entrance to the mammoth audotorium with raised seating in the back (308 seats I believe) and another 800 seats on the main floor. And CURTAINS! They don't always operate them, but for my third viewing of Reveing of the Sith the curtains opened and closed before the trailers, and then closed again at the end of the 9:30 show, which was great because that was the last show of the nonstop marathon which began Weds. evening (Thurs. morning).

I was in a new friend's 11th floor apartment last night at 54th and 7th and looked out the window and right there was the Zeigfeld! Would been great to have seen all the tents pitched for the anticipation of the Weds. premiere.

I'm partly seeing the film again because the film is fun, but mostly it's to have yet another reason to go to the Ziegfeld, especially with a few hundred other people there. I love seeing that place so alive.

I would have to say that for now, The Ziegfeld is safe. Think about it: the land upon which is sits is mid street and sits between two A class office towers. The footprint isn't really big enough to provide a developer with anything that they could build anything really dynamic. Just my opinion.

Add to the mix the (hopefully) anticipated outcry that would befall anyone even proposing this and I think it's somewhat safe to assume it will be around for awhile.

But. You. Never. Know.

I wonder if the Ziegfeld could be expanded upwards, maybe with a proper balcony installed and a few hundred more seats. I'd love to go to a 2000+ seat theatre on a regular basis.

If I correctly understand the property data provided on the OASIS NYC website, the Ziegfeld is on the same zoning lot (block 1007, lot 29) as the the adjacent through-block "park" and adjacent office building (whose official address seems to be 120 W. 55th St.) The lot is listed as being 200 ft. wide (the width of most mid-town Manhattan blocks), and 500 ft. deep. (I believe the blocks between Sixth and Seventh are about 800 ft. deep, so this is a pretty deep lot.)

The maximum FAR (floor area ratio) allowed on the site is 12, but the actual FAR seems to be 19.9, which means that the builders qualified for one or more bonuses. They probably got a bonus for the front and side plazas, plus a bonus for the through-block park. Whether a bonus was given for a movie theater on this site, I don't know.

(I also mention some of the zoning issues for this site in my April 14th post in this thread, above -- but at that time I hadn't looked up the site on OASIS NYC yet.)

While I doubt they would be able to build more office space on the Ziegfeld site -- I think all the office space allowed is already in the tower on the other side of the through-block "park," I would imagine they could change the use of the Ziegfeld Theater (unless they got a bonus for building it). So maybe it could become a "Toys R Us" (as someone joked in an earlier post) or a good-sized disco, etc.

If there were plans to close the Ziegfeld (due to a lack of profitability), I'd be very surprised if the outcry was significantly greater than the (apparently very little outcry) for the Beekman and Cinema I, II & III. But, then again, I've been surprised to read that people consider the Ziegfeld a "treasure" and a "movie palace," so who knows, maybe there is a large and vocal group of fans who could provide sufficient pressure. But, given the the theater's lack of distinguished architecture and the lack of any genuine historical importance (understandable, since it was only built in the late 1960s), it's hard to imagine what kind of appeal could be made and what kind of pressure exerted.

My guess is that the Ziegfeld will survive, however, because it does seem to be profitable for certain kinds of films and because it might be difficult to find an economically compelling alternative use for for this site, given the zoning.

In my opinion, the only thing that can and will spell The Ziegfeld's doom is if some developer for some reason or another decides to build a competing "palace" at a better site, say nearer or actually in Times Square. The Ziegfeld is kind of off the beaten path and let's face it, it's really not that nice from the outside, at least.

Imagine if someone were to build a theater the same size or even larger than the Ziegfeld in which to hold it's premieres?

Since this scenario is highly unlikely, I think the place is safe because there really isn't another place in Manhattan that can host a premiere AND play the movie. Yes, The Music Hall is better for premieres but it's not playing the movies for more than one night.

QUOTE: "How is the digital projection at this theater? I know there are several brands out there, some newer and better than others, and of different quality.

So who has the best digital projection, this screen or the ones at AMC or Loews? Or are there others I should consider for the best digital presentation?" (saps)

***************************************
The Ziegfeld is equipped with a current-generation digital projection system capable of showing movies at 2K resolution. So seeing "Revenge Of The Sith" at the Ziegfeld should offer picture quality as good as or better than any competing cinemas also showing a digital presentation.

Check out the following list if you're curious where the Digital Cinema presentations are being held:

http://www.fromscripttodvd.com/revenge_sith_d_engagements.htm

The next attraction at the Ziegfeld will be the Steven Spielberg-Tom Cruise remake of H.G. Wells' 'The War of the Worlds' (a wee little movie I suspect at least a few of us have become well-acquianted with of late), opening June 29th.

I assume due to Spielberg's lake of interest in digital, War of the Worlds will be a film presentaion?

My friend and I visited NYC and made a stop at this theater to see Revenge of the Sith in DLP. I must say that the theater is quite ornate and large but the screen size was smaller than I expected. I suspect its about 40' or so wide, about the size of some of the larger auditoriums in your local multiplex, or like our Baltimore's Senator. Its a bit strange to have to go up the stairs, then turn right into an auditorium that seems to go down again. The lobby pictures show a Ziegfeld that had a much more decorative top structure that is missing from the current one. Was this the same theater?

The picture and sound are better than in most theaters I have experienced with this DLP/Dolby Digital Cinema set up. Excellent sound separation, with little reverberation, yet powerful subwoofers add to the aural experience! Its nice to see an 'older' theater outfitted with the latest presentation technologies and sound. If people are going to leave their DVDs and cable to see a movie, this is how it should be experienced.

I ventured in to NYC to see "Revenge of the Sith" in Digital before it ends in a few days. I must say I was impressed. It was one of the hottest days and I see that the Ziegfeld has fixed the Air conditioner problem. maybe too good, I had to put a jacket on but didn't mind. When I saw "Atack of the Clones" it was another hot day and the ac didn't work, I baked. Another reason Ididn't like the film. But now I saw all 3 new Star Wars on the Ziegfeld screen...and the digital for Sith was impressive. The curtain actually opened then closed before the previews, the closed curtains brought back "Apocalypse Now" memories from '79.

Question: How much theater remodeling have they done since the theater opened??

My only gripe...after paying a whopping $10.75, the box office girl never even looked up at me, she was busy writing a letter, and didn't even say thank you....to quote C-3PO..."How rude"

Later, I went to the Walter Reade for a screening of "Atlantic City" great flick, great print, big screen....but that theater is starting to get the grundgy look, messy walls, no closed curtain....they need to remodel.

Rhett, post your comment on the Walter Reade page. Who knows?...it might draw some attention.

Okay, I do remember the not-so-friendly cashier at the booth, who, on this day, was reading a book. She and the ticket taker were watching, in bemusement, as I was trying to buy our tickets using the automatic kiosk. It didn't work, so I ended up buying it from her. She did say "enjoy the show" and that was about it. Rude, well, its NYC. At least told us to enjoy the show, perhaps she sensed we were out of town... :)

The girl taking the tickets was courteous, she said, welcome to clearview etc. It was the box-office girl that was rude...wheres the manager during this. Why do they put people with no personality at the boxoffice where people are paying .

It would be nice if the Ziegfeld closed the Summer with a classic bigscreen film. But "That'll be the day"

Universal presents KING KONG. World Premiere Monday, 12 December 2005. Regular performances start Wednesday, 14 December 2005.

While browsing the comments here I remembered how I went to the Rivoli for my 10th birthday to see Dr. Zhivago. We also saw The Sound of Music there. I believe we also saw Dr. Doolittle there, or maybe that was at Radio City. The entire family would get all dressed up, my dad would get the car out of the lot and we'd make our way uptown. My sisters and I would sightsee all the way, I was fascinated by "Fascination" in Times Square! After the show we'd all go to The Old Homestead for dinner. It was a big event to go to the movies as a family while growing up in NYC.

If we wanted to see Batman & Robin or Beatles movies, we walked to the Loew's (Low-eez) on Delancey St. or the Essex St. theater. :o)

I miss those days.

Here is a great ad from the half assed revival of "This is Cinerama" in 1973.
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/ThisIsCinerma1973Re-Release.jpg

Now, the current screen must be only 40', as it appears to be about the same size as Baltimore's Senator. So, how can they properly show Cinerama on a flat screen that is only 40' wide?

The gold drapery,teaser,and black undermasking were all removed and filled in with the largest possible somewhat deeply curved screen (27 by 63 feet). The sound system was also upgraded for this 70mm presentation. The result was a poor imitation of the original Cinerama, however the screen should have been maintained for future 70mm blockbusters.

The Ziegfeld was among the handful of theaters that was equipped with Cinema Digital Sound (CDS), the 1990-1991 precursor to the contemporary digital sound formats.

From Richard Roper:
At last week's premiere of "War of the Worlds" at the Ziegfeld Theater in New York, guests had to surrender cell phones and handbags to security personnel.You know, because of the whole piracy thing. Even though you can't get more than about 30 seconds of grainy video with your camera phone, and you'd have to be a blithering nincompoop to take out a personal video camera at a major premiere and attempt to point-and-shoot at the screen for two hours.
But here's the beauty part. The New York Times reported that among those who had to check their personal belongings were actors Alec Baldwin, Tim Robbins -- who has an extended cameo in "War of the Worlds" -- and the film's director, Steven Spielberg.
That's right. They took away Spielberg's cell phone.
Unbelievable. That makes about as much sense as frisking Donald Trump as he enters Trump Tower, asking Hugh Hefner for ID at a party at the Playboy Mansion, or making sure Bono isn't sneaking in a tape recorder to a U2 concert.
When you're taking away Steven Spielberg's cell phone at a premiere of a movie DIRECTED BY STEVEN SPIELBERG, you're not just doing your job, you're following the orders of monumentally silly people.

I saw "War of the Worlds" there last night. I had some problems with the humans in the movie - some of the scenes just didn't make any sense - but the alien war machines are a truly awesome sight. And the Ziegfeld's sound system came through spectacularly with some of the loudest and most frightening sound effects I've ever heard.

http://www.kingkongmovie.com/ef239524432ba87f1ca8f70eed4b1fa7/en_splash.html

Judging from some of the more objective reviews (not the ridiculous hack critics like Joel Siegel) "War of the Worlds" sounds techically impressive but emotionally thin and uninvolving on a real human emotional level like "E.T." or even "Close Encounters". In other words, audiences might be "wowed" by it much like they do at a very expensive interactive theme park ride but they won't walk away with much to remember it by. And THAT (IMO) is exactly what is so wrong with American films today. They're all $200 million spectacles without an ounce of anything to relate to.

A mile wide and an inch deep.

I saw it yesterday and agree with the above comments. But then the 1953 version wasn't involving on any human level either, nor, for that matter, the H. G. Wells novel (and infamous Orson Welles radio broadcast) on which all were based. The whole story is a fear-fest, in any rendition of it you care to choose.

Well it opened fairly well with an opening day total of 21.8 million,
making it the 7th largest opening. "Batman Begins" did 15.1, but Star Wars had a 50 million opening day. It will do ok, but not the summer blockbuster the industry needs right now. I don't see it beating or coming close to last years Spider-man 2

Well it opened fairly well with an opening day total of 21.8 million,
making it the 7th largest opening. "Batman Begins" did 15.1, but "Star Wars" had a 50 million opening day. It will do ok, but not the summer blockbuster the industry needs right now. I don't see it beating or coming close to last years "Spider-man 2"

I made it to this place to see Star Wars Episode 3 in early June. Very nice theatre with ornate decor and a nice sound system. Screen is way way way too small for a theatre of this magnitude. Also, $10.00 for an afternoon show? What the heck! Oh well...at least I made it. Next trip, though, I'm headed to Loews Lincoln Square...which will probably be AMC Lincoln Square the next time I'm in NYC

For anyone interested:

The premiere of The Wedding Crashers is here on Wednesday, and next week (I think it's Monday but don't quote me on that just yet) is the premiere of Bad News Bears.

i saw 'Ryan's Daughter', 'Fame', 'The Rose' and 'Earthquake' here in the '70s.

it was a lovely place to see film

It IS a lovely place to see a film, but as other posters have noted, there is room for a larger screen.

1974 the 70mm "That's Entertainment" was a smash here
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/IamCuriousYellow.jpg

1974 the 70mm "That's Entertainment" was a smash here
http://photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/?action=view¤t=ThatsEntertainment.jpg

1974 the 70mm "That's Entertainment" was a smash here
http://photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/?action=view¤t=ThatsEntertainment.jpg

1974 the 70mm "That's Entertainment" was a smash here
http://photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/?action=view¤t=ThatsEntertainment.jpg

1974 the 70mm "That's Entertainment" was a smash here
http://photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/?action=view¤t=ThatsEntertainment.jpg

Anyone see "The Island" here at the Ziegfeld? If so, did they show it on film or in DLP Digital Projection? There seems to be some confusion over what format is being shown.

The advertisements in the NY Times for "The Island" have consistently stated DLP for the screenings at the Ziegfeld.

Given the fast flop of "The Island" I wouldn't be surprised if the Ziegfeld will soon go dark temporarily---which as other posters have noted, has happened from time to time over the years.

"The Island" will limp along till "The Great Raid" opens Aug 12th

"The advertisements in the NY Times for 'The Island' have consistently stated DLP for the screenings at the Ziegfeld."
__________________________________________

No, it hasn't. For a period of time, Loews 34th Street was the Manhattan venue advertising DLP. And none of the online ticket ordering services that I've checked have indicated DLP for the Ziegfeld, either. Nor has Clearview's page for the Ziegfeld been indicating DLP.

Which NYC area DLP shows are noted in today's NY TIMES?

The DLP website doesn't indicate a DLP Ziegfeld booking either. Check it out at DLP.com, but then again, they don't have the Loews Rio venue as having it either, yet they advertise a DLP showing of it.

I disagree about the Times. I had been considering seeing "The Island" at the Ziegfeld during its first week of release but had difficulty fitting a screening into my schedule (and decided against seeing it after hearing bad word of mouth). I checked the Times' ads for "The Island" daily during that first week, and each edition indicated that the Ziegfeld (and Loews 34th Street) were presenting the film digitally in Manhattan.

I'm looking at this past Sunday's New York Post (July 31,2005) and the ad for "The Island" has The Ziegfeld listed first with a box around it and the DPL logo. The only other theatre listed as DPL is the ADM's Pavilion Theatre in Park Slope, Brooklyn.

"The DLP website doesn't indicate a DLP Ziegfeld booking either. Check it out at DLP.com, but then again, they don't have the Loews Rio venue as having it either"
_______________________________________

Is this the Rio in Gaithersburg, MD?

The dlp.com site notes only a fraction of the DLP shows for the current titles in release, "The Island," "Sky High," and "Episode III." A more comprehensive source for digital projection screenings I'd recommend (pardon the plug) is at the www.FromScriptToDVD.com website.

http://www.fromscripttodvd.com/island_d_cinema_engagements.htm
http://www.fromscripttodvd.com/sky_high_d_cinema_engagements.htm
http://www.fromscripttodvd.com/revenge_sith_d_engagements.htm

Posters....Re: "Island" DLP.

I saw the film in NJ in 35MM an excellent print, but let me save you all who are debating where to see it...it is a horrible film, a complete bore, lousy acting, bad story, worse directing. Action scenes you've seen 200,000 times. Seeing it in DLP wouldn't help your experience believe me, Ziegfeld or not...skip this one, wait for the DVD

I know someone who ushers at the Ziegfeld and is in the orchestra. I am surprised to hear they have an orchestra at this theater because it's clearly not old enough to have been built for stage presentation.

Sorry...wrong link provided a couple of posts ago re the "Sky High" DLP shows. Here is the correct one.
http://fromscripttodvd.com/sky_high_d_cinema.htm

No orchestra, just a string quartet. And a jazz combo that plays on Saturday nights. Not.

I guess he plays in the combo.

Just glanced at today's "Island" ad in the Times. The number of daily screenings at the Ziegfeld (and yes, the ad states DLP) is down to three; the last showing starts at the absurdly early hour of 8:15 pm. At least Clearview decided to not to close the Ziegfeld until the next attraction.

Yeah, like they need the time between shows to handle the crowds.
I never understood the small amount of showings per day at that theatre.

Sounds like a roadshow to me. Oklahoma, West Side Story and Fiddler had 3 shows a day on weekends at the Rivoli I believe.

Now I'm really depressed - the march of film history as it progresses from Oklahoma to West Side Story to Fiddler on the Roof to ... The Island.

Aw Bill, let's not forget "Dukes of Hazard", a relative talked me into taking him to a Warners screening, makes "Island" look like "Gone With the Wind",God awful movie. They just get worse and worse.

Probably the only reason 'The Island' is still showing at the Ziegfeld is a contractual obligation between Clearview and Dreamworks, obligating it to be shown for a certain number of weeks.

Speaking of 'The Dukes of Hazzard' cinematic re-do, can anyone explain to me why theatre owners in the NYC area gave this film the usual booking treatment (multiple screen runs at select venues, openings in every booking zone, etc)? Not to sound like a complete NYC, blue-state snob (O.K., I guess I AM being a complete NYC, blue-state snob), but where did they suppose the audience is in the area for this film? If there is an audience for this film, I'd think it would be in the red states (and hopefully the folks in the red states will prove me wrong on this and not go see it this weekend)...

Interesting ad in tomorrow's Times for "The Baxter." Produced and released by IFC, it will be playing exclusively in Clearview theaters throughout the NYC metro area starting next Friday. Corporate synergy at work. The ad highlights the engagement at the IFC Center, but the list of Clearview theaters in Manhattan showing the film includes the 62nd & Broadway cinema and the Ziegfeld. Even though the film seems a better fit for the IFC Center than the Ziegfeld, it's odd to see the IFC Center favored over the Ziegfeld (not to mention a film screening simultaneously at the Ziegfeld and the 62nd & Broadway cinema).

I'll be in NYC in November (18-26) and was wondering what might be playing during this time. Any assistance would be appreciated. Also, do you need to purchase tickets in advance or can you get them at the door!!

Thanks....

like most movie theatres, you can get them at the door. They also have automated ticket machines in the lobby. Should it be a major release or something you're concerned about missing out on, Id suggest checking out
www.clearviewcinemas.com You can information about the theatre including the phone number which works well too for information
and also a link so you can buy tickets online. Ah, the Internet.

1970 saw 2001 at the Ziegfeld
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/Movie%20Ads/2001Ziegfeld.jpg

"The Ziegfeld is the only theatre in the country equipped with 6-track stereophonic sound."

Don't you just love the outrageous hype present in that "2001" ad?!

That is one of the funniest ads I've ever seen. If 50' is "half a city block", then they have some mighty small blocks! And I'm sure the note of using Zeiss Favorit projectors just packed them in!!!

"The Ziegfeld is the only theatre in the country equipped with 6-track stereophonic sound."

Michael, I can just see the foam building around your mouth and the smoke coming out of your ears when you read that. I still cannot believe they actually made that claim.
Mark, the whole thing was sooo 50s, like 3-Ds,"A lion in your lap,and a girl in your arms" or CinemScope's "The miracle you see
without glasses"

Now that someone has brought up "2001". What do you think it would be like to see it projected in Imax? After seeing "Charlie and the chocolate Factory" and seeing a scene from it in that film, it got me wondering. I know there are people that think regular films presented in Imax is not what it is cracked up to be. However, I must say after seeing "Charlie" and "Harry Potter" previously, I will take an Imax film presentation over the shoebox theatre showings anytime! Even drove 50 miles to see them! Reminds me of my childhood days when we would drive into center city Philadelphia to see the "roadshow 70MM films." It is like someone else stated elsewhere on this site, you have to give the moviegoer something that is extraordinary to get them off their sofas. In addition to better films, better manners by moviegoers, better presentations would be ideal. I still remember the curtains opening, opening, etc. as the lights dimmed in the movie palaces with 70mm presentations. The overatures ended and the movie logo's filled those fantastic screen! Oh what memories!

Dennis, the IMAX theatres are gaining momentium, National Amusements has plans to incorporate an IMAX theatre in future locations. When a movie like "Batman Begins" or "Charlie" plays in IMAX, people will go out of the way to see it in the IMAX version rather than the 35mm.
Warners is very hot on the idea and has plans for more releases, the new Harry Potter will be shown in IMAX in November and Lucas is planning an IMAX release of all the "Star Wars" films. I would love to see "2001" in IMAX as well.

Michael, Since IMAX is a 70mm format, I think it may be time to start an IMAX listing on your website, it may be the only 70mm we will see for a long time.

Vito,
Surf the site; we do have some IMAX content posted. What kind of list were you thinking of?

Michael,
I had not visited the site in a while, happy to see you have included IMAX. The format is growing, many young people have never seen a true 70mm movie and are loving it. At National Amusements Cinema Delux in White Plains New York we are splitting three IMAX movies over the course of the day. Charlie, Batman, and Nascar, all are very popular. The format continues to improve with new and more user friendly software, many of the bugs have been worked out and the technical support is first rate. The prints are holding up very well, we have found keeping a high humidity level in the booth has made a big difference, we keep the booth like a rain forest and the prints love it. Oh and I promise to visit the website more often.

So why doesn't the Clearview make the Ziegfeld a real presentation house and install a real 140 degree curved 80 ft screen which would be adaptable to show everything from 1:85 to panavision to 70MM like the old times Square houses. Thereby utilizing the theater a lot more than it is being used now and garnering a lot of publicity for itself. The way theaters used to years ago when they were modernized.
Now its just being used as another screening room along with all the other multiplexes in Manhattan.
Maybe this can be the East Coast American Cinemateque.

Vito: your love for your profession was never more apparent than when you talked about the IMAX prints loving the high humidity, as if they were alive. Guys like you and Rob Endres belong in the Projectionists Hall of Fame.

Vincent I think more theatre owners haver got to begin thinking the way we do. With attendance numbers decreasing, they must find ways to bring em back to the theatres. God knows we have the resources to equip the theatre with mind blowing "Super Projection" on giant screens with better sound than they can generate at home. Other problems I hear about all the time stem from the rudeness of many theatre goers, everything from ringing cell phones to crying babies has got to be addressed, Then there is the problem of DVDs, Of course the studios make a fortune on the DVD sales, but it hurts theatre owners when the DVD is available so soon after the movies release, the talk now is to shorten the window between release of films and DVDs. We can give them what they can't get at home, it's time we started doing that,IMAX is a step in the right direction.
Multiplex's are here to stay but there has to movie theatres as well, tear down those 100 seat screening rooms being called theatres today.

theatres and DVDs.

Well thanks Bill, ya know this business just gets into your blood and becomes a very important part of your life, I think Rob Endres would agree.

Well they maybe have to start thinking in terms of showmanship again if they want to start bringing people back into movie theaters. With movie companies considering releasing films simultaneously on DVD's why in the world should anyone go to a theater when you make up for the(relatively) larger screen in the comfort and convenience of your own home. The audience that was collectively enthralled by a new film is a thing of the past.
Maybe cinema as a public experience is about to become as extinct as vaudeville.

'The Baxter', the IFC Films release booked exclusively into 47 Clearview Cinemas properties, including the Ziegfeld, experienced a near-total flameout this past weekend, grossing an estimated $37,708 for a per-screen average of $802. Almost needless to say, I think Clearview overestimated what they had on their hands, especially with 'The 40-Year-Old Virgin' and 'Wedding Crashers' as competition.

Clearview has booked a string of bombs in this place recently...The Island, The Great Raid, and now The Baxter. Over 1100 empty seats at each performance. Good Lord!

Vincent's idea about making the Ziegfeld into an East Coast American Cinematheque is so logical. How can we get the Clearview executives to read these posts? Right now the Ziegfeld is going to waste and it's really sad. Remember back in 1996 when "Vertigo" played there to big crowds for weeks? A Friday night show I attended a couple of weeks into the run was a complete sellout. Forget stuff like "The Baxter": the Ziegfeld would be the perfect home for classic movies. We can all see it - why can't Clearview?

In regards to above postings it all goes back to what we originally said. The people in charge of these theaters are NOT movie pople, just corporate hacks. We'll probably never see a 70MM classic on the big screen again (unless we go to England)

The Ziegfeld has shown revivals during the late summer/early fall period when quality first run films are often scarce. "Funny Girl" was playing at the Ziegfeld on 9/11 (I remember walking by the Ziegfeld on my way home from the office on that terrible day) and "The Way We Were" was revived during a similar time frame in 2003. I passed on "Funny Girl" but went to a sparsely attended weekend screening of "The Way We Were."

If Clearview is considering booking a revivial at the Ziegfeld during the upcoming slow season, why not take a chance on a non-Streisand film this time?

"We'll probably never see a 70MM classic on the big screen again (unless we go to England)"...or L.A. Thank you American Cinematheque!

Imagine seeing "Sweet Charity" , "Goodbye Mr. Chips", "Finians Rainbow", "SATR!",or "Half A Sixpence" again in 70mm complete with Overtute Entra Act and Exit Music again!

Imagine seeing "Sweet Charity" , "Goodbye Mr. Chips", "Finians Rainbow", "STAR!",or "Half A Sixpence" again in 70mm complete with Overtute Entra Act and Exit Music again!

Imagine seeing "Sweet Charity" , "Goodbye Mr. Chips", "Finians Rainbow", "STAR!",or "Half A Sixpence" again in 70mm complete with Overtute Entra Act and Exit Music again!

Forrest, you've picked some of the worst examples of 70mm musicals, or any 70mm films for that matter; it was these over-produced, bloated spectacles that helped close some of our best picture palaces. Nobody came to see these movies on their original release, and no one will come see them now.

But I do agree that a 70mm festival, or any decently booked and promoted festival, would help fill some seats here.

Forrest, you have selected some of the worst 70mm musicals ever made; it was over-produced, lumbering dinosaurs like these that helped close some of our best picture palaces. Audences didn't come to see these movies then, and they won't come now.

That said, I do agree that a well booked and promoted 70mm fesival is a great idea; any well-selected and well-advertised fesival would help fill the seats in this last example of a New York showplace.

Only one is a genuine 70mm film but Sweet Charity, Chips and Sixpence I think are 3 very underrated films and certainly deserving of a reevalution with a roadshow type presentation.
Well this past year I was hoping for 70mm anniversary presentations of Lady and SOM but neither came to pass.
I'm still waiting for a cinephile like Scorsese who has a passion for widesceen films to join in the fray and begin to raise funds for a desperately needed widescreen museum. Just lets make it a real one. 50 ft just doesn't cut it.

Labor Day weekend the perfect time to go to the Movies, and this great theatre is still showing The Baxter? The place must be empty! Clearview wake up!

Cablevision owns both Clearview Cinemas and IFC, so The Baxter will continue to run at the Ziegfeld for a while.

Yeah, The Baxter pretty much killed us at the Ziegfeld. As far as I know, the theater is going to be closing down for a little while soon, except for a couple premieres and special functions, then will reopen with Flightplan on the 23rd. I think.

totoro do you work for the Ziegfeld?
Then why do the people who run the place treat it just like another screening room in a multiplex? What is the point? Shouldn't they just tear it down and build another office or lux condo building?
Or else treat it like a special event movie theater. Put in a larger curved screen, use it for 70mm special events and show contemporary films as one can see them no where else like the Cinerama Dome in LA.
What is it that I'm missing here?

Good question Vincent, just what the heck is going on with that theatre? What they are doing has to have a reason or a plan of some kind. Clearly they aren't that stupid as to run the theatre the way they do. It's really irritating.

Anyone know if (when) RENT will be playing at Ziegfeld?

On my way to MoMA the last couple of nights (why isn't there a listing for that legendary venue?) and THE BAXTER is on the marquee, but the theatre is dark. I think the Ziegfeld's days are numbered. Theatres that large are anachronisms, unfortunately.

Vito I have found in life to my chargrin that when people seem as if they have no reason or plan they usually have no reason or plan. They really DON'T know what their doing.
Of course they really could be waiting for the right condo or office deal.

It's closed at the moment. They have at least for now put it out of it's misery

Sorry their should be they're. See how angry theive gotten me.

Question: When did the Ziegfeld put in a smaller screen...and WHY??? I remember seeing "Apocalypse Now" and others on what I thought was one of the largest screens I ever saw...until I went to the Astor Plaza (now closed)

When will it re open or will it?

Has anybody found out any information? I call moviefone and it shows no showtimes. This has me extremely concerned. It seems to be closed.

The Baxter is opening on September the 16th. It is not uncommon for the Ziegfeld to just close its doors for a while between film runs to clean up real well or do some work inside.

This has happened in the past.

The Ziegfeld has been temporarily closed to the public during slow periods for years. Former owners Walter Reade and Cineplex Odeon also shuttered the Ziegfeld on occasion.

Why would Clearview be resuming at the Ziegfeld the engagement of a film ('The Baxter') which completely tanked in its 47-theatre, tri-state run, and, from all reports, most notably at the Ziegfeld? Seems to be, to say the least, highly unlikely. I suspect, as per Totoro's post from September 5th, the Ziegfeld will be re-opening on the 23rd with 'Flightplan'.

Any news about "The Producers" opening in December? Can't think of any other theatre, except RCMH, that I would like to see it play.
I saw a rough cut at a test screening two weeks ago, let me tell you it is going to be HUGE. The audience reaction was tremendous, I have not seen an audience go so wild over a movie in a very long time.

I would have loved to have been at that test screening of "The Producers." Several sites (including Ain't It Cool News) have posted comments from the NJ test screening, noting that the audience response was ecstatic.

I attended the first Broadway preview of "The Producers" in March 2001. Even though the intermission lasted 45 minutes due to set problems, no one complained. A smash from day one.

Last I heard, Universal plans a wide release starting on December 21, in contrast to Miramax's slow rollout of "Chicago," which had a very successful exclusive run at the Ziegfeld.

Update on my last post: According to Boxofficemojo.com, Universal has changed the release strategy for "The Producers." Opening in limited release on Friday, December 16 with a wide release starting a month later (January 13). Very similar to Miramax's strategy for "Chicago."

This would be a perfect attraction for the Ziegfeld.

I am the only one who thinks the score is maybe the worst for a smash Broadway hit? The songs from the movie are fine but the rest are total Broadway schlock. And then there is Nathan Lane. To think that once in this world strode giants like Zero Mostel and Phil Silvers!

I spoke to Anthony Rapp and Tracie Thoms, two of the stars of "RENT" and they are having their premiere there in October. Neither knew if it was booked as an engagement though. Anthony told me he loves The Zeigfeld and hopes it plays here.

Sorry I haven't posted in a while. I do work for the Ziegfeld, but only when I'm at home (i.e. not when I'm upstate attending college, which is where I am right now). The theater is open right now, showing Flightplan, which is probably at least doing better than The Baxter. That one tanked worse than anything I've seen - and I was working there when we got "2 Fast, 2 Furious".

I am pretty sure the Ziegfeld will be getting Rent, but can't absolutely guarantee it. No idea about The Producers, but you all are exactly right - it would be perfect. Rent one month, Producers the next? The Ziegfeld could clean up, for once! Our theater never, ever makes money - it is always in the red. The rest of the Clearview multiplexes around the area keep us afloat...it's been like that for a while, and probably will be for long to come.

As for why the theater is being run the way it is, well, I don't have a good answer for you Vincent. The managers of the Ziegfeld just do as they're told, and show the movies that Clearview sends us. I know at least one of the managers would love to see Clearview doing more with the theater, but there's not much they can do about it. Switching over from a standard first-run theater to a place that shows classics would require a lot of changes. Clearview probably feels it isn't worth putting in the money, time, and research to seriously consider a switch like that, when they can just throw the latest Hollywood claptrap up onto the screen. I know it's a shame, but corporate-types are not easily swayed away from their familiar territory, and we all know it.

I wouldn't expect any changes anytime soon. Just hope that the Ziegfeld will get at least a few solid films during the course of a year.

Anybody know what is the weekly house nut for the Ziegfeld these days? Back in the 80s it was around $30G, which was enormous at that time. The films were better and they were just squeaking by then.

I'm not entirely sure which film was the first I ever saw here. I know my parents took me to see "That's Entertainment" at this theater, but I also recall seeing a re-issue of Disney's "Fantasia" at a big theater in Manhattan in the '70's and I think it might have been here... although, now that I think about it, it may have been one of the many films I saw at Radio City Music Hall in the '70's.

I remember seeing the "Grateful Dead Movie" here in 1977 when I was a pre-teen Dead Head in training. Also "Apocalype Now!" which was presented here in 70mm & Dolby without any opening or closing credits, just a program that was handed out with a listing of those involved in the production. I also recall playing hookey and coming in to Manhattan via subway on Saint Patrick's Day and braving the crowds to catch a matinee of the musical "Hair" in 1979. I still have the souveneir program from that day. A few years later some college buddies and I caught the movie version of Pink Floyd's "The Wall" at the Ziegfeld.

I know there were many other movies I caught here, but these stand out in my memory. The most recent one was "Chicago" a couple of years back. And if the Peter Jackson remake of "King Kong" is indeed booked here for December, I will most certainly make the quick trip in to see it. Now with the Astor Plaza converted to a venue for live concerts, the only other movie theater in Manhattan that compares to this (in terms of presentation and spaciousness) is the main "Loew's" auditorium at the Lincoln Square Multiplex on Broadway and 68th, which has some ersatz "movie palace" decor and features a two-aisle seating plan (with left, center and right orchestra sections) as well as an honest-to-goodness balcony.

Check out the Ziegfeld as part of the showcase for "Star Spangled Girl". It was odd back then for them to play Paramount and to be a part of a showcase.
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/Movie%20Ads/CarnalKnowledge.jpg

Saw "Flightplan" there recently and it was empty! Also although it is a really nice single screer theatre the seats are very uncomfortable and the screen is really not that large!

When "Star Spangled Girl" played the Ziegfeld in 1971, the house nut was $25,000 a week. Variety reported the total one week take of "Star Spangled Girl" was $1,000 by the time it hit showcase.

Is the theater closed again? I can't seem to find out what's playing there.

I walked by the theater on Saturday on my way to MoMA and the Ziegfeld is indeed dark. The turkey ELIZABETHTOWN played there and tanked so now the Ziegfeld is closed. They'll fire up the boiler and projecter mid month for RENT. They are also going to show THE PRODUCERS.

Both films' names are listed on the marquee.

Rent and The Producers will also play at one of the multiplexes on 42nd street so the theater crowds will most likely go there. Will be interesting to see how big a crowd is drawn to the Ziegfeld because of the theater.

"The Producers" is slated to open exclusively in NY and LA on December 16 prior to a limited expansion on Christmas Day (to approx 1,200 screens) and full expansion on January 13. So the Ziegfeld may show "The Producers" exclusively in NYC between December 16 and 25.

I loved going to the Ziegfeld to see "The Wiz", "Hair", "Victor/Victoria", "That's Entertainment III", and even "Ishtar" !!! Sure hope they get "Rent" and/or "The Producers" ! I'd go in a New York minute !!!

Does anyone know when the Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire premiere will start/end? any information would be appreciated
email: jerrymouse173@aol.com

Regarding the above post about films that played the Ziegfeld. "Victor/Victoria," "Hair," and each of the three "That's Entertainment" films played there (all of which were initially at the Ziegfeld on an exclusive basis).

Not sure about "Ishtar" but I don't believe that "The Wiz" was shown at the Ziegfeld; the Manhattan first run engagements of "The Wiz" were at Loews theaters, including the Astor Plaza.

Nice photo of the Ziegfeld Marquee.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozzdo/12874693/

I passed by the Ziegfeld today and noticed that the theater is now selling tickets for the exclusive engagement of "The Producers" starting on December 16. Close to round the clock shows are scheduled for the opening weekend: the first show starts at 9:15 a.m. and the last show at 1:30 a.m.

Just as the Broadway version set a new ticket high of $100, the film version is doing the same for movie admissions. All seats for all performances (no senior or children discounts and, of course, no bargain matinees): $12.50.

Inside word is that the film isn't very good and by the looks of the preview I agree. The sets look terrible.

Whether or not The Producers is any good, I am happy to see an exclusive booking here for a change, even at inflated roadshow prices. I wonder if that old showman Mel Brooks had anything to do with the booking.

According to the Clearview website, the inflated prices will only last for as long as the Ziegfeld shows "The Producers" exclusively (12/16 to 12/24). Ticket prices will be reduced to $10.75 starting on Christmas Day, when the film moves into wider release.

I love seeing the long lines down 54th Street when this place has a hot booking; everybody there is thrilled to be seeing a picture at the city's only remaining movie palace.

They are having the premiere of Rent tonight.

HA! 12.50 will be here to stay in Manhattan! Another sneaky trick to raise prices and eventually chase more people away!

"The Producers" looks terrible and so does "Rent". With a past loaded with great musicals, why the HELL can't someone get it right? The arguement is that todays "kids" won't believe the musical the way it used to be presented. WRONG. Kids by the millions watch non stop musicals all day on MTV and it's various channels.

Pauline Kael once said in the late 60's that the time then was ripe to create more musicals with the present (then) rock stars like Janis Joplin. That's what made the musicals of the 30s, 40s and 50s successful: they were populated with the top recording artists of the day (Doris Day, Rosemary Clooney, Crosby et. al.). That's what the studios could do: setup a musical with one or many of today's contemporary recording artists. This would probably not appeal to some of the older generation on this site (sorry...I do NOT mean this at all as an insult but it's the truth...you're not going to see or even want to see the likes of Britney Spears, Sheryl Crowe or a Justin Timberlake crooning a 50s ditty).

The studios lack the creative nerve to do something like this. If someone took the dare to create a really good musical, it would be a blockbuster. Christ, look at "Purple Rain" back in 1984. Maybe not everyone's cup of tea but it was pretty good.

Well, I've seen Rent and The Producers, and both films are extremely entertaining. The Ziegfeld will be a glorious place to experience both.

Ed, I second that, both screenigs I attended of The Producers had audiences going wild. Rent is another holiday must see. Going to see King Kong in two weeks, all three hours of it, hopefully it won't be dissapointing. With Harry Potter raking in over 100 mill last weekend, my industry friends are telling me the holiday movie season is off to a great start. By the way, did you get a chance to meet Mel Brooks at one of the Producers screenings? he attended both of the ones I attended and was very gracious and a real cut up.

Well 12.50 for an exclusive engagement reserved seat is an absolute bargain. Remember My Fair Lady at the Criterion was $5.50 for the mezz in '64. That would without exageration would be close to $50 today(and if I could see that or Lawrence in 70mm today at the Criterion I'd pay it without blinking an eye.)
After all this was close to half the price of a top ticket to Dolly of Fiddler at the time and when you consider that tickets to musicals are $110 today it makes sense.
But then most seats in the orchestra today are premium prices which range from $250 to $500.
So if you wanted to sell a premium seat to a road show film this would cost you over $100. After all premium seating is simply legalized scalping.
$12.50 at the Ziegfeld in today's loony pricing scheme when you come down to it is dirt cheap.

$12.50, eh? I remember my Mother being shocked, SHOCKED going to see "Rocky" at the big, old, grand Lynbrook theater and having to shell out a whopping $4.00.

Vincent make a very good point, most theatre owners and studio bosses would agree, todays movie prices are in line with the rising cost of just about everything today. Of course, some of my friends still scold me for the cost of tickets like it's my fault.
Movie passes make great stocking stuffers!

Hopefully Rent will be a hit for the Ziegfeld. The movie is wonderful despite some negative reviews. I would have loved to have seen it at this theater.
I saw it here in NC at a new chain, Epic Theatres which is a top noche chain.(Unlike Carmike The Worst) They have 5 theaters so far and are building more in Florida. They recently purchased a small United Artist theater down the street from where they opened the areas first stadium seat theater.

When I started as an usher in 1968 tickets were about $2. An increase to $12.50 over nearly thirty-eight years is not unreasonable.

$2 Dave? Now I know I'm old, when I ushered it was 25 cents and we got free dishes every Monday and Wednesday. I gotta go take a nap now, where is that ole rockin chair anyway?

Vito;
I heard tell many people would drop dishes during dish nights. Did that ever happen on your watch?

Gustavelifting, no, can't say that I had. Each week a new part of a compete set of dishes were given out, most people returned week after week in order to complete their set.

My Dad grew up in The Bronx in the 1940's and used to talk about dish nights and how at some point there'd be the sound of someone dropping their set followed by a responsive rise in the crowd. He grew up on 167th between Tiffany and Fox and most frequently mentioned the Loew's Spooner and the Boulevard Theater as frequent destinations along with the occasional trip to the grand Loew's Paradise on the Concourse. Those were certainly different days... and I wish I could've had a taste of the movie-going experience from back then.

I called my brother regarding the dish breaking thing, with me in the booth most of the time, he spent more time with the patrons than I did, and he told me that yes, on occassion some one would drop a dish, but it was usually accidental and the rest of the audience members would clap and cheer at the sound. Ed, you write about different days, and oh my goodness were they ever, not only did you get a free dish every Wednesday, but a double feature, a newsreel, a cartoon, and a chapter of the latest serial as well, and all for about twenty five cents. Of course many movie palaces offered eight acts of vaudeville too.

Many of those serials are now on DVD.

Gustavelifting, I did not know that, I will go out and get a couple to share with the little ones. Of course when I showed hem "Dracula" and told them how scared I was watching it as a kid, they said "scary, your kidding right"? Ah, kids today, ya gotta love em.

Is the theater closed again? UGH Rent is wonderful no reason for them not to do well with it.

The premiere for The Producers was there last night. It will run exclusive at the Ziegfeld beginning Dec. 16th.

Nice "exclusive" New York Times ad for "The Producers". They used the cursive script logo for The Ziegfeld Theatre. I don't remember ever seeing that in an ad. I remember the Walter Reade font that every one of his theatres used.

That ad really brought me back. Imagine a full page film ad for one theater with a stylized logo the way ads often were in the Times' Arts and Leisure until the 70's.

I already posted this in response to the story about the exclusive engagement of "The Producers", but I think it's worth saying here too.

Sometimes I get a little sick of the devoted reverence shown to the
Ziegfeld Theater. Think about it -- if it weren't the only large single-screen house left in Manhattan, it would merit scant attention at all.

It is not a movie palace, was not built during the movie-palace era, and the decor is frankly tacky. (If you are a gay man of a certain age, you'll probably agree that "piss elegant" is a perfect description for the style.) It is just a sad, sad joke when you consider the spectacular original Ziegfeld Theater it replaced.

Now, with the demise of the Astor Plaza, I will admit that I will choose to see a film at the Ziegfeld if possible simply because of the size of the house. That's what it has going for it, and that's all that it has going for it.

It is what it is. Let's not pretend it's something it's not.

Remember that way back in the fall of '70 when Lean's first film since his greatest success Zhivago opened he chose not the Rivoli or Criterion two great epic theaters still intact in all their Time Square glory he chose the small screened tackily appointed Ziegfeld. From the very beginning this theater superseded all the others still standing and I will never know why. One of fate's cruel jokes I suppose.

Sorry, SteveBob, but no one is pretending the Ziegfeld is anything more than it is. The last large single-screen cinema left in Manhattan.

I'll repeat what I said in this comment section back in March of this year:

"So the Ziegfeld isn't the greatest theatre that ever existed. So what? I'm 37 and most of the greatest theatres that did exist were torn down or mutilated in some way before I was born. Nothing I can do about that. A palace it may not be, but for what's left in this city, I'll take the Ziegfeld or the Beekman as many times as I can as long as they're still here."

Granted, the Beekman is gone, I'm now 38 and I've since moved back to Los Angeles, but the Ziegfeld was still a hell of a place to see a movie.

Stevebob... I wholeheartedly agree with you. This is certainly not a "movie palace" in the traditional sense of the phrase - but then, neither are probably more than 80% of the theaters listed on this site. The Ziegfeld is basically a larger more decked-out version of some of the more upscale suburban boxes that were built in the '60's (like the Fox in East Setauket or the Loew's Bay Terrace in Bayside). The seating is plush and there's a sufficient amount of velvet and brocade trim for the theater to have passed as "elegant" in the '60's and '70's (sort of wedding-hall chic). I felt the same towards the former Astor Plaza, which was a bit less flashy than the Ziegfeld but shared with it the one virtue that made both places a rare treat for moviegoers, particularly as older theaters (the true palaces) were either multiplexed or razed in the '80's and '90's: an extraordinarily spacious single screen auditorium.

That's still good enough reason to seek out the Ziegfeld when an interesting enough film is booked there. But, I would agree that there is nothing particularly palatial about the theater's architectural merits and certainly nothing in its interior appointments to merit favorable comparison with true lost cinematic treasures like the Rivoli, Strand, Loew's State or Roxy Theaters.

Wedding hall chic? I always thought of it as 'New Orleans Whorehouse Chic'... at least in the lobby...

Chic is chic.

In response to some of the above negative comments, "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder." An attempt was made to create an atmosphere in this theatre and honor Flo Ziegfeld. The interior was much better than many of the late 1960's & 70's movie houses. It is unique in its own way, even if it wasn't built during the movie palace era. There are many people for over a quarter of a century who have felt their movie going experience has been enhanced when attending the Ziegfeld. To them, there are many pleasant memories associated with this theatre.

Just got back from a hilarious showing of "The Producers" at the Ziegfeld. Worth every penny of the inflated $12.50 ticket price. Say what you want about the theater's decor, its size as compared to the Roxy or Rivoli, etc. - I love the Ziegfeld and I'd hate to think what New York City would be like without it.

Re: Vincent's comment about "Ryan's Daughter" at the Ziegfeld - for 35 years I've regretted NOT being able to see that movie there. In December 1970 I was standing outside the Ziegfeld with my cousin, all ready to go in, when he talked me out of it, saying it looked boring, etc. We wound up seeing "Love Story" at Loew's State 1 instead. What a comedown compared to the great film experience "Ryan's Daughter" turned out to be.

Dolly (Mrs. Walter) Reade did the original interiors here. She is a nice lady, but in the lobby she did go a little overboard with the red and gold flocked wallpaper, the French provincial furniture and the red-globed gas-lamp replicas. That decor in a larger, taller room would have been ok, but in that room it was a somewhat overbearing. Still, it was more imaginative than other theatres built in that era. The decor in the auditorium, due to it's size, came across better. I haven't seen it since Wonder-Boy from Toronto had it renovated, so maybe it doesn't look like that anymore.

Bill....I personally believe "Ryan's Daughter" is David Lean's most underrated film and one of Mitchum's best. What a re-release that would make...but..that'll be the day

Yeah I missed it too for some reason and saw it only very recently at the MOMA. Yep it puts all contemporary filmaking in the shade. Astounding that at the time the idiot New York critics totally humiliated Lean personally at a public function which caused him not to make another film for 11 years.
We lost many years of his moviemaking.
And yes the film deserves a major 70mm release. Some of it is stupendous.

Rhett and Vincent: well, at least we can look forward to the next best thing - "Ryan's Daughter" on DVD February 7th from Warner Home Video (who will do it justice). Turn up the volume!

"Worth every penny of the inflated $12.50 ticket price."

Wow. Thanx for the warning. I'll be giving the Ziegfeld a wide berth in the future if they are charging $12.50 a pop.

According to Clearview Cinemas, the $12.50 price will last only for the exclusive premier run of "The Producers" and prices will return to the normal $10.75 once the film goes into wider distribution.

Does anybody know how I stop getting e mails when somebody reponds to this theater? I musty have accidently checked the block one day. I don't kow if it was Clearview Cinemas or Mel Brooks being a thief, but if I was still living in NYC I would have boycotted and would be picketing the theater. There was no excusse to raise the price for this film. I always loved this theater but would not support this.

Check your email - the link to "remove" is at the bottom of it.

jkjk

Here's a nice interior photo found on a popular photo website-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23797386@N00/17066177/

mikeoaklandpark;
Try contacting cinematreasures.org from their 'contact us' link on the homepage.

How is the Producers? I did not see it on Broadway and I would like to see the film at my local theater.

The movie is absolutely terrible.I love musicals and loved the broadway show, but this did not transfer well into a movie. Beleive me the people who paid $12.75 to see thismovvie were ripped off. If I was a critic, my review would have statrted like this.
Mel Brooks creattes majoy FLOP in Producers movies. I would have gien it *1/2 stars and only the half because Will Farrell is the best thing in the movie.

Reaction to "The Producers" from critics and audiences alike has been sharply divided. I prefer the stage version with Lane and Broderick (which I saw six times), but the film is enjoyable if you can accept the staginess of the presentation---the film is an odd hybrid of a filmed stage production (such as the tv version of "Sweeney Todd") and a movie.

In his review on "Ebert and Roeper," Ebert said "I loved the play and liked the movie." I agree.

I felt they made it to slapstick almost like a Three Stoges movie.

Can anyone comment as to WHY the Ziegfeld installed such a narrow and smaller screen than the one they had years ago?? I remember seeing "Apocalypse Now" and thinking WOW...this is the largest screen I ever saw

When did they put in a new screen. I agree they had a huge screen when I lived in NYC 76-82.

This is the same size screen the Ziegfeld always used, excopt for the temporary "Cinerama" installation. Side masking opens a few feet for scope presentations. Existing drapery treatment limits potential screen size.

I think that the screen seemed so big a few years ago is because it was one of the biggest ones in town. But now that the newest multiplexes (Empire, Lincoln Square, E-walk, Kips Bay) have wall-to-wall and floor-to-ceiling screens, all the space around the Ziegfeld screen makes it seem smaller.

The one thing I noticed from Howard's picture is tha masking is different. It never came down below the screen in the past. Maybe they did it becuase they don't use those beautiful curtains.

Went in to see "The Producers" at the Ziegfeld the other day - now that the prices have dropped back down to $10.75. I liked the movie and thought it was very entertaining. It isn't much of a film, per se -- as others have noted, it is basically a filmed version of the staged play. But as such, its existence is justified for preserving on film for all to see the dynamic pairing of Lane and Broderick and the inspired performances of Roger Bart and Tony-winner Gary Beach, who recreate their supporting stage roles here. Unfortunately, the equally impressive stage performances of Brad Oscar and Tony-winner Cady Huffman are left only to the memories of those lucky enough to have seen the original cast, but, we are compensated with excellent turns by Will Ferrell and Uma Thurman in their respective roles. I laughed nearly as hard and long as I did in the St. James Theater 4 years ago.

As for the theater itself... I went there with the thought of taking a fresh look at the decor and re-assessing my opinion of the place. It's certainly not as horrible or tacky as it may have been in my memory and it is a wonderful space to enjoy a film - nice big screen, spacious auditorium, comfy seats - but it still stands in my estimation as an ersatz palace. The auditorium is a big box, not unlike those '60's suburban standalone's built by Century's and Loew's, but the walls are adorned with thick red-velvet carpeting and there is some decorative rope-like patterns of gold that break up the monotone. At either side of the screen (I wouldn't call it a proscenium, exactly) there is a panel with a flourished "S"-shaped motif in relief and then there is the theater's finest touch - the magnificent drapery and curtains. The photo posted above by HowardBHass on December 26th depicts all of this beautifully. It is a shame that the theater allows commercial slides to be projected on the screen between show times. It's sort of absurd to watch as the traveling curtain is closed only to be opened again seconds later for the trailers. Actually, there are a series of annoying commercial spots that precede the trailers, but I try to forget about their existence.

Had I taken my camera along, I might have snapped some shots of some of the detail work that sets the theater apart from other modern-era houses. These include the detailing at the end of each row of seats along the aisles, the fanciful signs for the bathrooms (using a rendering of stylish early 20th Century footwear to identify each gender), and the chandeliers that hang from the ceilings in the various portions of the lobby. Too bad the lobby was designed with such segmentation and low ceilings. When one enters from street level, you are in a small square vestibule, where you'll find the box office. Through another set of doors is the inner lobby where your ticket is ripped and you are sent along your way upstairs to the mezzanine foyer (where the restrooms and candy counter are located). You enter the auditorium on either side at the point where the orchestra seating ends and the raised rear stadium-style loge seating begins.

What might have really abetted the attempt at old time splendor would have been a more open atrium approach to the lobby design that might have showcased the handsome set of stairs used to get to the mezzanine foyer (there is also an escalator along the opposite wall that runs parallel to the stairs). At least there are those wonderful display cases along the lobby and staircase walls featuring vintage photos and posters from the previous Ziegfeld Theater as well as from various Ziegfeld presentations at other theaters (like the Selwyn and New Amsterdam).

"The Producers" was horrible. A filmed stage play. Matthew Broderick was horrible and Nathan Lane didn't register. Will ferrel was as annoying as ever and UMa (while georgeous) was OK. I imagine on the stage it was better with an audience BUT unfortunately the original movie is my ALL time favorite comedy so I was prejudiced. Nathan is no ZERO and Broderick is no Gene. The delivery and the comedy was just so effective....and NO, seeing it at a single screen would not have made a difference. No wonder the film is bombing.

I decided to see the original Producers at the Film Forum a few years back after having seen it innumerable times on TV since I was a boy.
I was not prepared for how wonderful it was. Zero and Gene on a movie screen are so brilliant that all those TV broadcasts now seem to have had them trapped in a cage. Next to them Lane and Broderick as someone has said are nothing more than understudies.
That being said I did see Zero 3 times in a Fiddler revival at the Winter Garden in the 70's and he was awful. The least professional performance I have ever seen.
So why did I see it 3 times? Because it was a great production. The supporting cast and the rest were impeccable with the great staging and sets and costumes beautifully recreated.

Sometime in the early 90's they started to mask the bottom of the screen for scope presentations. I recall seeing a "sneak preview" of Ghost (which was flat) and in those days you could stay for the regular feature afterwards which in this case was Days of Thunder (which was in scope) and during the interval, they opened up the side masking and a couple ushers carried in two long black strips that they used masked the bottom of the screen.
I also recall reading something around that time about people complaining that the screen at the Ziegfeld was too low and that audience heads were always blocking the screen... perhaps this was their response to that complaint. Who knows...
On another note - the quality of the presentation here has been on the upswing lately. The Island, Rent, The Producers, Tristan and Isolde, hell - even The Baxter were presented extremely well. It was pretty sketchy there for a while - sometimes worse than a third-rate multiplex. Good for them!
As you can probably tell, I'll see any old crap they put up here. ANYTHING. I just don't want them to close. The Astor Plaza was my house of choice, but now this is all we have left. Gotta support it.
I also heard that they will be doing a short program of revivals... anyone know details?

I heard they are returning THE BAXTER for another week! lol

Speaking of scope. We chatted here earlier about Steven Spielberg and why 99% of his fils are filmed inflat. I took a peak in one of the auditoriums where Munich was playing and extremly surpirsed to see he filmed that in scope.

Actually, the Ziegfeld used a strip across the bottom of the screen when I worked there as a relief projectionist starting with "Close Encounters" in the '70's. The screen height was the same for 1.85 35mm and 2.21 70mm ratios, but the bottom was masked to provide the correct 2.35 anamorphic aspect ratio. Perhaps they stopped doing that after I stopped working there in (I guess)the late '80's, but they do have a good projection crew there, and since its a premiere house they do have to be able to meet studio specs for both film and digital presentations.

If the Ziegfeld ever closes, that's it for movie going in NY. It will be the theatrical apocolypse (did I spell that right?). I mean it. We'll be left with shoebox theaters and dwindling audiences.

And I love all this analysis and handwringing over why audience attendence is dwindling. The movies, by and large, are garbage. Even "King Kong" failed to ignite audiences. A large scale passionate remake of what was/is a B rate movie is not what audiences want right now.

REndres' insight might explain why the screen seemed a tad larger for "Lawrence of Arabia," which would have been projected in the 2.21 aspect ratio for Super Panavision, than it was when I saw "Apocalypse Now" here back in '79 (still one of the most stunning film experiences I've ever had, with the projection and sound having a lot to do with it). And here I thought it was all those desert vistas that only made it SEEM bigger!

Re the comments taking down the Ziegfeld for not being a true movie palace: Would it be fair to liken the Ziegfeld to, say, Avery Fisher Hall, in that both are the city's "premier" venues for their particular purposes (AFH is after all the home base of the NY Philharmonic) and that both are roomy, sleek and efficient (except for AFH's sometimes boomy acoustics), but not all that plush/ornate as compared to Carnegie Hall in AFH's case or the Rivoli or Criterion in the case of the Ziegfeld?

Fascinating point about Spielberg... He filmed his first 4 theatrical features in scope ("Sugarland Express", "Jaws", "Close Encounters..." and "1941") as well as all three Indiana Jones movies. In the last 15 years, only "Hook", "Minority Report" and "Munich" have been released in 2.35:1 ratio. And "Hook" might have been his last true anamorphic scope release since both "Minority Report" and "Munich" utilized the Super 35 process (based on RKO's old Superscope) which utilizes a flat negative from which a widescreen image is carved during the transfer process. This process has come into favor in recent years because new prints can be struck using the full 1.37:1 negative aspect for T.V. and full-screen video release. There is fascinating information on various widescreen processes at the widescreen museum website... though I'm sure that's not news to many on this site.

Paul Bubny... I think that would be a very fair comparison regarding the Ziegfeld and Avery Fisher Hall. We as aesthete's are disappointed that the Rivolis and Capitols and Strands have all been demolished and all we are left are pale architectural shadows like the Ziegfeld (and until recently, the Loew's Astor Plaza). However, as pragmatists, we must acknowledge that there is much to be appreciated about the Ziegfled, particularly when compared to the alternatives that currently exist.

Movieguy 718,
What's this about revivals?
Where did you read about this?
Any details?

REndres, are they running reel to reel or platter?
Some of the biggest problems with projection today comes from the use of platters, with brain wraps, thrown prints etc.
I understand the need for platters in a plex or manager operator theatre, but not in a single screen or even a twin operation where the booth has a projectionist.

They are running platter. The last time I worked there covering an emergency was in 1990, but I had run a revival series before that and they were using platters then. They still have two 35/70mm Century JJ's, and the third position is for digital cinema projection. They were using a Texas Instrument prototype projector for the last "Star Wars" and a Christie for "The Island", with Dolby Digital Cinema Show Store and Player. When they do digital projection for premieres they have a 35mm print running on the platter as a back-up.

Thanks REndres for that information. Now can you give me your opinion as to why they would choose to use a platter in a single screen operation, with a licenced union projectionist, instead of reel to reel? Help an old man understand the thinking behind such madness. Apparently they are doing the same thing at Graumans in LA, the big (original) house has a platter. An industry friend of mine in LA,who attended the premere of "The Producers", told me that about half way thru the movie a brain wrap caused the print to jam in the gate causing the image to burn away. Is that supposed to be progress? In both locations they have a professional maning the booth, with two projectors, sitting for 2 hours watching a platter go around instead of running reel to reel. Thank God I am retired!

I'd like to second Vincent's request to Movieguy718 about the rumored revivals at the Ziegfeld. Wouldn't that be great? They showed them a lot in the 1970's in between big premiere engagements. I recall one especially good double feature: "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Yellow Submarine". Another one: "West Side Story" and "Around the World in 80 Days" - that was the first show I saw at the theater (1972).

Yes Bill, I think we are all salavating over Vincent's idea

One of the reasons that theatre chains use platters in single screen theatres is they have cut the hours of the union projectionist and the other hours are handled by management. This fact has happened in many large single first run houses across the country. Another thing is the studios prefer to have the film run on a platter during major events like premieres. No matter how good an operator you are , you are only as good as your last change-over. I've had operators tell me that it would be easier to run it reel to reel. But the studios do not want to take the chance of a operator screwup. Yes, Grauman's Chinese has a platter in the main house. But the operator also has to operate the six-plex next door too. The days of one operator per booth or theatre is long gone. Was the main premiere of "The Producers" at the Chinese or over at the Brand new AMC plex in Century City? When the Chinese Theatre had the twin houses next door that operator had to handle those theatres too. In Westwood, California all those single screen first run theatres are handled by two operators and management. Another reason is they only have to deal with one xenon lamp during a screening for those EK/Wetgate
showprints. I've run many premieres and major studio screenings over the years on the West Coast, so I've been right there in the booth for all of that progress.

Hey Guys,
I was told that they were toying with the possibility of showing the Godfather movies in February.

Ummm...guys...check out the Clearview Cinemas website :-) It's better than what you could hope for!

I'd say this falls under the heading of A Dream Come True. My only big concern is how many times I will get to attend a showing of "West Side Story".

Thanks, Movieguy, for being the first to announce what we Ziegfeld lovers have long been waiting for.

And if any Clearview executives are reading this page: Thank You! I'm sure we at Cinema Treasures will be attending in force.

Am I crazy? I can't find the list on the Clearview site?

Here's the website: http://clearviewcinemas.com/

And holy cow! What a line-up!

Anybody know yet the "format" (gauge, audio system) of these individual presentations, in particular, WWStory?

Oh BOY! They're showing "The Godfather". Man, that's a hard one to catch. It's NEVER on cable.

But I would like to see "Chinatown" on a big screen.

Sorry for the sarcasm but I agree that they're using their heads now with programming like that. I work just a couple of blocks away and I'm wondering if there's someway I could sneak one in. I could say I've got a long meeting to attend...

Hi William, good to hear your thoughts, although I think when you use the word progress it should be "progress"
I understand the need for film transport systems in multi screen or manager/operator theatres, however that does not apply to the Ziegfield where full time union projectionists are employed. As for the studios prefernce to platters over reel to reel, please, the chance of error on one of these contraptions is far greater than running reel to reel. Platters can, and often do, have brain wraps which can delay the show for several minutes, prints can be thrown
either off center or completly off the platter where the print dangles like a dead fish, causing delays of a very long time or even complete cancellation of a performance. Then there are the scratches on prints caused by rollers forced out of alignment or damage done to them by mylar prints brain wrapping. In addition I have seen prints with reels spiced together either out of frame or out of sequence, I even saw a show where the third reel was spliced in up side down. As you know, I could go on with the problems cused by platters. As for reel to reel, like most professional projectionists, I could count the number of missed changeovers or other mishaps I experienced on one hand. Yeah, I know, I'm an ole fool for trying to hang on to the past, but one of the biggest problems, next to people taking on cell phones,in our theatres today is poor projection caused by poorly trained amatuers, running platters (God I hate them) and killing off the great art of
projection. There I feel better now :)

Oh my god. So there is a programmer out there who knows what he's doing?
Please, please, please, let Ben Hur, WSS and MFL be in genuine 70mm!!!
How can we find out?

I would doubt that they are in 70mm - I don't think MGM had any runable prints of WSS in 70mm and now that Sony owns the film, they would probably not strike 70mm prints since the capability to run them is so limited (they can't do magnetic striping at the labs any longer). I think MFL's 70mm prints were junked when Kit Parker Films closed up shop. I don't know about Ben-Hur, the last 70mm of it that I saw was in 1990 or so - I'm running it in 35mm for 4 days in April at the Lafayette.

So does this mean we'll never see 70mm again?

This is the best cinematic news I've heard in quite a long time. 70mm would be a blast of whipped crime atop an already frosted cake. I wonder what the life expectancy of this programming will be beyond the weekend of the Academy Awards telecast.

Hi Vito, Thanks for your thoughts. I the main problem is that there are so many poorly trained amatuers in the booths today.

I still run reel to reel here in Manhattan. And it feels good :)

Why would anybody junk a 70mm print of My Fair Lady? It would be like tearing down Penn Station all over again. I believe the Moma might have one. I saw it there a few years ago(screen was too small to do it justice.) Does it still exist?

Vincent - Not neccesarily, but it will be more and more rare since the only new prints they can strike are 70mm DTS prints and there are even fewer theatres that can play that format than standard 70mm mag sound. And virtually all of the vintage 70mm prints from prior to 1983 have faded and/or succumbed to warping by now. So the only 70mm prints you'd be seeing - if any - will be prints struck from 1983-2001 (that probably have a lot of mileage) or newly struck with DTS tracks. If you want to see 70mm, your best bet is to keep your eyes on the festivals in L.A. in England, where they sometimes run the rare good condition studio prints but often also run totally faded prints.

Re: junking prints - they would usually do it once the print reached a certain level of wear. And when a company closes up shop, it's cheaper to junk the prints than it is to store the films until the new buyer is ready for them. Sad but true.

I guess we were lucky to see the prints that still existed in the 70's.
I still hope the MOMA print or the Music Hall print from their Warner Brothers festival can be used.
By the way when the Ziegeld held the 93 restoration it was only for 9 days. Would this print then be available? Or would 27 showings wear down a 70mm print?

No, a run of 27 shows wouldn't wear a print out unless there was a mechanical issue. But that print and the other MFL's from 1993 - there were probably only 3 or 4 struck - played a number of other venues and at each stop there would certainly be a chance for additional wear and tear. When most films finish their runs, the majority of the prints are junked whether they are worn or not. The Music Hall print would have come from Kit Parker, so it's most likely gone. If MOMA has a 70mm print in their permanent collection, they probably would not loan it out.

The print of MFL that we played at the Radio City Warner series came from Kit Parker and was amazingly beaten up for a relatively recent release. The film case for one of the 70mm reels looked as if it had been run over by a fork lift. We were doing a concert when the print came in, and I had to take the case down to the stage where our stage crew took the case down to the shop and literally cut the reel out of the case. The reel itself was bent above the print so that the two flanges actually touched, and we had to pry them apart to get at the film. Fortunately, 70mm wound tightly is pretty firm, so the print itself wasn't damaged, but I had to splice the reel to the next reel. When we called to ask for a replacement reel and case Parker's office said to send it back on one our house reels --that "those old theatares had reels lying around."! No -- it went back spliced to the next reel. We had played "Exorcist" in the only 70mm print existing just before MFL, and there was a splice in MFL that reminded me of the prior film as so many frames had been cut out that Julie Andrew's head snapped around much like Linda Blair's. The "Exorcist" print was also almost completely faded. When the production department head asked if the "pea soup" scene was in tact, I said, "Yes. But think tomato soup!"

By the way, there was some thought given to releasing some prints of Malick's "New World" in 70mm, since it some of it was shot on 65mm, but apparently there weren't enough prime theatres left that can do 70mm to make it worth while.

Too bad, I was just thinking, that the Ziegfeld screen is so flat - pleasing as the size of the screen is from mid-center orchestra. I mean, I don't recall any curvature at all. I assume that the 35mm prints that will likely be exhibited were intended for flat screens despite the aspect ratios. This may sound like a dumb question, but humor me: When original scope films were projected, was there an optical correction made in the print for the screen curvature or was the process controlled wholly by the anamorphic projector lens? I seem to recall from a DVD of "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" where several trims from the original cut were included as extra features and were shown in a distorted wide screen image that had been corrected for projection onto the deeply curved Cinerama screen. So, for single-strip Cinerama projection, the correction was obviously in the print itself... does the same hold for the widescreen processes behind "Ben Hur" and "West Side Story"?

Great story REndres, but what did you mean you had to splice to the next reel? did you not run reel to reel? (Oh no, here we go again)
by the way, what are your thoughts about the ziegfeld running platter

That's a shame, as "The New World" would look dazzling in a wide-gauge print and there are so few opportunities to see new movies projected AND filmed in 70mm anymore outside of the IMAX theatres. But in NYC, almost all of the 70mm-capable houses are gone, to say nothing of the situation in smaller cities.

Ed Solero:

In terms of standard 35mm "anamorphic" (CinemaScope, Panavision, et al), no correction was made to the prints. The reason they curved the 'scope screens for 35mm early on was because it was easier to get a focus on the edges of the image. As the projection optics improved, the curvature wasn't as neccesary.

For films exhibited in 70mm single-lens Cinerama, they made optically-rectified (on the sides) prints to compensate for the extreme curvature of the screen. Standard 70mm films (West Side Story, Sound of Music, et al) were generally not designed for curved screens. Please note that there are also exceptions, MGM's Camera65 productions such as Ben-Hur had special 70mm prints made that required a special anamorphic lens to project the extreme wide ratio of that film. Normal 70mm films are not as wide as 35mm CinemaScope/Panavision films.

Much more information about this can be gained by visiting the Widescreen Museum website: www.widescreenmuseum.com

And early Cinemascope is wider than Panavision.

Thanks Peter and Vincent. After realizing that I had posted a link to the excellent widescreen museum site a number of posts back, I availed myself of the information therein and have received a nice education on the rectification process associated with single strip Cinerama presentation. I really hope this policy continues at the Ziegfeld beyond the 5 weeks currently scheduled. I plan on seeing (finally!) "Ben Hur" and "West Side Story" on the big screen at the Ziegfeld (and will probably take the kids to experience the original "Raiders of the Lost Ark" as intended), but I look forward to a screening of "2001: A Space Odyssey" - if only my prayers would be answered.

I saw MFL and "The Exorcist" at RCMH. Lady, I thought looked terrific but "The Exorcist" was a disaster. Especially since they advertised a restored 70MM print. It was so bad that when William Friedkin and Ellen Burstyn came out on stage after the film, Friedkin apologized for the terrible condition of the print.

Not a comment about the Ziegfeld, but about theatres with with/without projectionists...
I have seen movies in theatres with fulltime projectionists who do a truly crappy job - and if there's a problem, they can usually be found sitting around or holding up a wall or having coffee and usually are incapable of fixing the problem anyway. I have left the auditorium to try to get sound/projection problems fixed up to SIX times at a single showing (at a union theatre with a "tech" on duty) with zero results - for really simple things to fix (wrong sound format, pictures out of focus, picture on the wall, low volume.) Conversely, I've been in manager run theatres where they do a superb job and if there happens to be a problem, it is usually fixed. I always come away with the feeling that the projectionists just don't want to be bothered.
At the manager run theatres, the answer to a complaint is "I'll fix that for you right away" and it usually is done by the time I'm back in the auditorium. At union theatres the answer is "I'll let the projectionist know." The second time "I told the projectionist, I'll call him again." The third time I get a manager and it's "The projectionist said he was just up there and nothing is wrong. I'll call him again." The fourth time it's "The projectionist said that's what the movie is supposed to sound like." Then I have the manager come into the theatre with me at which point he says "Oh, I see. I'll call again." The fifth time I tell the manager that it's the fifth time I've had to come out about this and then he says "I'll go up there myself." And then he does and manages to fix the problem.
Additionally, most complaints are about loud trailers (that really aren't that loud anymore) and every single projectionist I have spoken with either doesn't know about or is too lazy to use the capability of the new sound processors to set a separate sound cue for each commercial/trailer so that the feature can be shown at the proper level. They're too busy holding up the walls.
Sorry to vent on you guys, but I see about 150 movies each year and that has been my experience in general. There are good and bad in all professions, but here in NYC, I find that there are more bad projectionists than good.

Not a comment about the Ziegfeld, but about theatres with with/without projectionists...
I have seen movies in theatres with fulltime projectionists who do a truly crappy job - and if there's a problem, they can usually be found sitting around or holding up a wall or having coffee and usually are incapable of fixing the problem anyway. I have left the auditorium to try to get sound/projection problems fixed up to SIX times at a single showing (at a union theatre with a "tech" on duty) with zero results - for really simple things to fix (wrong sound format, pictures out of focus, picture on the wall, low volume.) Conversely, I've been in manager run theatres where they do a superb job and if there happens to be a problem, it is usually fixed. I always come away with the feeling that the projectionists just don't want to be bothered.
At the manager run theatres, the answer to a complaint is "I'll fix that for you right away" and it usually is done by the time I'm back in the auditorium. At union theatres the answer is "I'll let the projectionist know." The second time "I told the projectionist, I'll call him again." The third time I get a manager and it's "The projectionist said he was just up there and nothing is wrong. I'll call him again." The fourth time it's "The projectionist said that's what the movie is supposed to sound like." Then I have the manager come into the theatre with me at which point he says "Oh, I see. I'll call again." The fifth time I tell the manager that it's the fifth time I've had to come out about this and then he says "I'll go up there myself." And then he does and manages to fix the problem.
Additionally, most complaints are about loud trailers (that really aren't that loud anymore) and every single projectionist I have spoken with either doesn't know about or is too lazy to use the capability of the new sound processors to set a separate sound cue for each commercial/trailer so that the feature can be shown at the proper level. They're too busy holding up the walls.
Sorry to vent on you guys, but I see about 150 movies each year and that has been my experience in general. There are good and bad in all professions, but here in NYC, I find that there are more bad projectionists than good.

If you check the Widescreen Museum, Martin Hart has a copy of the original CinemaScope handbook on line. The cuved screens were also meant to emulate to some extent the Cinerama screens although the curve was shallower, dictated by the projection throw as a radius. Another reason for the curve in addition to focus was light distribution. The Fox "Miracle Mirror" screens were aluminized and fairly high-gain. You could actually run Polarized 3-D on them. In addition they were embossed with lenticulations to further focus the light into the audience. There were for a while "Miracle Mirror" screens which were designed for theatres with a steep projection angle such as the Music Hall which has a nominal 19 degree downward projection angle. The lenticulations would be embossed at a 5 degree tilt to bring the light (which would be be reflected off the screen at a downward angle into the orchestra) up to cover at least the back of the house and front balcony. Fox insisted on a curved screen for all CinemaScope installations, which meant the Music Hall couldn't run Scope until MGM released "Knights of the Roundtable" a year later. They wanted it at the Hall and said they didn't care if the screen were curved.

Vito: Yes we ran reel-to-reel for MFL, but since one reel (and case) had been destroyed I was able to splice the two reels on one. We did use 6,000' 35mm reels after we installed xenon lamps to save strikes on the bulbs, and as did the Ziegfeld, we doubled up a number of our 70mm prints combining two reels on one. You could usually do that because the 70mm single reels were designed for 30 frame 70mm release and could accomodate two of the average 24 frame 70mm release reels. When I think about all those double 70mm reels I lifted at the Ziegfeld I shutter -- I'm not sure I could do that now! We did use platters for "Lion King" because Disney wanted Dolby Digital sound and there was no 70mm digital format at the time. Thus we interlocked a 70mm print to a 35mm print with Dolby Digital running on the next projector. (Although this really belongs on the Hall site, we also ran "Napoleon" and other silent features on 6,000' reels to make it easier for the conductor to keep the score synchronized consistantly on each show by minamizing any discrepency that might occur with multiple changeovers.The opposite situation occurred with the Universal festival. We were running archival prints and the studio didn't want them assembled on platters or 6,000' reels. We always wanted to accomodate the producers when we could.)

REndres -
Thanks for clarifying the early days of CinemaScope via Marty Hart's site. I haven't read through all of his material in a long time.

Regarding the weight of 70mm reels, how would you compare it to a fully-loaded 6000' reel of 35mm acetate? I've always wanted to run 70mm but, sadly, will probably never get to do it. But at least I've run just about every 35mm format during my festivals at the Lafayette.

Thanks REndres, I feel better now. Yes, I too ran double 70mm reels (oh my acking back) at the D-150 in Syosset, New York and also in Hawaii at the Cinerama. I did a few 15 hour grind days lifting those suckers and still feel the pain. That was unusual, generally I ran single 70mm reels which weighed quite enough thank you very much.
As for the 6k reels, they were very common in many theatres due most in part, as you said, to the Xenon lamps. Interesting note about "Napoleon" I can see how 2k reel to reel could be problematic for the conductor. Lastly you mentioned the producers and of course the other studio guys (ya had to love em) who would always show up for the technical rehersals (dry runs)to put in their two cents,
I never minded though, cause if we did not agree with their ideas we
would forget them after they left. In addition, every now and then they had a good idea. One thing they all had in common, and that was they all wanted it played loud.

A double 70mm reel packed out to the edge (and sometimes over it at the Ziegfeld) weighs more than a full 6,000' 35mm reel, at least in part because of the magnetic tracks which do add some weight. When we started using 6,000' reels at the Hall some of the older operators on the crew protested. I took a single 70mm reel up to the hospital and weighed both it and a full 6,000 reel and could point out that the 6,000' 35mm load weighed less. I don't think in most cases they doubled 70mm before I was there. I was always a lttle afraid of doubling 70 at the Hall because of the way the Simplex reel shafts were made, but I never had one snap off. The Ziegfeld had ZeissPrevost 70mm machines which were made for 70mm when I was there so I didn't have the same concern.

I do remember getting called to the Ziegfeld on an emergency after a blizzard one Saturday when we were running "Gandhi". Since I live a few blocks away, I kept a theatre key and a booth key at my apartment, and would frequently get called. On that day I took a 70mm double first reel off the projector, and slipped putting it on the rewind shaft. The reel landed on my foot. While it didn't break any bones (or damage the reel) it was not a pleasant sensation! Then I thought, "Why shouldn't it hurt? I've just dropped the first 30 years of Gandhi's life on my toe!"

Just spoke with Clearview and Fair Lady will not be in 70mm. Bummer. So what genuine 70mm films still exist in that format? And will we ever see them again in New York?

Oh Rob that's a riot! Good point about the weight of the two reels, the difference,of course, was the diamater of the reel which made it a bit harder to handle. In addition we often used "floating hubs"
which was good for the takeups but much harder to handle. I also remember doubling up a lot of the reels on a 70mm musical picture because in order to avoid a reel end in the middle of a musical number, many of the reels ran only 11-12 mins. You spoke of mounting prints on reels running just to or slightly over the edge, I remember many a time joining two reels together not knowing for sure if they would both fit, just shouting "come on baby you can do it" Alas it not always did. I never really liked having the print run over the edge, although I did. I was always concerned some relief operator would not pay enough attention during rewind and cause damage, it happened to a print of "Hello Dolly" and the boys in the booth caught holy hell. At the next union meeting after that incident, we were forbidden by the union president to allow reels to run over the edge. By the way, ever see a 70mm print on a platter have a brain wrap?, not a pretty sight.
So what do you hear about the prints being used in the upcoming festival? any 70mm?

Hey Movieguy, I dont know what theaters you are going to but if what you said was happening, the union guy would be replaced. To say that the managers do a better job than the union prjectionists is absurd and shows what little you know about it. As far as the loud trailers, that has been a problem for years. Everyone knows about it. If you can show me a processor that can change levels for each trailer I would love to see it.

Hey Movieguy, I dont know what theaters you are going to but if what you said was happening, the union guy would be replaced. To say that the managers do a better job than the union prjectionists is absurd and shows what little you know about it. As far as the loud trailers, that has been a problem for years. Everyone knows about it. If you can show me a processor that can change levels for each trailer I would love to see it.

Hey Movieguy, I dont know what theaters you are going to but if what you said was happening, the union guy would be replaced. To say that the managers do a better job than the union prjectionists is absurd and shows what little you know about it. As far as the loud trailers, that has been a problem for years. Everyone knows about it. If you can show me a processor that can change levels for each trailer I would love to see it.

REndres: That's a great story (though painful for you) about "Gandhi". I went to the Ziegfeld to see "Gandhi" on the Friday night of that blizzard weekend in 1983. I and many of my co-workers had picked that night to go before we knew a blizzard was coming, and we decided not to call it off and go anyway. To our amazement, the place was packed to the gills. It's still one of the most memorable shows I ever attended at the Ziegfeld.

It was interesting to hear about the 70mm print of "The Exorcist." The Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) screened a special 70mm print of the film, if memory serves, in 1997. The print I saw was in pristine shape and the sound was very good. You never know how these prints will end up in the future. As for "My Fair Lady," there was a 70mm screening at California State University at Long Beach sometime in the late 1990s. That print, however, was severly pink, faded and had a "click" running through one of the front channels via one of the reels. The head of the festival, Gary Prebula, stopped the film midway and said that it was the same print that screened at Century Plaza in Century City during its re-release in 1994! How could a print get so beat up in so little time?

There are some new or fairly new 70mm prints around.

"The Sound Of Music"
"Vertigo"
"The Agony and the Ecstasy"
"Doctor Dolittle"
"Playtime"
"Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines"
"The Greatest Story Ever Told"
"It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World"
"Hello, Dolly"
"2001"
"Lord Jim"
"Patton"
"The Sheltering Sky"
"Tron"

These have all screened in the Los Angeles area in recent years in 70mm DTS (except for "The Sheltering Sky" and "Tron"). It probably depends on which theatre, if any, has a DTS decoder for 70mm in New York, to book a print. And most of these screenings were either near capacity or sold out.

Hey RCDTJ,

Absolutely... the SDDS 3000 and all Dolby processors from the 500 series on. They allow you to set a sound cue for commercials, trailers and feature. The SDDS has memory - it will remember the level for a trailer even if it is removed from the platter and is reintroduced later. The Dolby does not have a memory feature but it CAN accept different fader settings for trailers and feature.
I had a conversation with a "tech" from a Loews theatre about this. His response was "it's too much trouble, we have to program the machine every time we move the film." Gee - that's what I thought they get paid to do?

Sorry Movieguy, I simply cannot accept your comments regarding projectionists. Sure, in every industry you have people who are as you described, but in my many years in theatre business I have found the guys in the booth to be hard working, dedicated profressionals who would never disrespect the the fine art of projection. We are a breed of individuals who love the job and get great satisfaction and joy in putting on a good show. As for volume in trailers, it was a major problem for a while, the studios and producers recorded them at a high level to get your attention in selling the picture. several of the industry's most prominent organizations, including the Motion Picture Association of America, the National Association of Theatre Owners, and THX's Theatre Alignment Program have decided to work together on developing a set of guidelines to regulate trailer volume. As a result, an industry committee dubbed the Trailer Audio Standards Association has been formed to help ensure that volume levels enhance, rather than hurt, the moviegoing experience, so as you pinted out, have improved over the last few years. Problematic, too, was that the difference in dB levels between trailer and feature presentations was still quite discernible. Trailers were so loud, theatres turned down the volume because they were getting complaints, and then not turning them back up for the features. You are quite correct in your statement regarding level adjustment settings in sound processors and automation panels, however, their are some flaws contained in those options as well. As the Loews guy said it can be troublesome, due to the fact that in a multi screen operation, prints are moved from house to house and trailers are interchanged, replaced, updated on a regular basis, so it can become difficult to keep track of all those settings. Keep in mind not all trailers are recorded at the same level so it's not just one level adjustment involved. Hopefully I have caused you to change your opinion of "the guys in the booth"
honestly, the vast majority want to put on the best show possible.

I know all about different fader settings. I install this equipment daily. My point was that you can't have automatic settings for individual trailers. You can have saved settings for the feature and trailer mode only. As Vito said, every trailer and commercial has a different level. You cannot be at every machine every show and sit there while they run through and babysit the volume. Also as Vito said, the majority want to put on the best show possible. Do you think the managers do? They had no choice but to learn how to thread up and hit the start button. The owners don't give shit about the customers. It's all about saving money. The reason presentations are going downhill is because the qualified operators are being replaced by film threaders! That's a fact.

Hey Vito & RC - I'd love to continue this with you via e-mail before everyone gets pissed about this being off topic ;-)

You are absolutely right that some people do try to put on a good show - the guy at the Ziegfeld does a good job, Stanley at the Astor Plaza used to put on a great show . The people at the Union Square and Battery Park do the best job out of all the multiplexes in the city. They don't use the fader memory feature or dual fader setting capability - they just leave it set for the feature and seem to deal well with the trailer complaints. At Loews E-Walk I can tell which projectionist is on duty based on the presentation - I believe they have 3 guys on staff - ONE of them does a good job. The Chelsea 9 (already a crappy theatre - even on a good day) took 45 minutes to manually switch over formats because "we can't find the projectionist." The dialog for MatchPoint at the Village 7 came from the right channel speaker and the projectionist had no clue how to fix it (it was running in the wrong program - he couldn't figure out how to push one single button and quite frankly his attitude was one of "I couldn't care less.") I had to explain to the manager what to do and he manged to fix it. And it cost him 4 free passes and two refunds. AND he invited us to stay and see the movie anyway.

I don't mean to demean the profession - and I'm sure all you guys are consummate pros who actually took/take pride in putting on a good show - but I'm also sure that you can see why I'm a little miffed.

As for the fader settings, why not do as my friend does: My buddy runs a 6 screener - 5 Dolby Digital & 1 SDDS. In the Dolby houses he sets the trailers to 4.5 and the feature between 6 and 7. In the SDDS house, he tries to get all the trailers to run in the SDDS format and sets it to -2.0 and sets the feature between -0.5 and 1.5. He actually goes into the auditorium and listens to the movie. He has said that on ocassion, he has had to run some movies at 7.5 and 2.5 DD/SDDS respectively to get clear dialog. He does have to move films a couple times a week for screenings, etc and says it's not a big deal 'cause it is just two cues. Sure, every commercial/trailer has a different level, but you can group all the commercials/trailers/etc and set them at one fader setting and the feature at another. No need to babysit the volume. I've watched him do it and I've heard the results. It's a great and relatively simple solution.

OF COURSE THEATRE CHAINS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE PRESENTATION - THEY ARE WAY TOO CONCERNED WITH SELLING POPCORN!!! That's why you'd assume that theatres with fulltime projection staff would do a better job - all the projectionist has to do is work with the film. But again, in my experience, here in the city, it doesn't seem to make a difference. They put on just as crappy a show at the AMC as they do at the UA East as they do at Lincoln Square and Lincoln Plaza (where we just tried to see Mrs Henderson Presents - which was presented at a volume so low that about half the dialog was inaudible. Mrs Henderson herself couldn't hear what she was saying!!! My complaint was greeted with "I'll let the projectionist know." Ten minutes later we were getting a refund.

Bill Kallay:

There's no way that the faded print you saw of MFL in the late 90s was from the 1994 restoration. Those 1994 prints were made on LPP film stock which does not fade. They were obviously misinformed and received an original print from the 60s or 70s.

I worked at the Ziegfeld in the 80's. The projectionist was a crack addict who put BACKDRAFT on in the wrong reel order at the World Premiere. The run of MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON was destroyed because the asshole never seemed to be able to run a complete show. Has the Ziegfield really survived local 306?

God help the Ziegfeld and may it survive tragically bad history of projectionists!

I remember that screening of Backdraft!!
I also agree that the presentation at the Ziegfeld was iffy for a while there.
Since Clearview has had it though, it's been quite good.
RENT rivaled some 70mm shows I've seen there.
EVERYBODY GO TO THE REVIVALS!!! If enough people support it, maybe we'll luck out and get a series every year!

There has to be a reason the Ziefeld is doing this festival....at a low price no less...is it an experiment based on this room?? or is it a sign of a closing...I myself am really psyched...I hope the prints are good....I hope they put an effort into this...I wonder how successful "Chicago" and "Gladiator" and "Rings" will be as they might be just too recent..I'm looking forward to WSS, MFL, Ben....I'll keep checking for reviews on the prints..

I was saddend to hear the "Backdraft" story. I was working in Hawaii
at the time but the news reached us there, a blemish on the great profession of projection to be sure.
I am hoping REndres will be able to report back to us regarding the format being used to show WSS, MFL and others. 70mm prints are getting harder and harder to find, I worry we may end up seeing them in 35mm possibly with mono sound. I played WSS twice in 70mm and several times in 35mm. None of the 35mm prints had magnetic tracks, they were always optical (momo) So I am not sure if any 35mm stereo prints exsist. In addition, I don't recall hearing of any Dolby remastering as was the case with MFL. But whatever it turns out to be I agree we must support the showings, if they are a sucess perhaps we can begin to se more of that at the Ziegfield and
possiblly Radio City as well. Wouldn't THAT be sweet.

The 35mm prints of West Side Story that MGM distributed until last year were on LPP stock from the mid-90s and had Dolby SR soundtracks. Now that Sony distributes West Side Story, they've struck even newer 35mm prints with Dolby SR and DTS digital tracks. I don't know if they've struck any new 70mm prints but I doubt it. The My Fair Lady prints that currently circulate via the company Hollywood Classics are all 35mm Dolby (Type "A", if I recall correctly) from the 1994 restoration. I don't know that any of the 70mm prints from 1994 survive. Most likely that every film in the series will be shown on 35mm.

At the very least, I plan on making it to the Ziegfeld to see "Ben Hur" and "West Side Story" - and might also take the kids in to see "Raiders of the Lost Ark" on the big screen. I've accepted that these will likely all be 35mm prints; I only continue to hope that they are pristine shape and are well cared for while in Clearview's care.

Thanks for that Peter, I was not aware of the Dolby SR prints of WSS
I suppose if all the movies are shown with either Dolby encoded SR, Type A, or DTS tracks, although I am not sure the Ziegfield has a DTS processor, it won't be bad. In fact some of the older 70mm tracks I listened to a few years back did not sound all that good, lots of hiss, and a deficiency in high frequencey, which of course is the result of too many runs thru the mag reader. You are certainly correct about the 70mm prints and I am sure no new prints will be struck, with the execption of IMAX, 70mm seems dead. I thought there would be a resurgence of 70mm with DTS after "Vertigo" and "Hamlet", there was talk of doing "Rear Window" but I don't believe it ever happened. It was very promising for a while since the expence for both the studios and the theatre owners was not very high. The studios cost would be the large 70mm prints (3x the cost of 35mm) but no mag-stiping costs, which because it was done reel to reel would up the cost to 12x that of a 35mm print.All that would be required in theatres already equipt with DTS was a 70mm reader for the time code. Alas it never came to pass.

I don't know if any of you noticed my post above but I already stated on the info given to me by Clearview that My Fair Lady will be in 35mm. When a theater known for its 70mm capability shows a film with which it had an enormous success for its 70mm presentation of said film it is especially frustrating that nobody went the extra yard to insure a print for this showing. Otherwise it is just like seeing it in any other theater and a great opportunity is lost. I know that the MOMA has a print and don't museums always lend works of art to other museums? How often do they show this film?
Very, very, rarely. Besides as I noted above their screen is too small to do 70mm justice. Clearview could have advertised that the print was from the MOMA.
Well I'll be there for Ben Hur and WSS, which I have never seen in 70mm as they have not been shown as such in Manhattan since their Palace and Rivoli engagments in the 60's.

When is the Ziegeld supposed to show MFL? Not that I can get there to see it.
Also I posted this on the posting from Jan 10 on the DVD No More Joy which is a documentary about New Orleans theaters that closed. It is wonderful. I only wish we could get one on all the wonderful theaters Phila and NYC lost. It is well worth the $15.00 and is a benefit for hurricane Katrina victims. Any movie buff will really enjoy this even if you never have been to New Orelans.

One problem in getting special prints from museums and university collections is that the prints can only be played reel to reel. They state in their contracts that the film can't be plattered, no matter what. Because of the state of the world of film projection, there are too many poorly operated venues.

William, the Ziegfeld has reel to reel capabilities. They just choose to run platters most of the time. I will be happy to know the prints are going to be shown reel to reel and not mounted on a platter.

Yes, I know the Ziegfeld is two projector equipped. It's up to the owner of the special print to where and how it is played. Because special collection prints can not been loaned out to platter type theatres. If the theatre makes a cut to mount it for platter use the theatre will have to pay a large fee for the damage. It may not be damage to some people but, it is damage to the prints owner.
Another problem in getting 70MM prints from say west coast storage, is the very large cost in shipping to and from the theatre.

In regards to "My Fair Lady," I mistakenly used the word "faded." Let me just say that the print was in horrible shape all around.

I saw the 1994 re-issue at the Century Plaza and it was spectacular. The opening credits and the scene at the races were simply beautiful on the big screen in 70mm. I had caught bits and pieces of this film on television and never liked it. But seeing it properly made me really like this film.

The last time I saw MFL in 70mm was during a special screening at the Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood. It was James C. Katz's personal print and looked very good. I think it can help to have a professional projectionist, like Paul Rayton, who babies the print and makes sure the presentation is nearly perfect.

This Ziegfeld film festival has a very good line-up, despite the lack of 70mm prints. "Raiders Of The Lost Ark" had a brand-new 35mm print struck in 2001, and it was one of the best 35mm presentations I've ever seen. (This was an instance when Cal State Long Beach's film dept. started getting better prints.) With any luck, the Ziegfeld will so happen to get this print (provided it's still in great shape).

Bill
www.fromscripttodvd.com

Here's a direct link to the film festival:

http://www.clearviewcinemas.com/ziegfeld-classics/index.html

I've seen all the features on the big screen, except Ben-Hur, which I have deliberately avoided on TV and video, just for an occasion like this. I hope it's not a faded print. Beat-up I could stand, but faded would be hard to watch.

Is there going to be any films shown in 70mm? It didn't look like it from the ad.

I think the consensus here was that the likelihood of a 70mm presentation during this series was just about nil. However, Vincent only reported that he confirmed with Clearview that "My Fair Lady" would be a 35mm print. I'm with saps, here... While I'd be thrilled with a 70mm "Ben Hur" or "West Side Story," all I really ask for are crisp and well cared for prints. Oh yes, and the more series like this one in the Ziegfeld's future ("2001", "Spartacus", "The Wild Bunch" and "Apocalypse Now" all would be high on my wish list).

Sorry for the typo... the word "the" does not belong in that last sentence.

I think it's wonderful that Clearview is putting together this festival. We MUST do our best to promote and support this type of presentation. I know I'll be there. Off topic, is it true that film labs are no longer capable of magnetic striping? Is that the final nail in the 70MM coffin?

As DavidM posted "We MUST do our best to promote and support this type of presentation." Because this will give Clearview the testing grounds for future film series at this theatre or even maybe Radio City. The 35mm prints are only a start, because prints are much easier to get and ship. So that keeps their cost down from the start. Remember shipping many of those Roadshow 70MM type titles are anywhere from 10-14 reels long, the shipping to the theatre and later from back into storage will cost alot of money per print. And remember many of those titles may have somewhat new 35mm prints, they have been used many operators. And many of those 70MM titles are no longer available in that format. (Many have been junked for space)

Yes, the magstriping has to be done elsewhere because of EPA guidelines now. The good news is that 20th Century-Fox in the last few years has been restriking from 65mm negs new prints of many of their Roadshow films in 70MM DTS sound. So if this series has the support of many of you on this site, Clearview may find this could be an annual event during slow times of the year. And spend more money to get those red carpet Roadshow movies shown.

I am completely baffled that somebody like Scorsese who as one of the most esteemed and powerful men in the film industry and who has a passionate interest in classic films and 70mm has shown no interest and done absolutely nothing to promote its proper presentation in the New York City area.

Won't digital restore the experience without having to restore actual 70mm prints? It seems to make IMAX redundant as well, since it can blow the film up as much as you like without losing clarity and the sound is as good as your theatre system.

I think this is the reason why no one is too concerned.

But as of right now, "digital" isn't even close to 35mm quality. It's certainly not an ideal archiving medium, either.

I question whether digital technology is at a point where it can faithfully recreate the color saturation of a pristine vintage Technicolor print.

Many of the 35mm films that are in theatres today use digital technology to create the finished print from a digital intermediate. Its not that the film is being shown in digital, it's being shown just like any other regular 35mm print.

The AFI Silver Spring (in MD) theater near me recently showed "My Fair Lady" in glorious 70mm just last week. Unfortunately, I couldn't attend it. With the high quality projection standards that they have there, I'm sure the showing was a decent one, so perhaps Clearview could secure that print for their classic movies festival.

Thank you, William for quoting me. For one, I feel it's time for me to put my money where my mouth (or in this case, my keyboard) is. For years I have hoped to see this kind of Classic Film Presentation in NYC on a regular basis. Perhaps our patronage during this festival will send a clear message to Clearview and Cablevision that this type of moviegoing will be welcomed and supported. Over the next few days, I will be writing to Clearview to give them a hearty congratulations for putting this together. I also invite William and others in the NYC area who post here regularly to contact me so that we may be able to coordinate support for the Classic Series at the Ziegfeld. My contact info appears on my member page. Now, if Bob Endres is in the booth and the curtains will be in use, it'll be the best!

This festival is great for US (all in this room) but what about the public. Will there be a great turnout for every show for some of these films that are too recent and are popular on video?? Chicago...Gladiator...Rings...even Godfathers?? How popular will they be?? After this festival....if it tanks...it'll take more than us in the chatroom to get another.

BTW...if I'm not mistaken, does Ziegfeld have the projection equipment for 70MM?? I beliebve they don't...just digital.

The Ziegfeld showed "Vertigo" in 70mm in the fall of 1996. Even though that was almost ten years ago, I'll bet the projectors are still up there. "Rent" and "The Producers" were not shown digitally at the Ziegfeld.

I've seen almost all of these movies on large movie screens, most in reissue, the newer ones when issued, but I haven't seen The Godfather II on a movie screen and have been eager to catch it immediately after The Godfather I. So, I am looking forward to enjoying The Godfather I and II on the large screen. I think II was issued in 35, not 75, so I won't be worrying about format. And, I am grateful that we are getting so many great films in 35 MM. Of course, I'd love to see a 75 MM film festival at the Ziegfeld and at Radio City. If many attend this event, then with credibility we could make such a request.

They usually (though not always) use a curtain, but if a projectionist doesn't, people should tell them that classic film fans NEED a curtain!

I saw Chicago when it was issued at the Ziegfeld, and doubt it was a wise choice, but maybe there are fans who will see it.

Everybody should spread the word, because Rhett is right on the money. The Ziegfeld needs way more people attending than the usual suspects on this site in order to be interested in hosting more classics.

I would love to see a 75mm film festival anywhere!

We know we will see you, Vince, at our 70 MM film shows at Philadelphia's Boyd, www.FriendsOfTheBoyd.org, which we are working to have after the movie palace reopens.

There aren't very many theaters that can still 70 MM since so many have closed. There are others in NYC that would be wonderful venues that likely still have their 70 MM projectors such as the Paris theater.

Howard that sounds wonderful.
Unfortunately I couldn't open your page.
When will this be?

We don't have dates or films scheduled yet. We are working towards this goal.
Most likely our films will be during the summer.
I don't understand why the link doesn't work, but I tried it and you are correct. No problem directly going onto our website.
In the meantime, our 1980's Philadelphia themed film will be at International House in Philadelphia on Friday eve May 12, in 35 MM, Brian DePalma's Blow Out.

Howard I thought your comment about Chicago was interesting. I find movie musicals of today unwatchable due to the loss of any skill in staging, photographing, and editing musical sequences(don't like the music much either.) Yet Chicago is considered a great success for today's audiences. So you I guess you didn't like it?

I am not a huge fan of movie musicals. I didn't like Chicago. I was charmed by Moulin Rouge, which I also saw at the Ziegfeld. I skipped seeing anywhere Rent and The Producers. I would have seen The Producers, but the critics said it looked like they just filmed the play raher than making a movie, much like what you are saying.

To comment further on Rhett's remarks, I think the Rings might have an audience, especially for people who want to see them all at once on the very large screen. Gladiator is also a movie that plays much better on the large screen than on a TV, but I'm not sure if it reached any legendary status among filmgoers. We all know Ben Hur reached that status.

Frankly, I'd doubt there is going to be a huge success during weekday screenings of the same movies playing during the weekends. I hope many attend the weekend shows.

Its interesting that a lot of people today are not fans of movie musicals as when the talkies started in was the movie musical that pretty much launched them like a rocket. I've always found music and great camerawork exhilarating(think Lubitsch and The Merry Widow) or just sit it down and record Astaire and Rogers/Charisse.

Unfortunately, you put a comma right after your .org which is causing the issue with the direct link

Folks can visit the Friends of the Boyd at
http://www.friendsoftheboyd.org

I'm looking forward to the upcoming schedule announcement and actually doing something to help bring back a great old theatre and just not pontiificate about it and expect merchants to preform magic tricks.

Although I am sure you are referring to someone else who posts on certain Philadelphia theaters, rather than me, that might not be clear to readers on this theater page. The Friends of the Boyd and Committee to Save the Sameric have already done much to save the Boyd and advance an excellent restoration and program. We are now working with the new theater owner, Live Nation, to accomplish our mission. Of course, we have never requested merchants, Hollywood, or the City to carry the burden by themselves, as the other gentleman has suggested. Fortunately, Live Nation is making a tremendous investment, and we will assist in any way we can. Other thoughts about the Boyd should probably be directed to that page rather than this one.

The Theatre better start advertising the festival No one I know has heard of it yet!

We'll probably see something in the Movies sections of this Sunday's New York papers.

Ahem. Speaking as "the other gentleman," presuming that I'm the one who's being referred to above, in no instance have I ever requested that merchants, Hollywood, or the City carry the burden themselves. To quote a former U.S. president -- who the above correspondant greatly admires -- "There ya go again."

But to give the full benefit of the doubt, I believe it's far more a misunderstanding rather than an intentional misinterpretation. So to return things to accuracy, let me state here and now that my consistent argument all along is that if a theater is run well that all parties involved benefit. And I've only tried to say that if those who should benefit refuse to cooperate, it becomes very hard, if not impossible, for the theater to be of great benefit to those other parties. When Marie Antonette was told the peasants outside Versailles were starving because they were out of bread, she allegedly replied, "Let them eat cake." In other words, she didn't understand that those peasants whom she seemingly had no concern for were the very people who enabled she and others inside the palace to survive. And right now I see a very similar if not an identical disconnect between theater operators and the cities in which they operate, between the theaters and Hollywood, etc.

It is not my aim to see theaters run as though they are charities, but rather, as good, sound, solid investments. For without well-run theaters, Hollywood's days are numbered. And I see time and time again where theaters are either shut down or not being run properly, the communities around these theaters looking very ghetto-like. And it does appear to be because the theaters are not getting their rightful share. To try to survive in the face of this, theater operators have no choice but to charge high ticket and concession stand prices, exhibit commercials in addition to movies, split themselves up into many smaller theaters, forego such things as curtains, underpay their staff and so on. And this, in turn, turns off otherwise avid theater patrons, making the dilemma all that much worse. And is that good for Hollywood? No, as it forces Hollywood to look to alternative means of marketing its product, such as cable and DVD release, which, of course, will be shortlived -- at least profitability-wise -- due to piracy. Also, when theaters sag, it makes the consumer business districts where they exist undesireable places to venture to. And that, in turn, hurts rather than benefits, the city.

See, in my case, I'm thinking of Hollywood, I'm thinking of the City, and thus I'm thinking how theaters -- when run right -- can be of great benefit to both. And also how much both lose out when they're not run properly or are forced to fold completely. So why shouldn't Hollywood, and the City, be strongly motivated to invest in them therefore? This seems to be where the big disconnect is going on right now. In my assessment -- and keep in mind I'm an investor -- it's shades of Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake" all over again...

After hdtv267 referred above, yesterday, wrote
"I'm looking forward to the upcoming schedule announcement and actually doing something to help bring back a great old theatre and just not pontiificate about it and expect merchants to perform magic tricks."

I wrote above "we have never requested merchants, Hollywood, or the City to carry the burden by themselves, as the other gentleman has suggested."

I'm am a very precise attorney so as TheaterBuff1 says that's not his expectation, I copied below his quotes from the 3 theater pages on this website at which he proposes that merchants, Hollywood, and the City carry the burden, and I urge everybody visit those theater pages and read more. Of course, merchants, the city, and Hollywood, are not going to save the Orleans from demolition or reopen the long closed Mayfair or Holme theaters.

Now whether it's to be a Wal*Mart or a Target store that's to be taking over that site, whoever it's to be could foot the entire bill of restoring and covering its day-to-day operations in such a way so that on their behalf it could serve as a major showroom for their products, ranging from carpeting to tile to curtains to toilets to DVDs they sell of movies being exhibited there and so on and so forth. 1-27-06 AMC Orleans 8, Philadelphia
http://cinematreasures.org/theater/3328/

Thus I would suggest the city should foot the cost of its full restoration and day-to-day operational expenses rather than any private benefactors or corporate sponsors assuming this cost. 1-17-06 Mayfair Theatre, Philadelphia http://cinematreasures.org/theater/8257/

And it wouldn't be a case of Hollywood's getting behind restoring this building as a theater as an act of charity, mind you, but rather, in full recognition of its tremendous money-making potential, and in terms of creating the perfect prototype of the neighborhood theater of the future. 12-15-05 Holme Theatre
http://cinematreasures.com/theater/9141/

Also, my political views have never been expressed on the Internet or the media. My political views are not the business of cinema treasures. Considering how he manages to relay his own views, TheaterBuff1 should not be attempting to relay or interpret my views of historic figures that he may gleam off site in any way including replies to emails. Nor should he be extracting such comments from direct email correspondence. I am not going to comment on this website or any other on which historic figues I admire or don't.

Theaterbuff1 is used to putting down people as "Taliban" and the like (see the Holme theater pages above), since they don't have views as he does, but this website is supposed to celebrate our movie palace and movie theater heritage, not comment on people's politics.

Please excuse my third comment in a row, but I have just seen this posting by Theaterbuff1 at http://cinematreasures.org/theater/7096/

"Actually what I really should've said in my earlier commentary above was that after the federal government moved its Northeast Philadelphia headquarters into the former GCC Northeast 4 building -- along with all Philadelphia attorneys who practice Social Security Disability law -- at that point it would make perfectly good sense to bring out the wrecking ball and go ahead and knock the whole building to the ground."

My question is whether Theaterbuff1 is saying he would use a wrecking ball or other means of destruction like a bomb to attack a federal building and kill people inside. After Oklahoma City and 9-11, we should all be on the alert for such threats, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other government agencies would be interested in knowing of such threats or intentions of death and destruction.

As New York City pages including the Ziegfeld page seem to be the pages most heavily used, it seems appropriate given his comments above, to enter this here. Like all Americans, Philadelphians were shocked at 9-11, and we don't need these kinds of postings.

I don't find the post amusing, especially he knows that I am among the lawyers he is referring to. And, before I hear his reply, I will say that I've never advocated for the destruction of any theater building. I've volunteered since 2002 to save movie palaces and theaters and other buildings, not destroy them.

BORING! lets get back to movie talk!

The Ziegfeld history has always been straddled with the legacy
of being an off-the-beaten path pseudo movie palace that opened
at just the wrong time.

It was the last choice run for many distributors and has survived thanks to the creative programming and massive efforts over the years of the Walter Reade Organisation followed by equal support from Clearview and, yes, even Cineplex Odeon who insisted on always keeping it open.

Contrary to popular opinion, New Yorkers have never truly supported the Ziegfeld, preferring to see their movies elsewhere when possible. The theatre was often out-grossed when playing day and date with a Broadway house or the upper east side.

It is ironic that the demise of the Broadway palaces is what allowed the Ziegfeld to survive, mostly thanks to exclusive engagements for which it would never have been first choice.

Straddled in its early days by huge overhead including three projectionists on 70mm and a full time stagehand (there is no stage), the theatre often closed between movies rather than incur losses.

That glorious curtain so many of you love was often the source of grief. Many a sold out show was refunded over the years when the damn thing simply wouldn't rise. Due to its weight, it was practically impossible to run manually. Hence, it is often left open at all times.

The choice location for many movie premieres, the promoters were forced to hire extras to form the crowd of gawking fans outside when not enough celebrity hunters bothered to find their way to 54th Street.

Between the opening weeks of big film exclusives the Ziegfeld had several weeks of tumbleweeds going through its now seemingly massive seating.

Ziegfeld Filmography. Dates are within a week.
12/18/69 MAROONED
02/25/70 GONE WITH THE WIND
03/04/70 DOCTOR ZHIVAGO
03/11/70 THE BIBLE…IN THE BEGINNING
03/18/70 THE SOUND OF MUSIC
03/25/70 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY
05/06/70 WAR AND PEACE (USSR)
06/03/70 THE GREAT ZIEGFELD/ZIEGFELD GIRL/ ZIEGFELD FOLLIES
06/17/70 THE SAND PEBBLES
07/01/70 GONE WITH THE WIND
07/08/70 THE BOATNIKS
08/05/70 AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS/WEST SIDE STORY
08/19/70 SOLDIER BLUE
10/14/70 A HARD DAY'S NIGHT/ HELP!/ YELLOW SUBMARINE/ LET IT BE
10/28/70 A NIGHT AT THE OPERA/ AT THE CIRCUS/ A DAY AT THE RACES/ THE BIG STORE
11/11/70 closed
11/18/70 RYAN'S DAUGHTER
07/07/71 PETER RABBIT AND THE TALES OF BEATRIX POTTER
08/04/71 CLEOPATRA
08/18/71 KLUTE
08/25/71 THE ANDERSON TAPES
09/01/71 BANANAS
09/08/71 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY/ YELLOW SUBMARINE
09/15/71 closed
12/22/71 STAR SPANGLED GIRL
02/02/72 closed
02/16/72 CABARET
08/16/72 WOODSTOCK
08/23/72 WAR AND PEACE (USSR)
08/30/72 closed
09/20/72 BLACKBOARD JUNGLE/ ROCK ROCK ROCK/ THE THING/ THE WILD ONE/ JAILHOUSE ROCK
09/27/72 closed
10/18/72 FELLINI'S ROMA
12/13/72 SLEUTH
03/28/73 I AM A DANCER
05/16/73 THIS IS CINERAMA
08/22/73 ROMEO AND JULIET (1968)
10/24/73 FROM THE MIXED UP FILES OF MRS. BASIL E. FRANKWEILER
11/07/73 closed
12/19/73 THE DAY OF THE DOLPHIN
04/17/74 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN THE ROLLING STONES
05/01/74 closed
05/29/74 THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT
10/02/74 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY
11/20/74 EARTHQUAKE
03/26/75 TOMMY
07/02/75 ROLLERBALL
08/27/75 THE JOLSON STORY
09/10/75 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY
10/01/75 GIVE 'EM HELL, HARRY!
10/15/75 LISZTOMANIA
11/12/75 CONDUCT UNBECOMING
11/26/75 THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
12/10/75 closed
12/24/75 BARRY LYNDON
03/31/76 MOSES
05/19/76 THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT PART 2
07/28/76 THE RETURN OF A MAN CALLED HORSE
09/22/76 closed
10/13/76 SOLARIS
11/10/76 closed
12/29/76 A STAR IS BORN
02/23/77 closed
06/01/77 THE GRATEFUL DEAD
06/22/77 NEW YORK, NEW YORK
08/31/77 closed
10/12/77 TOMMY
11/16/77 CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND
05/03/78 THE LAST WALTZ
07/26/78 REVENGE OF THE PINK PANTHER
10/11/78 THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL
11/15/78 THE LORD OF THE RINGS
02/14/79 MURDER BY DECREE
03/21/79 HAIR
05/23/79 THE PRISONER OF ZENDA
06/27/79 THE MUPPET MOVIE
07/18/79 DRACULA
08/15/79 APOCALYPSE NOW
11/14/79 THE ROSE
02/20/80 SATURN 3
03/26/80 APOCALYPSE NOW
04/23/80 THE WATCHER IN THE WOODS
05/07/80 FANTASIA
05/21/80 FAME
06/25/80 CAN'T STOP THE MUSIC
08/06/80 RAISE THE TITANIC
10/22/80 TIMES SQUARE
11/26/80 PAUL McCARTNEY & WINGS ROCKSHOW
12/24/80 THE JAZZ SINGER
02/18/81 CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND (Special Edition)
03/18/81 FANTASIA
04/22/81 LION OF THE DESERT
06/10/81 closed
07/01/81 THE GREAT MUPPET CAPER
08/12/81 BEATLEMANIA
08/26/81 HONKY TONK FREEWAY
10/14/81 closed
12/16/81 PENNIES FROM HEAVEN
02/17/82 QUEST FOR FIRE
03/24/82 VICTOR/ VICTORIA
05/26/82 AC/DC LET THERE BE ROCK
06/16/82 GREASE 2
07/21/82 RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
08/11/82 PINK FLOYD THE WALL
09/29/82 YES, GIORGIO
11/03/82 TESS
11/10/82 FANTASIA
12/08/82 GANDHI
07/20/83 STAYING ALIVE
10/05/83 BRAINSTORM
11/23/83 YENTL
02/22/84 FANTASIA
03/21/84 A STAR IS BORN
04/04/84 ANTARCTICA
05/02/84 closed
06/27/84 THE KARATE KID
09/19/84 LAWRENCE OF ARABIA
10/03/84 closed
10/24/84 THE RAZOR'S EDGE
12/19/84 A PASSAGE TO INDIA
04/03/85 KING DAVID
05/01/85 closed
07/03/85 ST. ELMO'S FIRE
07/17/85 SILVERADO
08/28/85 GHOSTBUSTERS
10/16/85 FANTASIA
11/27/85 WHITE NIGHTS
02/05/86 DOWN AND OUT IN BEVERLY HILLS
03/26/86 JUST BETWEEN FRIENDS
04/23/86 ABSOLUTE BEGINNERS
06/04/86 closed
07/02/86 AMERICAN ANTHEM
07/23/86 PIRATES
08/06/86 FLIGHT OF THE NAVIGATOR
09/10/86 closed
09/24/86 PATHS OF GLORY/ FROM HERE TO ETERNITY
09/27/86 BIRMAN OF ALCATRAZ/ I WALK ALONE
10/01/86 ELMER GANTRY/ ALONG THE GREAT DIVIDE
10/08/86 TOUGH GUYS
11/19/86 closed
12/03/86 NUTCRACKER
12/31/86 WISDOM
01/28/87 closed
02/04/87 OUTRAGEOUS FORTUNE
03/18/87 HEAT
04/08/87 closed
04/15/87 THREE FOR THE ROAD
04/22/87 closed
05/20/87 ISHTAR
06/24/87 ROXANNE
08/12/87 WHO'S THAT GIRL
09/02/87 THE FOURTH PROTOCOL
10/14/87 HAIL! HAIL! ROCK N' ROLL
11/04/87 closed
11/11/87 CRY FREEDOM
01/20/88 GOOD MORNING, VIETNAM
03/23/88 D.O.A.
04/20/88 APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH
05/04/88 POWAQQATSI
06/29/88 WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT?
08/17/88 THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST
11/30/88 COCOON: THE RETURN
01/11/89 TALK RADIO
02/15/89 LAWRENCE OF ARABIA
07/05/89 THE KARATE KID PART III
08/09/89 THE ABYSS
09/20/89 SEA OF LOVE
11/01/89 THE BEAR
12/20/89 BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY

Al: Wow - another one of your fantastic lists. Thanks for it. I'd like to make two additions, though. In 1978, between REVENGE OF THE PINK PANTHER and THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL, I saw GREASE at the Ziegfeld. And in 1986 I saw a Kirk Douglas/Burt Lancaster double feature of LUST FOR LIFE and THE PROFESSIONALS. LUST FOR LIFE had turned completely pink, but it was still in CinemaScope on the big Ziegfeld screen.

Just about a week before its DVD release, I'd like to salute David Lean's RYAN'S DAUGHTER for being the long-run champ of the Ziegfeld.

Bill, you are probably right. I have a small gap in THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL period (newspaper strike, I think) and those 1986 double features were a Kirk Douglas/Burt Lancaster prelude to TOUGH GUYS that may have included even more titles for a day or two.

GREASE was a moveover from either the Loew's Astor Plaza or the Loew's State where it originally opened. But of course it was better at the Ziegfeld.

Another great list, Al... Thanks for the stroll down memory lane. I know my parents made the trip in from Queens with me to see "That's Entertainment" here. It's possible I saw "Earthquake" here as well, but I think that might have been elsewhere in Manhattan on the upper East Side where my Mom's freind Lilliana - who accompanied us - lived. Saw "The Grateful Dead", "Hair" (my first trip into the city on my own - St. Patty's Day '79) and "Apocalypse Now" to round out the '70's. The following decade my pals and I came in to see "Pink Floyd's The Wall" and I saw "Fantasia" here a couple of times during the '80's. The only other film I can be certain of seeing here on the list is "Yentl", though I might have also seen "Tough Guys" here in '86. I look forward to a '90's list, Al... I believe on Christmas Day 1990 I was sitting in the Ziegfeld anxiously watching (and being ultimately disappointed by) "The Godfather, Part Three."

And P.S.... Still looking for advertisements for the upcoming series. There was no mention of it in the Sunday Times Arts & Leisure section. Are they waiting for the Friday Weekend section to spread the word? Or are they looking only to pull in passersby and visitors to Clearview Cinemas website and the folks on Cinema Treasures?!?

"The Boatniks" and "From The Mixed Up Files Of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler" were both move overs from Radio City. "The Anderson Tapes" and "Grease" like BH said were move overs from Loew's State. "Bananas" was from the upper East Side. As for AlAlvarez statement "Contrary to popular opinion, "New Yorkers have never truly supported the Ziegfeld, preferring to see their movies elsewhere when possible.", I don't know but having seen a good chunk of those bookings he posted and having stood in line for a sold out show on almost all those occasions, I would say I don't agree. But if you look at some of the bookings, like their '71 Christmas show, "The Star Spangled Girl", a movie based on a bad Neil Simon play that Simon himself probably never saw, or pictures that seemed perfect "Ziegfeld" bookings like "Flight Of The Navigator or Polanski's big budget "Pirates" that turn out to be dogs. You can't blame a theatre if there is no product or the owner doesn't book it properly.

There is an ad for series in the current TimeOut Magazine.

Time Out is sponsoring the series - or is otherwise involved - so that makes sense. But shouldn't the advertising be just a bit more widespread?

Bob, my comment referred to the fact that if the same film played with the tiny Coronet, the Coronet always outgrossed the Ziegfeld. If a film moved to the National or Warner, it picked up. It was always a battle to book the Ziegfeld unless an exclusive was on offer by a distributor trying to establish a film.

The website says "Check Local Newspaper Listings". Maybe Thursday or Friday?

This reminds me of when "2001: A Space Odyssey" played the Loew's Astor Plaza in December 2001. The New York Times ad in the Friday paper was so small it could easily be overlooked, and no other papers ran any ads at all. Hundreds of people still managed to find out about it and showed up for the Friday night show.

"Movies...the way they were meant to be seen!"

Gee, it seems that I've heard that somewhere before...

Pacific's Cinerama Dome ad line for their display ads was "Where Movie Going is an Event".

Still no print ads anywhere in the local papers, but there is {url=]this New York Post article[/url] from Lou Lumenick about the series. I submitted a news item to Cinema Treasures today to try and spread the word beyond this particular page. In any event, I have plans with my gal to see "West Side Story" next weekend and "Ben-Hur" the weekend after that. Plus, the kids are all excited to see "Raiders of the Lost Ark" on the big screen in March. I hope word of mouth and the Post article can generate enough interest to make this program a great success and encourage Clearview to try it again somewhere down the line.

Sorry... forgot the link!

http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/62811.htm

The Boatniks was a Ziegfeld premiere exclusive. It never played at Radio City Music Hall. After an excellent run, Walter Reade dropped the admission to The Boatniks at Ziegfeld to $1 admission for kids.

Just got back from "The Godfather Part II". The print was in very good condition. Some scenes were very dark, but I'm sure that's the way it was supposed to look. And the sound was great - when Pacino screamed at Michael V. Gazzo, "In my HOME!", it shook the Ziegfeld to its core.

It wasn't a full house by any means, but it was a good-sized crowd considering it was Super Bowl Sunday. Here's something that gave me hope for more classic movies at the Ziegfeld: all patrons were given a card where they could list what classics they'd most like to see at the theater in the future. I asked for "2001" and "Ryan's Daughter".

Attended Godfather I and Part II today. Both were great prints. I had excellent sound, including side and/or back sound in the auditorium. I had a 1997 re-release in DTS, so probably digital sound.

II sounded loud and very good as Bill said, but not quite the same as I. So, I asked an usher, who walked up to the projection booth and returned, telling me "SR" which I take to mean SR Dolby.

For first run movies, the curtain is open before you enter the auditorium, there are slides, then they close the curtain briefly before the pre-show. For the classic series today, the curtain was closed when you entered the auditorium and stayed that way until it opened for commercials, then the classic movie. It was nice to sit there and look at the curtain.

When I entered, I asked the ticket taker and she said about 800 per day, not good, but not bad. That would have been Friday, Saturday. As Bill says, a good sized house considering Superbowl Sunday. I've attended various first run movies there with far less people attending.

They had the curtain open to scope, but as these films are flat, the black matting was seen. That shouldn't keep anybody away, but the right way is to see curtain and film, not matting.

All things considered, an excellent experience with great prints, great sound, and fantastic movies.

Howard is right - it felt great to walk in and see the curtain closed, just like the old days.

Did anybody catch Chinatown in the last few days, and if so, how was the print and sound?

The wonderful long list of movies above (we'd love one for the Boyd in Philadelphia!) lists in 1973, This is Cinerama, which played before my time in 3 strip Cinerama at the Boyd in its original run. How did it play at the Ziegfeld? 35 MM or 70 MM? Surely not with 3 projectors and a special wide screen? What is the experience of seeing this movie in a theater that isn't set up for 3 strip Cinerama?

Howard see above posts about Cinerama at the Ziegfeld in '73.
Also look up Vincent Canby's '73 article in the Times.
It was a case of why did they bother.

The 1973 reissue of "This is Cinerama" was optically converted from the 3-strip original to 70MM. And in many cases for this reissue a special curved screen was installed in front of the regular screen for theatres that did not have a curved screen.

I'm sure I've said this before, but the Ziegfeld is not a good place to see a movie. Most people don't realize how bad the sound is in there. There were plenty of things in Chinatown that were barely audible (and I don't think the movie was mixed that way).

The other odd thing about the Ziegfeld is that everybody thinks it's some kind of movie palace with a great history, since it houses all those theatrical artifacts in the lobby. It is NOT the original Ziegfeld theater where Show Boat premiered, nor is it built on that site (it's down the block from the original site).

It is a barn, and not particularly beautifully done -- very 60s rococco (SIC), if you ask me.

There is an old movie palace in Manhattan that is worth preserving -- the Beacon at 76th street. Also, the old Mark Hellinger theater, now Times Square Church, was built as a movie palace.

Thanks for replying to my Chinatown question. If the sound wasn't heard as it was originally supposed to be, I'd bet that it isn't the fault of the Ziegfeld, but that of the print that was shipped there. As I wrote, the sound of first Godfather yesterday was flawless. And, though we didn't meet, both Bill H. and I agree that the sound for Godfather II was very good. And, I've not had any problems with hearing the sound of the many 1st run movies and reissues that I've attended there.

Your clarification as to the history of the Ziegfeld is also very worthwhile. There's a photo in the current theater of the original, dated 1927. It was a masterpiece of design by Joseph Urban, but was torn down. The artifacts are wonderful, but they are just that, artifacts. Nevertheless, many of us have commented on this site on how much we like the existing Ziegfeld. And as vintage movie palaces don't show movies in Manhattan, the Ziegfeld is a great choice. That said, I've never thought there will be a battle to declare the current theater a historic landmark. Like so many others that have fallen recently, it too will fall.

I've seen many movies at the Ziegfeld, including some first-run movies in the 70s like A Star is Born, and the Lawrence of Arabia restoration from 1988, and the My Fair Lady restoration from 1994, and many others. I've never had a good experience there.

I know why people extol it, though, because they are trying to hold onto the experience of a large audience at a movie palace. As such, the Ziegfeld is close to the last remaining place in NYC to experience such a thing.

So, premieres are exactly what should be showing there.

But for watching the actual movie the way it's meant to be seen? I think the Loews theater (the biggest one inside the Loews 68th Street multiplex) is the best theater in town to see a widescreen, 70mm, DTS kind of movie, particularly when you sit in the balcony. The sound is superb. The screen itself is bigger than at the Ziegfeld, and the number of seats is actually smaller.

The problem with the Ziegfeld isn't the sound system -- it's the theater itself, its shape (a horizontal box that's too deep), and the design makes the bathroom and refreshment areas seem like a mile away from the seats, and they're too small.

Since there are no other movie palaces, the Ziegfeld must suffice, but overall, it's a bad choice.

My opinion, of course. And of course, I don't even go to the movies anymore -- now it's home theater.

I agree that the Ziegfeld is too deep to make seating in the raised section at the rear an enjoyable experience for my tastes. Typically, I like to sit about 10-12 rows back and dead center in most theaters. From this vantage point, I think the Ziegfeld makes for an awesome movie going experience. A tip of the cap to the Loews auditorium at the Lincoln Square, as Deester correctly points out - that is a superb place to see a movie.

Are they running an intermission for "The Godfather, Part II" at the Ziegfeld? That film is well over 3 hours and I was curious if they planned on having intermission with some of the longer films - particularly "Ben Hur" which has entr'acte music in its restored version. I'm sure that "Braveheart" and "Gladiator" where presented without intermission during their initial theatrical release, but I wonder if that's a purely American development. Do intermissions survive in foreign markets? If so, do filmmakers still keep a spot in mind for the break when assembling prints for overseas distribution? I imagine they'd have to insert an "intermission" card wherever the film is projected from a platter. Or is this a completely antiquated concept that now exists only in the memories of aging film enthusiasts like myself?

No intermission for either first Godfather or Part II at the Ziegfeld.

I saw Braveheart at the Ziegfeld, and Gladiator at the Boyd (main auditorium of what was then Sameric 4) and like every long movie in recent decades, there was no intermission.

Why doesn't somebody ask the management, and projectionists, at the Ziegfeld if they plan intermissions in those particular films that originally had them? And, write down the request on the white cards they distribute which ask for future film choices?

In the 1990's, in Portugal, I observed every single film getting an intermission. I loved the practice, and most would truly welcome it for those that last 2 hours or more. It would also increase concession sales.

I've been only a couple times to what was built as the "Loews" theater of the Sony Lincoln Square, mentioned above. It seemed a great place to see a film, from the balcony. I wish they would put in newspaper and online just which movie is playing in that ornate auditorium, as we can't always guess corrrectly.

I meant to say that I would truly welcome intermission, not to imply everybody else would.

Also, no intermissions in other nations I've seen movies in: Canada, England, France, Spain, Holland, Belgium, Denmark.

Is that simply room 1? So that if you saw the movie title next to 1 in the listing you would know that was the film playing in that large Lamb imitation auditorium?

No, I don't think it is auditorium 1 or at least wasn't years ago when I gave up. If they want to adopt that as a custom- of always playing in the ornate movie palace auditorium the movie listed at # 1, then, yes, that would help.

Haha, that IS a problem with the Loewe's. I would always try to choose that theater based on the times it presented. If the movie had a 7 PM showing, and an 8 PM showing, I would choose the latter, because that 8:00 timeslot seemed more likely to be in the bigger Loewes. I know, it's a crazy system of guessing, but it worked quite a few times.

Just a note about sound at the Ziegfeld. It has been one of the best sounding houses in the city, and to this day Dolby techs still check out the sound (and in the case of the last "Star Wars" the picture since it was played on a Dolby cinema server) regularly. "Chinatown" was issued before Dolby tracks became common. It is mono, unencoded optical sound that you're hearing. Not even a Dolby "A" noise reduction system was used. Those tracks are also susceptible to scratching and wear, much the same way as vinyl record tracks were. Try listening again when they do a contemporary print or a digital cinema presentation. I always admired the sound there when I was running 70mm prints, even though I agree with the statement that the house is too long to have a really impressive wide screen image.

As I've said, it isn't the sound system -- it's the house that's the problem. The shape of the theater itself. There's a lot of natural echo, which is great for music, and very bad for speaking. Our modern movies have very complex soundscapes, but to take advantage of them properly, you'd have to have a very dry room.

The Loewe's is simply better suited to movies, in my opinion. I even think it's nicer-looking. But it's got a problem too -- the bathroom is a mile away down a long narrow corridor.

I've also seen movies at Radio City Music Hall (the early 70s -- saw Bedknobs and Broomsticks and many others there) and I think it's actually a better place to see a movie than the Ziegfeld, even though monstrously huge.

And I went to the Rivoli too, though unfortunately, my recollection of it was that it was practically a ruin.

I always thought "The Godfather Part II" was planned with an intermission in mind, but they changed their minds about it before release. There's a long fadeout and a great Nino Rota musical crescendo right after the Little Italy stoop scene ("Michael, your father loves you very much") which follows the killing of Don Fanucci. When I saw the film in 1975 I was all set to get up and use the men's room at this point, a bathroom break I needed badly. Then, a few seconds later, we faded back in to Al Pacino as Michael coming home to his snowy Lake Tahoe house, and I stuck it out for another hour or so. A movie like that is too good to walk out on, unless it's the most serious emergency. But that's one more reason why intermissions are a good thing.

When I saw "Schindler's List" in Italy in 1994 it had an intermission after the ghetto purge sequence, with a title card in the same font as the film's credits saying "Intervallo". There was no intermission for the film's US release, though. It ran about 3 hours 20 minutes, same as "Godfather II".

Vertigo, is an example of a movie with a very "dry" soundtrack, very little reverb built into the soundtrack. The recent restoration of the movie had re-recorded foleys (sound effects) to take advantage of the recovered stereo recordings of the music.

When I saw the movie at the Ziegfeld, I was surprised at how bad I thought the presentation was. The movie was shown in 70mm, with beautiful stereo surround music. But the picture wasn't bright enough (the theater is too deep), and the dialogue was echo-y, reverberant, and wet, and because of that, it was hard to understand. This is a movie I know very well, and I was disappointed seeing it in all its glory at the Ziegfeld. I went again to it at another theater in town, and the experience was much better -- the movie looked and sounded great. The problem wasn't the movie, it was the Ziegfeld theater itself.

Here's the HUGE problem with the LOEWS @ Lincoln Square: If just ONE person complains that the movie is too loud, down the volume goes. And down it stays. In fact, most of the time, the volume is kept low anyway so that they don't have to deal with complaints. This applies to ALL the auditoriums there. Talk about inaudible. This WAS a great thaeter when it opened, but sadly it no longer is. My very last visit was for WALK THE LINE (my friend lives across the street and didn't want to travel.) In addition to the volume being too low, the sound was muffled and distorted. It didn't concern the nearly soldout house or the management. We got refunds. Eventually saw the movie at the Union Square where it was loud and crystal clear (as it usually is there.) As for the ZIEGFELD, they have really done a tremendous job over the past couple years. As for CHINATOWN, you can't hold an old optical mono track to the same standard as a new release or a freshly struck print. Yeah, they probably coulda cranked up the volume but those old worn out optical mono tracks tend to sound harsh and shrill at high volumes. The Ziegfeld DID indeed have sound and projection problems for a while. From Jurrasic Park until up to and including Moulin Rouge no matter how loud they made it, dialogue was mostly unintelligible. Including the VERTIGO rerelease after their renovation - it was BARELY audible. Also, many times, they couldn't even manage to get the picture on the screen properly. Now however, it's in the top 3 moviegoing experiences in the city. In a good way ;-)

This is of course, the truth about moviegoing in general, now. The presentations at nearly every theater are simply not what they were, even 10 years ago, let alone in the late 60s. Movie theaters can't afford big staffs, or upgraded equipment.

Movies in the theater, I think, are doomed to be a niche part of the movie grosses -- not dissimilar to the "hardback" edition of newly published books. Most people will wait for the paperback.

It's true that Chinatown isn't exactly a movie that needs to be seen at the Ziegfeld. The best experience I ever had at the Ziegfeld was seeing A Star is Born, in 1976, there. Both movies are now available for home viewing, and in 1080i high-definition. I suspect once high-definition broadcasts are the norm, a movie like Chinatown will never be seen in the movie theater again.

The Union Square UA multiplex has mice. I saw one there myself.

They ALL have mice. Do you remember the PLAZA on 58 St? It was CRAWLING with roaches.

EdSolero asked about placement of intermissions in Foreign markets. There is one major problem with the placement, it is sometimes limited to equipment and it become a judgment call of the projectionist as to where to make place it. Not every theatre in the world runs on platters type systems. Some theatres run using whats called towers, which are around 12,000 foot reels on one projector. In running Towers (12,000 reels) they are limited to around 130-140 minutes of film. So they have to split the film on to two reels for longer releases. With some of the longer newer releases that do not have built-in intermissions by the film maker the projectionist has to make the decision of on the placement of the intermission slug.

Everybody is so amazed that the Ziegfeld is using its curtain. After attending all the classic films at the Lafayette Theater in Suffern New York over these past several years, I've gotten used to seeing movies presented with curtains, pre-show organ music, and all the other bells and whistles which constitute good showmanship. I guess the Lafayette has gotten me spoiled for a true movie palace experience.

And the Lafayette doesn't run commercials, unless it's a vintage trailer for one of their upcoming classics. Friends, f you think the Ziegfeld is doing a good job, you don't know what you're missing!

When I was managing theatres we always added an intermission for long films. I never had a complaint. I would screen the movie the night before to find a suitable spot. We then spliced in an intermission snipe. Speaking of sound issues I was in Roosevelt Field one night and the house was pretty full. One whacko complained that the sound was too loud so they lowered itn and it stayed that way, despite many people going out and complaining that you could not hear the film.

I must contradict a previous poster. Having seen THE ABYSS at Radio City Music Hall for a premiere and then a few days later at the Ziegfeld (I am not a sadist, my office was at the Zieg), I assure you the sound at the Ziegfeld was far superior.

Having said that, Loews Lincoln Square is probably better and the only draw back is that most movies today record the music sound track too loud compared to the dialogue. When audiences complain, you lose the dialogue. This is common almost everywhere on blockbusters and is a print problem, not a theatre problem. I dare anyone to sit through EVITA at the recommended sound levels. The audiences would run for the nearest exit.

I saw a notoriously bad digital version of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA at Lincoln Square and that soundtrack was embarrassingly bad so I think the theatres sound better when things are exploding.

Due to the premieres, the Ziegfeld is constantly tested for sound quality. Admittedly, many sound technicians over the years have expressed their displeasure with the acoustics.

By the way, here in the UK we only insert intermissions on Bollywood films. Hollywood intermissions are forbidden unless it is already there on an older film. If you get caught, you could lose the run.

I'd probably run from the theater regardless of the sound quality if I had to sit through the movie OR stage versions of either "Evita" or "Phantom".

I'm sorry if my above comment upsets and Lloyd Webber fans out there. I just consider him such a hack compared to the old greats. I'm somewhat glad to see his last few offerings being quickly dispatched here in NY.

But to the discussion regarding intermissions: weren't some films shot with an intermission clearly in mind? For example, "The Sound of Music" seems to have a hand made intermission at the scene where Maria leaves the children's house after The Countess has "talked" to her. And "Gone With The Wind" seems to have the intermission built into the scene with Scarlett declaring she'll never go hungry again. Right? Or does it just seem that way?

A couple of comments about AlAlvarez's post. I was Head Projectionist at the Music Hall and a relief projectionist at the Ziegfeld at the time of the "Abyss" premiere. That premiere at the Hall had a surround system brought in by an outside contractor for the screening. It was huge and not particularly good considering it took a week to take out seats to install it. Nonetheless, the sound at the Ziegfeld would have been better at the time. There was a classic echo at the Hall because of its sheer size. Acousticians had tried to solve them from the time the Hall opened, including Tom Holman of THX. When I would screen new prints I would sit in the middle of the orchestra at the producer's table, and if I turned my head in the empty auditorium I would hear two soundtracks, one from the screen and one from the backwall. If you sat in the Mezzanines there wasn't a problem, since you weren't hearing the slap from the area above the 3rd Mezz. Thus the Zieg had comparatively better acoustics. When we did the "Lion King" premiere, we installed a completely new film sound system with adequate speakers behind the screen and a plethora of surround speakers (I think its up over 100 now). Disney was extremely happy with the sound, and we added more speakers both for the stage system and the surround system for later premieres. Since then, the house has added acoustic treatment installed during the 1999 remodel. For all of the romanticism about the movie palaces, we tend to forget that many of them had enormous acoustic problems because of their sheer size. One of the acomplishments of the Dolby system was to include house eqalization to try to iron out the acoustic differences. Now we are used to E.Q. and digital reproduction and would probably be shocked if we actually had to hear the sound in a Paramount or Roxy as it played when those theatres reigned.

Yes, CConnolly, those two films have built-in intermission, as many of the 3-hour films of the past did. Regarding newer films, adding an intermission to a movie not specifically edited to accomodate one is a bad idea, IMO, as it will disrupt the carefully constructed flow of the film.

With the exception of the "Lord of the Rings" films which practically begged for an intermission, I agree that an inappropriately placed intermission can be a killer.

I remember seeing Apocolypse Now at a third run house in Massapequa (even then with curtains!) and the intermission seemed to pop out of nowehere.

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't there these different kinds of intermission "logos"? I remember the one they had for "The Sound of Music" seemed to write the word Intermission in script across the screen. There must've been others.

One movie that didn't seem to have an obvious intermission part is "My Fair Lady". The plays' first act ended after the ball with Act II beginning upon their return home. Where was it in the roadshow version? And how about "Doctor Zhivago"? Again, I can never quite tell where an intermission should be. I saw it at a couple of revival houses in NYC and like my experience with "Apocolypse Now" the intermission seemed to pop out of no where.

Often times - in revival houses - they would just place an intermission at the end of a reel, whether it belonged there or not. I saw many revivals of 1950's 3-D films with the intermission incorrectly presented that way.

The Roadshow intermission on "My Fair Lady" happens just after Eliza comes down the staircase and her and Professor Higgins & Colonel Pickering go off to the ball. Act II Begins at the ball.

The stage version comes after the ball which makes the first half too long. The movie got it right. It helps that the always radiant Audrey is heart stoppingly beautiful at that moment. How lucky the world is that she got the role.

"Doctor Zhivago"'s intermission is right after the red train carrying Strelnikov speeds past the big train carrying Zhivago and the others, which has been sidelined. It does come out of nowhere but it's intentional - a direct cut to the Intermission title card - no fadeout or dissolve - accompanied by a big crash of cymbals. It's very effective, I think.

If Joe Masher is still a division manager for Clearview, this is for him:
I was totally disappointed when I went into the Ziegfeld page at the Clearview web and saw the "classics" revival schedule. Gladiator a classic? Chicago a classic? Who's the idiot who programmed this series, a 19 year old? The 7 year old daughter of the programmer that, like Amy Carter, advised her father, president Jimmy Carter, on nuclear weapons? (Remember that?) Well, I sent the program of the series to a friend in LA -- where they have Cinerama and have REAL series and retrospectives, and he sent me his comments -- which follow. Incidentally, it is a shame that in the "capital of the world", we don't have a Cinerama theater or have REAL retrospectives and REAL CASSIC FILM series.

Here are his suggestions:

1) "Epics Week": Remove "Gladiator" and "Braveheart", and replace with the restored 70 mm prints of "Lawrence of Arabia", "Spartacus", and/or "El Cid".

2) Eliminate the "Indiana Jones" week, replace with Western week. (High Noon, Shane, The Searchers, Gunfight at OK Corral, The Big Country, Magnificent Seven, and so on). Ok, maybe have an Indiana Jones day, ( a weekend if you must) but please not an entire week at the expense of John Ford & company!

3) Eliminate "Lord of the Rings" week, replace with war epics: "Bridge on the River Kwai", "Guns of Navarone", "The Longest Day", "The Great Escape", "Tora!, Tora!, Tora!", "Dirty Dozen"

4) Remove "Chicago" and replace with "The Sound of Music", "Hello Dolly" , "Oklahoma!" or "Singing in the Rain". Any of those will do.

4) Put all those removed films ("Lord of the Rings", "Gladiator", "Chicago" etc.) in a "Contemporary Award Winners" week.

5) I would have a "Cop/Tough Guy" week: "The French Connection", "Dirty Harry", "Bullitt", "Point Blank"

6) Comedy week. Lots to choose there!

Idiot maybe but I imagine that the week that the 3 Lord of the Rings films play will be the highest grossing of the whole series.

I think the programmers at the Ziegfeld are trying to balance showing "truly" classic films with booking newer (yet still worthy) films to attract a wider audience. They have 1100 seats to fill and this is, after all, a sort of trial run here. The admissions are seperate so the bean counters should be able to see whether the older fare or newer films drew the largest audiences. If showing the Rings movies and Gladiator brings in crowds and helps subsidize showings of "Ben-Hur" and "West Side Story" then I welcome it wholeheartedly.

All of your suggestions are good, andreco, so I hope you jot them down (or print your post out) and drop them off with theater management - who are evidently looking for ideas for future retrospectives. I for one am ecstatic at the opportunity to see "Raiders of the Lost Ark" on the big screen again.

As for intermissions... thanks for all the info and history from everyone. There wasn't one at the original Ziegfeld engagement for "Apocalypse Now" in '79. I remember one that definitely seemed arbitrarily spliced in for "The Towering Inferno" where the screen literally just went dark prattically in mid-dialogue. I really wish they'd reinstate the practice for all films over 2 and 1/2 hours.

A few reasons they might have chosen the "Indiana Jones" series and "Lord of the Rings" series, is that they are almost a sure thing to make money at the box office for the classic series. These fans love to see these films on a big screen and they come rain or shine. Back in the day the studios did release the "Back to the Future", "Star Trek" series and the almighty "Star Wars" original trilogy. And the print of these titles are easy and cheap to rent. I think the rent on most titles is $350 vs. 35% of the gate per picture plus shipping to and from storage. And with "Gladiator", "Chicago", they did very well the in first run. Hopefully the print of "Gladiator" will be runable. The one they sent to me for a Academy screening was a piece of crap from the first reel to the last.

Andreco, Joe Masher left for an arthouse circuit in New England.

One thing that is evident is that all the films in the classic series are post 1953, flat and scope, not 1.33.

It would be wonderful to get 70 MM, including the restored Doctor Zhivago along with the 70 MM titles you mention, and others! And, if they wanted to raise the prices for 70 MM to $10, I'm sure many would pay.

I may attend one of the Indiana Jones series, since I've saw two on big screens but haven't seen one of them on a movie screen.

How about a James Bond series?

Andreco - 40 minutes out of Manhattan and most of your wishes have been coming true for the past three years. If I may say so myself, the Lafayette Theatre in Suffern, NY has been consistently showing the best and most comprehensive series of classic films in the New York metro area. No, we don't have Cinerama, but we do have double-system polarized 3-D, a silver screen, a pipe organ, and just about anything else you'd want in a renovated 1000 seat 1924 neighborhood movie palace. I welcome you to check out our spring season of events and I hope to see you at a show.

I'm glad the Ziegfeld is running this current series - the more opportunities audiences get to see classic films in a proper theatrical setting means that they will continue to seek them out at other venues.

Pete Apruzzese
Director of Film Programming
Big Screen Classics at the Lafayette Theatre

All I can say is "thank Heaven." I'm thrilled to see so much discussion about the Ziegfeld series. This means that we're going and supporting it. I hope Clearview will see the results and continue this policy. I was planning a trip to Bradford, England for their Widescreen Weekend but between the Ziegfeld and the Lafayette, I'm staying home. It's great to have this type of programming in the NYC area. And organ concerts, too!

Thank you all for the above responses to my comments on the Ziegfeld classic series. See your point EdSolero, and Peter, I'll do my best to go to Suffern. By the way, remember the programming ideas came from a friend in LA, he should get the credit for the titles for an ideal classic series.

I would like to add my two cents on the intermission policies. back in the day, starting in the mid 50s, all roadshow 70mm films were presented with built in intermissions, the 35mm continuous performance realeases to the local movie houses also carried the intermissions. I was working at the Cinerama theatre in Hawaii at the time we say the end of the roadshow, the last one to play there was the 70mm re-issue of "This is Cinerama" in the mid 70s. After that, the big movies that had in the past been presented as roadshows were simply played on a continuous performance schedule and they rarely had built in intermissions. Like some have posted, many of the theatres began adding their own intermissions and I gather not in a very good way, the idea was mainly to enhance concession sales. At the Cinerama, one of the first movies we did this with was "Mame" and "Funny Lady", both of which was played in 35mm with 4 track mag sound, we would screen the movie and find the absolute best place to slug the intermission, since the movies no longer carried additional intermission music or overture, I would purchase the soundtrack album and use a track from the album to use as overture, and entr'act music for the second half. As Laurel said to Hardy "no one was ever the wiser". For me, it kept the spirt of the roadshow alive, we had fun, and I think the audience appreciated it.

Regarding the intermission for "The Towering Inferno", I saw this at The Fantasy in Rockville Centre and the intermission was inserted at the most ridiculous time. It was the scene where Richard Chamberlin is running down the stairs. The intermission was so abrupt it looked like the film broke. My Mom was pissed because I made her get popcorn earlier and she missed the whole scene with Jennifer Jones getting spilled out of the elevator.

For all of you talking about a 70mm Zhivago or Ben Hur. See above comments. Clearview was too lazy(or too dim?) to get a Lady print in 70mm which is the entire point of seeing it in a large theater!

Outside of that I think the programmer did an intelligent job of choosing what we think of as classics and what younger people think of as classics.

And yeah I'd love to see Sound of Music and Oklahoma again in Todd AO but it doesn't look like it will happen again in my lifetime in New York.(and Magnificent Men and South Pacific...)
And if they did maybe me and another 10 people would care. That would be about it.

Yes, CConnolly! The intermission for "The Towering Inferno" that I saw came at that point as well... Chamberlin is running down the stairwell and a blast of fire erupts from somewhere? I didn't see the film at the Fantasy, but interestingly the intermission (clearly not intended by the filmmakers) came at the same point in the film. I wonder if it was just a convenient point in the film where there was a change in reels and the time seemed roughly half-way.

I'm trying to think of the last time I saw an intermission during a film presentation... I know when I saw "2001" in the '80's (I can't recall the theater) it was exhibited with intermission using a print that had the overture (more like mood music), entr'acte and exit music. I think it may have been the 8th Street Playhouse. There was also a showing of Sergio Leone's complete "Once Upon a Time in America" at the Metro, which was presented with an intermission. I think these are the last two intermissions I can recall during a movie that I attended... and neither one was first run. As for first run, I'm trying to remember if Warren Beatty's "Reds" was shown with intermission. I saw "Tess" and "Lion of the Desert" at the Century's Green Acres Theater on their first runs. Both films were around the 3 hour mark and might have had intermissions. We're talking about 1981 or '82. My memory is a bit fuzzy.

Vincent... Do I take it that no theater currently in NYC is equipped to show 30fps Todd AO? That's sad, because, "Oklahoma!" would have made my suggestion list. As it stands, when I attend "West Side Story" this weekend, I will be listing the following films: "2001", "Apocalypse Now", "The Wild Bunch", "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" (if they can get a hold of the print MGM struck for its showing in Seattle a couple of years back - with phony police radio calls during intermission), "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", "Spartacus" and the complete "Heaven's Gate."

Ed: "Reds" had a real intermission and so did "Gandhi" a year later. After that, the only first-runs I can think of that had intermissions were the Ted Turner 4-hour Civil War epics, "Gettysburg" and "Gods and Generals".

Vincent, if I am not mistaken, Radio City can run 30fps, I believe that speed is used for the 70mm 3-D opening scene for the Christmas show? As I recall runing Todd-AO, it was just a matter of switching drive motors. Perhaps REndres will respond. By the way Bill, you are correct about the Zhivago intermission, as a matter of fact part two begins with the train rushing towards the light at the end of the tunnel as we begin to see what's on the other end of the tunnel the
imagine gets wider and wider untill the train clears the tunnel and we are oudorrs again, quite a sight to see that on a huge 70mm screen. REndres tells a great story of trying to match the opening of the travelor curtain to the spectacular opening shot outside the tunnel. Another point to add to what Bob wrote regarding the intermission in 3-D films, all of the features released in 3-D had built in intermisions, because in those days the movie cam mounted on 6000 foot reels, and was shown using two projectors, after the first half which ran 45-60 minutes, we had to have an intermission to change reels. The Paramount in NY was able to run 3-D without intermission because it was a four projector booth and could make a changeover.

Ed: I will list "Mad Mad World" also, along with "Apocalypse Now", "Close Encounters" and "Spartacus" - all three of which were previously shown at the Ziegfeld in a most spectacular way. This also applies to the two films I listed on Sunday, "2001" and the Ziegfeld's long-run record holder, "Ryan's Daughter".

Vito, you said: "The Paramount in NY was able to run 3-D without intermission because it was a four projector booth and could make a changeover." So did the Randolph in Philadelphia. During 3-D engagements there, the print ads always stated prominently "No Intermission!".

I will list "STAR!","SWEET CHARITY","FINIANS RAINBOW","HALF A SIXPENCE" and "GOODBYE MR> CHIP"!

I will list "STAR!","SWEET CHARITY","FINIANS RAINBOW","HALF A SIXPENCE" and "GOODBYE MR> CHIP"!

I will list "STAR!","SWEET CHARITY","FINIANS RAINBOW","HALF A SIXPENCE" and "GOODBYE MR> CHIP"!All had intermissions!

veyoung, I don't know about Philadelphia, but it they had no intermission, in the pre platter days, then I would guess they had 4 projectors. Perhaps someone else knows

Saw "The Towering Inferno" in it's original premiere engagement at the UA Syosset and more than once to the aggravation of my Mother. The intermission at Syosset came after Jennifer Jones, the kids and Paul Newman finally get to the ballroom floor and find the exit door was blocked by cement. As firemen blow the door, at the moment of the explosion, they had the intermission, with them running into the ballroom as the film began again. Since intermissions are as rare as 70MM today, I guess my last one will be "Funny Girl" right here at The Ziegfeld, a few summers ago when they played the restored print.

Forrest136... are you poking some fun at us here? Those 5 titles don't exactly represent the cream of the roadshow musical crop! They might have their unique charms, I suppose (Julie Andrews' performance, Bob Fosse's choreography, Astaire's graceful presence) and one or two of them might have been unfairly maligned upon their initial release. Are you saying we give them another chance some 37 or 38 years later? Ha ha... Where's "Paint Your Wagon" or "Hello Dolly" on the list? "Song of Norway" anyone? How about the attempted post-modern take on Cole Porter sophistication "At Long Last Love" that pretty much sank Peter Bogdonavich's reputation?

BobT: Did a big groan go up from the audience when that "Towering Inferno" intermission came on? That was worse than a network TV commercial break.

Well Bill, I remember that the first time it was so unexpected. It was like huh? Although audiences were familiar with intermissions at The Syosset as well as The Zeig. It didn't seem to be the kind of film that would need one. It seemed really rough too, with the explosion and then wham the lights were on. Funny I just watched it a few months ago letterboxed on TCM and I still remember exactly where they cut it. Last time I saw it theatrically at the Deer Park Theatre months after and there was no intermission at all.(told ya I saw it alot!).

Sounds to me as if theatres runing "Towering Inferno" with an intermission, simply took the easy way out and spliced an intermission snipe at the end of one of the reels. When we did it, we selected a proper spot which in many cases meant cutting into the middle of a reel. Keep in mind many non roadshow movies did not need an intermission, it may have just been just put there to increase concession sales.

The Ziegfeld in the 90's...
02/23/90 MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON
04/27/90 CHATTAHOOCHEE
05/18/90 BIRD ON A WIRE
06/29/90 DAYS OF THUNDER
08/10/90 FLATLINERS
09/14/90 POSTCARDS FROM THE EDGE
10/19/90 WHITE PALACE
11/23/90 HOME ALONE
12/07/90 EDWARD SCISSORHANDS
02/08/91 SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY
03/01/91 THE DOORS
04/26/91 SPARTACUS
05/31/91 BACKDRAFT
06/21/91 DYING YOUNG
07/12/91 CITY SLICKERS
08/09/91 PURE LUCK
08/30/91 THE COMMITMENTS
11/22/91 FOR THE BOYS
12/27/91 THE PRINCE OF TIDES
01/31/92 SHINING THROUGH
02/21/92 RADIO FLYER
03/06/92 THE LAWNMOWER MAN
04/03/92 THUNDERHEART
04/17/92 CITY OF JOY
05/22/92 FAR AND AWAY
07/03/92 A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN
07/31/92 DEATH BECOMES HER
09/25/92 MR. SATURDAY NIGHT
12/25/92 HOFFA
02/05/93 A FEW GOOD MEN
02/12/93 GROUNDHOG DAY
03/19/93 TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES
04/30/93 BENNY & JOON
05/14/93 LOST IN YONKERS
06/11/93 JURRASIC PARK
09/17/93 THE AGE OF INNOCENCE
11/12/93 CARLITO'S WAY
12/31/93 HEAVEN & EARTH
02/04/94 I'LL DO ANYTHING
03/25/94 THE PAPER
05/06/94 THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT III
06/17/94 WOLF
07/15/94 TRUE LIES
09/23/94 MY FAIR LADY
09/30/94 THE RIVER WILD
11/11/94 INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE
01/13/95 LEGENDS OF THE FALL
03/24/95 THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION
04/07/95 ROB ROY
05/19/95 BRAVEHEART
06/30/95 APOLLO 13
10/06/95 STRANGE DAYS
11/10/95 TO DIE FOR
11/17/95 CASINO
01/05/96 12 MONKEYS
02/16/96 CITY HALL
03/22/96 DIABOLIQUE
04/12/96 FEAR
05/17/96 JANE EYRE
05/31/96 DRAGONHEART
06/14/96 MOLL FLANDERS
07/05/96 INDEPENDENCE DAY
09/13/96 closed for remodelling
10/04/96 VERTIGO
11/15/96 THE MIRROR HAS TWO FACES
12/20/96 GHOSTS OF MISSISSIPPI
01/24/97 STAR WARS
02/21/97 THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK
03/14/97 RETURN OF THE JEDI
04/25/97 VOLCANO
05/23/97 THE LOST WORLD: JURASSIC PARK
08/15/97 COP LAND
09/26/97 THE PEACEMAKER
10/31/97 RED CORNER
11/14/97 ANASTASIA
12/26/97 THE POSTMAN
01/16/98 HARD RAIN
01/30/98 GREAT EXPECTATIONS
03/20/98 PRIMARY COLORS
05/15/98 BULWORTH
06/19/98 THE X FILES
07/24/98 SAVING PRIVATE RYAN
09/18/98 ONE TRUE THING
10/02/98 WHAT DREAMS MAY COME
10/23/98 PLEASANTVILLE
11/13/98 MEET JOE BLACK
12/25/98 THE THIN RED LINE
03/19/99 RAVENOUS
03/26/99 SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE
04/23/99 PUSHING TIN
05/21/99 THE PHANTOM MENACE
09/24/99 JAKOB THE LIAR
10/15/99 THE STORY OF US
11/26/99 END OF DAYS
12/17/99 ANNA AND THE KING

I saw "Towering Inferno" twice in it's original theatrical run. The first showing had no intermission, but the second screening had an intermission as poorly placed as many have already mentioned here. The last film I saw with a proper intermission was the original 242 minute version of "Hamlet" at the Paris.

"Whatever Happened to Aunt Alice?" had an intermission at the Park Lane Theater in Palisades Park, NJ in 1969. It was definitely put in to increase concession sales like Vito said - the movie only ran 1 hour and 41 minutes.

And thanks again Al, for the 90's at the Ziegfeld.

Thanks Al... I thought I saw "The Godfather, Part III" here on Christmas Day, 1990... but I was obviously mistaken. It must have been at the Loew's Astor Plaza. I definitely saw "City Slickers", "Interview with the Vampire", "The Empire Strikes Back" (which was the special edition with re-vamped SFX) and "The Thin Red Line" here. Can't be positive about anything else, but it is possible that this pretty much wraps it up for me and the Ziegfeld in the '90's. I do believe I saw more films over at the Astor Plaza over the years than I did at the Ziegfeld, though it wasn't until seeing this list that it occured to me. Al... I'd love to see an Astor Plaza list for the '70's, '80's and '90's if you have it in you one of these days.

That's some doggish lineup at the Ziegfeld in the 90's. The wind must have been whistling across the empty seats. It's a wonder it's still open.

Saps has a good point. In going down the list, my choices for the best movies to play the Ziegfeld in the 90's are "Spartacus", "My Fair Lady", "Vertigo" and the original "Star Wars" trilogy.

Does anyone know how the weekday attendance has been?

Ed Sweet Charity is sensational and I saw Paint Your Wagon at the Warner Cinerama in 70mm in the late 70's and I loved. Some of them properly present are not as bad as the critics made them out to be. Remember when they opened cinema critics had to prove how hip they were and how old-fashioned the roadshow concept seemed to them. I thought they were and continue to think they were pretentious idiots. One of their crew(albeit on Broadway) is still around and thriving-Clive Barnes.
You should read Ethan Morden's comments in his book One Last Kiss on Renata Adler's New York Times review of Half a Sixpence at the Criterion. He skewers the mind set of the New York intellectuals of the period in just a few words.

Vincent... I never saw "Half a Sixpence" and I would say that "Sweet Charity" was definitely one of the better musicals of the late '60's - a time when the big budget Hollywood musical started to wane - but I'd much rather see the original "Nights of Cabiria" by Fellini. But, overall, if I were to select a run of lavish musicals for a retrospective at the Ziegfeld, I don't think I'd start with any of the films on Forrest136's list! I don't think "not as bad" is a good enough endorsement to make a case for booking (and then filling) a big 1,131-seat theater. What might be a better idea - although quite hard on the arse - would be to pair one of these underdogs with a more widely accepted classic on a single admission. Pair up "Wagon" behind, say, "Oklahoma!" and you might fill enough seats to make it worthwhile. "Sweet Charity" may be good enough to top a double bill, but the recent revival didn't fare so well on Broadway. "Oliver!" would be a good choice to represent the late '60's as would "Funny Girl."

Clive Barnes has completely gone in the other direction, by the way - his critical teeth having been dulled by years of alcohol abuse. He just seems interested in seeing his name quoted on marquees and in newspaper ads these days, so he more often than not seems daffily delighted by every bit of nonsense they wheel him out to review. One Times critic that I do miss is the very even handed Janet Maslin, who wrote intelligently and thoughtfully about every film she ever reviewed, but never seemed to look down her nose at even the most formulaic of cinematic fodder. She wasn't above giving a positive review of a Cheech and Chong film, for instance, which I would find shocking were it to appear in the Times today. I didn't always agree with her opinions, but she always seemed to give a fair an honest appraisal - without affectation - no matter how common or complex the film in question was.

I am a big Fellini fan but I have to say I think Charity is better(no bricks ok?) The Pompei club and the whole movie star bit is so wonderful in the Fosse, Oscar in the Fellini is just too hateful and I have little tolerance for Giulietta and her cute waif routine(now Giulietta in Fred and Ginger and Spirits for me is a pretty wonderful actress.)
The revival had a young woman as Charity which makes no sense and then they replace Bob Fosse with Wayne Cilento.
They worked very hard to have a failure.
Anyway off to the Ziegfeld for multiple viewings of WSS next week.

As to the above wonderful list of 1990's movies (thanks!) there are many blockbusters and many Oscar winners. I attended some, including the East Coast exclusive of The Thin Red Line which filled the house. Sure, there may be some clunkers, but many great movies. Of course, the best classics of all time are even better, but that doesn't diminish the experience of enjoying the movies they showed.

As to the Godfathers, they are Paramount releases, and I was under impression that Paramount favored the Astor Plaza.

Jane Eyre, which I saw there, I recall being a moveover from the Paris when it closed for awhile. The Paris ceased being a Pathe operation, then later ceased being a Loews aka Sony house.

The Ziegfeld thrived the best as an exclusive venue for New York runs. It survived with movies opening elsewhere until the two 42nd Street megaplexes. Now it is a wander they get any first runs, but I'm glad they do. Problem is people get in the habit of going to 42nd Street, where the blockbusters start every half hour.

w

I am going tonight to see "My Fair Lady". Do the 35mm prints have the walk in music and intermission?

Robert - If I remember correctly, MFL does not have an overture. Similar to West Side Story, the "overture" plays over images of the flowers for a few moments before the titles start.

The last deluxe edition DVD box of "West Side Story" contains a booklet that includes reproductions of the instructions to roadshow projectionists as to how the film's overture was to be presented. I recall reading detailed specifications as to exactly when during that opening montage of colors the curtains were to be open and how far the house lights should be brought down with each change of color.

I wonder if the Ziegfeld projectionist will be following these instructions this week. I'm planning on attending Sunday's matinee, so I'm hoping the predicted snow storm doesn't upset my plans. If not, I'll take in an evening showing during the week.

Ed, unless the projectionist did this before, for say one of the major re-releases in recent years, they may not even know.

Do you have an extra copy of the instructions? Bring it to the Ziegfeld. Write a nice, short, simple, legible, note as to the "good old times of movie presentations including overture music" (better to rely on implicit suggestion than telling them how to do their jobs) and give it to an usher in the auditorium or concession area. Ask him or her to please give it to the projectionist in the booth, that it might interest them. And, then, maybe, you will get your wish!

I attended tonight’s MFL screening for about an hour before giving up. The 35MM print is in poor condition. Numerous scratches, faded colors and tinny sound. During one reel, the dialogue and music were accompanied by a considerable amount of audio interference that sounded like static. The rest of my group decided to stick it out, but they were also dismayed by the condition of the print. I noticed several other walkouts before I departed. Very disappointing, especially after seeing the restored 70MM print of MFL at the Ziegfeld in the 90s.

The film was preceded by commercials (no trailers) that were hard to see due to insufficient projection lighting. When I asked one of the ushers about the problem, I was told that the lighting problem would be resolved when the film started (it was).

I would like to comment on the projectionist role in a proper roardshow presentaion. We often received suggestions from the studio regarding light cues, as a matter of fact WSS came with a lovely letter from the man himself, Robert Wise, which basically pointed out how hard everyone worked on the movie and how proud they all were of the final product, "it's in your hands now" the letter went on to say, "we ask that you give my movie the same love and attention I have" (or words to that effect). As all of you recall, The WSS overture was a series of changing colors coordinated with the music, my job was to lower the two sets of lights to match the changing musical pieces, which was very effective and a hoot to do.
This is pretty much how we handled all roadshow engaements, although we did not always get advice from the studios, most of the boys would develop their own special presentation to the overtures,
entr'acte and exit music. It's what we did, it was part of putting on a show. Someone asked about the 35mm releases of a 70mm roadshow, the answer is yes, in almost every case the 35mm version was the same as the 70mm version with respect to intermission. During my days as a projectionist we were bombarded with new and exciting ways to project movies, from Cinerama and 3-D to my final position with IMAX, it was a fun and fabulous way to make a living. I must say it breaks my heart to see the way movies are presented in some theatres today and especially sad to hear the comments about MFL presentation at the Ziegfeld. What a shame!

If Clearview is going to do this, why not do it right? I have attended many of their CHELSEA CLASSIC SERIES and the prints are bad and sloppily shown too!

Here's an excerpt from the Robert Wise memo Vito talked about. It was reprinted in the book which came with the "West Side Story" DVD. I am so looking forward to seeing it tonight at the Ziegfeld, even though a blizzard is approaching New York.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/billhuelbig/wss.jpg

Yes Bill, I remember that memo, it was not uncommon to receive such instructions regarding the presentation of a movie, we also recieved a personnel letter from Mr wise as described in my earlier post.
It was not only roadshow movies that would be accompanied by letters or memos from studios and directors, I recall getting one from Woody Allen (Manhatten) and Warren Beatty (Reds) amoung others. In the case of Mr Allen and Mr Beatty, they were very specific about the proper aspect ratio and framing of those two films.
As a personnel note to REndres: Rob,I would appreciate your finding out exactally how the films being shown now at the Ziegfeld.
The comment about the MFL presentaion was disturbing, are we to understand that not only was it in 35mm, but non Dolby as well?
I Can't wait for Bill and others to review the WSS screenings.

Re Roadshow instructions, I guess most of you may have seen it, but in case you haven't, go to American Widescreen Museum web and click on Roadshow in the Lobby page. They have the instructions for WSS, 10 Commandmets, El Cid and others. Incidentally, though WSS does noy have an intermission, when I saw it in San Juan they put an intermission right before I Feel Pretty. No intermission title, no entre'act music. They just closed the curtain when the previous secene faded out and opened the curtain after 15 minutes with I Feel Pretty. I think it worked, and in the recent DVD, in Special Features, they have an optional intermission music, an instrumental I feel Pretty in a lovely arrangement.

Just got in from the 1 pm screeening of "My Fair Lady". There was about 30 people attending. The print was awful scratchy, faded, and discolored. Itr also seemed out of sinc at times. The stereo sound was non existant. I remember it 42 years ago as such a wide SUPER PANAVISION 70 fim. The sould and picture then was breathtaking! Oh the good old days!

I was also at today's sparsely attended 1PM "MFL" screening. It was a really beat-up print, with starts/ends of each reel in poor condition (scratches, jumpy, discolored, bad audio), the first half of reel one had some kind of synch problem, there was no intermission (just an abrupt cut/fade where the intermission title card used to be) and no walk out music. The series is billed as "Movies...The Way They Were Meant To be Seen!" Sorry, I don't think so. What's the point of promoting a special series like this and then you kill the experience by showing a crappy print? I'm hoping the "WSS" and "Ben-Hur" prints are in decent shape.

While walking uptown from the Port Authority after taking the bus in from Weehawken, NJ, I made believe it was a snowy night in 1961 and I was going to the Rivoli to see "West Side Story". I passed the Caroline's Comedy Club where the Rivoli once stood, then headed over to the Ziegfeld. It turned out to be a good omen. My one-word capsule review of "West Side Story" at the Ziegfeld: WOW.

I sat in the front row, center seat. The print was in beautiful condition and the sound was perfect, with lots of deep bass tones. There were several hundred people there, who came out in a blizzard. The audience broke into applause about 5 times during the actual movie, and several more times during the credits. And, for the first time in over 40 years (and thanks to my front row seat and the size of the Ziegfeld's screen), I finally got to read the title of the book in Gladhand/John Astin's pocket at the dance: "Existentialism".

All the people who are complaining about the "My Fair Lady" shows should try not to miss "West Side Story". It will restore their faith in the Ziegfeld.

I was also at the screening of WSS at The Ziegfeld tonight and everything that Bill has just written above is true. Great night. It's great to see films on that big Ziegfeld screen that were shot by cinematographers that really made use of the wide screen format. Some of the shots compositionally were just beautiful. I was hoping that the Ziegfeld was going to follow Robert Wise's instructions at the beginning of the film, but they didn't. No big deal it was still a great experience. Thank god this kind of thing still happens in New York City. It's sad that it doesn't happen as often as it did 20 or 30 years ago, but at least it's happening. I hope the box office receipts for this festival are showing good numbers. There was a good crowd there tonight, way more people than the last time I was there to see the god-awful Cameron Crowe disaster 'Elizabethtown'. Can't wait to see Ben Hur and hopefully this kind of thing will continue to happen at the Ziegfeld, the last great movie palace in New York City.

Ben Hur is the one I want to see; I hope it's a good print like West Side Story and not a bad one like My Fair Lady.

I had to postpone my "West Side Story" screening until Tuesday night. While it's dissapointing to read the negative reports on the MFL print, I'm delighted and encouraged to learn that the WSS print is a sparkler. I look forward to Tuesday night's screening and will keep my fingers crossed for next weekend's "Ben-Hur" screening. Did they have anyone introduce the print on Saturday night? Glimpsing at the schedule, it appears they had some folks there to introduce the Godfather films and "Chinatown" last weekend.

On Sunday, a Time Out film critic tried to speak before both The Godfather and Part II, both of which I attended. Each time within a few minutes into his remarks, the audience yelled out that they just wanted the movie, not to hear him! I've never seen an audience do that in Philadelphia or elsewhere, but I guess New Yorkers can be tough.

Also, although when he was Clearview District Manager, Joe Masher replied on ths site, I don't know if anybody from Clearview is reading it. So, I'd encourage anybody with a complaint about film quality to write a letter to Clearview corporate HQ (you can Internet search or ask the Ziegfeld staff)about the quality of My Fair Lady print or any other print problems. Promise them more audience if they advertize "restored" or "new" print. Don't assume they know anything, maybe they are new managers. They do care about bottom line, so if they think they will get more audience by getting the right print, they may try.

If they show the Ben Hur print that they ran at Loew's Jersey last year it was a good one.

Hi,

Yes, we are reading your comments and they are invaluable to us. We will again communicate with our partners in distribution so that they assure us that the prints are in decent condition. However, with these older titles, sometimes there are a few bad apples out there, but we will do our best to provide a good presentation...

Since this is a new program, there will be some "bumps" along the way, but we are VERY happy to see that this program is being embraced by loyal cinema lovers in and around NYC.

Please keep the comments and suggestions coming! Together we will make The Ziegfeld's Hollywood Classics a success for all of us!

Craig O'Connor
Marketing Manager
Clearview Cinemas

Glad to hear from you, Craig! Knowing that you care and are proactively interested in our opinions brings a big smile to my face. I wish nothing by success with the program and look forward to future series... See you guys on Tuesday night!

All very well and good Craig, however you missed the boat here, more effort should have been made to present WSS and MFL in their original 70mm roadshow granduer. As you can see by reading posts here, it was expected and would have been more appreciated. Having said that, I will say, myself and many others apppeciate the effort.

Regarding the condition of the MFL print, I would like to know why that print was accepted for this very important engagement. Did the projection staff not notice the condition of the print and report same condition to management? If there was any question as to the quality of the print, it should have been screened in advance and rejected, then demands should have been made for a better quality print. Clearview had no right to present this masterpiece in the condition outlined in this forum.

My compliments to Clearview for doing their best!...and to Craig for listening. It is easy to criticize, but putting this type of program together requires some serious hard work.

Clearview can only play the prints that are available so save your grief for distributor Warner Bros who really did this

Cheers to Clearview for bothering with MY FAIR LADY instead of some better print of RENT.

Perhaps when clearview made the decsion to have the festival, the film buyer should have had a discussion with the studio regarding print availabilily. If the studio could not promise a good quality print of MFL, the picture should not have been booked at all. I still believe the poor presentation of MFL was the fault of Clearview dropping the ball here and not the studio. As ALAvarez pointed out, Clearview can only play the prints that are available.
I just feel, under the circumstances, MFL should not have been played. I promise not to vent about this any longer. I only hope Clearview will pay more attention to print quality next time.

Caught the 1PM "WSS" screening today and, despite the blizzard, there was a good turnout. It was a beautiful print with wonderful sound, a huge improvement over the p