Rivoli Theatre

Originally a Broadway house turned into a movie theatre; then in the early 80's split into two screens by turning the balcony into a separate cinema, this was a United Artists first-run house until it was demolished a few years ago. I was a customer there.

The Rivoli's deeply-curved Todd-AO screen was removed long before the 1980s, although it may have been re-installed. I saw the premiere engagement of "The Sound of Music" at the Rivoli in 1965 on a large, but flat screen, in Toidd-AO, which was no longer being projected onto curved screens in most 70mm theaters. Thanks for a great site.

The Rivoli, like the Rialto, Capitol and Strand theaters, was a work of architect Thomas W. Lamb.

I was in projection booth in 1968. The operator I met was there when 70MM was put in.He told me when Mike Todd's "80 Days" first opened that Mike Todd was virtually living in the booth for several weeks he was such a perfectionist. He had the amperage on the carbon arcs raised so high for more light that the 70mm prints were lasting less than 10 runs per print! The day I was there they were running "Sweet Charity" in 70mm. The last movie I saw in 70mm was "1941" in 1979 I believe.

The original curved screen may have been removed by the time of SOUND OF MUSIC, but in 1966, Dimension 150 was installed with a huge curved screen which remained until the theatre was twinned.

The facade on the Rivoli was Greek, not Egyptian-- and dated to 1917 when the building was designed by Thomas Lamb.

The above comment:
In 1963, Fox put up a Egyptian facade on the building for "Cleopatra" which was kept until the 80's. Is wrong, as SteveP stated the building was Greek and dated back to 1917.

I saw Fiddler on the Roof here and though filmed in panavision it was shown on the large curved screen that looks similar to the screen that was installed for Oklahoma in '55 in the photo on Martin Hart's wide screen web site. I also saw Gone With The Wind and 2001 on this screen in the 70's so I assumed it was there all through the 60's as well with The Sound of Music's run shown on a curved rather than flat screen.

The Rivoli was a movie showcase right from the start. It never presented vaudeville. During the silent era, the movies had "live" prologues by the Rivoli's resident orchestra, which also played accompaniments to the screen fare. The Rivoli was Paramount's top Broadway theatre until the building of the Times Square Paramount, after which Paramount sold 50% of its ownership of the Rivoli to the United Artists Theatre Circuit. UATC took over managing the Rivoli, but many of the major Paramount releases continued to open there, as well as those of 20th-Fox, which had financial ties to UATC, and of other studios.

The Rivoli was a triumph of engineering if you stop to consider that the land site is between Broadway and Seventh Avenue, and that the blocks between them are among the shortest in midtown Manhattan. That's why architect Thomas W. Lamb had to make the auditorium so wide and the balcony so deep to squeeze in 2,000 seats. The Rivoli had a fairly shallow lobby leading to the last row of orchestra seats. The screen was practically against the rear wall that faced on Seventh Avenue.

The upper facade was removed during the "twinning" when people thought it was getting a cleaning, it was actually being removed so that building wouldn't be granted "landmark status" on the facade. The eddict came from the Naifys on the east coast. This would enable them to sell, tear down the building, which they did in 1988. I believe the frieze was unaltered until that time it was removed in 1980. In 1988, The Rivoli, State and the Strand were razed one right after the other.

yeah that was tripple tragedy they razed them at the same time There was a warning for the Rivoli but I think that year the State and the Strand which was called Cinerama twin and Warner twin in my lifetime closed without warning. I used to cut school to see movies at this theatre I loved the other two but this theatre was the only one at that time that would let me in at school hours I would spend all half the day gazing at that deeply curved screen in theatre one if a movie that I wanted to see played in theatre 2 I wouldn't see it there. It was named United Artists twin at the time of closing.

downstairs theatre had a deep curved screen the curtains opened and closed after each presentaion and just like the Strand the upstairs theatre, theatre 2 was situated on a large stage that covered the orchestra section of the cinema. This was common for most single screen theatres that were converted. THe Rivoli retained it's curved screen after twinning but it was only downstairs and it remained that way until the theatre was shuttered in 86.

When they installed the giant TODD-AO screen for "Oklahoma" it measured 66 feet long along the arc, but was 50 feet long along the chord, which gives an idea of the extent of the curvature. The height was 27 feet. The distance at the center from the arc to the chord was almost 14 feet.

I saw a second run of The Sting at the Rivoli in 1974. It was NYC top roadshow house with reserved seating. The last successful roadshow picture Fiddler on The Roof played the Rivoli in the early 1970's. United Artists destroyed the Rivoli just like they did with the Egyptian in Hollywood but the Egyptian survived despite UA. If the Rivoli had a stage house it would have survived as a broadway house because there became a huge demand on Broadway for a theatre this size to house the large musicals. I would venture to say The Rivoli was one of the top ten theatres in the country to the movie studios for most of its history. It was a prestige industry house and its seating capacity was perfect for the big event films of the 1950's through the early 1970's.

Remember what UA did to it at the end booking wise? It went out as a grind house. They used to joke it was the Marvin 1 & 2. (Marvin was a distributor of most of the lowest of the schlock films in the 70's and 80's they distributed for little companies with no distribution arm. If I remember right their office was right near The Rivoli).

During the 40's, UA's offices were 1501 Broadway and they later moved to 233 West 49th Street. Magna Theatres and Todd-AO were also located in that building.

One of my first visits to the Rivoli Theatre was to see the 70MM reissue engagement of "Gone With The Wind." Stupendous is the only word to describe the theatre and my first viewing of GWTW. This was truly a motion picture palace. Anyone today who has only been to the movies at the megaplexes has not been to the movies! To anyone who attended the movies at the palaces, those days will always be missed. On visits to New York City, walking past 1620 Broadway, I remember what it used to be. Same with the Capital, up the street. Some day, more people will regret the demoltions that we allowed to happen in "the name of progress."

Does anybody have pictures of the flat Todd AO screen at the Rivoli before the D 150 screen was installed before Sand Pebbles.I would also like to know its size. I only know the interior with D 150 screen from films I saw there in the 70's. Also being that Sand Pebbles was in Panavision on the huge screen it might have been fairly grainy(like the washed out looking Fiddler on the Roof.) Anybody have memories of seeing this film there?

I always thought Sound of Music had played there on the deep curved screen which would have been great. I figured they would have have kept that configuration from back to Oklahoma and the other Todd AO films that played there. Guess I was wrong. When did the flat screen
go in.
Anybody out there have a doctorate in the Rivoli theater?

By the way I saw GWTW there in 70mm in '73 or '74 though not on hardticket.

I believe that I viewed "Oklahoma" in 1956 at this theater. Did they claim to have the world's largest indoor movie screen at the Rivoli?

Thanks. Jacques

What are the best sources for finding programs from the Rivoli and Rialto theatres (NYC) from their inception through 1928?

Both theatres were probably advertised regularly in The New York Times. The bound volumes of film reviews from The New York Times should also have them, but you'd have to read through thousands of reviews to pick out those for just the Rivoli and Rialto. The programs were also reported in weekly Variety. If you're near NYC, you should look in the clippings files for the Rivoli and Rialto in the theatre collection at the Library For The Performing Arts at Lincoln Center. But I'm curious to know why you need to know those programs? They were mostly the Paramount releases of that time, though after the opening of the Paramount Theatre in 1926, the Rivoli and Rialto showed releases from other studios as well.

Have been through NY Times and Library for Performing Arts at Lincoln Center. I am not interested in the films that played there but rather the performers in the pre-movie shows they put on. Growing up, I heard a great deal about those shows and those theatres as I know someone who was in those shows for almost the whole period of time I stated. Have found quite a bit of info on both theatres (your comments on the Rialto are the acurate ones, Warren), but I am sure there is much more to be found.

The "prologues" to the silent features at the Rivoli and Rialto usually consisted of an overture by the house orchestra plus several numbers that might be singing, dancing, and/or comedic. For example, at the Rivoli in June, 1921, the Wallace Reid feature, "Too Much Speed," was preceded by the overture, "Sicilian Vespers," played by the Rivoli orchestra; a scenic, "The Birth of an Iceberg"; an aria from "The Masque Ball," sung by Marcel Salesco; a film newsreel; "Salterello," an Italian dance performed by Amata Grassi and Senia Gluckoff; selections from "The Pink Lady," by the Rivoli orchestra and soprano Mary Fabian; a Christie comedy "short," "Man Vs. Woman"; and an organ solo played by Prof. Firmin Swinnen. These programs can usually be found in trade papers of the time, such as Variety, Billboard, and Motion Picture News. The one that I cited is from the Motion Picture News and reprinted on pages 20 and 21 of Ben Hall's book, "The Best Remaining Seats."

Yes, but the Theatre also put out a brief, usually one fold program. I have about 20 of them, but want to find copies of many more. By the way, Senia Gluckoff, whom you cite was later known as Gluck-Sandor, a rather important figure in NY Dance world. George Raft once performed the Charleston on the Rivoli stage. Their shows were "high class" for the time. The dancers were often taxied to the Rialto and sometimes the Criterion to do double duty.

Also check the microfilm of the Morning Telegraph. That paper was particularly good covering show business in New York. The Times ads are not particulary informative about the supporting program. They concentrate more on the film. You are right about the dancers. Adolf Bolm was the choregrapher for a few years in the early 20s. The "prologues" ran from 1918 to Dec 1925 when Publix Theatres replaced them with "units." The units unlike the prologues were not thematically linked to the picture and they traveled from city to city. Notable unit producers were John Murray Anderson and Gus Edwards among others.

I doubt that you will find many paper programs floating around after so many decades. Your best bet seems libraries and museums. Have you tried the Museum of the City of New York and the New York Historical Society? Also, the main research libraries in Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, Westchester, NJ, and Connecticut, which might have donations from people that attended those theatres.

Actually, Ebay has turned out to be the best source! But maybe someone has a collection. I have tried the Museum of the City of NY and the NY Historical Society. I have a relative who knew well and worked with Dr. Hugo Riesenfeld, Josiah Zuro, Senia Gluck (Sam Gluck, Senia Gluckoff, Gluck-Sander, and his various names), Felicia Sorel, wife of Gluck, the Serova Dancers, etc, and the others associated with those "prologues". At one time Charles LeMaire did the dancers costumes.

Thank you, harwel, for identifing "Adolf" for me. I heard a lot about him, and his techniques.

One tale of some interest. The organist who followed Prof. Firmin Swinnen at the Rivoli around 1923 was Harold Ramsbottom. When Publix under Sam Katz took contol of theatre in 1925 they changed his name to Harold Ramsey.

Probably because it was a Paramount theatre, some of the dancers were given the chance for extra work if they wanted to go out to the Astoria Studios and dance in the films "The Sorrows of Satan" and "Untamed Lady", and some accepted.

As Barton has said, Ebay is a very good source for programs from many different theatres. From regular weekly programs (Roxy, Rivoli, Paramount, Chinese, Million Dollar, Fox San Francisco, Orpheum) to original opening night programs. Plus the original loby organ from the Fox Theatre in San Francisco.

I've been trying for ages to find some shots of the interior. That's where my interest in theatres lies. Be that as it may, I have so many great memories of the Rivoli. From "Around the World in 80 Days" to "Cleopatra" and "The Sound of Music." Didn't "Funny Girl" open there? I think the last time I was there was for the opening of "Hello, Dolly." It's sickening to think of all the glorious theatres we've lost, not just here in New York City but everywhere. I'm thankful the 42nd Street theatres were saved, some of them, but am disgusted that the last remaining empty theatre, The Times Square, has been bought by a company that is going to covert it to retail space and sell "hip hop" clothing. Now what the hell is "hip hop" clothing? Oh well, another one bites the dust.

The vintage postcard here has one of the best views of the Rivoli's original decor. Because it was one of the first movie palaces on Broadway, it was often re-decorated over the years to keep up with the latest trends in cinema architecture.

Flatbush

"Funny Girl" opened at the Criterion Theatre.

Star opened as the fall '68 movie at the Rivoli. Does anyone have memories of seeing it there and what the audience reaction was? Did they like it any better than the critics? Did Andrews show up at the premiere or did she skip it like she did the London premiere(supposedly at the behest of a once talented husband who then went on to ruin her career for two decades.)

Flatbush, the best pictures I have seen of the Rivoli interior are the antique post cards, sometimes available on eBay. The Theatre Historical Society had some and can provide black and white photos of them, but didn't have negatives (tho' that was about 10 years ago, so may have changed). I believe I also got some of the pictures I have of the interior from the Museum of the City of New York, but am not positive. I know I got some things there but may have been for the Rialto.

Saw Jaws here before the twinning...a packed house great atmosphere at the Midnight show opening weekend...the saddest part of the Rivoli's last years was that for the final couple of years United Artists took the Rivoli name off of it and called it simply the United Artists Twin 1 and 2...great for the Chuck Norris pictures it seemed to book

A few photos of the Rivoli can be seen here, including one with a curtain that resembles a patchwork quilt (yikes!)

Here are a bunch of photographs of the Rivoli's auditorium during its Todd-AO days.

Bryan K, that is an amazing site you linked us to. Thanks!

Yes, Bryan K-- that's a wonderful bunch of photos from Fall '55. The earlier CinemaScope screen dated from December '53, with "King of the Khyber Rifles," a Tyrone Power TCF film that followed "The Robe" (at the Roxy) and "How to Marry a Millionaire" (at the Globe and Loew's State) and then "Beneath the Twelve Mile Reef" (at the Roxy) into distribution. The Rivoli installed its MiracleMirror CinemaScope-capable screen in Summer '53, when I saw there Disney's "Sword and the Rose" (with Glynis Johns as Mary Tudor -- Bloody Mary!)in widescreen format. I’m surprised that no one has mentioned the Rivoli’s Cylcoramic screen, which antedated the ToddAO magnification by at least three decades. The first time I saw it was in December 1949, for CB DeMille’s “Samson and Delilah.” The film day-dated at the Paramount, which then offered stage-shows-cum-film. The advertising gimmick declared: “See Stage Show at Paramount, See Cycloramic Screen at Rivoli.” At the age of seven, I knew what a stage show was. I prevailed on my parents to take me to the Rivoli to see what a Cycloramic screen might be. The film started at 10:30 am. So far, no difference. I wondered what it was all about. Then, at 12:20 the screen opened to (at least) twice its size for the Destruction of the Temple scene. Wow! Some folks on this site have expressed their indelible memories of what happened when the screen opened at “This is Cinerama.” For me, the event was at the Rivoli when the screen blew up to an unimaginable size. My parents were not fazed: they had seen it before. I pressed their memories. They cited the climactic horse-race scene in “National Velvet” at Radio City. In the next few years, I recall seeing Magnascope at RCMH for the stampede in “King Solomon’s Mines,” the sea storm in “Plymouth Adventure,” and Busby Berkeley’s aquatic number in “Million Dollar Mermaid.” And, of course, “This Is Cinerama.” But nothing in my memory equals the Destruction of the Temple at the Rivoli. I know that Ben Hall et al. write about Magnascope screens in first-run theaters ca. 1920s-50s. But I know of no others on B’way in the 40s-early 50s, other than the Rivoli and RCMH (the Brooklyn Paramount had a Magnascope screen that it used for “Samson and Delilah,” but I know of no other film that the theater used it for at the turn of that decade). Certainly the Roxy did not use Magnascope. (Ask me why?)

The Rivoli/UA Twin closed in June of 1987, with one of its final offerings being the Jon Cryer comedy 'Morgan Stewart's Coming Home'. Demolition on the building began barely a month later, right around if not at the same time the Strand/Warner Twin and/or Loew's State were being torn down.

What is the origin of the name 'Rivoli'?

Dave, perhaps the name comes from the Rue de Rivoli in Paris, along which is located the Paris Opera (Opera Garnier) and the Comedie Francais, which may have given the name "Rivoli" a theatrical air. The town of Rivoli in Italy is actually near where Napoleon won a famous battle over the Austrians and which the Paris street was later named for.

Does anyone know the exact years in the sixties the Rivoli utilized a flat screen for their 70mm/Todd AO presentations and does anyone have a photo of the interior with this screen? It's hard to imagine West Side Story, Cleopatra and SOM "flat" in this theater.

I'm having a hard time picturing where this theater actually was. I work right in the area so was the Rivoli (roughly) where "Carolines" is now? If that's so, Jesus...that's a small parcel alright. And yes, the buildings that stand there now are awful.

The Rivoli stood between 49th and 50th on Broadway with the marquee facing out just like the Winter Garden a block above. The black glass skyscraper which stands on its site is so ugly I can't even walk by it. The destruction of the Rivoli was legalized architectural and cultural vandalism which should have had the architect and developer thrown in jail for the destruction of a New York treasure.

In April or May of 1979, I saw "The China Syndrome" in an old movie house that had been split down the middle. I wish to God I knew what theater it was. I could tell when I saw it that it was a grand old theater but it was in pretty bad shape then. I think it might've been the Rivoli but I can't tell. I know for sure it was in the Times Square area, it was huge and ornate and it was during the spring of 1979. I know this sounds stupid but is there anyway anyone can tell me which theater I was in?

It was not the Rivoli, which was split up and down. Suprisingly UA never let the Rivoli run down, it was kept up to the end. I think you may have seen it on a moveover at the Embassy 2-3-4. I believe it first opened at Loews State.

Hmmmmm...RoberR you might be right. The thing that I clearly remember was that the theater was very ornate and (I think) we walked up a flight of stairs. Not totally run down but rough around the edges. We must've been in the old balcony section because there was a definate and extremely noticable incline (very, very steep) that would not have been part of the orchestra section. And if this was the balcony, GOD it was HUGE.

So the Embassy 2-3-4 is the existing theater on 7th that is advertising for rent, right? That (ironically) would be the theater that I inquired about on the listing here for the Roxy. It doesn't seem that big from viewing it outside though. I wish there was a way to go back and look at old theater listings to see. Ah, the things some people (like me) obsess about.

If you know that the date was April or May, 1979, why don't you look at advertsing for "China Syndrome" in the entertainment sections of The New York Times for those months? It might take a few hours, or less if you're lucky. Many libraries now have access to NYT microfilm through the website of the New York Public Library at www.nypl.org

The Embassy is the old Demille. I think the insdie was kept the same even thought they took some away from the outsdie and I would assume lobby. I know they spliut the balcony in two and I think the downstairs was lef tthe same. The only thing I rememebr from sownstairs is they removed the stage. When Guild took it over they used the same curtains that were on the stage of the Demille,

CConnolly--
"The China Syndrome" opened at Loews' State 2 on 15 March 1979. That was a bigger theater than the Mayfair/DeMille/Embassy234. But what do you mean by "split down the middle"?

Yes, funny but I meant to write back and say it must've been the State because after 25 years, I can remember that as we stood looking at the movie theater's entrance, my back was open to Times Square. The Embassy 2/3/4 is right on 7th where it "closes" up to a regular avenue and it didn't feel right. And when I checked the descriptions of the State on this site, it fit.

Regarding "split down the middle" I simply remember that the angle of the seats was VERY VERY steep. I don't think this could've been the orchestra section. I might be mistaken that the balcony was split, though, into two theaters. Was the second theater the balcony? That's where we must've seen it. It was a very ornate theater. I remember the stage area had a tremendous arch to it. Again, we're talking 25 years ago so some of my memories are faded.

To think that the monstrous nothingness of the Virgin Megastore is what replaced it!

BoxOfficeBill...how did you manage to find the listing for this movie?

This has to be the Demille, the balcony was very steep and halved down the middle.

RobertR: I'm certain it was the Loew's State now. The location is where I remember it and I've seen pictures on the web and I'm 99% sure of it. I remember the theater was VERY dark even though the movie hadn't started. I think I'm mistaken about the wall. From the pictures I've seen, the pitch of the auditorium matches perfectly with my recollections.

Thanks to everyone. A long (ridiculous) obsession has ended.

Wow I'm suprised Loews State looked run down, I am not sure the last time I was there but last time I was it still looked regal. What a loss that it's gone now.

Maybe run down is a little harsh. It was rather gloomy upstairs. Very dark even before the movie started. And there appeared to be large holes in the wall just outside the entrance to the theater with these very large cables running into them most likely for a sound system or something. I wouldn't necessarily call it run down but in need of refurbishment.

Your right about it being on the dark side, so was the downstairs house.

Guys we now have the Virgin Megastore in Times Square and the Time Warner building in Columbus Circle not to mention the Toys Are Us skyscraper being built on the Hearst building over on 8th Av. What a glorious period in New York's architectural history we are living in!

You know...reading all about these old NY movie houses and stuff got me to thinking a lot about how areas rise and fall and such. It's been a bit of a learning experience on this site and others as I'm fascinated by old buildings especially theaters. It comes mainly from my parents who grew up in Manhattan during the 1930's and 40's. Their recollections of midtown and especially of the glorious theaters instilled an interest in me that exists to this day. They spoke especaily fondly of The Roxy saying that it put Radio City Music Hall to shame.

From this site I've come to the conclusion that I'm sure others have long since made: that the decline of the great theaters of the Times Square area were caused by a decline in the movie going audiences and by the radical change in the way films were released. Why would audiences schlep all the way into Manhattan anymore when the same movie would be playing maybe a town or two away in the 'burbs? So the theater's audiences declined starting in the mid to late 70's and really tanked in the 1970's. There were still property taxes to pay and other expenses so some of the lesser theaters turned to porn. These theater dinosaurs had long since passed their useful lives. Somehow, somone realized that the property that these theaters were sitting on were valuable and could be redeveloped. And that redevelopment, which destroyed so many of these grand theaters, has, whether one likes to admit it or not, revitalized the Times Square area. Is Times Square REALLY as exciting as my parents described it? No, at least I don't think so. My parents described Times Square in the 40's as a kind of amusement park where there was everything to do on a Friday night: movies, plays, some vaudeville, some burlesque, novelty acts and nightclubs. Now? It's kind of sterile, yes, but it sure draws the crowds.

What I think I'm saying (and could've said shorter, I apologize) is that while it's sad that these beautiful movie houses are gone, it had to be done for the area (and NY) to move on. Think about it: let's say the Roxy, The Capitol and The Rivoli had somehow managed to stay open. What use could be possibly made these days for these theaters? Maybe, just maybe the Roxy could've become a Concert hall or something but who knows if the place was built acoustically for this? There simply isn't the demand for the entertainment venues that would've kept these places alive. The only option I've ever thought of is why builders couldn't or didn't build above or around some of these theaters. BUT...an engineer friend of mine explained it simply that the open areas of these theaters would've made this absolutely impossible.

Let's be thankful that we do still have some of the old, great house still with us like Radio City, Beacon and others.

Sorry for the rant.

The Rivoli and Capitol could surely have been used for legitimate theatre and concerts. I for one was never thrilled by the Beacon. The Rivoli and Capitol were classy houses. They tore down the Capitol and built the very sterile Uris (now the Gershwin). The loss of the Rivoli is a sin, they should have tore down the Ziegfeld instead. To me it's a movie palace imposter, but it's all we have so at least it's something.

Well considering that the Music Hall is now being used for singing midgets, Barney and the Rugrats it might as well be the world's largest Cosco for all it contributes to New York's culteral life. And when you think of the Roxy, Paramount and the Capitol the Beacon is practically a boobie prize.
These theaters could not have paid their own way but does Carnegie Hall or any of the theaters in Lincoln Center? Why couldnt the Rivoli have been used for the Jazz theater that just went up in columbus circle or the Strand been used for a new home for the New York City Opera which they now want to build. What about the stuff that goes on at the Theater at Madison Square Garden couldn't they have done that at Loew's State?
I'm sure the old Penn Station was pretty impractical too. All that open space. What a waste!

CConnolly--
The review for "China Syndrome" (by Vincent Canby, mentioning its opening at Loews' State 2) is reprinted photostatically (along with every other NYT film review from 1913-89)in the six-volume "New York Times Film Reviews," available in well-stocked libraries. Reviews from the 'nineties to the present are not yet in print. My library supplements the NYT reviews with more recent ones from "Variety," which has likewise collected its reviews in multi-volume format. In NYC, the NY Public, the Lenox, and the Lincoln Center Libraries likely have these volumes (along with Columbia U and NYU, if you can gain access). Elsewhere, seek out the best university research library you can get to.

All good points. Surely, nobody expects (though it would be a nice fantasy) that EVERY great movie palace be saved, from the 42nd Street grindhouses all the way up to the Roxy, but it is really a total shame that not ONE of the big old theaters was saved. Would there be a true commercial need for all of them, Loew's State, Paramount, Rivoli, Strand, Roxy? Probably not, but if even only one or two of them remained, I am sure that they would find some good use or another. If LA can support so many one screen 'premiere' houses, is it unreasonable to think NYC could have one or two? If Disney can operate the El Capitan to premiere its product, wouldn't Paramount consider using the NY Paramount to do the same, if it still existed? Obviously there are big differences in the market, but it seems that NYC could support one or two.

I always wondered why Disney did not try to have a film and stage outlet in New York like the El Capitan. The Demille is available would make a great house to open all the Buena Vista product in. By the way did Disney stop using the Touchstone logo?

I always thought the Music Hall would have been perfect for Disney. I don't know what happened after the Lion King but they certainly went their separate ways. Imagine Disney stage shows with great special effects and new Disney films along with revivals of Pinocchio, Bambi, Lady and the Tramp(in cinemascope on that glorious block length screen and Sleeping Beauty in 70mm.)
I once had a color photo of the finale of the Disney Easter show that played with Moon Pilot in '62. It looked great.
But this all makes too much sense so why would anybody even consider it?

Touchstone is still an active Disney division, Robert; they did, however, close up Hollywood Pictures a few years ago.

A little research in the trades in 1952 and 1953 will reveal that the Rivoli was sought after at one time as a home for Cinerama by the early Cinerama Productions/Cinerama Inc. teams, and also by 20th Century Fox which wanted to show its CinemaScope at both a large house (Roxy) as well as a smaller one.
There was no flat screen installed at the Rivoli between the Todd-AO and D-150 engagements.
I posted this to the rec.arts.movies.tech group years ago, but I was at one time inside the Rivoli booth after D-150 had been launched, and asked the young projectionist why the full screen with the masking fully pulled up and back was not used. His reply; "The screen is too big." I wanted to strangle him right there on the spot.

So were West Side Story, Cleopatra, and The Sound of Music presented on the larger curved screen and not on a flat screen which previous postings seem to imply?

Over the summer, I happened to see "Sweet Smell of Success". Great movie...enjoyed it a lot and was glad to finally see it.

Anyway...what made the movie sensational (and dated in a great way) was the superb on location filming. I mean, this movie seemed to have been shot entirely in midtown NY locations. J.J. Hunsecker's office/apartment is located in the Brill Building which is located right across the street from The Rivoli. When I saw this movie, the thing that struck me was WOW! Look at all the theater marquees! When I saw the movie, I did not know about this website. I think that if you watch this movie, you'll be able to get at least a glimpse of these theaters. I can't wait to see it again so I can pay better attention.

"Sweet Smell of Success" had its NYC premiere engagement at Loew's State (pre-modernization). The new book "Times Square Style" includes a full-page B&W photo of the State during that run. Erected above the marquee on the Loew's office building were four-stories-high cut-outs of Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis in a fist-to-fist encounter. In those days, the corner site at Broadway & 45th Street now occupied by the Planet Hollywood Restaurant housed a coffee shop featuring the Maxwell House brand and Mayflower Doughnuts.

“Times Square Style” also provides a rare color photo of a stage show at the Roxy, on page 35, upper right, with sixteen Roxyettes balancing themselves on beach balls, while a jazz band (Louis Armstrong?) plays behind them; as a kid, I had a post-card of that image, which identified it as a Roxy performance.

The deluxe edition of Cleopatra has a disc of bonus material that shows the NY premiere of the film at the Rivoli. We will never again see a theatre so adorned on it's exterior. There was even a vertical spelling out the name Cleopatra.

Another film to see for the way Times Square looked in the early 50's is Kubrick's Killer's Kiss. There is a nice sequence that takes place in times square at night, and now with dvd you can get nice clear images when you pause and also the end sequence takes place in the late great Penn Station. What is wrong with New York, how could we have lost some much in such a short period of time. We have the worst architecture in the world and no sense of our historical past. For sure these great theatres could have been saved and used. I'm just glad that I had the chance to see all these great theatres even though I was pretty young and my memories of the interiors are vague at best.

Replying to Vincent's question of 11/29...yes, West Side Story, Cleopatra, and Sound of Music were shown on the 60-some foot curved screen. The D-150 installation, larger screen, same curve, came about in the mid-sixties. The smaller, less curved silvered screen was placed in front of the curtains and first used for the 3-d film "Dynasty."

Thank you for clearing that up. I believe the writer of a previous post claims he saw SOM there on a flat screen which didn't nake sense to me. In the early 70's a typical idiot exec booked the revival of SOM instead of into the Rivoli into that small screened huge bunker the National. So I never got to see it there though in the 70's they booked the 70mm GOTW a couple of times.

I know this subject has been posted above by Warren but everyday I pass by 750 7th Ave where The Rivoli once stood and puzzle as to how such a big theater sat on such a tiny piece of property. The balcony alone must've been pretty steep. It's hard to conceive of this space without any photos of the interior. I haven't been able to find any on the internet or anything...

CConnolly
The balcony was VERY steep here.

CConnolly, yep it was there and it was grand. I wish I could help you more, but there were a series of photos taken of the todd-ao installation in '55 in "boxoffice" or "motion picture exhibitor" magazines. There are (is) photo(s) of the Rivoli interior online. You may have to go to that 70mm Scandavian site. Sorry, i dont remember the exact url, but, search for something like "in 70mm" and there is (was) a photo of the Riv's interior with a gigantic curtain that apparently was used only during "Oklahoma."

There's a photo of the interior in the above introduction to the Rivoli. The balcony wasn't that large. In the photo, you can see all the way to the last row. The first row of the front loge section was above row "O" of the orchestra. The 1965 issue of Stubs Magazine claims 855 seats in the orchestra, 276 in the loge, and 424 in the balcony, for a total of 1,556. The seating capacity listed at the top of this page was the original; it was reduced when the theatre was renovated for the installation of Todd-AO.

Hey, Warren. Can you verify the following? In the 10/16/55 issue of "Variety" in the "grosses" section there was a mention that re Rivoli "the first three rows downstairs removed starting with last Saturday matinee since management figured these too close to screen"
Also, in the 11/2/55 issue re Rivoli "House has installed 31 extra seats in balcony to make capacity 1,545."

I don't know the answer. But the 1965 Stubs seating plan shows the orchestra floor with five front rows with double lettering (AA-EE) before the single letters started with row A and ran through row T (24 rows in total). Upstairs, the loge section had rows AA and BB before A through F, and then the balcony rows were lettered A through M (20 rows in total).

The Criterion was the only theater I believe to sell the seats closest to screen as the cheapest sits in the house during roadshow engagements.

I'm not sure if I ever got to see anything at the Rivoli, but for some reason or another this theater held a special spot in my movie going imagination ever since I first became aware of it as a grade schooler in the the late 1950s.

1) Maybe it was because of its strangely attractive (to me) clash between the fanciful and exuberant "Greek" facade and the sleek 50's modern / "googie" (?) lobby and marquee? (I think the underside of its marquee had something similar to the "cheeseholes" that were a Morris Lapidus (Miami Fontainbleau) trademark.) And maybe it was because of this tastefully tasteless clash in design that the theater LOOKED (at least to me) the way a very glamorous 1950s "hard ticket" theater in Times Sq. SHOULD look?

(Generally speaking, I don't think this kind of clash is good, but it did seem to work here. Perhaps it's because the Rivoli was a theater, and theaters are "born" to be flashy and "incorrect"?)

2) Maybe another reason it held such a prominant spot in my imagination is because for some reason I had trouble keeping it's name straight. I thought it had the "funny," but at the same time distinctive and "high toned," name: the "Ravioli" Theater. (To my child's ear the "Loew's State" ["Ben Hur," "King of King's,"(?) "Lawrence of Arabia"(?)] and -- most of all -- the "Criterion" ["Sleeping Beauty"] were also very impressive sounding names.)

3) But more significantly, this theater probably loomed large in my imagination because the "Ravioli Theater" frequently did seem to be the home of the "biggest" and "best" movies of the time.

a) I remember walking by one time when "West Side Story" was letting out and observing a young woman sobbing onto the shoulder of her date and half-kiddingly and half-seriously saying, "Never take me to a movie like that again."

b) I was so-o-o impressed when "Cleopatra" played there and greatly enjoyed the fortuitous circumstance that in New York City the much talked about "Cleopatra" was playing in a theater with a facade vaguely appropriate to the period of the movie.

- - - - - -

In it's waning days I may have actually seen a movie at the "Ravioli." If so, I have a vague memory of being surprised (and disappointed) at the design of the inside of the theater -- it being a much stodgier design that that of the facade or the marquee. (But I'm not sure if this is a reliable memory; it may be just my reaction from seeing photos of the original interior.)

- - - - -

Re: the size of the plot of land

One thing I've noticed about theaters in Times Square ("legitimate" theaters as well as movie theaters) is how efficiently they use their very expensive land. One way in which they do this is to have very small -- sometimes near non-existent -- lobbies. (Which is what I believe the Rivoli had.) (Another is to build a hotel or office building over a portion of the lobby like, respectively, the Roxy and Radio City Music Hall.)

What a theater with a near non-existent lobby does, in essence, is to temporarily "seize" the sidewalk outside the theater and use it as a temporary lobby. It "externalizes" the expense of running the theater. (You need a lobby?; you put it on someone else's property.)

In the early days of the Rivoli, I don't think this was a problem for anyone. And as a roadshow house, with people arriving with tickets in hand, I suppose this wasn't much of a problem later on either.

But today municipal authorities tend to frown on this "externalization" of costs. They're likely, I believe, to require a certain amount of holding space for a movie theater, in order for it to be built.

However, as I observe the way Broadway / Times Sq. has changed over the years (especially with regard to it "legitimate" theaters), I'm beginning to think that the "internalization" of costs (having theaters build larger lobbies) is not the unqualified "good" that people seem to believe it to be.

Part of the good livliness of "old" Broadway used to be people spilling out into the street, beneath the marquee, at intermission time. Not only does such a spillover intertwine a theater more intimately with the sidewalks around it, lending life to the streets, but patrons are also more likely to go next door for a drink, etc. during intermission -- thus, making the surrounding streets, at least for certain times of the day, one big theater lobby!

This is probably more true for "legitimate" theaters, but the Rivoli may be one of the few Times Sq. movie theaters for which this might also have been true.

- - - - - - -

I agree with much of what was said about how the "dinosaur" movie palaces were inevitably doomed by changing movies and movie going habits (e.g., DRIVING -- instead of taking the subway -- to multiplexes at malls in the suburbs). And although I don't think every movie palace, or movie palace facade, should have been saved, I do think that alternative uses for the theaters and facades were often possible and that some of them were too hastily demolished.

I also think that the owners of the Rivoli appear to have shamefully worked the system to their advantage and to the public's disadvantage.

Also I agree that the big black building that replaced it is really awful -- one of the most repellent skyscraper ever built in New York City. The black skin of the building, plus the sloping (slight irredescent) setbacks, somehow evoke reptilian scales. And it's the only skyscraper I can think of that seems to have a prominent smokestake as part of the design. (And ususually I like the work of the architects, who I believe were Roche and Dinkeloo -- designers of the Ford Foundation, the Metropolitan Museum of Art additions, etc.)

In the 1980s, the New York City Council passed a law requiring all newly-constructed theatres to incorporate a certain amount of lobby holding space for every seat in the house in order to prevent ticket holders lines out front on the sidewalk. I seem to remember a figure of 1.5 sq. ft. per seat, but i'm not positive. The first theatre in Manhattan to be built to the new standards was Loews 84th Street.

Well I remember back in the early '70s when Times Square theaters would create lines even if a theater wasn't sold out just to create interest. I remember going to the Music Hall to see the revival Of Mary Poppins in '73 and people being told that general admission was sold out and they had to buy reserved seats.
Well no wonder, when I went in I found that the third mezzanine was closed!
Since when did it happen in New York that people waiting in line on a sidewalk to see a movie became a problem?
Thanks to Koch, Giuliani and Bloomberg New York becomes less New York with every passing minute.

For me, as a kid during the 70's, waiting on line to see a movie was common. I actually used to love it because it created this great sense of anticipation. I remember waiting on line to see "Mary Poppins" and how the line got bigger, and bigger and bigger to the point that I realized I was about to see something extraordinary.

And it created buzz to see people waiting on line also.

RE: the size of Times Square Theaters...YES I totally agree with you about the size of some of the lobbies. The Broadway theaters are especially remarkable in how they use the space. I'm always amazed at how efficient they are with the exit doors right off the auditorium and no fancy lobby. They are elaborately decorated but with very little lobby space. Like the Walter Kerr is like that. I saw "Barnum" years ago at the St. James and I marvelled at how when it was over, the doors out were directly behind the last row of the orchestra. They opened and within a matter of five minutes, the theater was empty.

It's also very exciting to have the auditorium and the stage right next to the sidewalk. The synergy! Not to mention the intermissions!
(but we won't talk about that.)

Well, the intermission was where I realized how the theaters were setup. We saw "Proof" as the Walter Kerr and at intermission, everyone simply got up and walked out of the exit doors. It was a beautiful summer night. You could stand in the street and look right onto the stage. Weird and funny at the same time. Kind of surreal.

Speaking of which for those of you going to Times Square movie houses during the roadshow era was it possible to "mingle" with the audience at intermission and "second half" a film?

I'm too young to remember the classic roadshows like "My Fair Lady" and such but my Mother remembered them fondly. She said they were BIG deals where people would dress up and such. It was like going to see a Broadway show. My Mother and Father saw "My Fair Lady", "The Sound of Music" and "Cleopatra" roadshows in Manhattan and they talked about the experience.

And yes, I believe during intermission, they said that you'd mill around, talk, smoke, etc. and then go back in for the second showing.

For "Cleopatra", there were two(!) Intermissions. The whole thing took almost five hours to get through.

Imagine nowadays dressing up to see a movie!

Vincent- In the 1980s at Cinema I, the neighboring business and residences used to complain to us about the line being in front of their store or apt. building. The customers also objected to being made to wait on line - the yupsters felt it was too hot, too cold, too windy, too rainy, too sunny, too shady, and the person they were with just had open-heart surgery 20 minutes earlier or was planning to give birth immediately after the movie and not able to wait on line. So a group of customers and theatre-neighbors (primarily from the east side) got after the the Mayor - and Ed Kotch was the mayor, not Giuliani, who liked to go to the movies - and he didn't like to wait on line either - we let him and his security entourage wait inside.

Most people used to "dress up" even when going to a neighborhood theatre! I think it started to change after the introduction of television, where you were watching at home and it didn't matter what you were wearing.

Some good interior photos of the Rivoli taken when it was being converted to 70mm at this website: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingto7.htm

But I remember waiting on line in the late 70's and early '80s for the Cinema 1 or the Baronet or the Coronet. It was great. The anticipation of seeing a hot new movie in an exclusive run and having to wait for it!

For CC I saw Fair Lady as a boy at the Criterion in the summer of '65(my only roadshow of the '60s. There were two more in the early '70's.) I remember seeing people dressed up as if they were at a wedding or at church and being amazed. Also the souvenir book seller was in a tux! To this day I picture the Criterion as the ultimate in classy first run picture presention.

My Mom and Dad told me they would never be caught dead going to Penn Station to meet people coming into town without being dressed up!

And even I remember going to movies when I was very young and being dressed up. The one time I remember clearly was my first time at the Music Hall. Christ, I felt like I was going to church. But it added to the feeling that I was seeing and doing something unique and special.

My Mom and Dad told me they would never be caught dead going to Penn Station to meet people coming into town without being dressed up!

And even I remember going to movies when I was very young and being dressed up. The one time I remember clearly was my first time at the Music Hall. Christ, I felt like I was going to church. But it added to the feeling that I was seeing and doing something unique and special.

People used to get dressed up to go in the SUBWAY - in an old 'I Love Lucy' (early 1950s) - Lucy and Ethel had to get somewhere quick, and Ethel said "Lucy, I can't take the subway, I'm wearing blue jeans!" - The world has become far too casual... [sigh].

Watched the end of "The Sound of Music" Christmas night (why the HELL ABC had to squeeze that movie into FOUR hours is beyond me. I think the commercial breaks were longer than the movie clips...).

Anyway, The Rivoli is where my Mom to my oldest brother to see "The Sound of Music" when it came out in '65. She said is was incredible.

Just wondering if anyone knows how long it played at The Rivoli? I've always heard that there were theaters (like some in the U.K.) that played "The Sound of Music" for upwards of five years!

I saw Sound of Music here with my parents and grandparents. I think it would up playing almost two years. The Syosset opened it hard ticket sometime in 1966.

If I remember correctly, it played for 65 weeks. On the inside cover of the DVD (which I don't have available at this time)it tells you the date it opened at the Rivoli and how long it played.

The Rivoli first opened to the public on December 28, 1917, with the Douglas Fairbanks movie, "A Modern Musketeer," supported by a "live" program featuring musical soloists, the organ and house orchestra. Loge seats were $1 at all times. General admission was 60 and 30 cents for evening performances, and 30 cents at matinees.

Just reading some of the older posts about how friggin' long some of these movies played The Rivoli, movies must've played in theaters for years! I mean, you had "Oklahoma" there for 51 weeks and then it was released out to the smaller theaters. This was followed by "Around the World In 80 Days" which also played for a year! Amazing! Think of how these movies over lapped one another.

These days, a "hit" movie plays out in a month or so?

I would like to add a brief word of praise for the projectionists who had to show the same movie for more than a year.
In one theatre where "South Pacific" played for months, I remember watching the projectionists using the dialogue, not the cue dots, for some of the changeovers to give themselves a challenge! Other than the overture and intermission, it was likely a long shift.

After looking at some nice pictures at www.historictheatres.org , I'm a little confused.

The photos show a movie called "Come to the Stable" there. I thought the entrance to The Rivoli was on Broadway. How come I see cars heading uptown when I thought that Broadway was/is a downtown street? Was it at one time both ways at that point?

I know this is a minor quibble but I'm curious. Or was the entrance somewher else?

I used to love watching the Rivoli projectionist sitting in a lawn chair on the platform outside of the booth enjoying himself watching the film. 52+ week runs were not uncommon in the 1950 even in cities smaller than New York.

52+ weeks of hearing "Oh What a Beautiful Morning" would send me to an asylum.

It amazes me and shows how viewing habits have changed that a musical mediocrity like "Oklahoma" (sorry fans) could remain in a place like The Rivoli for so long. Does anyone know if it was successful there over the whole engagement or did the audience peter out near the end of it's run?

What I think has changed in Times Square is that (correct me if I'm wrong) the Movie Palaces exerted a "pull" much like the Broadway show houses did. People (tourists, suburbanites) willingly schlepped into the city to see a BIG movie like "Oklahoma" because they couldn't wait for it to trickle down to a "theater-near-you" in what? Six months, maybe even a year?

And yes, it's the distribution that has changed all that as well. I can't tell you how educational this site has been.

It would be an interesting experiment if some studio tried to release a really BIG movie exclusively in Manhattan (say, The Ziegfeld) and refused to let it open wide for say, three months or so. Let's say the final "Lord of the Rings" movie was held only at The Ziegfeld. Would the demand be great enough to pull people in like the "old days"? Honestly, I think YES. If the film is BIG enough and the audience anticipation is there, it could/would work.

But the studios, the agents, the stars want their $$$$ upfront. it would and will never happen again.

The Rivoli's entrance was on Broadway, which was once a two-way street. I don't know in what year it became one-way, with all traffic heading south. "Come to the Stable" was a 1949 20th-Fox release, with Loretta Young and Celeste Holm as nuns trying to raise funds to build a children's hospital.

Broadway as a two way street? Imagine that. Oye. The traffic would've been horrendous.

And to anyone who is a fan of "Oklahoma" I'd like to amend my comment disparaging the film. My comment calling it a musical mediocrity pertains soley for the FILM, not the play. The play might've broken new ground on the stage and is a classic. But the movie doesn't do much.

"Oklahoma" fared well in some places. As the first Todd-AO production, it ran for nearly a year on roadshow in Los Angeles in 2 theatres simultaneously. In other first runs it ran for shorter lengths of time because of the impending "80 Days" release which opened in most of the same houses. A 30 frames-per-second 70mm re-released played the Cinema I in Manhattan some years ago. I attended the first Sunday matinee and the house was jam packed.

CC. I was never a fan of the film Oklahoma either. But a friend forced me to go see it when in the late 70's a Todd AO print was shown at the Penthouse(the balcony of the Warner Cinerama/Strand after twinning.)
I was, as they say, blown away. I thought it was glorious.
I saw it again at the Cinema 1(before twinning.) Again absolutely wonderful.
Had I been around when it was shown at the Rivoli I would have been there every couple of weeks. To have seen it on that curved screen!
Just so you know there are two films of Oklahoma. One filmed for Todd AO and one filmed for Cinemascope. Even Zinnemann thought the Todd AO was much better. I only wish he had done Carousel.

Re: Oklahoma. It is the Todd AO version that was used for the DVD transfer and that was shown on Turner Classic Movies.

"Oklahoma" blows on a TV screen, I don't care how large it is. This film and many others like them were made for a LARGE screen. Seeing these films at home on TV screen destroys whatever "magic" they might've had and shows up all their limitations (story, characterization, etc.) Certain other musicals such as "West Side Story", "Gigi", "Funny Girl" and "Oliver" work OK on TV because their basic story structures and characterizations are more pronounced. They hold up better over the years. But it would be a wonder to see those on the BIG screen for the full impact.

One of my parent's most beloved movies was "Gigi" which premiered at a theater called The Royale. I do not see it listed here. Does it go under a different name?

From IMDB.com regarding the World Premiere of "Oklahoma":

The world premiere was preceded by a parade of fringed surreys, led by then-Oklahoma Gov. Raymond Gary (1908-1993, governor 1955-1959), which made its way from the St. James Theater, where the stage version of "Oklahoma" had opened 12 years earlier, to the Rivoli Theater for the film premiere. There, standing atop a carpet of transplanted Oklahoma soil, Gov. Gary helped raise the Oklahoma state flag from the theater staff and officially proclaimed the Rivoli to be Oklahoma territory.

Gigi opened in the Broadway Royal, a legit house.

I once heard the lyricist Sammy Cahn speaking about seeing Gigi and talking about the legit curtains opening on those splendid opening titles. I guess it was a great movie moment for him.
TCM has a short on widescreen movies pan and scan vs letterboxing featuring the entrance of Jourdan and Caron in Maxims. There isn't a director or production designer alive today who can do anything half as good. Thank you VM and CB.

The Spanish-style design of the Royale seems right for movies. It must have been (one of) Laurence Olivier's favorite NYC theater(s), because I saw him act twice there, just before "Gigi" in "The Entertainer" and a couple of years later in "Beckett" (with Anthony Quinn as Henry II). I also saw Bette Davis act there in "Night of the Iguana." In recent years, the Royale has staged "Art" and "Copenhagen." "Gigi" opened at the Royale on 15 May '58, and in the Fall moved to continuous performances at the Sutton where I saw it. Odd, then, that VM's and CB's splendid visuals premiered in NYC on relatively small screens. When "Gigi" finally came to the nabes, I saw it again at the Alpine, which boasted of having the largest screen in Broooklyn. The film looked great in that cavernous expanse.

So, the Royale should have a page of its own.

As far as I know, "Gigi" was the only film that played at the Royale. It opened in 1927 with an accent on comedy. Its first big hit was in 1928 with Mae West's "Diamond Lil." True, many films derived from plays that unfolded on its stage. But it was live theater all the way (except for "Gigi").

Just as a side note, during the late 1950s/early 1960s, there was a mini trend in NYC to showcase so-called "films of class" in legit houses. I especially vividly remember the (at the time) notorious "La Dolce Vita" from Fellini having a long extended roadshow run at the Henry Miller Theatre (how appropriate!). This was I believe in the Spring of 1960, and the run extended several months. Astor Films was the distributor. It had less luck later that year with Visconti's "Rocco and His Brothers" also roadshowed at the Henry Miller. I just remembered: I think Brando's "Julius Caesar" a few years earlier playing roadshow at the Booth.

To veyyoung:
I am certain you are wrong about "Rocco and His Brothers" roadshowing at the Henry Miller. "Rocco" opened simultaneously at the Beekman and Pix on June 27, 1961 and not as a roadshow. The review and ads attest to that. Could you be thinking of "Les Liaisons Dangereuses?"

Gigi opened at the Royale on May 16, 1958. OPening night was sold out. Interesting fact, Louis Botto's Playbill book At This Theater does not mention this in the history of the Royale theater.

The DVD of "Gigi" includes a trailer for the film featuring several shots of the exterior of the Royale during the film's roadshow run.

I don't think that the Royale deserves a listing as a "Cinema Treasure" just because of its showing of the movie "Gigi." I have read several histories of the Royale and the booking of "Gigi" was not even mentioned.

The Royale has a nice wide proscenium so I think it would have been perfect for the cinemascope Gigi. What I don't understand is why the film went to the small Sutton and not to the Astor or Capitol or Loew's State. Anyway what I wouldn't give to see it on a large wide screen.

This would be an incredible film to restore and re-release for it's 50th anniversary. Imagine it on the Music Halls screen.

By the way does anyone know where I could get a list of what Scorscese considers the best widescreen movies? I understand he compiled one. We seem to love the same movies. He has excellent taste.

As i recall, the longest US roadshow run of "Gigi" was in San Francisco

I stand corrected...it was not "Rocco and His Brothers" which followed "La Dolce Vita" at the Henry Miller. It may well have been "Les Liaisons Dangereuses". Thanks, Gerry

Of all the Times Square theaters on this site, The Rivoli is the one I'm getting more and more obsessed about. Thanks.

I work directly across the street from where this was (it's now 750 7th Avenue...a completely anonymous and unremarkable black glass and steel tower). And I got a clear look at the space (or "footprint", as the term is in real estate terms) it occupies and it's tiny.

Then I saw in a postcard book a picture of what looks like some kind of lounge area in The Rivoli. What I could make of it showed an area with a cutout in the floor in the shape of an oval. Through this oval, you could make out some theater seats below (I assume the orchestra). Where on earth could this area have existed inside such a space?

Can anyone give a good, solid description of what it was like inside this theater or tell me a book that could? I'm astonished (and obsessed) with how such a grand space could've existed on such a small plot. Are there any old blueprints?

Never having been in the Rivoli, I can't tell you exactly the area you were looking at, but many old theaters had a mezzanine lobby that overlooked the orchestra floor - the (former Loew's) Orpheum in Boston is one that I have seen. This is a lobby under the slope of the balcony. Perhaps that is what it was at the Rivoli.

You are probably right. This lounge area probably existed behind the slope of the balcony (kind of "under-the-stairs", so to speak). But considering the size of the land, this would mean that the balcony was way steep. I know someone on this site said that it was but WOW! Talk about stadium seating!

I have a circa 1960 Hagstom's map of the Theatre District that shows the approximate footprints of the various theaters in the Times Sq. area. While the map is not STRICTLY to scale (the roadbeds of the street, for instance, are larger than they should be), the "land" portion of the map does seem to be pretty accurate for the most part.

(By the way, what's particularly great about this map is that it clearly shows how theater lobbies in the area were often appendages to the main body of an auditorium. So, for instance, from the map one gets a really clear idea of how six theaters were squeezed into a very small area of one block on the north side of 42nd St. and how five theaters were squeezed into a slightly larger area on one block on the south side of 42nd St.)

In any case, the footprint of the Rivoli on this map actually appears to be a little bit LARGER than average when compared to most of the "legit" theaters in the area -- but, of course, much smaller than those for two grand Times Sq. movie "palaces": The Capitol and the Warner.

The footprint for the the other great, then existing, movie palace in the area, the Paramount, is slightly "botched," as the map makers try to show the footprint of the Parmount within that of the footprint of the Paramount office building, and wind up making the theater much smaller than it actually was -- they were getting a bit too cute with this particular rendering.

As for the Roxy, only the outlines of the footprint -- with no label -- are shown on the map. It almost appears as though they just erased the name of the theater, and its eastern boundary, before reprinting the map. (But you can still see where the ticket lobby occupies the ground floor of the Taft.)

I was looking at "Best Remaining Seats" which has quite a bit of info about the Rivoli. Unfortunately, as wonderful as the book is, it also very chaotically organized in my opinion, and at the moment I don't have the patience to search through it. But, if I remember correctly, although the Rivoli had live entertainment, it was mostly orchestral music -- and thus the theater probably did not have much in the way of a stage, stage house, dressing rooms, etc. I believe, in fact, that along with its earlier Rothapfel sibling, the Rialto, it was one of the first theaters in NYC to be built withOUT facilities for stage productions (without a stage house, etc.).

I believe the Hall book, whose writing can also be frustratingly too "cute," even jokes about the musicians running up Broadway from one Rothapfel theater (e.g., the Rialto) to another (the Rivoli).

By the way, on pgs. 46 and 47 of the book, there are some great photos of interior of the Rialto Theater which, I believe was Roxy's "baby" just before the Rivoli (and before the Capitol, before the "Roxy," and before the Center and Radio City Music Hall). These photos seem to show a situation quite similar to -- although, perhaps, just a bit different from -- the one described for the Rivoli.

In the photo you can see a grand, almost enormous domed auditorium with a very large, steeply raked balcony and a small stage (with, I believe no true proscenium and stage house).

The photo of the "foyer" shows the area at the back of the orchestra level seating, with a glass screen separating the seats from the "foyer," and a semi-oval "cutout" in the back of the balcony lounge area (apparently under the steep rake of the balcony) which allows those in the second floor lounge to look down upon and see where the "standees" (if there were "standees") would be standing at the back of the orchestra.

This photo also shows, I believe, how theaters in those days had almost non-existant lobby/foyer space to serve as a barrier between the auditorium and the street. I believe the doors shown on the left of the photo lead almost directly to the street.

I once went to an old neighborhood theater in Washington Heights that had been made into an art/revival house in the late 1960s, and it seemed to be quite similar in certain ways to what is shown in the Rialto photo (but much less grand). It also appeared to be a theater from that era and, and it was amazing how "basic" the theater was in terms of lobby space, etc.

So it would seem to me that one reason the auditorium of the Rivoli could be so grand on such a small site is that a lot of what we associate with movie palaces was left out -- and the actual auditorium probably took up a "disproportionate" amount of the footprint ("disproportionate" at least when compared to more modern theaters).

On the Hagston map, the site of the Rialto theater (a later, different, structure than that which is shown in the photo -- but still presumably occupying the same footprint) is even smaller than that of the Rivoli!

Another thought: I think theater spaces appear deceptively large when they have seats in them -- because each of the seats represent one person, and seated people are much closer to each other, for long periods of time, then they would be in "normal" circumstances. Take the seats out (as is done when a theater becomes a disco, etc.) and the theater space appears to be its "true" size -- a lot smaller.

Ian Judge is correct. A mezzanie floor (not a seating area in the auditorium, but "mezzanine" in the technical sense of a low story between two other stories of greater height) was nestled above the Rivoli's lobby inside its balcony overhang. And yes, an oval cutaway opened upon a portion of the rear orchestra below. I believe the theater might have covered it up during renovations upon installing Todd-AO in 1955, likely because noise from the area above could annoy the high-ticket patrons below. At least, I don't remember the oval from later visits to the Rivoli (the last film I saw there as "Compulsion" in '59). I do vividly remember it from earlier visits, notably upon seeing "Samson and Delilah" there in Dec. '49. After sitting through the film twice (entranced, especially at the expanded Cycloramic screen in its final sequence; when seeing films at first-run palaces, my parents would in any case stay on for a second showing on grounds of having paid double the neighborhood price and getting no second-feature with it), we left our seats and my elders retired to rest rooms on the mezzanine. I remained outside those facilities and hung over the oval's railing in an effort to glimpse the start of the new performance. At the age of seven, I later wondered whether the audience below could hear me get bawled out for taking on such a stupid trick.

This area was usually called the "mezzanine promenade" in theatres that had one.

yes-- that's the correct term -- thanks, Warren

From the description, this lounge area sounds similar to the setup in the Chicago Riviera

Benjamin-- Yes, Hagstrom's old Theater District map is fun to look at. Besides the peculiar rendition of the Paramount (whose stage wall abutted W 44 Street), there's another of Loew's State (whose stage wall abutted W 46 Street, and whose ticket lobby occupied only a small space on B'way). The Victoria and the City Center likewise get improbable cut-outs. And the Mayfair (aka DeMille or Embassy 2,3,4 on this site) had only a small lobby on 7 Avenue. The Blackfriars' gets a box within the Hearst building, necessarily because that theater was constructed inside the building (as do nightclubs within hotel buildings: who'd want to forget the Plantation Room at the Hotel Dixie?). Some (but not all)Fifth Avenue stores are marked: de Pinna; Scribner's; Black, Star, & Gorham. Oddly, Florsheim Shoes gets included in that august company.

I remember the mezzanine lobby from the 70s and at this point there was no oval cutout. Also if one stood by the exit doors in the orchestra which were set back in an alcove and one looked out on the orchestra to the exit doors on the opposite side one had a sense of how vast the orchestra was originally before being reduced for the roadshow era.This was the same for the Warner Cinerama.
I also remember them cutting into the back of the theater to use any backstage space that there was for a camera store on 7th Av. Tearing down the lower billboard panel one could see the advertising for The Trip and Hello Dolly(Boxoffice open Sunday 12 to 8 PM.) They also at this time reduced the size of the upper billboard which had been one of my favorite Times Sqare sights. I would love to see pictures of all the adverts of the films that played there during the 50's and 60s. The one that seems to show up occasionally is the one for Cleopatra simply bacause of the controversy of Harrison being excluded and then being painted in.
CC I am as obsessed as you. It was one of New York's great buildings.

There is a view of the exterior of the Rivoli during the Todd A-O run of "Around the World in 80 Days" towards the bottom of this page.

Vincent-- thanks for confirming my hunch that the mezzanine cutout ,was eliminated (along with other fine features in that theater) in '55. Speaking as one who nearly killed himself at an early age by falling through the Rivoli's oval, I find that reassuring. And yes, the terrific billboard on 7 Avenue was magnificent, even though it was not studded with blinking lights as were those of the Astor, Victoria, and Mayfair. The sign for "Cleopatra" did create such a controversy( the things we New Yorkers got heated up about in '63!), , but the sign I remember most was for "Salome" a decade earlier. Disney's "Peter Pan" was playing at the Roxy in Feb '53, and I stood on line with parents and a bunch of kids for the 10 am show on Lincoln's Birthday. Workers were putting up the sign for "Salome", and I watched them closely as bit by bit a ravishing Rita Hayworth came to life. Next to the Brass Rail Restauraant obetween 49-50 Streets stood one of a chain of restaurants that specialized in omlettes named after American states (The Floridian?). From the second-floor overflow section of that restaurant, you had a dead-on view of theRivili's billboard. Hayworth's legs and specialty eggs!

BOB the way you describe it- breakfast, Rita Hayworth, a trip to the Roxy-this is what I imagine my heaven would be.

At my age, perhaps martinis and some supper at the Brass Rail, or maybe a nightcap there, would complete the fantasy. It would sure beat the dietary austerity we submit to.

Damn you Brian! I just wasted half the morning reading through that Widescreen Museum site. So I guess I really mean thank you, Brian.

Box Office Bill: Apparently the Hagstrom map you refer to is a full scale version of the one that I have -- I think mine must be an "excerpt" from this larger one. It is included in a terrific little picture guidebook to New York City, published by Hagstrom in the very early 1960s. The guidebook is about 5 inches wide, 9 inches long and bound with wires (kind of like a spiral notebook).

It also includes some nice photos of the Times Sq. area at night, including one of a crowd scene outside the Loew's State (which looks like the premiere of Ben-Hur); one of Times Sq. looking south, which shows the marquee of the Astor Theater (Glenn Ford, Van Heflin, Felicia Farr in "3rd(?) to Yuma" -- the Criterion marquee is off in the distance); and one that includes the vertical Loew's State sign up the side of the adjacent skyscraper.

This version of the map only goes from the north side of 41st St. to the south side of 51st (so, disappointingly, no Warner Hollywood/Mark Hellinger) and goes from a little west of Eighth Ave. to a little west of Sixth Ave.

I didn't notice the Loew's State goof until after I submitted my post, and had never been in the De Mille, so wasn't sure how accurate that one was.

However, there are a number of cutouts that are so "improbable" that I'm assuming that they must be "real" -- would cartographers go out of their way to make such weird mistakes? For instance, I'm assuming that the Victoria cut-out is pretty accurate. The main body of the theater was indeed located on 46th St. (a great photo of it is included in the Mary Henderson book on Broadway Theaters), and it did have a tunnel lobby to Broadway. The only weird thing about the cut-out is that it shows that parts of the Astor Theater (to the south) and the Victoria Theater (to the north) seem to be interleafed. This is such a "weird" mistake, I'm thinking there must be something to it -- it's so much easier to just draw a straight line!

Another example is the cutout for the Lyceum, which seems to show a tunnel loading dock (instead of the usual tunnel lobby) that goes from the stage, located in the middle of the block, all the way to 46th St.

Also enjoy the fact that they show various hotel nightclubs, restaurants (Jack Dempsy's, Toffenetti's, Brass Rail), retail stores (Bond's, Woolworth's) and garages (some of which were the location of demolished theaters). I wonder if the nightclubs are accurately placed within the hotels? I think the Green Room in the Edison is. (I believe it later became an off-Broadway theater that housed the long-running "Oh, Calcutta.")

I'm surprised that you're surprised that Florsheim locations are shown. I thought it was an upscale shoe chain that would belong with the other kinds of stores shown on the map: Weber & Heilbroner, I. Miller.

What's particularly great about the fact that they show all this is that it very often shows, at least by the process of elimination, the actual footprint of a theater "camouflaged" by adjacent office buildings, etc.

- - - - -

Re: rear wall of Rivoli

What I find interesting about the Seventh Ave. wall of the Rivoli is how plain and "ugly" it was (although the giant billboard helped a great deal) compared to the wonderfully elaborate Broadway facade of the building. This "schizophrenia" is not uncommon among builders (at least in New York), and I understand the economic reasons behind it -- but I do find it "funny" and interesting when it happens nevertheless. It's kind of like wearing clothes that are beautiful and spotlessly clean in the front, but ugly, worn and dirty when seen from the back!

Some of the 42nd St. theaters do the same thing (e.g., the New Amsterdam), while others go all out with their secondary facade (the Lyric).

Both the Roxy and Radio City Music Hall have rear facades that are consistent with their main facade -- although the Roxy did have an extra lot line wall that they left "undesigned."

I love it that I managed to perk up a few memories of that oval. I found the picture in a book of post cards of Times Square.

If the oval was over the rear orchestra seats, how did they design it so that any noise in that area didn't filter down into the theater itself? They must've know this could occur but did something to limit it.

Didn't the Paramount on Times Square have a similar feature? I seem to remember reading that it was closed quite early in the theaters history because of noise drifting down to the audience.

Bob,

I believe that was a cove promenade above the entire auditorium at the Paramount, up above the ceiling over the balcony and below. I believe the Roxy had a similar one, used as a spotlight location, and perhaps not open to the public like the Paramount's.

The conversation about cut-outs near the rear orchestra seats of some early movie theaters, and the problems such cut-outs create, along with the fact that many of these theaters seem to have had especially small and unprotected lobbies, makes me wonder about the reasons for such design decisions in the first place.

What makes it especially interesting to me is the "fact" that I don't believe "regular" theaters ("legit," "opera," etc.) built during this time, or before it, had such design features (at least to the same degree). So I wonder if the builders of these early movie theaters actually saw such new features as "improvements" over what was already being done in "regular" theater design or, at the very least, as innovations that would not pose the same problems in the new movie theaters that they would have posed in existing "regular" theaters?

A number of things come to mind as possible explanations that make these new architectural features more sensible:

1) Movies had just left the penny arcade. Movie theaters weren't yet seen as worth the investment in real estate that would have allowed them to accommodate large "buffer" lobbies? Things like ceiling cut outs seemed like a fun way of making public spaces seem "grand"?

2) Less noise. People were more polite and street noises had less "punch," making these innovations seem less problematic than they would be in later years? Or, looking at it the other way around, maybe a general public that was accustomed to frequenting music halls and beer gardens were less bothered by ambient noises? Kind of the way some audiences today ENJOY people talking -- and shouting out -- during a performance. (I remember going to see "Dream Girls" and getting the impression that both the audience And the performers desired the audience to shout out comments during certain songs. That was part of what this theater going experience was ABOUT.)

3) These early movie theaters played SILENT movies (although accompanied by some kind of live music). In silent movies, viewers are "listening" to the film in only a very general way; more important is the ability to "see" what is happening on screen -- the moving visuals and the title cards that explain the dialogue and make the plot more comprehensible. In other words, unlike movie goers in the sound era, maybe movie goers in the silent era might have been less bothered by ambient sound -- they weren't straining to concentrate and hear dialogue explaining what was happening on the screen?

I think you hit it on the head about the silent films. Seems strange to us know but I'm sure back then, who saw the need for sound? I don't think anyone in Hollywood saw it coming. Thus, the cutout would be OK.

AND, yes, people would've been quieter as well.

Silent movies require more concentration creating a more rapt focused audience. I imagine these vast audiences of thousands of people totally involved in what was going on. That must have been something.

In college, in a film class, my great teacher got us all to see Garbo's "A Woman of Affairs" in the college theater with a full stero track and all. The print was supberb. She did this every year to show students how rich and amazing the "silents" could be. Prior to this, I was only acquainted with that ridiculously cliched piano accompaniment to silents. The experience opened my eyes to how visually amazing they were. And how quite a theater could be.

I agree with Vincent, silent movies require greater concentration and therefore less conversation. It wasn't until talking movies came along that one could allow ones attention to wander from the screen without losing track of the story. I also believe that people were better behaved in public. Even in my not so very distant childhood, the act of speaking aloud at the movies was considered indescribably rude. Regarding Vincent's point #1, I think most legit theatres at the turn of the century had very minimal lobby space (there were exceptions of course) and that movie theatre lobbies in the teens and twenties were noted for their expansiveness in comparison with their "legitimate" brethren.

Quick clarification:

The movie theaters with the cut outs and the small lobbies that we are talking about are very, very early movie theaters (at least as early as 1913, 1916) -- not the kind of movie theaters that we think of when we think "movie theater" (late 1920s, 1930s).

For instance, the one that I went to in Washington Heights in the late 1960s (that I believe was an even earlier version of the original Rialto, pictured in the Ben Hall book, and its sister, the Rivoli), was well maintained but a VERY primitive theater. Perhaps, it's hard to describe, but the lobby area was virtually non-existent. You almost just walked right into the theater from the street, and I believe there might have been a curtain across the doorway to keep out the light and sound, and a glass screen (like that pictured in the Hall book) to separate the orchestra seats from what there was of a "foyer."

While lobbies for "legit" Broadway theaters have traditionally been small, when you look at the oldest extant Broadway theaters (like the Lyceum, the Hudson and New Amsterdam, all from 1903 -- ten years before these early movie theaters) you see that the lobbies and public areas may be small by today's standards, but they are not as small, I believe, as these early cinemas by any means.

Also, while watching a silent may involve more concentration (for instance, because you can't turn your head away because you might miss a title card), maybe people talking in the lobby areas around the cut out, etc. 1) didn't interfere with this kind of concentration or 2) were still beneath the loud sound of the music accompanying the movie. So I'm thinking that maybe this is why the cut outs might not have been thought of as such a problem.

The "open pit" looking down from the mezzanine promenade was a standard feature of many large theatres designed by Thomas Lamb and his disciples in the early 1920s.

While middle-class movie goers were possibly more polite in 1916 ("Ladies, please remove your hats.") than they were in the 1950s (although this is debatable), were they more polite than 1916 theatergoers attending plays on Broadway in theaters that didn't have these apparently "new fangled" cut outs over the rear orchestra seats?

I would doubt it, especially since in those days the early movies seem to have attracted a more "lower class" type clientele.

Hall says that in 1913, New York [5 boroughs?] has "986 movie houses -- of all kinds . . ." (pg. 39) "Most of them [neighborhood movie theaters] were throwbacks to the nickelodeons of earlier days, and while they were profitable, audiences were made up mostly of kids and people who wanted to kill an hour with anickel . . . and nobody took them very seriously." (pg. 31)

Hall also says that at the Regent (opened 1913), " . . . there was no need . . . for those functinaries familiar to nickelodeon audiences who went up and down the aisles squirting noisome helio-trope-avec-creosote into the air from spray guns." [I'm guessing this is because in those days the audience could smell bad?]

By the way, here's a very rough chronology from the Hall book of some of Thomas Lamb's early theaters:

In 1909, when Thomas Lamb was 22, he designed his first theater, The City Theater. In (approx.) 1913 he designed the Regent Theatre. Then came the Strand (1914), and the Rialto (1916) [which has a half oval cut-out over the rear orchestra seats, that is shown on pg. 46]. The Rivoli opened in 1917.

We purchased some original exterior pictures of the Rivoli stamped and dated by Paramount Publix Corporation, 1932. The pictures show several billboards, street scenes, and patrons lined up in front of the theater. One of the pictures clearly shows a street sign reading 43rd street. It is possible we have pictures of several historical theaters. We were sad to hear the Rivoli has been distroyed. We were ready to take a trip to see the theater in our pictures.

Paramount's "For Whom the Bell Tolls," with Gary Cooper and Ingrid Bergman, played its New York premiere engagement here in 1943 as a two-a-day road show, with all seats reserved. Matinees at 2:30 PM were priced at 85 cents and $1.10 on weekdays, and $1.10 and $1.65 on Saturday, Sunday and holidays. Evening performances at 8:30 were $1.10, $1.65 and $2.20 during the week, and $1.65 and $2.20 on Saturday, Sunday and holidays. Advertising claimed that the movie "will not be shown at regular admission prices before 1945." I don't know how long the Rivoli engagement lasted, but when "For Whom the Bell Tolls" moved on to the Loew's circuit, it was also shown at advanced prices (though considerably less than those charged at the Rivoli).

You catch a glimpse of the Rivoli marquee and the giant vericle sign spelling out "Gone with Wind" in the soft porn film, "Fuego", probably filmed in 1967. Although the film was shot in Argentina, a few minutes was actually filmed in Times Square. On the DVD you freeze frame it for a good look.

There are two very distinct shots of The Rivoli in the movie "My Favorite Year". They both occur at the very beginning. It seems the film was shot on location because they show the kid walking right into Rockefeller Center and it does not look like a set. I know because I'm in there every day...

The location shots in "My Favorite Year" are amazing. I forgot about the one at the beginning with the Rivoli -- although now that you've mentioned it, I do remember enjoying getting a charge out of it when I saw the movie.

I think I too assumed that it was shot on location for the movie, and that they hired a few "antique" cars (cars from the 1950s) to go down Broadway for the few seconds of this scene.

I think the most amazing location shot in the movie, however, was the one looking east towards Broadway along W. 45th St. It's looking towards the Criterion, I believe -- although I don't remember if you actually see the Criterion in the shot. What you do see, among other things, is the Astor Hotel (currently the site of the Minskoff Theater and One Astor Plaza).

What's so amazing about this shot? I think you see one of the featured actors of "My Favorite Year" walking down the street, and the street is so "real" -- you can see people walking and cars moving -- but the Astor Hotel had already been torn down for about fifteen years before the movie was made!

If it was indeed a location shot (and I'm not misremembering something that was instead just cleverly used stock footage), I think the scene was a matte shot -- filmed through glass that had the Astor Hotel painted onto it.

The other day I was in the Virgin Mega store on Union Sq. and saw a book devoted to this kind of special effect. I looked for this scene in the book, but didn't find it. If the shot in the movie was indeed a matte shot, perhaps it was too "unspectacular" and too "non-glitzy" to be included in the book. (The book has a lot of sci-fi scenes in it.)

Does anyone know of a good website where one can learn more about the architect Thomas W. Lamb? I've read so much about the theaters he designed here but there's very little else. When was he born? Where did he get his schooling? Who and what were his influences? How did he come to design theaters as opposed to other kinds of buildings? I've searched the web and there's precious little. I DO keep getting redirected to THIS site, though so it seems to be the main site for info on him.

Can anyone help?

The Rivoli was my favorite NYC movie palace. It had an awesome
curved screen with head on projection in the back of the theater
so the horizons were straight and didn't smile upwards. The sound
was also impressive. I attended showings in the seventies through
the eighties when it was re-designed to squeeze another theater in
the balcony area. The orchestra level still was impressive although
they removed the Dimension 150 screen and put in a flat one. Still,
screenings like the 70mm version of "The Thing" were impressive.

While it had the deeply curved screen, I saw "2001" three times in
70mm. Once in 1976 and twice in 1978. The 1976 print contained the
"Cinerama" title card and the 78 print the "70mm" card. The 1976 print had much more saturated color than the 78 print. However, this
film looked spectacular in this house. Even mediocre movies like "1941" were impressive since the curved screen and superior 6 channel sound made it entertaining although there was an infant crying in the audience at each explosion.

The rear channels did not blast at you in this cinema as they did
at the Cinerama theater down the street or Loews Astor Plaza. I think it had the best 70mm presentations in the city.

Ironically, my low budget exploitation film, "The Class of Nuke Em High" was among the last to play there before the theater was demolished. There was already scafolding in front of the cinema
when it was booked there. I guess I miss this Roadshow house more
than any other one I attended at the time.

There have been several articles about Thomas Lamb in Marquee, the quarterly journal of Theatre Historical Society. You should be able to purchase copies if THS has back issues...There is also a book by Hilary Russell entitled "Double Take," which is about Lamb's Elgin & Winter Garden Theatres in Toronto, but has much biographical info about Lamb, who was born in Dundee, Scotland, in 1871 and came to North America with his family while he was still a boy. They settled in Canada, but had moved to New York City by 1883. He studied at Cooper Union and graduated in 1898 with a BS degree, not a degree in architecture or engineering, and took only two courses related to his career: mechanical drawing and acoustics. After graduation, he worked as a building inspector for the City of New York. During that period, he met future movie moguls such as Marcus Loew and William Fox, who were seeking building permits as well as theatre architects. He saw an opportunity for himself and did his first theatres for them. Loew sometimes paid Lamb in corporate stock, which at one time made Lamb the third largest shareholder in Loew's, Inc.

To Richard Haines,
I'm glad you mentioned the '76 showing of 2001 at the Rivoli with the Cinerama card. This was one of the greatest cinematic experiences of my life. The print was so beautiful and enveloping and despite being contiuous perfs it was full roadshow presentation. The closing of the curtains at intermission on the moving mouths with Hal looking on was chilling beyond belief. The 78 print was good but not nearly the same experience.
I so regret they did not show Sound of Music there again in the '70s and instead showed it at the National which I found a horrible theater. And why did the Ziegfeld at this time become the major presentation big movie theater at this time when New York still had the Criterion and the Rivoli?
The owners of these theaters should be tried for cultural vandalism.
I can't even walk in front of their former sites.

Vincent,

My guess is that the 76 showing was an original 1968 print that Kubrick supervised since it had the "Cinerama" logo. The 1978 print
was a new one made by MGM and not supervised by Kubrick so the contrast and saturation was not as good. It had the "70mm" title card at the end. Either that or the 78 was from an internegative and the 76 was from the camera negative which accounts for the image quality difference.
Perhaps it was my imagination but I do recall the 76 print being wider than the 1978 print. I know that the aspect ratio for 70mm had been standardized at 2.21 x 1 after 1966 (when they used the Ultra-Panavision anamorphic 70mm ratio of 2.76 x 1). Do you recall it being wider too? It might have been a specially made rectified print to fill out the ratio of the earlier Cinerama width. Maybe it's just my imagination but I had a sweet spot seat both times and I do seem to recall the image being narrower in 1976.

You mean narrower in '78?
Yes!!!
I thought it was a larger image as well in '76 but I thought my memory was playing tricks on me in '78.
So maybe I was right all these years.

Vincent,

So I'm not the only one who noticed this. It might have been a 1968 'rectified' print then in 1976. What this means is that they
slightly cropped the movie and spread it out with a differential squeeze from the center to the edges. A special lens would incrementally unsqueeze it so it looked normal when projected but was very wide. Technicolor was certainly capaple of doing this.
They had done it with "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" which is why the extra faded scenes they found from the Roadshow look strange on Laserdisc and DVD. "2001" actually utilized two labs. Both Technicolor and Metrocolor are listed in the credits. Alas, if either print that was shown at the Rivoli still exist for examination, they would be totally faded by now. Despite the superior sharpness of 70mm, it was chemically unstable like all Eastmancolor prints made prior to 1983 (the year Kodak introduced 'low fade' Eastmancolor stock).

The new prints of "2001" in 70mm and 35mm look quite good. It's one of the most 'protected' films that exists. Not one but two sets of B&W 65mm separations were made on the movie by MGM.

Did anyone here see the original "Roadshow" in 1968 shown at the Strand in Cinerama that was 20 minutes longer? Kubrick cut the film after a few days and no one has seen the 162 minute version since.
Allegedly, the cuts exist at his house in England.

Another film that only played uncut at The Rivoli was "The Sand Pebbles". It was 13 minutes longer than the version played every where else. There's a website on the film that has B&W copies of the cut scenes in French. I wish Fox would restore it to the original running time.

"Gone with the Wind" played in the heavily cropped 70mm version there in the seventies. They blew up the center of the 1.33 35mm image making wide shots into medium shots, medium shots into close ups and close ups with the actors missing their heads and chins.
The even changed the title design.

By the way, "2001" was the film that changed the "Roadshow" presentations. Prior to that movie, all Roadshows were hard ticket.
That meant you needed to buy your ticket and numbered seat in advance. "2001" was popular with young people who prefered to wander into the theater at whatever the next screening was rather than reserve their seat. It was such a success that theaters decided to alter their Roadshow policies. Incrementally then
retained the exclusive area showing for the film with the higher
ticket price and superior presentation in 70mm and stereophonic sound but abandoned the reserved seat policy. You could go see the film whenever you wanted.

Roadshows continued through the eighties although the window shortened to only a week or so before the same movie went into general release. At least many movies were released in 70mm.
When digital sound was introduced in the nineties, distributors
dumped the 70mm process which was the last nail in the coffin of
showmanship. The last new feature to be shown in 70mm was "Titanic"
which played the recently closed "Loews Astor Plaza" in 1997. There have been occasional classic films reprinted in the format like "2001" and "Lawrence of Arabia". Otherwise, it's another superior format abandoned by the film industry. The same year that "Titanic" was released, the Technicolor dye transfer process was resurrected. Classics like "Rear Window" and "The Wizard of Oz" were reprinted in "Glorious Technicolor" along with some new films like "Toy Story II", "Pearl Harbor" and "Bulworth". It was shut down again in 2001.

Today, unless you attend a screening in Hollywood, you'll be seeing a garbage high speed print struck from an internegative three generations removed from the camera negative. Due to the static charge in the estar stock, it's likely that dust will be printed into the release copy which has poor contrast and inferior resolution.

In comparison, most prints were struck directly from the camera negative in 70mm, or in 35mm Eastmancolor and 35mm Technicolor through 1968. That's among the reasons that films looked so spectacular in the large screen theaters like "The Rivoli" or movie palaces like "Radio City Music Hall". The sub-standard high speed prints cranked out at 2000 feet per minute made on features today would not look good on a 40 foot or 80 foot wide screen common in the fifties and sixties. In contrast, release prints were made at a very slow printing speed in the fifties. 45 feet per minute which allowed for a good exposure on the release print and contrast changes. High speed prints are made on a 'one lite' setting and look it. One of the reasons that even blow up 70mm prints looked good is that there were no high speed printers. All 70mm copies were made at a slow printing speed. In addition, many were camera negative blow ups. For example, "Camelot" 70mm prints were optically enlarged directly from the 35mm Panavision negative. A first generation blow up. I saw it at the Warner Cinerama in 1978 ("Broadway Comes to Broadway" festival) and it almost looked like a 70mm original.

Richard, 2001 opened in New York at the Capitol and then moved over to the Strand which I believe is pretty well documented on this and the 70mm in New York site. It would be interesting to hear from people who saw it on its original engagement. Also I thought that the film had a pretty standard road show release which only changed when it was pushed out of the Strand in the fall of '68 for Ice Station Zebra. But maybe there are others who could enlighten us on this. Remember there were still a few successful roadshows to come-Funny Girl, Oliver, and Fiddler(ugh!)

re: 70mm aspect ratios for "Cinerama" presentations. Of the 7 "recognized" Cinerama productions (those reading "in Cinerama" during the title credits),4 were photographed in Ultra-Panavision, which is 65mm production with anamorphic lenses (not all theatres had compensating lenses to completely unsqueeze the image)..these were "Mad World," "Greatest Story," "Hallelujah Trail," "Battle of the Bulge," and "Khartoum". The spherical 65mm productions, often called Super-Panavision or Panavision-70 "Cinerama" presentations were "2001," "Ice Station Zebra," and "Grand Prix." Many locations, particularly New York, had "in Cinerama" presentations (and, as far as the audience viewpoint was concerned, they were indeed "in Cinerama), that were not actually licensed Cinerama productions. Some of these were "Cinerama Mediterranean Holiday," which was photographed in 65mm using a German process called MCS-70. And "Cinerama's Russian Adventure," was was mostly photographed in the Soviet 3-camera Kinopanorama process. As for the Rivoli and its 70mm D-150 presentations, which, although using a 2.2:1 ratio, had curvature built into the projected image, along with curved top and bottom masking, that, when in the "sweet spot" gave the impression of a more ribbon-like image on a curve greater than 128 degrees. It is questionable, however, how often the Rivoli utilized the full width/height D-150 image, as one young projectionist told me at some point in the 1960's that he only used the "smaller" D-150 70mm setting, because the full D-150 screen "was too large". AARGH. I could have strangled him on the spot!:)

I believe that "2001" started as a hard ticket show in NYC during it's initial run then they changed it to allow people to see it without reserved tickets. The hard ticket policy was gradually abandoned over the next few years, not over night. I did see "Oliver" in a reserved seat Roadshow engagement somewhere in Florida in 1968. I don't recall whether it was in 70mm or 35mm mag stereo.

I'm well aware of the ratios of Cinerama films over the years. It's possible however that they made a special rectified print of "2001" that played around or even for a single theater. They made custom rectified prints of "Oklahoma!" among other titles. Perhaps it was just an optical illusion though based on the screen masking or lens they used at the Rivoli in 1976 and 1978 although since Vincent recalls the wider image I suspect there was some difference in the presentations.

Technicolor was capable of making all sorts of unsual prints in custom made ratios. "Around the World in 80 Days" 35mm magnetic stereo prints had the entire silent academy ratio with picture but with a 1.75 x 1 squeeze so that when it was unsqueezed it replicated the 70mm 2.21 x 1 ratio. You needed one of those Tushinsky variable squeeze anamorphic lenses to show it. The 35mm optical mono Technicolor prints had the standard 2 x 1 squeeze and 2.35 x 1 slightly cropped ratio. "Ben Hur" 35mm Technicolor prints had the standard 2 x 1 anamorphic squeeze but contained a slight 'letterboxing' (black borders) on top and bottom of the frame to simulate the 70mm MGM Camera 65 2.76 x 1 ratio. The 1969 release prints in 70mm were spherical cropped 2.21 x 1 and the 35mm Metrocolor prints 2.35 x 1 without the black borders. So, Technicolor could custom make any kind of print you wanted in 35mm and 70mm.

I saw the first press showing of "2001: A Space Odyssey" at the Capitol, which was the Monday evening before the Thursday night "world premiere." It was then the original length of 162 minutes. I belive that at least a quarter of the audience hadn't returned after intermission. There had been no hype about the "ultimate trip," and they were impatient to say the least!

I was one of only a handful of people remaining in the theater when the curtains finally closed at the end of act 2. I turned to the booth (which was on orchestra level) and gave the thumbs up to Stanley Kubrick!

I'm convinced that his cut version, which I saw several more times at the Capitol, the Warner Cinerama, and the Ziegfeld was superior, but it would be nice for a restoration to be done if just for the historical value of it.

I have a question about the 70mm print of "2001" which played at the DC Uptown, among other places, with what I believe was a digital sound remix, about 2 or 3 years ago. How close to the original 162 minute version is this print? I'm told that this is the only print that was struck. I remember saying to my friend at this time how good it was to hear directional dialogue once again. Also, wasnt' the "official" world premiere of "2001" in 1968 held at the Uptown, before the NYC Loew's Capitol (Cinerama) opening?

The "2001" print that played the Uptown in DC in 2001 was the cut version. The 162 minute version was seen only by a lucky few, like Paul Noble. I saw it at the Capitol in June 1968 and so missed it by several weeks, but I have an old New York Times from 1968 which features a letter to the editor written by Jon Davison, who became a film producer in later years ("Robocop", etc.). This letter gives us some idea of what the original version was like:

TO THE EDITOR:
After seeing "2001: A Space Odyssey" at a press preview, I was eager to see it again. Monday I cut poetry class, went to the theater and discovered someone else had been very busy cutting.

Stanley Kubrick's magnificent work has been butchered; the sad result of the critical abuse heaped upon it by critics conditioned by TV pacing and Lester's running, jumping and falling down editing. Almost 20 minutes have been removed, including some important plot threads. (This is a film that can ill afford to spare them.) The cuts (numbering somewhere near 30) were rather sloppily made on the print Loew's Capitol is projecting. When I asked the manager about the deletions, he denied them, but a nearby projectionist added, "They only cut some of the parts that didn't mean anything."

Some of the parts that "didn't mean anything" were: The computer's asking for permission to repeat the message from mission control telling of its own malfunction; parts of the scene in which Dullea removes the faulty communications unit; the computer's turning off the pod's radio before killing Lockwood (thus puzzling the audience when Dullea asks HAL if he has been able to establish radio contact yet) and a host of visual cuts and shortening of scenes.

Besides the wholesale slicing, MGM added two meaningless title cards, which grate on the film's visual style. The bastardization, complete with sloppy splices and uneven pacing, is now being viewed by even more confused audiences than met the original. But the most confused of all is MGM, whose lack of artistic faith in its own film led it to cut what it couldn't comprehend, thus destroying what it hoped to save.

JON F. DAVISON
Graduate Film Student
New York University
New York City

Elsewhere in the same Arts and Leisure section (April 28, 1968), there's a short article quoting Kubrick on how he himself has cut 19 minutes out of the film:

"Nothing has been deleted entirely," he said. "These were simply short cuts here and there - it's a common practice - to tighten and make the film move more rapidly."

Anyway, I hope Richard W. Haine is right and the cut sequences still exist. I'd love to see them someday.

Having only seen 70mm single camera Cinerama, can someone tell me why it is considered so inferior to the earlier three projector process? I thought that it was almost as big a picture? Was the depth not as great?

Robert,

Cinerama as a process was designed to generate the illusion of
peripheral vision. The concept was to make the audience feel as if
they were 'inside the picture'. The same year it was introduced (1952), a competed process premiered which was 3-D. Rather than put the audience in the picture, the picture seemed to emerge out of the screen, especially with 'off screen effects' (i.e. the paddle ball man in "House of Wax").
The way the three projector process gave the peripheral illusion was as follows:
Principal photography was photographed with 3 35mm cameras that used a 27mm prime lens. It was determined that 27mm replicated the human eye's focal length, at least in respect to distance. The cameras were in a "U" formation so that they not only photographed was was in front of them but also the sides. To project these three images, the projectors replicated the formation and exhibted them on a deeply curved screen. "Giggilos" were in the projectors to merge and blur the join lines. Louvered screens were used so the left and right panel didn't reflect the images onto the opposite side of the screen. The effect worked in that when you had a sweet spot seat
(in the middle of the theater), the screen wrapped around you and you could see down the center and sides of a street or in a location.
When the camera moved or was on a helicopter (i.e. the America tour or rollercoaster in "This is Cinerama") you definately felt you were inside the image. However, the join lines were always noticeable.
In "How the West Was Won", the cinematographers went out of their way to hide them so they were less noticeable in trees or building edges but it was a distracting way to film a movie. Rather then getting the most dramatic composition, you spent most of your time
trying to hide join lines.
The man who made Cinerama a viable entity was Michael Todd. While the process had been trade screened for many industry personnel, no one saw it's potentional except for Todd who was really an outsider from Broadway. The first thing he did was to tell
the creators to put the rollercoaster up front and shoot in color.
Todd and his son became part of the company with Lowell Thomas and
shot the first half of "This is Cinerama". Others shot the second half. It premiered and was an enormous hit. Todd proposed to his
partners to modify the process and get rid of the multiple projectors, join lines and make 'everything come out of one hole'.
His partners rejected the idea since they were making money with the process 'as is'.
Todd hired Dr. Brien O'Brien to create the "Todd-AO" process.
70mm had been tried in 1929 but didn't catch on, primarily because of the difficulties in converting to sound and because the image was not that impressive in mono sound and B&W. Todd-AO was also a deeply
curved screen process that generated a similar peripheral illusion
to Cinerama at times. A series of prime lenses were developed that
had a very wide field of view. Technically, only the 'bug eye' lens
photographed what was in front of the camera as well as the sides.
It was used extensively for the travelogue sequences in Todd's "Around the World in 80 Days". It was an interesting lens and gave the illusion you were being sucked into the screen, a bit different than Cinerama. It did have some distortion but then so did Cinerama's three panel projection. Fortunately, the other lenses used for medium shots and close ups did not distort but didn't generate the peripheral illusion either. Basically, Todd AO
gave the peripheral illusion intermittently depending on what was required for the scene. It was not as wide as the original Cinerama although it was determined that in a 'sweet spot' seat, having the image go beyond your vision was unecessary. So from eyeball to eyeball you still got the impression you were inside the picture.
The other factor for this illusion was depth of field, namely, foreground to background sharpness. In standard Hollywood features,
close ups and medium shots had a shallow depth of field. The background was soft. In both Cinerama and Todd-AO, the lenses had an expanded depth of field so in most cases the foreground and background were always sharp rather than soft. This was integral to the peripheral illusion.
Todd died in a plane crash in 1958 and his process was purchased by Fox which dumped their CinemaScope 55 and made future blockbuster features in Todd's 70mm process. However, they abandoned the bug eyed lens and it wasn't used again. How did the new 70mm prints look? In general they attempted to retain the sharp depth of field
on a deeply curved screen which did generate somewhat of a peripheral
illusion but was not as effective as the Cinerama's three lens version of the original bug eyed lens. I guess they felt it worked well enough and presentations were impressive so audiences would not miss the actual illusion of being 'inside the picture'.
The Panavision company created superior anamorphic lenses in 1957
which eventually replaced the heavily distorted CinemaScope lenses which created a very wide image but had shallow depth of field and a great deal of distortion. For "Raintree County" and "Ben Hur" they also added a 25% anamorphic squeeze to the 70mm process and dubbed it MGM Camera 65 and later Ultra-Panavision. Basically they replicated the aspect ratio of the original 3 panel Cinerama process
on 70mm film. However, they in now way simulated the peripheral illusion. The image was wide and sharp but just looked like an upgraded scope picture. The presentations were impressive but the peripheral illusion was gone. In 1963, Cinerama dumped the three panel process and went with this system for "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World". The quality was as good as "Ben Hur" shown flat on a wide screen but was not really "Cinerama" in terms of the original impact. Later, Cinerama abandoned the Ultra-Panavision process and
played standard spherical 70mm (pretty much identical to Fox's application of Todd-AO) until it's demise in 1972. Things became more confusing when Cinerama started releasing regular flat 1.85
features in the early seventies that weren't even in widescreen.
"2001" was filmed in 65mm and the effects had a razor sharp depth of field. When projected on a curved screen, they did make you feel as if you were in outer space. It wasn't really the Cinerama peripheral illusion but it worked for what it was. One of the things that Kubrick did to make these effects so convincing was to have constant movement on screen. The camera would pan past planets and space stations as the ship flew by. The movement helped generated the illusion of 'being in the picture'. In contrast, similar effects in "Star Wars" were locked down and things flew past the frame. Not as effective as having constant movement in the space shots like "2001". The movement also hid the fact that they
were miniatures or stop motion ships. Kubrick also lit them dramatically to improve the illusion. The key to special effects in space was the lighting of the miniatures and to film them a different speeds but never at 24 frames per second. Also, you moved the camera, not the miniatures so the movement was smoother.

In summary, I don't think that 70mm Cinerama was 'inferior' to three panel Cinerama. They were both great presentations but had different impacts. Three panel gave a realistic illusion of peripheral vision but had the flaw of panel joins and headache of keeping three projectors and a magnetic sound reproducer in synch.
Single strip Cinerama gave a razor sharp widescreen image that surpassed CinemaScope and didn't have the distortion of the Bausch and Lomb lenses used in that process. It generated a 'you are there' effect at times but less of a 'you are inside the picture' peripheral illusion. All these processes had tradeoffs. None was perfect.
One of the main advantages of all of the fifties and sixties processes was that all prints were struck directly off the camera negative. This was as good as you could get quality wise. This was also the case for standard flat and scope 35mm features in either Technicolor or Eastmancolor. Everyone saw first generation sharpness and resolution. While the quality was topnotch in theaters, striking so many release copies off the original wore out the negative. In 1968, Kodak introduced CRI (Color Reversal Intermediate). Fox was the first studio to use it, then others adopted it too. While negative wear was alleviated, a great deal of quality was lost (resolution, graininess) when making release copies from a second generation element. Later, CRI's were abandoned and prints were made from internegatives derived from an interpositive.
Today all release copies are three generations removed fromt he camera negative also a small number of EK copies are struck for Hollywood screenings. Prints derived from CRI's and IN's look horrid when shown on the enormous Cinerama type screens. The image breaks up into blobs of grain floating around the enormous screen.
They look passable in small screen multi-plexes. Thus, even if the
enormous curved screens still existed throughout the country, contemporary films would not look good on them. The current style of cinematography is completely different that that utilized in the pre-1970 era. Rather than extensively lighting the image to generate saturated colors, rich fleshtones and a sharp depth of field, many cameramen underexpose the negative today with very little light, de-saturated colors and fleshtones and a shallow depth of field. The latest Oscar winner, "Million Dollar Baby" was shot in this fashion. Very de-saturated, murky and dark. It would not be appropriate for large screen presentation in Cinerama but will look presentable on DVD since they'll derive the video master from
pre-print material. The high speed general release prints looked terrible in my opinion although I have a friend who saw a camera negative copy in Hollywood and he said it looked 'okay'.
I guess the dramatic difference in cinematography during the studio era vs. the "New Hollywood" era (post-1968) is a whole discussion in itself. Personally, I really hate the way most post-1970 films look but my frame of reference tends to be movies like "2001" and "Lawrence of Arabia" which I find aethetically
breathtaking and spectacular. I can't say I found the camerawork
or imagery in "Million Dollar Baby" aethetically pleasan to sit through not withstanding the fine acting. I'm sure there are supporters (or appologists) for the contemporary style of cinematography but this much is certain. It is not appropriate for large screen (or curved screen) exhibition...

Regarding the "2001" cuts, a number of articles stated that Kubrick had the trims in his vault in England but this has not been confirmed. What is interesting is the change in reviews after the director cut the film. The early reviews were pretty bad. The post cut reviews were much better. The movie as it exists now is probably by favorite film of all time with "Lawrence of Arabia" a close second. I'd like to see the extra footage but I'm not sure it should be incorporated back into the movie.

I'm not sure to what extent Kubrick was involved with film preservation. He donated his standard cut 35mm Technicolor anamorphic print of "Spartacus" (182 min.) to MOMA. "Dr. Strangelove" negative was heavily damaged from over printing by Columbia although it had recently been 'restored'. I plan on screening one of the restored prints to see if they replicate the contrast ratio and gray scale of the originals. I do know that Dick
May stated they had made two sets of 65mm B&W separations from the original negative of the film which is the only method to preserve pre1-1983 'quick fade' Eastmancolor negatives. The new 35mm print looked great so either the camera negative is still in good shape or they made new elements from the seps.

It's interesting to note that while many directors retain creative control over their pictures, very few get involved with the actual preservation or restoration of their movies. In many cases, it's outsiders who restore them as it the case of Bob Harris who restored Kubrick's "Spartacus" and Lean's "Lawrence of Arabia". While the directors supported the efforts after the fact, they did not initiate the projects. Lean did not even have a reference print of "Lawrence of Arabia". They borrowed my Technicolor copy to use as a timing reference for the restoration.

Since I am so aware of the problems of film preservation and restoration, I maintain my own negatives in a private vault and
won't let distributors near them. I supply internegatives or digital masters for the deals to retain my cut and quality control.

What an education these last threads have provided, thanks!

Richard
Thanks so much for explaining the difference to me about Cinerama. I have to get myself to LA again when they are screening "This is Cinerama".

Robert,

Get there early and make sure you get a sweet spot seat. For the fun of it, take a walk around the theater before it's over so you can see how grotesquely distorted the image looks from the side asiles or from the back the cinema. That was always the problem with both Cinerama and Todd-AO. It only looked really good in a few rows of the theater.
I saw the Dayton print of "This is Cinerama" which was in Technicolor so the panel joins matched fairly well. I don't know what the new LPP print looks like. I imagine it must show some negative wear and differential fading between the panels. You will see the panel joins in most of the travelogue. They're pretty well hidden in most of "How the West Was Won" in comparison.
Most people don't know that "This is Cinerama was one of the first movies to use Eastmancolor negatives. The first use of them was in Super Cinecolor. However in that case they were only utilized for principal photography. Afterwards, they were separted into three B&W records (similar to the Technicolor 3 strip method) to make the Super Cinecolor dual emulsion release prints.
Although both Kodak and Ansco developed their color negative/color positive processes circa 1951, no one used them for features. Why? There was a flaw in the process. They didn't have duplicating stock to make optical effects like fades, dissolves and transitions. Obviously, this was problem for features.
They got around this in Super Cinecolor since the original color negatives were not used to make prints. When they filtered them and separated them into 3 B&W records, they incorporated the opticals into those records. In other words, the B&W records had the opticals but the not color original. For Cinerama, they actually
made the fade ins and fade outs (there were no dissolves) as the prints were being struck. The film was edited in short sections of about 5 minutes each. All three records were contained on the same reel. For example, the rollercoaster had panels A, B and C assembled onto the negative roll. Technicolor devised a printer to fade in each panel as it was being struck on Eastmancolor stock.
Then Reel 1 part "B" section had all three panels of the dancers.
Reel 1 part "C" section had all three panels of Niagra Falls and so on. The reason they did it this way is so the color timing would be reasonably consistent between the three panels for each section. After printing, the Cinerama print was assembled in a synchronizer.
There were many splices in each reel because each 5 or 6 minute section was printed separately. Even with this technique, the panels didn't always match. The original prints of all of the 3 strip Cinerama films were printed in Eastmancolor in the fifties even though Technicolor did the lab work. All of these prints had faced. However, in 1962, Technicolor adopted it's optical printers to derive matrices from the three negatives so the two narrative features were printed in the dye transfer process which didn't fade and had better quality control. I suspect that the compilation film released last, "The Best of Cinerama" was also printed in the dye transfer process but I cannot confirm it since no copy has survived.
The Dayton prints were 1962 dye transfer prints of "This is Cinerama" and "How the West Was Won". In general they looked great except for some Eastmancolor replacement footage used to fill missing frames of the travelogue.
In 1953, Kodak developed a less than satifactory method to make opticals in Eastmancolor. The shot in question would be filmed with their color negative. Then they would make B&W separations of that image, incorporate the optical effect and reprint them on the same negative stock. The end result was an incredibly grainy and contrasty optical effect. It did allow the production of feature films in Eastmancolor although you could always see the image degredation in the opticals. It looked so bad that they only used this method for the actual frames containing the effect. For example, a shot would be camera negative for a person walking away, then the same shot would be continued in grainy dupey optical effect. After the dissolve it would cut back to camera negative. It was pretty distracting and created a visual 'pop' on screen which you can see in all of the early CinemaScope features. Later, Kodak developed Interpositive/Internegative stock for opticals which was slightly better but still rather grainy with poor resolution.
Why didn't Technicolor prints in scope or flat derived from Eastmancolor negatives show these artifacts? The reason was that Kalmus developed a method of "A and B" rolling the color camera negative and putting it through the printer twice (actually six times for the three matrices). That way they could incorporate the fades, dissolves and even superimpositions directly off the camera negative. In other words, the original camera negative of "Spartacus" did not have any opticals. They were made directly from the A and B roll negatives while the 70mm or dye transfer print was being made. In the early sixties, Technicolor devised a different method for first generation opticals known as 'auto select' printing. Rather than A & B roll the camera negative for two passes through the printer, the entire shot was included on the cut camera negative sometimes up through the slate or flash frame.
When a dissolve was needed, the printer was rigged to fade out the first shot on the roll, they automatically rewind and fade in the next shot of the same roll for the dissolve. The same applied to other effects like fades. When "Lawrence of Arabia" was restored, every optical had to be remade. The advantage was that the entire release print contained the same generation regardless of whether it was regular action or an optical effect. Thus Technicolor large format prints as well as dye transfer prints looked far superior to prints from other labs like De Luxe which never had these capabilities and always contained the grainy looking opticals.

One of the reasons that "2001" looks so good is that most of the effects were made directly onto the camera negative in multiple passes. Quite different from combining multiple elements and reprinting them on duplicate stock. In other words, Kubrick would
mark the beginning of a take on the actual negative (possibly a hole punch) then shoot his miniature against a blue screen. The the same camera negative would be rewound inside the camera in a dark room back to the start mark. Next, the other elements would be filmed like planets and then another pass would add the stars and so on. This went on for years with small rolls of film adding elements over a long period of time. It was primitive and hand rigged but quite effective a technique since you saw first generation optical effects on screen with razor sharp depth of field which added to the illusion of being in space.

For "Star Wars" Lucas used optical effects combining different separate elements and reprinting them on improved internegative stock. The reason they tended to look good was that he photographed them in large format VistaVision. This added sharpness and improved the resolution. They would not have looked as good had he filmed them in 35mm Panavision. Even so, they were not as razor sharp or impressive as the camera negative effects in "2001" filmed in 65mm.
However, the 70mm blow up print shown at Loews Astor Plaza did look good back in 1977. What helped was that the special effects were cut quickly and not lingered on like the "2001" effects. Combined with the innovative use of stereo sound, they were quite effective although if you looked at some of them a frame at a time you would see artifacts like off registration engines on the backs of the ships and so on. In any event, Lucas made them work within the context of the narrative.
I can't say I'm impressed at all with CGE space effects. To me they look completely artificial compared to those filmed in 65mm or Vistavision in the sixties and seventies. They lack dimensionality
of filming with miniatures and tend to have that 'flat' computerized look. When you have a motion controlled camera moving past a miniature properly lit, it gives that optical distortion of any movement passing a lens which it part of what makes it look real.
Computer generated effects lack that optical distortion inherant with shooting through a lens although the distortion is part of what tricks the eye into thinking it's real and giving the object a sense of dimension and roundness. CGE effects out putted to film also generate a 'thin' negative which effects the resolution and alters the grain structure of the image. However, audiences don't seem to mind the look of CGE effects which have replaced optical effects.

Richard:

Many thanks for passing all this valuable information.

Richard- concerning the grain and murkiness that enveloped film making in the 70's this was one of the reasons that I stopped going to the Times Square houses and the Music Hall. Seeing exploitation or arty american films which are seen best on video at these large screen theaters was like using an intricately carved wooden frame to set off a polaroid.
For some reason people see the very late '60's to mid 70's as a golden age for american film or when film became adult. I personally think its when american film lost its crafmanship, sense of proportion and just plain entertainment value. It then became pretentious, self righteous and very sloppy. Not to mention the crudeness(and I am no prude) which to this day still astonishes me.

Vincent,

This topic has gotten me thrown off of two film related sites.
It's quite a controversial subject.

I guess I can safely say that regardless of a person's personal preference of cinematography or their aesthetic taste, there was
definately a trade off between screen content and exhibition.

In other words, if you want the large screen experience, there needed to be some form of production code in place (even if liberally applied as it was from 1966-1968) to ensure general attendence. Without general attendence, they folded like dominoes.
"New Hollywood" screen freedom resulted in a major demographic change in movie attendence. General audiences were abandoned and beginning in the late sixties most movies were geared for 16-26 year old viewers. It cut weekly attendence from 41 million weekly to 25 million from 1968-1972. It was further reduced to 22 million by 1978. Basically the extremelly graphic sex, violence and profanity that glutted cinema after 1968 alienated a large percentage of adult movie goers which simply stopped attending the single screen cinemas and movie palaces on a weekly basis. They still went to an occasional mainstream hit like "The Sting" but pictures like "Woodstock" and "Deep Throat" kept many viewers away in droves
at least on a weekly basis. The movie palaces and cinemas like The Rivoli needed enough mainstream G/M/GP/PG product to fill their seats which the numerous R and X rated pictures weren't accomplishing. So, they got twinned or shut down. Another option was to become a rep house which had a broader based demographic but even these weren't too solvent in the long run.

The big debate is whether "New Hollywood" post-code films (usally rated R or X) contained the same level of craftsmanship as "Old Hollywood" features designed for general attendence and presented in Cinerama or Technicolor. The short answer is, they didn't by design. New Hollywood rejected most of what they found objectionable in Old Hollywood including modifying content for middle class consuption and the emphasis on spectacular technology.
New Hollywood championed avante guarde, cinema verite style camerawork from a counter-culture perspective. The appeal was in the rejection of old standards. The appeal was limited to the targed 'youth' viewer of course, not the adult audience that appreciated a movie like "Lawrence of Arabia" in 70mm. Rather than classifying cinema as an artistic entertainment medium, they re-defined it as medium for social commentary and activism. Many contemporary directors like Spike Lee still define the medium in these terms.

I'm kind of caught in the middle. I do find movies like "Easy Rider" interesting as a time capsule of an era. It actually had pretty good photography for a counter-culture movie, most of which were very primitive in the technical specs. However, I don't like the impact it had on exhibition or the moviegoing experience.
I wish there was some sort of compromise made at the time to keep most pictures mainstream and an occasional release off the beaten track but that's not how it played out. Within a few years following the demise of the production code, there were more restricted pictures than general release movies. There was no way theaters like the Rivoli could survive when the principal product of the industry either restricted too many potential viewers or allienated whole segments of the population. That was the trade off that proponents of New Hollywood resent when you mention it. The conventional wisdom that New Hollywood 'saved' the industry or freed cinema from it's former restraits only applies if you don't care about the exhibition side of the medium. From an exhibitor's perspective, New Hollywood was a disaster since they lost their general audience.

I've discovered that many people who give accolades to the contemporary style of cinematography have never seen a movie in Cinerama, 70mm or Technicolor. In most cases they don't know what they're missing so there's no reason they should believe us when we describe how superior the release copies, cinematography and theater showmanship was thirty years ago.

On many other sites, I've been called every name under the sun for daring to suggest that current films are not as well
photographed as those of the past or that New Hollywood or what ever group constitutes the contemporary film industry lack the artistic sensibilities, taste and talent of "Old Hollywood".

On my own features, I do try to simulate the classic style of cinematography to the best of my ability within my low budgets. I had some success in "Space Avenger" since I made dye transfer prints at the Chinese Technicolor lab in 1989. More recently, I replicated the 'film noir' look in B&W in "Unsavory Characters" in 2001. It was like pulling teeth to get the cameramen to light in the old style. They don't like spending so much time 'painting with light' as Freddie Young described it.

Vincent: this is not the place to discuss film but what the Hell. Please, I urge you to re-think, re-examine your feelings about 70's American film making especially from 1967 ("Bonnie & Clyde") until around 1980 or so with "Raging Bull". In those years, we had some of the most remarkable films ever made. Yes, there were bummers and YES compared to the films of say the 40's and 50's, they were quite different. But what the represented to me and others who came of age then were something truly exciting and intelligent. I don't think you have to make a comparison against films of the 70's against the classic films of an earlier generation. They belong together as some of the finest examples of American film making. In the latter part of the 60's the studio system was dead. Hollywood looked like they were on their last legs. What film makers like Coppola, Scorcese, Polanski, Arthur Penn, Bogdonovich, and especially HAL ASHBY did (as well as some others...) was to reinvent and reinterpret so many ideas. God, some of their films were/are mesmerizing. Penn's "Bonnie & Clyde", Coppola's Godfather films and "The Conversation", ALL of Ashby's films starting with "The Landlord" and ending with "Being There" in 1979. God, I get teary just thinking about them.

Believe me, I LOVE the classic films just as much as you do. Please don't discard them. They are as worthy as the classics of the years before them.

NOW...if YOU want to discuss the absolutely, positively atrocious, God forsaken JUNK, CRAP, GARBAGE that is being "made" today, then we're in FULL agreement. To think that when I was a kid, I could realize and be excited by all the great films that surrounded me in the 70's, it astonishes me. And I was a preteenager and I understood that film in the 70's was exciting. Now? God, I could cry. It's a damn shame.

The movies today match the crapola places they play them in. The movies today are not worthy to play in these palaces.

To a certain extent, the New Hollywood approach to filmmaking could not be debated since they took an artistic relativist stance. When you would note that when they aimed the camera at the movie lights in "The Strawberry Statement", it made you lose your suspension of disbelief that you were watching a real story unfold, advocates would argue, "Who says you cannot aim the camera at the movie lights". Others would argue, why should there be a standards. That's too restrictive. Who says a movie can't be grainy. Why should it always have to be sharp. Why should all films have to be picture postcard pretty. Besides, who's to say what pretty color camerawork is. This is no right or wrong, truth or fiction. Only a person's perspective which is always biased based on their background and so on. When you take that perspective, it's impossible to determine what is good and bad. Art or junk. What's worse, you may not even recognize motion picture art when you see it because you'll have no frame of reference. I've gotten into these arguements with many advocated of post-1970 film buffs and you just go in circles. I get labeled as very 'bourgeoisie" or closed minded when I state that Freddie Young ("Lawrence of Arabia"), Ted Moore ("Thunderball"), Lionel Lindon ("Around the World in 80 Days") or
Robert Burks ("Vertigo") were greater talents than any contemporary cameraman. Anyway, I call em' the way I see em' and often get into trouble as a result.

Richard
I have to ask you about Technicolor. I have a friend who has some IB Tech prints. Gone With the Wind, Meet Me in St Louis and a John Wayne movie filmed in Hawaii that I cant recall the name of. I have mentioned on here that recent DVD restorals of GWTW and St Louis look nice but they dont have that rich dripping Technicolor look that the prints do. Someone responded that Technicolor was not supposed to have that "Gaudy" look and that those prints may have been run off wrong. Is this true? I saw GWTW in an archive 35mm IB print in LA that had deep vivid color just like the 16mm IB print my friend has. Even the Metro color prints I recall seeing in the early 70's re-release had rich color. (not the 70mm one at the Rivoli, that one looked dull). In the 1970's the Regency ran a brand new print that had been struck at the Tecnicolor lab of The Gang's All Here. I can't even begin to tell you how incredible that film looked shown in tech. The banana dance with Carmen Miranda was so deep and rich in color. No video or Deluxe color print could match that. The point im getting at is that on the DVD release of the restored Meet Me in St Louis the color seems toned down to me. It's the best it's ever looked on video but if you saw my friends 35mm print you would be blown away. Rich blues, deep blood reds it just has that drenched in color 1940's Hollywood look.

Richard W. Haine: the great film makers of the 70's did not disparage the film makers of the generation before them. Scorcese especially loved the films of the 40's and 50's. Your points are more than valid. The film buffs of the 70s tend to look at these films as superior because they seem more realistic. But if you follow the career of Coppola, for example, you will see how later on he gave up the idea that films should be realistic. Of course, his later films upon which this is based are a mixed bag.

As a film lover, I'm crazy about the 70's films. But I also greatly appreciate the classics as well especially film noir. Could the greatness of "Chinatown" EVER exist without films like "The Killers" or "Laura" or countless others?

What some 70's film buffs sometimes fail to see is how their beloved films do NOT exist apart from the film classics but are simply re-envisioned versions of them.

I love the directors like Scorcese but I also love two directors from the past: William Wyler and Fred Zinneman.

Robert,

Another controversial question. The answer is, it depends what year the prints were made in.

Early thirties Technicolor prints had a very toned down use of primary colors. It was thought that vivid primaries would be an eyestrain to people used to B&W. Technicolor prints of "Tom Sawyer" almost look like a sepia tinted film. However, when "The Adventures of Robin Hood" was released an ultra-saturated, vibrant color scheme was used which audiences responded to. 1939 was an interesting year for the process since both types of 'looks' were shown. The original 1939 prints of "Gone with the Wind" were very sepia and held the primary colors down. In contrast, "The Wizard of Oz" featured a garish color scheme that was appropriate for the story.
By the mid-forties, Technicolor had become "Glorious Technicolor" and most picture opted for the rich use of primary hues.
Not realistic perhaps but quite beautiful to watch. "The Gang's All Here" was an example of an almost surealistic use of wildly exagerated primary colors especially in the "Lady in the Tutie Fruitie" hat number.
I should mention that pre-1950 Technicolor prints were not that consistent in quality. The problem they had was that the dyes were made up of multiple components and had to be mixed. While the prints from each set of matrices tended to be consistent, if another run was made from the same set and another batch of dyes mixed, they probably looked slightly different than the first run.
When Dr. Richard Goldberg became head of the research department at the company, one of his first efforts was to create single component dyes so prints would have consistent quality for the entire run. He accomplished this so post-fifties Technicolor copies had much better quality control than those made in the thirties and forties.
Now comes the controversial point...

When the television medium started to usurp motion picture popularity, the studios panicked and started to devise different methods to compete with the boob tube. One of the first things they did was to increase color production. Since Technicolor remained the best lab in the buisiness and TV was Black and White, post-fifties Technicolor prints tended to emphasize primary colors to a greater extent. "Blazing Technicolor" would be a good way to describe these copies. This applied to re-prints of pre-1950 3 strip films. When "Gone with the Wind" was re-issued in 1954, it had much more saturated color than when it was originally released.
Since Selznick supervised this re-issue (and retained a copy of this release rather than the 1939 original for his archive), you could consider it 'a definite look' of the film although not what was originally shown. The single component dyes were richer than the earlier multiple component dyes so by their nature, they changed the look of the process. I happened to be an afficianado of fifties Technicolor movies. It's my favorite decade of cinema, at least from a visual perspective. Virtually ever color movie looked sensational regardless of the process it was made in.

De Luxe and Metrocolor movies also utilized a vibrant use of primary colors and they did look quite good in their original release since they were struck directly from the camera negative as I mentioned. Of course, the contrast and dyes were never as rich as Technicolor prints but they still looked good...until they faded that is.

So, if you see an old nitrate Technicolor print, it will look different than a safety Technicolor copy of the same title. It will look more vibrant and saturated due to the single component dyes and re-timing of the image to confirm to fifties' standards of color.
I don't know if they can be considered definitive or not but they sure looked breathtaking.

In terms of VHS and DVD, no video format can replicate the Technicolor 'look'. Technicolor prints had that kodachrome appearance of three dimensional vibrancy due to the superior contrast, black blacks and pure primaries. Reds almost glowed from the screen. Video pixels tend to bleed when they're that saturated (especially reds) so they are re-timed and toned down during the mastering process. At it's best it can 'simulate' the film look
(i.e. "The Band Wagon") but never replicate it. Video by it's nature has a limited contrast ratio and other flaws. Still, there's no denying video masters look much better now than they did decades ago within the severe limitations of that technology.

In terms of other films made in Eastmancolor and printed at De Luxe, Metrocolor and other facilites, all new prints and video masters will have problems due to color fading of the originals.
Sometimes they can 'tweak' them on video, other times they cannot.
Eastmancolor was a very unstable process until 1983. Unless large sums of money are spent to restore the original quality (millions were spent restoring "Lawrence", "My Fair Lady" and others), they
will never look like they did on their first release unless a surviving dye transfer print exists in a film collection somewhere.

CC i appreciate your passion for films of the '70s but I cannot share your enthusiasm. I came of age in the 70's and saw a number of these films on their original release(saw Chinatown at Loews State 1) however at the time I found them sorely lacking in craftsmanship and focus. Thats why seeing revivals in the 70's were such mind blowing experiences for me like 2001 at the Rivoli or Rain at the Music Hall or Magnificent Ambersons at the Regency. To this day I cannot sit through a Scorcese or Altman film. So I seek older films which continually astonish me. If you want realism may I direct you to some of the Stiller and Sjostrom films of the teens? Not only will you find them harrowing but you will be overwhelmed by their intensity. Films in the 70's turned into puddles before your eyes both literally and figuratively.

CConnelly,

I guess it depends on who you consider 'great' within the New Hollywood movement. I do agree Scorsese and Coppola were great
and both were Technicolor buffs but I would say they were the exception to the rule. Scorsese championed the Technicolor process and was instrumental in persuading Kodak to improve the stability of Eastmancolor dyes. Coppola was one of the few contemporary directors to utilize the dye transfer process after it's brief revival from 1997-2001. In fact, Coppola was the last director to use it for "The Godfather II". The equipment was in the process of being dismantled while they made the last run of dye transfer prints of a new feature. The last print to have a dye transfer run there was a revival of Disney's "Swiss Family Robinson". Scorsese simulated the classic Technicolor look in two films, "New York, New York" and the recent "Aviator" (both two strip for the early scenes and three strip for later scenes).
Others like Wadleigh, Hopper, Downey, Van Peebles were not afficianados of Old Hollywood and their pictures represent a rejection of those standards and content. I don't think thier pictures have held up over the years either but at the time they were taken quite seriously as the 'new direction' for cinema. Their pictures were also heavily politicized which is another trend I'm not fond of. All movies have a perspective but the blatant propoganda contained is so many counter-culture pictures of the late sixties and early seventies has severely dated the movies. They may be interesting as cultural artifacts now but their entertainment value is pretty limited. Try sitting through "Putney Swope" today.
Very primitive and hokey.

Richard, Vincent and CC: This is a very interesting and entertaining discussion, but there's one thing we can all agree on: the movies of the '70's as well as the older classics make most of today's movies shrink to practically nothing by comparison. It's almost April and there hasn't been one new movie released all year that I'd want to go out and see. I probably won't see any until "Star Wars Episode III", a prequel to a '70's movie. On top of that, the best theatrical experience I've had so far in 2005 was 1959's "Ben-Hur" at the Loew's Jersey.

Bill,

I agree that most new movies are pretty poor. Even if the photography is good, the high speed printing system degrades
the cinematographer's intent. Very difficult to see some notch
release copies outside of Hollywood or film festival screenings.
I am still furious that only Coppola and Beatty utlized the revived
dye transfer process for "Apocalype Redux" and "Bulworth". Why didn't everyone else get behind it? It would've dramatically improved release print quality since every copy would've had camera negative sharpness and resolution as well as superior color and contrast. Very frustrating.

Robert,

I forgot to add that the John Wayne film you referred to is probably "Donvan's Reef". Great Technicolor, mediocre movie.

Bill,

I just remembered one of the wildest double bills of all time.
In the nineties, the Paramount Center of the Arts (a restored movie palace with 70mm Norelco machines) played the original silent "Ben Hur" in 35mm with a new 70mm print of the 1959 version. Quite an impressive (and exhausting) experience. Although the new 70mm print was spherical (instead of anamorphic), it still looked and sounded quite good except for a couple of shots in the middle of the chariot race which remained squeezed for a second or two.

Ditto Bill's comment about Ben Hur. What could compare?
Re The Godfather films of the 70's. No old Hollywood film ever romanticized sordid reality to such an extent. Even LB Mayer would have blanched.

Richard: Thanks to two wonderful revival theaters in my area, I've been fortunate enough to see both the 1926 "Ben-Hur" (at the Lafayette in Suffern, NY) and the 1959 version (at the Loew's Jersey, Jersey City, NJ), but seeing them together the way you did must've been really wild, like you said.

Another reason why I'm so down on today's movies: last night I dug out an old New York Times movie section from April 1968, and it was filled with ads for great movies playing all over the city - not just 1967 holdovers like "The Graduate" and "In Cold Blood" but new releases that had already opened in the early months of 1968, films like "2001", "Planet of the Apes" and "The Odd Couple". If I look at the movie section in today's paper, I'll only get depressed.

Thats it Donovans Reef, early 60's I think with awesome Technicolor.

Yep, we can all agree that today's movies are not a great bunch at all. I saw "Million Dollar Baby" and didn't care for it much. Cannot believe the hype and the awards it got. "The Aviator" was better but it was Scorcese's Oscar bid, not his best work by far. "Eternal Sunshine" was a fine movie. Jim Carrey is one of the finest actors around today. There are fine movies out there but they're made mostly by the independents, not the major studios.

The problem is there are plenty of fine actors and actresses around who would KILL for a good movie. The studios just want their quick $$$ and simply don't care if a movie makes sense or has any entertainment value. And audiences my age (late 30's) are not going to the movies anymore.

The studios are now run by numbers guys, not men (or women) who loved movies. I'll bet Richard Zanuck, Jack Warner and Louis B. Mayer cared about the bottom line. But they also cared about a well crafted film. These days? Ugh.

Like Bill Huelbig says, it's depressing. And I agree. There's nothing out today or coming up that I'm interested in seeing.

One thing you could count on prior to 1968, that whether the movie was good or bad, it was always great to look at. Top quality release prints and cinematography in virtually all movies made prior to that year. First generation release prints. Even cheap Roger Corman films had sparkling black and white or plush color like his Poe adapatations (i.e. "Pit and the Pendulum") which looked better than any current film.

Today, whether the movie is good or bad it's pretty much guarenteed to look murky and gloomy. The style of cinematography combined with high speed printing and platter projection. The irony is ticket prices are higher than ever before.

To note the quality difference, a number of years ago The Paramount showed a camera negative copy of "Dances with Wolves" at a screening.
It was reportedly Costner's own print of the film borrowed for the screening. The Paramount had reel to reel projection and a professional operator to ensure no damage would come to the copy.
Prior to the screening, the manager told me the print was unfortunately missing one reel so they sent a high speed print of that reel. "Dances with Wolves" had fairly good cinematography and the camera negative copy looked very nice on the large screen. Then either reel two came up which was the reel made from an internegative
on a high speed printer. There was actually an audible gasp from the audience because the image quality was so different. Rather than being razor sharp and grain free, reel two was murky, fuzzy and grainy. It was almost like vaseline was on the lens. Then reel three came up twenty minutes later the it was like someone washed the image with windex because it was sharp and fine grain again.
That's the quality difference between what Hollywood insiders screen
and the high speed junk shown in megaplexes. It's really a rip off since we're being charged to see substandard junk that does not reflect the quality of the cinematography. Of course video masters are made from fine grain materials. They wouldn't dare use a high speed print for DVD. People would complain. How ironic that showmanship seems to exist in home video formats but had disappeared from theatrical exhibition with some notable exceptions like NYC Ziegfeld and Suffern's Lafayette which still put on great shows.

If you want to hear an interesting commentary about film lighting,
check out Paul Morrissey's on his "Blood for Dracula" and "Flesh for Frankenstein" Criterion discs. Both films were made in Italy with a topnotch crew and excellent lighting and photography. Morrissey complains about how many cameramen in the U.S. were not lighting the actor's faces at the time. You couldn't see the expressions on their faces nor did the style of camerawork make them look attractive. If anything it made the stars look ugly.

I discuss this problem in my commentary track on the DVD or "Run for Cover" too.

One of the strangest trends of recent years is to have the entire feature filmed with an overall bluish cast. The fleshtones and backgrounds look like a black and white film tinted blue. "Minority Report" is a good example. The high speed prints of that film looked like a 10th generation dupe.

When Red Salute (1935)premiered at the Rivoli Theater in New York in 1935, the leftist, anti-war National Students League stood outside leading a boycott. Inside the theater, there were fist fights between students and angry patriots, resulting in the arrest of 18 people.

Sounds like what later happened at "Bloody Peekskill" with Paul
Robeson when he got up on stage at the Paramount theater in Peekskill
and swore allegance to Joseph Stalin. A riot ensued. Robeson later wrote the eulogy for the dictator.

The 1930's is sometimes referred to as "The Red Decade" since the CPSUA was very active politically in the U.S. instigating labor unrest, riots and espionage. The Party increased it's memership in Hollywood at the time but lost a great deal of it during the Hitler/Stalin pact. Afterwards, a Popular Front was created with CPUSA members and their political opponents (conservative, moderates and many liberals) until the war was over. After World War II, this Popular Front collapsed and the CPUSA commenced labor terrorism in Hollywood with violent strikes at the major film studios and Technicolor. Industry personnel were beaten and intimidated. Cars were blown up outside studio gates. Opposing union leaders had their houses firebombed. The CPUSA threatened to pour acid on then SAG president, Ronald Reagan, if he opposed them. Reagan had to hire body guards to protect his family. The CPUSA also threatened to blow up the nitrate negatives at Technicolor. David Selznick had to delay the release of one of his movies because he couldn't get his nitrate prints past the strikers. These incidents are what caused HUAC to investigate the film industry in 1948 and 1951. Of course, the blacklist followed against those directly involved (i.e. Herb Sorrell of the CSU) along with ex-party members like Larry Parks who were no longer involved with the CPUSA.

Check this picture out, it does not get any better then this !!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/nytstore/photos/newyork/amusements/NSAP643.html

Nice picture. The Rivoli and other movie palaces had elaborate
custom made displays in that era since major motion pictures were
marketed to the public as 'events'. This continued to exist on some level through the eighties, at least in the theaters that played 70mm
but died off in the nineties. This type of presentation and display is rare today although there are some theaters that still 'put on a show' like the Lafayette in Suffern, New York.

That's the problem with movie palace afficianados. It doesn't
work without the participation of the distributors and most of them
consider theatrical exhibition as 'paid advertising' for the home
video markets.

Robert thats a great picture and I'd like to see a a color photo of it. The Rivoli also had large vetrines on both sides of the entrance doors and all the big movies had elaborate displays. I'd love to see photos of those as well. As a boy in Nov '66 I remember walking behind the Rivoli and seeing the huge sign for SOM on the back of the theater. It was very worn and faded. If only I could have convinced my mother to have walked to the other side so I could have see that marquee! (My mother though would have thought I was out of my mind.)

I was lucky enough to have seen SOM here as a child with my parents and two grandmothers. I still have the program.

Considering that religious groups and parochial schools were a big market for roadshow films they hit pay dirt with Sound of Music.
Robert do you remember if the Rivoli utilized its curved screen for this engagement?

"Robert do you remember if the Rivoli utilized its curved screen for this engagement?"
It most certainly did. Not the later D-150 screen, mind you, but the original Todd-AO one.

Well "The Sound of Music" premiered on March 2nd 1965 and opened on March 3rd and holds the second longest Roadshow engagement at 93 weeks at the Rivoli Theatre, behind "Around the World in 80 Days" at 103 weeks at the Rivoli. The next major engagement to the Rivoli was "The Sand Pebbles" with the World Premiere on December 20th 1966 and opening on December 21st. Some those 2 weeks between those engagements most have been when the D-150 screen was installed into the theatre.

Don't know the exact date, but by the time the 70mm reissue of GWTW opened, it had been installed. this was in the Fall of 1967.

"Sand Pebbles" premiered on December 20th of 1966 and would last there for 35 weeks. Then the re-premiere of "Gone with the Wind" in 70MM would open on October 10th and open on October 11th and would run for around 54 weeks. Till October of 1968 when "Star" opened at the Rivoli in Todd-AO. Which was projected using the D-150 screen.
It's fun that the only D-150 films played at other Times Square theatres "Patton" at the Criterion, and "The Bible" at the State.
The samething happened in Hollywood "Patton" opened at the Pantages in Hollywood and "The Bible" opened at the Beverly in Beverly Hills. The UA Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood was the only D-150 theatre in the area.

The October 10th date was the re-premiere at the Rivoli.

As I was out of the States when "Patton" opened, I have always wondered if the special D-150 lenticular screen and lenses and masking were actually installed at the Criterion. What is usually a flawless guide to such matters, "The International Cinerama Society" listing of all Cinerama, CineMiracle, Kinopanorama, and D-150 theatres omits the Criterion. On the other hand, it also omits the United Artists Lefrak City (in the Queens section of New York) which was the first public installation of D-150. Can anybody really clarify if D-150 was actually installed in the Criterion?

Installing D-150 usually involved extensive remodeling of the auditorium, with loss of seating to make room for the screen. The largest screen together with their masking and curtains, took up 40 feet of the depth of the auditorium. The Criterion Theatre would have had to do a major remodel for the screen. And by the time that "Patton" opened mainly UA opened those types of theatres in the US. "Patton" play many of its many engagements in regular 70MM 6-Track Stereo sound. The director was not to happy about that as stories go.

On that list from "The International Cinerama Society" about D-150 installs. I saw that list, they listed that theatre like this the
UA Lefrak City, LI. I had to ask a few people about the LI, since I'm from the west coast.

actually, when the theatre opened it carried the pompous name of "United Artists All-Purpose D-150 Theatre." (The "all-purpose" from the fact that the D-150 lens/masking system handled the 4 most common gauges/ratios: flat 35mm, scope 35mm (wider AND taller than flat 35mm), regular 2.2:1 70mm, and then the bigger...full screen D-150. As far as I can find out...D-150 was shown only once there....on an opening night preview of a short subject that followed the regular 35mm feature. The two inventors were there, as were a small group of filmgoers. There were POV shots from a motorcycle in San Francisco, as well as clips from the Todd-AO "South Pacific." Someone once told me many many years ago there was a 70mm Bollywood film festival. The whole subject of D-150 is full of confusion. The second installation, the UA in Groton, CT, apparently had the curved track, the curtains, the floor-level booth, but only 35mm capability.

The people used the old Fox Rosemary Theatre in the Ocean Park area of Santa Monica, California for demos of the D-150 process.

Do you happen to know during what time period this was...at the Fox Rosemary?

I think it was during early to mid 60's timeframe. I'm not at home right now so I would have to look at the paperwork. The Fox Rosemary Theatre was not a public theatre during that time.

That would make sense. i have somewhere articles that claim - don't ask me to find them now - that the inventors began at, I think, UCLA, with motion simulators. sometime in the early-60's...and it grew into a 70mm projection system. I believe the only remaining D-150 system remaining is outside of Chicago at the River Oaks in Calumet, IL. The main aud is still standing, and surrounded by a host of smaller buildings. Back to the Rosemary, William Gabel, at the head of the thread on this site specifically about the house says it was gutted in the 1950s. Which doesnt necessarily mean that it couldn't have been used as an experimental house. Whaddya think? Vince

Being an east coast boy this is the first I am even hearing of the Fox Rosemary. I would love to know however what happened to the D 150 and Todd AO shorts which were created to show off these systems. What eyepopping time capsules these must be. Perhaps Mike Todd's son would know? And how I wish he would spearhead a campaign to restore 80 Days to its original splendor and equip perhaps a Broadway theater to play it.(Much in the same way The Broadway theater was used for This is Cinerama and the Royale was used for the roadshow Gigi.)

The Fox Rosemary Theatre was located on the Pacific Ocean Park pier next to the Fox Dome Theatre. During the 50's the pier was remodeled and the theatres closed. But the theatre was still equipped on the site. The Dome Theatre was transformed in to some ocean display. If you look at Phillips/Norelco had the Rosemary Theatre listed as a 70MM equipped theatre during the 60's, but the theatre was not open to the public. On the west coast, the test theatre for Cinerama was the old Warner Forum Theatre and the test theatre for Cinemiracle was the old Fox Melrose Theatre.

Seeing that photo of "The Sound of Music" playing brought back wonderful memories for me of when it played at the beautiful Eglinton theatre here in Toronto. It played there for 144 weeks from March 10 '65 until Dec 20 '67 when it was replaced by "Doctor Dolittle". It then moved to the Crest (now Regent) and played another 9 weeks there although not with reserved seats. I used to love when roadshows would play at the University, Eglinton, Odeon Fairlawn and they would used those glass marquees with the film's stylized writing on since they usually ran for months. The old Tivoli downtown which had several major reserved seat roadshows in the late 50's, early 60's would also use those specialized marquees. Toronto had many long runs in those days. "Funny Girl" played 68 weeks at the Odeon Fairlawn and "Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines" ran 50. The Tivoli had long runs of "Oklahoma", "Around the World in 80 Days", "South Pacific" and "The King and I", all of them running 52 weeks or more. "Ben Hur" ran 77 weeks at the University and "2001: A Space Odyssey" ran about 130 some odd weeks at the Glendale Cinerama. I miss those days. Those really were "events".

The Rivoli Theatre ran "Around the World in 80 Days" for 103 weeks and had "The Sound of Music" for 93 weeks. The two longest running Roadshown engagements on Broadway.
The top 7 engagements were:
"Around the World in 80 Days" at the Rivoli (103 weeks)
"The Sound of Music" at the Rivoli (93 weeks)
"My Fair Lady" at the Criterion (88 weeks)
"West Side Story" at the Rivoli (77 weeks)
"Ben-Hur" at the State (74 weeks)
"Funny Girl" at the Criterion (72 weeks)
"Cleopatra" at the Rivoli (64 weeks)

Tim you've given us a wonderful mini history of roadshows in Toronto.
I guess today as everywhere it is a very different city. Wish I could have known it then.

Sound of Music at the Rivoli might have beat out 80 Days if the management had anything to do with it. Fox pulled it to get the prestige booking for Sand Pebbles when the Riv wanted to hold onto SOM. They wanted to keep it so badly that they ended up suing Fox over the matter. Who knows it might have lasted another 3 months until Easter of '67.

I find it amazing that these films could play in one theater for so long considering that these days if a film plays in a multiplex for a month, it's considered an unusually long run. Those days are long, long gone. It will never happen again because the studios make ZILCH now on the theatrical run of a film.

Just curious: did these films still manage to get a decent size audience even, say halfway through their long runs? Were the runs extraordinary length a result of audience demand, a contractual agreement or a combination of both?

I think it was a combination of both. Remember in those days, "The Sound of Music" was the most popular movie in the world. In several other major cities in Canada in ran for months or years, when others hadn't. "My Fair Lady" ran 60 weeks at the University and then moved over to the Nortown. Many of these "roadshows" were film versions of popular Broadway musicals or spectacular epics like "Ben Hur" or "Cleopatra". They were promoted weeks before they opened on these special Reserved seat/roadshow engagements and since in those days were only at one theatre in the area were very popular. In the late 60s there were so many roadshows around that other theatres that never had that policy before suddenly found themselves showing reserved seat movies. I remember in Toronto, the Capitol had "The Sandpebbles" and later "The Lion in Winter", the Vaughn had "The Bible" which was it's only roadshow film and even the Odeon Danforth had the move over of "Oliver!" and then "The Taming of the Shrew". These films always had big ads in the papers "announcing" the premiere and when tickets would go on sale. I think one of the last of these was "The Man of La Mancha" at the University in '72 which didn't last very long. I miss that kind of distribution when these big movies would run for months and then come back at "Popular Prices" weeks or months later at all of the neighbourhood theatres around the city. Those were the good old days.

CC if you can get your hands at your library of Variety on microfilm you can see how well a film was doing during its entire run week by week at a specific theater in a major city.
Of course this is subject to if the theater was being honest or not about its grosses.
For example Mike Todd would put up the sold out sign in the Rivoli even when 80 Days was not sold out just to make it a bit more difficult to get into.
The Music Hall would close the third balconey even when it had the patronage to open it.

I find this whole Roadshow concept amazing because it's completely different from the way movies are marketed today. There is absolutely NO WAY any studio or producer would or will expend the money, time and effort on something like this. The studios now make their HUGE money on the DVD sale. They look at a film's theatrical release merely as a marketing tool.

Yes, Tim Elliot: those do sound like the good old days when movies in theaters, whether they were actually good or not, were considered worthy of being treated like an event. But what happened? From what I have read and you point out (without meaning to...) the studios simply put out too many EVENT pictures for the general audience to see. And a lot of them (without naming names...) were, quite frankly, turkeys. That combined with the changing tastes in films spelled the rather quick demise of the roadshow concept.

I am going to add my two cents to this "roadshow/reserved seat" discussion. When I was growing up in the 50's and early 60's, this was a big deal. My parents would take us from Lancaster, PA to Center City Philadelphia to see "My Fair Lady," "Cleopatra", "Around The World in 80 Days", etc. etc. Simply because you knew the film would not be shown in the "hinderlands" until much later and the running time would be cut for continuous showings at these hinderland theatres. No theatres in Lancaster had 70mm, Cinerama, stereo sound capabilities. So we would make the 60 plus mile trip one way and many times, if it was a Saturday spend the day in Philadelphia. We would shop, eat dinner in some restaurant, and then go to the movie. They even supplied you with a "program" and you could also buy the souvenier programs from someone in the lobby. That was when moviegoing was special. People actually went to the movie to see the movie. Now they spend half the time talking, walking out to the rest room, refreshment stand, and just generally bothering the other people around them. Many people think they are still sitting in their living rooms! Of course, back then, it did not cost 100-200 million dollars to make a movie! So there was no need to have a 30-40 million opening weekend! Well, I have added my two cents. I personally miss the "event" method of film presentations! When the curtains, yes curtains, opened on that 70mm or Cinerama sized screen, you knew you were in for something special!

CConnolly was right though when you said that the studio put out too many of these kinds of films, that helped kill off the roadshow format. After the success of "SOM" every studio tried to duplicate it's success by finding some musical to produce. Some like "Paint Your Wagon" and "Finian's Rainbow" were from Broadway shows in the 40s. It's like everything else, something is a huge success and then everyone tries to copy it. Roadshows weren't the only movies realeased that way. All movies usually played in one or two theatres downtown, ran for a few or several weeks and then eventually made it's way to the neighbourhoods or suburban theatres. That's the way it was. I think it was "Jaws" that changed the way movies were released forever. Opening weekends were not as important then, if a movie had legs, then it could play in some downtown theatres for weeks or months just like the roadshows. The only difference was there were no reserved seats and were at cheaper prices.

Let's not forget those other roadshow turkies "Song of Norway" and "Lost Horizon". My parents took me to see those two. I have no idea where Norway played but I believe Horizon was at Loews State.

Tim Elliot wrote: "Those really were "events"."
And don't forget the James Bond movies that opened in the 60's around Christmas at (IMHO) the best movie theatre in Toronto....and Canada...the Odeon Carlton (called the"Showplace of the Dominion" when it opened in 1948). The line ups were incredible. The coloured light changes and fantastic stage curtains in the 2500 seat theatre, the cheers and clapping when the organ came up out of the floor with the great Colin Corbett.
When the wreckers ball took care of the Carlton, it also took care of a good part of the great movie experiences Toronto had to offer back then.
I would also liked to have seen how the Rivoli presented its movies back in those days. Sounds like it was quite an experience too.

Those two helped kill off the movie musical. In Toronto "Norway" played roadshow at the Glendale but "Horizon" was a non roadshow engagement at the Odeon Carlton. It played regular continuous performances and didn't last long. I think after these the next successful musical was "Cabaret" which ran at the Glendale for about 9 months or so.

"Song of Norway" played that the Pacific East's Cinerama (aka: Warner) starting April 5th 1970, with a premiere on April 4th.

You're right mjc, the Odeon Carlton was one of the Best movie theatres in all of Canada. James Bond movies after "From Russia with Love" opened here and it was a big event. The last James Bond movie at the Carlton was (i think) "Live and Let Die". It was a sad, sad day indeed when they demolished this showplace. I took several pictures just before it closed. Too bad they didn't turn it into a performing arts centre but it had no backstage area. It was always one of my very favourite theatres.

Here are the top Roadshows that played the Rivoli Theatre.

"Around the World in 80 Days" (103 weeks)
"The Sound of Music" (93 weeks)
"West Side Story" (77 weeks)
"Cleopatra" (64 weeks)
"Fiddler on the Roof" (58 weeks)
"Gone With the Wind" (54 weeks)

"South Pacific" (54 weeks total but opened Criterion then move-over
to the Rivoli)

"Oklahoma" (51 weeks)
"The Sand Pebbles" (35 weeks)
"Hello Dolly" (34 weeks)
"Can-Can" (33 weeks)

William SON didn't open until the fall of '70 at the Cinerama in Times Square. I didn't go simply because somehow it wasn't a Cinerama roadshow with Mrs. Brady in the lead.
I regret it now. I wonder if the movie is as bad as they said.
Pauline Kael said it seems to have been made by trolls.

Robert, Lost Horizon opened in continuous perfs at Loew's State 1. Should have played at the Music Hall. Either way it still was one of those inexplicable 70s musical atrocities.

Sorry, I was writing something else.

It be November 4th for the premiere and November 5th for the opening.

Please don't forget the Cinerama long runs: "This Is Cinerma," a total of 125 weeks (from 9/30/52 at the Broaday; from 6/53 until 2/55 at the Warner); "Cinerama Holiday" (62 weeks); and "7 Wonders of the World" (70 weeks).

To DennisZ: Regarding what seems like astronomical costs of movies today, remember that "Cleopatra" cost the unheard of price of $40 million dollars back in 1963. That was an outrageous amount that effectively sank 20th Century Fox for years even after it rebounded tremendously with "SOM". But one thing that one critic says about "Cleopatra" (I forget exactly who...) is that if you compare the opulance in "Cleopatra" with today's $140 million epic (Christ, did anyone see "Troy"? Ugh..don't) with "Cleopatra" you could SEE where the $40 million dollars went. No digitalized extras, no cheapo-special effects. Yes, "Cleopatra" is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long and it's a tad plodding at times but it's made to be a spectacle.

To answer OConnolly's question about audiences and roadshows...it all depends. Press releases of the time often mentioned that the longruns of "Spartacus" (DeMille) and "Cleopatra" (Rivoli) were more due to contractual demands than audience demands. On the other hand, both "This Is Cinerama" and "80 Days" were virtual sell-outs during the first year of their runs. Same for SOM.

It literally blows my mind to think that people would willingly schleep miles to see a big picture and think it's such an event! I'm not putting this behavior down. Rather I think it's so sad that today's audiences are content with either seeing the dreck they're offered by the "studios" in these wee little theaters (with a whopping max of 500 seats!) or waiting for it on DVD to watch in their home theaters which so many claim is just as good as seeing it in a theater.

It's depressing...

*** "The people used the old Fox Rosemary Theatre in the Ocean Park area of Santa Monica, California for demos of the D-150 process." ***

*** "Do you happen to know during what time period this was...at the Fox Rosemary?" ***

The answer is here (scroll about 2/3rd the way down the page):
http://www.fromscripttodvd.com/70mm_in_los_angeles_1965.htm

CC brings up a good point. Before computers audiences saw the budget on screen. The production designs even for musicals like Fair Lady and Dolly are pretty staggering and certainly worth the $5.50 mezzanine price. Can you imagine how much it cost to create one Cecil Beaton dress or all of 14th Street?
Now even an historical movie uses the same computer design sofware one can see on the History Channel any night of the week. I assume that today a large part of the budget goes to star salaries and the caterer who is acknowledged in the clossing credits. Take a look at the original closing credits for Fair Lady or Sound of Music. Sheesh!

You're so right CC it was such a different time back then. No computers, no VCRs, no DVDs so if you wanted to see these big budget roadshow movies you went to where they were. After the second run theatres you couldn't see them again until they showed up on network television cut up by commercials. I couldn't believe how some of these classics had scenes cut out to fit into a 3 hour TV time slot including commericals. That I guess is why it was such a big deal back then to make sure you saw the film during it's roadshow run or at least it's first release at regular prices. Then you knew you were seeing the whole film, the way it was meant to be shown. It seemed then that audiences paid more attention to what was on the screen and they knew they could get popcorn etc at intermission. Now I think that people forget that they aren't at home at that's part of the problem. It was such a different time back then.

Lets talk about "Cleopatra". The film cost 44 million to make and in todays dollars would be 300 Million. The film wasn't a big flop, it turned a profit before it was shown on television. The problem that Fox had was that filming took so long, a couple of years, and no money was coming in from the production. Filming originally began in London and while in production Elizabeth Taylor almost died and the production was shut down while waiting for Miss Taylor to recover. The London production was scrapped along with the 7 Million already spent and the production resumed in Rome with a new director and new co-stars. It took Fox a few years after release to recoup its investment. 20th-Century Fox at one point only had two pictures in production the forever money draining "Cleopatra" and the other troubled production "Somthing Gotta Give" with Marilyn Monroe in which the production was shut down and Miss Monroe fired. Both productions were troubled and if it wasn't for "The Longest Day" Fox may have gone out of business. I wouldn't say "Cleopatra" was a hit but it is not the big flop that is often associated with it.brucec

"and they knew they could get popcorn etc at intermission." Small trivia point here, but M. Todd did not allow popcorn to be sold at the Rivoli during the "80Days" run. And you couldn't find it at the Cinerama travelogues, either. Anecdotal, and I don't know if it's true, but rumors at the time alleged that during the "LOA" run at the Criterion, the water pressure of the drinking fountains was lowered so that the audiences had to purchase drinks at the concession stand.

brucec: actually I always understood that "Cleopatra" nearly killled off Fox to the extent that they had to sell off some of their properties (I believe Century City in LA) is where the Fox backlot once was and was sold because of the cost of "Cleopatra". Fox endured years of financial constraints until "The Sound of Music" roared into existance and literally saved the studio. Yes, I've read that "Cleopatra" eventually turned a profit near the end of the 60's but it took awhile, obviously.

I saw "Cleopatra" about 10 years ago when it came on one of the cable stations without commercials. I had no intention of watching it but after about an hour or so, the damn thing sucked me in. I was very, very surprised at how genuinely good it was. It was shown in letterbox and I tried to imagine how this must've looked on the screen.

Just one more comment about popcorn at the Rivoli during "Around the World..." Was anything sold at the concession stands? Was there a concession stand? And if so, how much were Milk Duds?

What a brilliant idea for LOA at the Criterion. I hoped they sold lemonade!

"Cleopatra" did pretty well here in Toronto, it ran at the magnificent University theatre for almost a year, from June 26 1963 until the end of March 1964. Ironically when it came out at "Regular Prices" a few months later it played at the Tivoli (as well as the Captiol, Birchcliff, Westwood) which up until then was one of Toronto's exclusive Roadshow houses. For years it was advertised as the Home of Todd-AO. The Tivoli had a sad end and was closed in '65 and demolished. I was only in the Tivoli twice, to see a re-issue of "The Robe" in '63 and a re-issue of "Can-Can" in '64. I loved it and it still holds a fascination with me today. Must have been wonderful to see all of the big roadshows there in the 50s and early 60s.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Jaws" opened in 409 theatres.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DennisZ,

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

Times Square Roadshow
Christmas '68

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

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

Vincent: Wow?

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

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

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

Shoes of the Fisherman...dull, plodding.

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

Ice Station Zebra: not bad but not classic either.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard,
Really??? Why is this title *not* included in your "Moviegoing Experience" book's 70mm filmography?

Micheal Coate,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Micheal,

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

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

Veyoung,

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

And now, back to the discussion of the Rivoli...

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

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

Richard,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Rivoli was divided into an upstairs section with an incredibly small flat screen. The orchestra fared somewhat better with a slightly curved screen with curtains.

Was 70mm projection available on both screens at this point? And which was the HPS-4000 screen?

I can confirm that the orchestra screen showed the 1982 remake of "The Thing" in 70mm, but I don't know about the upstairs. The most memorable part of that trip to the theater was when I discovered a plaque on a wall dedicated to Robert Wise and his long-running films that played the Rivoli. It must have been put up at the opening of "Star!", even though that one didn't play quite as long as the other three.

I believe the upstairs screen had curtains also.

The upstairs screen was so small that the three speakers behind it were practically touching eachother. It was freestanding and there were no curtains reminding me of a small drive in theater screen,almost appearing to be a temporary structure. Downstairs, the gigantic wraparound drapes were removed along with the D-150 screen and frame. A small slightly curved screen was installed just within the procenium along with small red drapes, however the procenium arch was sealed off with plasterboard slanted inward to accomodate the new small screen. The renovation was a big disapointment to anyone who had experienced watching 70MM presentations on the huge Todd-AO/D-150 screens.

Concerning the plaque to Robert Wise listing his films and the length of their engagements at the Rivoli. I asked once if he received it on the demolition of the theater. Not only did he not receive it but he said he had completely forgotten about it.
So I wonder who took it.

In the lower lounge area at the Warner Beverly Hills Theatre they also had plaques from the films that premiered at the theatre. When the theatre was being razed their was still a few of them in that area.

The Rivoli never had a stage. Whatever live music they did way back when was done apparently in front of the screen.
When the Theatre was twinned they blew into the 7th Ave. back end of the Theatre about 18 feet to put in some retail gift stores to get some extra rental income. This is why the downstairs house new screen
was moved so far forward.
In the upstairs house they had to build a new projection booth in front of and 8 feet lower than the original booth for the beam to hit the new smaller screen.

The downstairs house after twinning continued using the Balcony cut
booth put in for the 1955 remodel for 70mm.

I could never go into the Rivoli after the twinning. The Criterion was horrible enough. I thought the cheapo store on 7th av utilized the former stage and dressing room area but I guess I was wrong. This means they had to completely destroy the proscenium and simply make the orchestra a smaller box turning a theater into a screening room. So for the twinning they had done enough damage precluding any possibility of landmark status.

Vincent, even though there was no normal stage, you are right that there had to be dressing rooms someplace back there. On the 7th Ave. side sidewalk level, you were probably close to 10 feet up from stage level taking into account the desending auditorium pitch.
When you think about it, the Theatre faced East between Broadway and 7th Ave. and at that point there is not too much distance for a deep auditorium.

I think what they had there was musical prologues as it was primarily a picture house. I had assumed there had to be some minimal stage space and dressing rooms for orchestra and performers and that this was the space used for the store.
Now that I know the Todd AO screen had been removed and the front of the theater moved up almost 20 ft in effect destroying the space I'm glad I never went back.

When installing D-150, it usually involved extensive remodeling of the auditorium, with loss of seating to make room for the screen. The largest screen together with their masking and curtains, took up 40 feet of the depth of the auditorium. The Todd-AO screen that was installed in the mid 50's was 60' x 30'.

For Todd AO seating was lost not only from the front but from the sides as well with the new screen in front of the proscenium. From what I could tell the proscenium was covered not destroyed. One saw it rising above the new curtains for the curved screen.

Somewhere I have a picture of the install of the special curtain for the opening of "Oklahoma". Yes, you could see the proscenium was covered. Which was a different story when UA installed the D-150 screen at their Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood. They destroyed the proscenium and moved the screen all the way back to the back stage wall. (moved 30 feet)

Re whether or not both screens were 70mm-equipped, I may be able to answer my own question. In checking some notes and newspapers ads from a prior research project, it appears that "The Thing" was advertised in a manner suggesting it was being shown in 70mm on both screens.

As for the HPS-4000 sound system, I guess no one knows much about it.

Does anyone know how long Star! played the Rivoli? I dont think it was more than a couple months.

It might have played until Feb of '69 as they already had Sweet Charity planned for Easter. Does anybody have pictures of the Star billboards on Times Square and the back of the Riv? Saw these as a boy and they were great.

On this project...
http://www.fromscripttodvd.com/70mm_in_new_york_longest_running_engagements.htm
...we accounted for film that ran for about six months or longer. "Star!" is not present. "Sweet Charity" opened at the Rivoli on Apr. 1, 1969, so "Star!," which premiered Oct. 22, 1968 could not have run for more than about five months. I don't have access to my notes which might provide more details, so someone else will need to chime in. While recognized as a flop, the film played longer than one might expect in many places (21 weeks in L.A., for instance).

"Star" had its New York premiere on October 22, 1968 and opened the next day. It played till the end of March 1969. "Sweet Charity" had its New York premiere on April 1st. 1969 and opened the next day. It would play till mid December when "Hello Dolly" would premiere on December 16th and open the next day.

William I thought Charity was a bigger roadshow flop than Star only making it until the early summer. I'm pretty sure it was showcase by then. Correct me if I'm wrong.
By the way its better than Cabiria and one of Fosse's best. Ah, to have seen it at the Rivoli.

Unless the Rivoli booked some fillers in between those shows. "Charity" played the Pantages Theatre in Hollywood.

If I had to choose two films that could've and maybe DID finish the Roadshow concept, it has to be "Star" and "Hello Dolly". These turkeys were/are so bloated and over produced. It was Hollywood at it's most excessive.

However, "Sweet Charity" is definately not bad at all. Wildly dated, yes. But it's got some great songs and most importantly, some of Fosse's best dance sequences around. Like I mentioned above, there are some misguided film revisionists that try to make "Star" sound like a misunderstood, under appreciated masterpiece when it's not. But "Charity" deserves far more recognition than it's gotten over the years.

Although Charity must have looked and sounded great at the Rivoli it probably should have opened at the Music Hall. It would have had a big success there.

With the upcoming revival on Broadway it should get the deluxe restored treatment at the Ziegfeld. It won't though because it's a musical(ugh!) So Film Forum will show Cabiria because its got the art house cache(definately not one of Fellini's best.)

The fact that "Sweet Charity" was a box office disappointment has been discussed by film scholars. Many feel that it came at the end of the era of the big musical and that the time had past. Tastes had changed radically in films just the previous year with "Bonnie & Clyde" and "The Graduate". Audiences thought that "Charity" was simply yet another bloated movie musical and they were collectively tired of them. They wanted the new realism that was just becoming terribly in vogue then (and seems quaintly but very dated now).

Ironically, Fosse would effectively put the final nail in the musical's coffin just four years later with "Cabaret". That film is best summed up by Pauline Kael when she stated "...it will be a long time before someone bursts into song while on a hayride."

Regarding "Star!" The DVD edition released last year includes an extensive discussion of the film's production history and release (roadshow, cuts made during the roadshow engagements, general release and re-release under a different title with an hour removed).

The "Star!" DVD also includes a history of the roadshow concept and features several shots of the huge billboard for the film in Times Square.

Kander and Ebbs cheap cynicism was another death knell for the musical.

Re: "art house cache." "Le notti di Cabiria," on which "Sweet Charity" was based, is one of Fellini's most magnificent and enduring masterpieces, with wife Giulietta Masina in her finest role, in my opinion and the opinion of many.

The point I was trying to make was that Sweet Charity is one of the last of the great Hollywood musicals and is fully deserving of a major film revival as it was originally presented on roadshow. There have been in the last few years a number of opportunities to see Cabiria in a theater and none to see Charity. I happen to disagree with the consensus on Cabiria and think that both Fellini and Masina have done finer work(I find her waif thing cloying though her final moments are wonderful.) And Simon improves on both the character of Oscar and the sequence with Vittorio. The Pompei Club is Fellini if he were making a Hollywood musical. Sensational!
But still I resent the thinking that started during the American new wave of the late 60's and early 70's that musicals were somehow lesser forms of film 'art.' When a great film musical is properly presented it is one of the most exhilarating experiences you can have in a cinema.
And by the way I definitely do not want to see Charity letterboxed at Film Forum.

Sweet Charity was a flop for Universal. It didn't play long at the Stanley in Phila or the Virgina in Atlantic City. It opened May 29 in Atlantic City and a little earlier in Phila. Both thetaers pulled it in Aug and on Aug 15 opened Krakatova East of Jave. Both theaters showed the 70mm verszion not the Cinerama version.
Universal did a great diloyalty to Charity on DVD. The soundtrack and stero surround is horrible. The rere3corded it in 4.0 and it is just the pits. The VCR version was great. I think it may just be Universal because the same thing happened with Jesus Christ Superstar in it's conversion to DVD. I love Charity, but think it will flop this time on broadway. Christina Applegate is absolutely terrible.

I personally didn't care for "Sweet Charity" but Shirley MacLaine gave it her all. It was a major Box Office flop. "Hello Dolly" was one of the top grossing films of the year but its cost of $24 Million which was triple of what most of the musicals cost during that era. The film lost $10 Million at the time but became very popular on VHS and DVD in later years. The following musicals were flops and poor grossers "Sweety Charity", "Star", "On A Clear Day","Half a Sixpense","Goodbye Mr Chips","Finnean's Rainbow","The Happiest Millionaire","Darling Lili","Doctor Doolittle", "Paint Your Wagon" and "Man of La Mancha". The Major Hits of the 1960's were "My Fair Lady", "West Side Story", "Mary Poppins","The Sound of Music","Thorougly Modern Millie","Funny Girl" and "Oliver". The last successful roadshow musical was "Fiddler on the Roof". "Hello Dolly" was the most expensive musical ever made during that era and if you take inflation into account no current musical comes close. It would probably cost $150 Million or more to produce today. Its ironic that 20thFoxproduced both "Cleopatra" and "Hello Dolly" in the same decade.Brucec

***** "Universal did a great diloyalty to Charity on DVD. The soundtrack and stero surround is horrible. The rere3corded it in 4.0 and it is just the pits. The VCR version was great." *****

I bet the "4.0" version on the DVD (which is mislabeled on the packaging) is a direct transfer of the original master. (Little known secret: many of the six-track mixes used on 70mm films were based upon four (and sometimes even three)track master mixes.

You really think the "VCR version" is great? Pan-and-scan and 2.0 audio...

When did this become a forum for old movies? I thought it was about theatres. Only asking.

Warren you're getting cranky again. A few loose threads always add interest.

Now now Vincent, let your brother Warren play or I'll send you both to your rooms without any supper.
But I like the idea of an old movies forum.

"When did this become a forum for old movies? I thought it was about theatres. Only asking."

I knew someone, sometime would bring this up. But in my opinion, you cannot have a discussion about movie theaters/palaces without it digressing naturally (and IMO, pleasantly...) into a film discussion as well. They work hand in hand. I personally LOVE to hear people talk about the movie palaces, what they saw there and what they thought of the films.

Speaking of which I was watching last night Little Foxes on TCM and imagining I was seeing it at the Music Hall in '41. So why did the Wyler/Goldwyn Wuthering Heights play at the Rivoli rather than the Music Hall? And why 66 years after the fact am I asking this question?

"Little Foxes" was the first Goldwyn production released by RKO, which is probably why it opened at RCMH. "Heights" was released by United Artists, which had a long-standing deal with the Rivoli for its prestige films.

Vincent, I was clicking through the channels last night and saw that "The Little Foxes" was on TCM. I don't get that channel with my subscription (they won't let you get only one channel...it has to be part of a package...stupid). Anyway, that's a great one EXCEPT that I loathe some of the changes they made from the play like the creation of the boyfriend for Alexandra. His sole reason for being was so that at the end, Alexandra would have someone to go off with. God forbid the movie censors back then allow a woman to wander off without a man. In the play, Alexandra has no boyfriend and leaves her Mother defiantly alone at the conclusion. But still, Wyler and Davis kept most, if not all, of Hellman's dialogue and did it in a grand style. It's a great movie.

As for other changes, Goldwyn made Wyler shoot the scene at the very end of "Wuthering Heights" of the two ghosts of Kathy and Heathcliff. Wyler hated the shot but Goldwyn was a sentimentalist to the core.

Yes, I agree. I hate the added boyfriend, but the movie holds up very well over the years. Wyler and Davis feuded during the making of it, but you cant tell by what's on the screen.....I watched it again last night.

To give Goldwyn his due he was also a businessman. So reuniting the lovers in heaven was his way of giving the customers a happy ending. Todays producers are guilty of far worse sops to insure higher grosses for their films.
And by the way Hellman herself might have been responsible for Richard Carlson in order to give the film a stronger social conscience.

I find it hard to believe that Hellman would've willingly added that character. I believe she created Alexandra out of her own desire to create a strong, independent female character. In the play, there are no scenes showing Alexandra's doubting of herself. When she realizes that her mother was/is responsible for killing Horace, she's not horrified. She's realizes that her mother is a monster and that she won't be like her and leaves. The first time I saw the movie after reading the play in High School, I was stunned by the creation of the boyfriend character. I think it was Goldwyn and the Hollywood censors who asked to have that added for "moralities" sake.

But I also agree that "The Little Foxes" holds up extremely well over the years because I don't think they took OUT much if any dialogue from the play. They kept the nastiness of the characters such as the stunning scene where Birdie gets viciously slapped. Potent stuff.

Part of the effect of that scene is its brilliant direction and cinematography. They don't make them like that anymore.
Maybe someone who's a Hellman expert has some more information on the screenplay and what she's was forced to add.

Not to mention Herbert Marshall crawling up the stairs as Bette glowers in the foreground....

I have read every single one of Hellman's plays as I happen to like her stuff a lot. Yep, it's melodrama to the extreme and some of it, by today's standards, is corny especially the original text of "The Children's Hour" (Hellman revised some of it for a later production). So of the setups in that one are howlingly bad. But "The Little Foxes" is grand melodrama at it's finest.

With regards to her changing the script for the movie, I saw a special on Samual Goldwyn and Hellman DID say that she did have to make changes though she was not specific. But she did say she liked Goldwyn very, very much because he appreciated writers and unlike other studio heads, respected their talents.

Though that's not Herbert Marshall. When he goes off camera for a moment some other guy takes his place. Marshall had a fake leg so he couldn't do it.
I wish I didn't know this stuff it ruins the illusion.

TJ: the stairway scene is a total classic. Again, it's melodrama to the extreme but the way Wyler photographs it is perfect. He actually places Marshall out of focus while maintaining the camera firmly on Davis. We read Davis' look as nervous anticipation. Without a single word of dialogue she conveys everything with her eyes and her stillness: she knows that if someone comes in, they will save Horace and her goose is cooked. But if they don't....

It's one of the finest performances captured on film and fine direction by one of the masters. I've heard that Davis' performance pales in comparison to Bankhead's on Broadway but we'll never know.

Again, sorry about the off topic film discussion but it's all part of the same subject.

I know she's supposed to be a villainess, but I had sympathy for the Regina character. She was a woman of her time trapped and trying to get out of her circumstances. Granted, she sat there and watched her husband die, but she didnt plan it that way. Herbert Marshall comes off as a rather preachy prig. I never saw or read Another Part of the Forest that explains their background.....

I love this movie and think it is one of the American greats. So where did the geniuses at AFI put it on their list of great American films? Before or after Star Wars? Or Rocky?

Vincent, You're right! I'd forgotten about his leg. I remember reading about that years ago.

In the first week of July, 1942, the Rivoli was closed for "re-modeling." I don't know how extensive that was, but the theatre re-opened on September 1st with the world premiere engagement of Paramount's "Wake Island," one of the first of many combat epics about WWII. In its first four weeks at the Rivoli, the movie attracted 250,000 customers, or an average of 8,929 per day.

Here is a vintage shot of the Rivoli.

Has anybody else noticed that since the summer 99% of the films coming out have been in cinemascope. Does this mean m,aybe they are about to start up 70mm or even Cinerama or Todd-Ao again?

No.

One of the reasons a lot more films are being presented in scope is that they are shooting them in Super35, which allows a scope theatrical print and a nearly full-frame (without panning and scanning) video image to be extracted.

There is one upcoming film shot in 65mm (for 70mm presentation), Terence Malick's The New World. I'll be very curious to see who is able to show it in 70mm in the NY metro area.

I can forget about it here in Asheville, NC

Pete: I'm guessing "The New World" will be at the Ziegfeld in 70mm. I can't think of any 70mm theaters left in New Jersey, and there used to be so many back in the good old days.

Although since they recently re-installed digital projection at the Ziegfeld, does that mean the film projectors can no longer be used? (Sorry about all this Ziegfeld stuff on the Rivoli Theater page.)

No, Bill. Both can share the same space as long as the booth is big enough. They have to keep the film projectors on hand, since the digital shows do have a high number of failures.

If I recall, the Sony Lincoln Square also as 70mm capability in the main auditorium.

Yes Peter, you are correct, not only is the digital projector usually installed along side the film projector, often a 35mm print will be delivered to the theatre as a back up should the digital fail.In some of the new IMAX installations, a 35mm projector is maintained as well to alternate between 70mm IMAX and regular 35mm engagements. I know when "Aliens of the Deep" played in some of the IMAX theatres, a 35mm print was ready to go if needed. I would expect the same for the new "Batman" film opening in June. This of course does not apply to the IMAX filmed features designed exclusily for IMAX.
Bill, the 70mm theatres in New Jersey, for the most part, have maintained the 35/70mm projectors although we haven't used them
in quite a while.

Correction: It was not "Aliens of the Deep" but "Robots" that had the 35mm backup prints

Per Malick's THE NEW WORLD... I read an interview with the cinematographer and he said only portions of the film were shot on 65mm.... that they could not afford to shoot it all in large format. I do hope we will get some 70mm prints in any case, though venues that can handle 70mm are disappearing quickly. Maybe the Uptown in DC, which has one of the last of the giant curved Cinerama screens, will show a 70mm print of THE NEW WORLD... but the latest from that theatre is that they are no longer using union projectionists during the week, only on weekends, and that this has resulted in damage to equipment and prints. So--- that would only leave the American Film
Institute's Silver theatre as a possible 70mm venue in that area. Too bad Malick's film will probably not get the presentation it deserves.

Some of the threads regarding 70mm have me wondering if everyone understands that all theatres have projectors and film transport systems (platers) that are 35/70mm compatable. At one time the Rivoli and one or two others had Todd-AO projectors which were designed for 70mm, however now in any theatre you go to, the booth has projector(s) that can run either 35mm or 70mm. We do not have straight 70mm projectors sitting in the booth collecting dust. It is a simple conversion from 35mm to 70mm that takes only a few minutes to perform and can easly be done even during intermission, there may be some minor Xenon bulb re-alignment as well. The film transport systems (platters) are also 35/70 compatable and can be converted just as easily. The sound format is chosen by the simple push of a
button and you are good to go.

Perhaps REndres can tell us more.Radio City Music Hall has three 35/70mm projectors and two 35mm projectors. I imgine the 35/70 projectors are used for both 35 and 70. I would be interested in how he handles the changeover.

It is nice to know that theatres are still capable of 70mm projection with the equipment in the booth. However, what theatre still has - other than the Ziegfeld, which I have never been in, have the screen size to utilize the 70mm presentation? 35MM or 70MM to me makes no difference if the screen in the theatre is the size of a TV screen in relation to the size of the theatre compared to your living room.I would imagine you could count on your two hands - and maybe a few toes - the number of theatres remaining that would have the size screen to utilize 70mm. (Not counting Imax Theatres.)

I'm sorry Vito, but not all models of 35mm projectors and platter systems are convertible to 70mm, not even close. You also need magnetic sound heads (if the film has mag sound) or, for these new 70mm prints, a dedicated 70mm DTS sound reader. Not to mention different lenses, aperture plates, sprockets, intermittent, pad rollers, guide rollers, platter brains, platter rollers, splicers, etc.

Unless the theatre is always set up to do 35/70 projection, it's much more involved than just something that can be done during intermission.

Vito, Peter's right. Simplex advertised their 35/70 mm machine as being able to be changed in a matter of minutes, and I always joked, "Yes -- about 60 minutes per projector!" In the Hall's case the change was made more difficult by the water cooling tubes to the film traps, but we still usually changed the machines over after the show. They also had to be retilted for the different formats, which meant having a stage crew on to bring the picture sheet in and set the masking limits. (The screen masking at the Hall can be changed from the booth by the old Magnascope system, but it only allows two presets.) The only time we changed over during a day was when we did the Warner Bros. Film Festival a few years ago. We had to change over to do "The Exorcist" after a previous 35mm film that afternoon, and then change back to 35mm after "My Fair Lady" was shown the next afternoon. On another note: the Ziegfeld can still run 70mm with its Century JJ, and can do either mag or DTS 70mm sound. Other venues in the city which can do 70mm include the Walter Reade at Lincoln Center (which did Tati's "Playtime" in 70mm a few weeks ago), the Museum of Modern Art, and the Museum of the Moving Image in Queens. The Dolby Screening Rooms in all of their locations can also do 70mm. MGM has removed their 70mm projectors from their screening room as has Fox. I was in the Ziegfeld two weeks ago for a tech check of the Digital "Star Wars", and must say, while digital is still in its relative infancy, it was looking very much as I remember the first 70mm "Star Wars" looking at the Astor Plaza, so perhaps Malick's new picture will be released that way. I ran his "Days of Heaven" in 70mm in the MGM Screening Room and was blown away by it, so it will be interesting to see how he chooses to release "The New World".

Ooooooooo, "Days of Heaven". In 70mm! Now THAT is something I'd gladly pay to see! That has got to be one of the MOST beautifully filmed movies of all time. Right up there with Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon".

Days of Heaven was astounding in 70mm, CConnolly. Even more amazing in that it was a blow-up from 35mm.

I agree with Pete: "Days of Heaven" was a 70mm knockout at the Cinema I. It opened in the fall of 1978 during a newspaper strike, so someone (either Paramount or Cinema 5 Theaters) reprinted all the New York critics' reviews in a special booklet which was given out at the theater. I still have it somewhere ...

Thanks REandres for that info. I forgot about the water cooled gates
Peter, you misunderstood, I never wrote all projectors are compatable. I am refering to 35/70 projectors, which is what all 70mm theatres have. There is nothing to do but convert the idle rollers, change the aperture plate and lens and your done. As for platters, most of them have feed plates (brains) that simply change out for either 35 or 70 and duel purpose guide rollers so again, little has to be done. As for the masking, we usually have three presetts, Flat, Scope and 70 for both the side and top masking settings. I have had several sneak preview showings of a 70mm print
playing with a 35mm feature and two of us did the conversion during
intermission, (about 20 minutes). In the case of DTS readers, nothing has to be done with them because they are always there, usually mounted above the mag penthouse, and simply bypassed when not in use. I suppose if you wanted to play a 70mm DTS print followed by a 35mm DTS print you would have much more work but that would be unusual.

By thr way REandres, I trained in digital projection before I retired and I am sure glad I never had to work any shifts with digital projection. There is so litle to do. I thought it got boring with platters, but gosh all you do with digital is log on to a computer choose a platter (film) and hit the start button. My goodness what in the world do those projectionists at the Ziegfeld do all day? That has to be a boring job. I only wish I had a chance to work RCMH during the glory days.

Another NYC theater that has 70MM capability is the Paris. A 70MM print of "Howard's End" was shown at the Paris for nearly a year in the early 1990s. Kenneth Branagh's film of "Hamlet" was also presented in 70MM at the Paris.

The Sound One screening room (Todd-AO sound) on 54th Street, can also run 70MM too.

Vito, I imagine the projectionists at the Ziegfeld WORRY! It is new technology, and during the pre-opening screenings of "Star Wars" a representative of Texas Instruments which had their prototype projector in before the opening, and a Dolby representative were also on hand for each screening. (If there were one more tech they might have been able to have a card game going!) As you know -- you're only as good as your last show and "stuff" happens. It always amazes me that for a premiere at the Zieg or the Music Hall, everyone would have a tech representative on hand, but when the picture opens and the audience had to pay, there would often be no tech assistance available. With the elimination of projectionists there are fewer and fewer people around exhibition who continue to care about the presentation (see "Uptown Theatre Washington D.C. on this site for the latest example). There was always the tension of being in the "Showplace of the Nation" at Radio City, and even though digital presentation may be boring, I'll bet the guys at the Zieg are feeling a bit of tension these days too. Things can go from boredom to chaos in an instant.

I saw "Days of Heaven" at Cinema I in 70mm and was immediately overwhelmed by the imagery and eerie nostalgia of this stupefying masterpiece. What a truly beautiful film! Nestor Almendros' photography is a feast for the eye. And that musical score by Ennio Morricone based on a motif from Camille Saint-Saëns' "Carnival of the Animals: The Aquarium" was pure inspiration and utterly haunting. I kept going back to see it in Providence, where I am from, at the Cinerama I & II where it was also shown in 70mm. I read at the time that Bernardo Bertolucci had been extremely impressed by the movie. Although I like both "Badlands" and "The Thin Red Line" a great deal, I don't believe Malick has surpassed this one.

I know some of you projectionists explained this once but I still don't "get" how digital projection works. How is the image "shown"? There's no film, right? I'm sorry but could someone either explain (simply...) or tell me about a website that could?

Also, about two years ago I read about another even more radical film medium wherein the movie would actually be "beamed" via satellite to theaters. If a movie proved to be a big enough draw (HA! Like with todays crap...) another theater in a multiplex could be instantly turned over to that film. The issue was how to prevent hackers from getting a hold of the signal and transmitting it to another area (theater, PC, etc.) Anyone aware of this?

Vito - Thanks for the clarification, that makes it clearer. Otherwise, I'd be asking where I could get 70mm parts for my Century's for the Lafayette!

I found that "Days of Heaven" book I mentioned in an earlier post. Here's the cover:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/billhuelbig/DaysofHeaven.jpg

"A 70MM print of "Howard's End" was shown at the Paris for nearly a year in the early 1990s." (ErikH)
*************************************

A couple of minor corrections re the New York City run of "Howards End" -- the film did play at the Paris, though the theater was known as the Fine Arts at the time. The duration of the Fine Arts run was 33 weeks. It immediately moved to the Village East, where it ran for another 31 weeks in 70mm.

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

http://www.fromscripttodvd.com/70mm_in_new_york_1992.htm

Bill Huelbig, you might want to add your link for that interesting "Days of Heaven" booklet to the Cinema 1, 2, 3 site.

CConnolly: Digital cinema is an extension of video projection used in home systems upgraded to theatre quality. The originating source may be high-definition tape (Panasonic D-5, or Sony HDCam)usually running with 1080 lines of resolution vertically and either at the film speed of 24 frames per second or the video frame rate of 30 frames per second), or from a server using computer drives. The material may be delivered via satellite or on tape or from hard drives. The most common projector at this point uses Texas Instruments DLP technology which uses mirrors from three chips to reflect light from the lamphouse to the screen. Sony and JVC use a competing technology using reflective silicon on chips that is in a sense what you see with a digital wristwatch display except the crystals are reflective rather than black. Sony has announced a projector that will do up to 4,000 lines of resolution which should equal or exceed the resolution of 35mm film. You are right about the encryption issues to prevent piracy. The material may be fed in encoded digital form into the projector for conversion to analogue for viewing to prevent hacking since it never exists in analogue form outside of the projector itself. In addition, keys may be generated by the distributor to license the film to exactly the number of screens in a complex and for exactly the number of days the picture is being screened. The National Association of Theatre Owners and the Digital Cinema Initiative have been working to formalize standards for theatrical presentation with the goal that digital cinema presentation be of higher quality than the 1080 hi-def presentation people have in their home theatres and at least as good or better than 35mm film is now. A good part of the motion-picture industry has already "gone digital" for editing and preview purposes, with more and more sneak previews done from D-5 tape rather than film interlocked to a separate track. Now the technology is becoming available to change exhibition as well. There are questions about who is going to pay for the convrsion and preventing piracy, but its a pretty interesting time for theatre technology.

Rob, I can only imagine the pressur of working at RCMH. But it had to be a rewarding and thrilling experience. As for the Guys running digital, I suppose it must have it's anxious moments. As a film projectionist, when something went wrong we could generally take care of the problem. Switching rectifiers/generators for a light source problem or amplifiers when the sound gave us trouble. Heck, most of us at one time or another have had to change out an intermittent or replace a drive gear at one time or another not to mention a water cooled jaw in a arc lamp house that suddenly sprung a leak. Ahh the memories... but my experience with digital was one of
a feeling of helpness when it went sour, something I was not used to or enjoyed very much. All one could do was call the 800# for tech support. As you very well know, digital projection comes with it's one sets of problems. So the industry had changed a great deal, my last booth job was in an IMAX theatre, I played "Polar Express" in IMAX 3-D. What a nightmare that was!, the print didi not carry a time code as does DTS for example, but rather runs on it's own program so the chances of losing sync was always about. Then of course if you had a film break and lost any frames in the left eye print you had to replace (slug) the missing footage in the right eye print to keep everything matched up. Of course we had to do the same thing in the old 3-D and Cinerama days and I know some of the boys would sometimes cheat and simply remove the missing footage from all the prints, but with IMAX if you did that you would lose sound sync.
But at least we had film, and running 2-3 or even, as you did, 5 projectors in a single thetare in a single booth. I miss that!

Are most IMAX films digital?

It's interesting that you cite "The Polar Express" (AWFUL, AWFUL movie...gave me the creeps!) But there was an interesting article in "Entertainment Weekly" about two weeks ago that stated that theater attendance is way, way off now. And the article pretty much came to the conclusion that we here already derived: movies today SUCK. So audiences are staying away. EXCEPT...for "The Polar Express" in IMAX which they said did very good business, better than it did in the conventional box megaplexes. So did the IMAX release of "Robots" (another dud). The article said that apparently audiences are willing to see a movie on a BIG screen.

So that's ironic. Obviously it's not just the terrible films but the way that these movies are being presented that is keeping audiences away. People WANT the big screens and such.

It is not like it once was with film, Digital is picking up speed in doing preview screenings. I still run a lot of film, but we do about 4-6 different video type screenings a week. Today I have two HD screenings, one from a D-5 format and another from HDcam-SR, plus two film screenings. Some people might say it is hard to go from film and video type formats. It really isn't that hard to do.

Sorry, but it sounds like to me that digital film projection is the wave of the future. The only thing that's preventing it's total takeover is the fact that movie attendence is so down. What could possibly justify the cost to the theaters if the numbers are low? A few blockbusters that are truly worthy and attendence should go up. THEN digital will take over. But from looking at the slim pickings coming out this summer, I don't see myself going much to the theater either.

CConnolly, I shall tell you what I know about IMAX.
First of all the picture is not digital, but a 70mm fifteen perforation film which runs thru the IMAX projectr horizontally at 24 frames per second. The projector is capable of running two prints at the same time for 3-D.The sound comes on CD disks which is then loaded onto the computer's hard drive which syncs up the picture and sound. In the theatre I worked, the light source is a 15,000 watt lamp and the sound system carried 12,000 watts of power. A wall to wall,floor to ceiling silver screen, to maximize the reflection to the audience, was installed. IMAX has been a new shot in the arm now due to DMR which is a process of digitally re-mastering regularly shot 35mm movies to the IMAX process,as was the case in "Robots" and the upcoming "Batman Returns" amoung many others.
I hope I helped explain a bit about IMAX and hope someone with more knowledge can add to or correct anything I wrote

I forgot to mention the film transport, we have two three stacked platters, so that when we run 3-D, one for the left eye and one for the right.
William I'd say 80% of the studio test screenings I did before I retired were D-5 tape. There are fewer and fewer screenings using unmarried prints.
I should explain to anyone not understanding, an unmarried print is what we would use to show sneak and test sceenings of unfinished movies. The picture and sound were on seperate reels which would be interlocked. I am sure Rob has had a lot of experience with this at RCMH

I still run track & picture screenings, but not as many as before. But I'm not in the regular theatre world. I'm in Post-Production projection, its like working a film festival 5 days a week.

According to a documentary on the Anchor Bay DVD of Dawn of the Dead(Ultimate Edition), the Rivoli played Dawn on its first run engagement, which would have been May 1979.

William, I worked post production at 20th Century fox and also at News of the Day for a while in the late 50s. It was tense but I enjoyed it a lot and we always had passes to the Roxy and Rivoli. The guys at News of the Day had a very stressful job with new footgae being delivered all day long and having to get two newsreels out every week.

Scott
Yes Dawn of the Dead played the Rivoli, I forget the name of the releasing company but UA and Salah Hassanein owned the majority shares. There was also a time when the Rivoli was still a single screen and still getting top bookings when they had a week and a half gap before a big picture was opening. They ran a George Romero festival with a different double bill every three days.

x

"Dawn Of The Dead" was released by United Film Distribution. It was owned by UA and run by Salah's son Richard Hassanein. I worked for them for a while between managing gigs. The home office was behind The UA Meadowbrook Theatre in East Meadow. All UFD films played at all UA theatres at one time or the other."Day Of The Dead" and "Mother's Day", both unrated horror films opened at The UA Gemini on the upper east side. UFD also released John Landis' "Kentucky Fried Movie", Larry Cohen's "Q, The Winged Serpent" and Romero's "Knightriders" among many and always had a double feature available for slow release weeks. Not only did "Dawn" play the UA Rivoli, I would almost bet it played there every re-release until they built the extra screens downstairs at the UA Criterion.

We saw Arnold Schwartznegger's PREDITOR here on their big screen. About 30 minutes into the show, about 4 or 5 jive-turkeys came in and began making noise as if nobody else was there. Several shush! shush! sounds from the audience yielded the agonizingly familiar "We paid our money and we won't shut up.. blah, blah, blah!" Then I heard one Negro voice say out loud, "You're the reason us N...... don't never have nuthin' cuz people like you ruin it for ev'body!" I'll never forget that, never forget the guy who said it. AMEN.

We saw Arnold Schwartznegger's PREDITOR here on their big screen. About 30 minutes into the show, about 4 or 5 jive-turkeys came in and began making noise as if nobody else was there. Several shush! shush! sounds from the audience yielded the agonizingly familiar "We paid our money and we won't shut up.. blah, blah, blah!" Then I heard one Negro voice say out loud, "You're the reason us N...... don't never have nuthin' cuz people like you ruin it for ev'body!" I'll never forget that, never forget the guy who said it. AMEN.

Times had so changed with mass releases by 1981, but at least the Rivoli was still opening big pictures. At the time they were on the Universal run. When "On Golden Pond" opened here it was also playing in 5 other Manhattan locations. Loews 34th St Showplace, Quad 1&2, Manhattan 1, New Yorker 2 and RKO 86th St 1. In May of 1982 Rivoli 1 opened "Conan The Barbarian" along with UA Gemini 1, Loews 34th St Showplace, Quad 1 & 3, Olympia 1 & 3, RKO 86 St 1 and RKO Coliseum 1. Rivoli 2 had "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid" along with New Yorker 1, UA Gemini 2, UA East and Greenwich 2. I had forgotten the New Yorker became a commercial house in its waning years.

Well I just finished the mix of my latest feature, "Soft Money",
and am preparing it for release both theatrically and DVD so I
decided to log on here and see what's posted.

As I suspected, another attempt by Coates to discredit me in our
feud.

I guess the main reason most film directors
or historians bother to post on film related sites is that there
is usually a heckler on each of them which makes discussion a
waste of time.

I'll clear up one matter which I have mentioned on other sites.
My neice was visting me and playing on the Dell under my name and
saw the listing of my book so she said she's give a review. It was
originally poster under her name but then for whatever reason, it was
changed to my name. At first I thought it was amusing but then got
negative feedback from it so I'm glad it was removed. Other reviews
by her are listed under her name elsewhere I believe. So much for that.

One final comment is that my last manuscript was not intended as a 'book of lists'. I even note that in some sections stating that
it's a list of notable titles not every title in a category. The lists I made were based on information I had at the time and were used to illustrate a point You can get into debates about what
titles should be included in each category but that is really missing the point. Book of lists are better suited for the internet since you have to constantly update them. If I were to re-write the chapter on 70mm I would update the lists based on new information but that is really missing the point of the subject matter. What I was illustrating was that the appex of 70mm was in the mid-eighties. It fizzled out in the mid-nineties not because the format fell out of favor with audiences but for economic reasons. Many theater chains assumed it's major attribute was six track stereo sound rather than the improved image quality. Thus when six track 35mm digital sound systems were developed, they lost interest in the 70mm blow up prints even though they increased boxoffice revenue in houses that booked them at the time. Also, the newly built megaplexes refused to install the equipment to keep their staff to a minimum in the multiple 35mm platter systems on each screen. The loss of 70mm and the brief revival and demise of dye transfer printing represented the last gasp of showmanship for theatrical exhibition, at least in a general sense. There are still isolated
cinemas that put on a good show.

Back to the Rivoli,

As I recall, after twinning (renamed UA Twin), only the bottom
theater had 70mm capability. The curved screen was removed and replaced with a flat one but the presentations were still quite good.
I would guess that the above mentioned sound system was only installed on this screen. The balcony screen was not as large and probably limted 35mm since I don't recall a 70mm print ever playing there. The UA Twin didn't last for long and was being demolished with construction gear outside the fascade even while
they continued to play new features until it's end. I have pictures of it from that era.

In 1971 at the height of porno chic there was an X rated 3D feature called "The Stewardesses" in StereoVision 3d. It actually opened on Broadway at the Rivoli, day and dating with the UA East. The releasing company must have had a deal with UA because most of the outer boro houses were UA. The Bronx had it at the UA Valentine, Queens at UA Midway, Staten island Fox Plaza, Brooklyn National Generals Albermarle, Nassau at UA Meadowbrook, Suffolk at UA Cinema Bayshore and Century's Walt Whitman.

StereoVision was a new attempt at 3D which only required one camera and one projector. The left/right images were on a single 35mm frame, one above the other. A specal lens was required to fit over the prime projection lens to super-impose the two images together on the screen. Many theatres rented the lens along with the movie, however United Artist's projection and sound tech Joe Kelly had them made up and purchased them for his theatres. Many UA theatres had these lenses in the booth ready for up coming releases but the
3-D fad died quicker than it did in the 50s.

Sorry but I don't know where to post this. I saw a first this weekend. They opened a new stadium multiplex (Epic Theaters) in Hendersonville, NC and the masking on the screen not only came down, but it came up to make a beautiful large cinemascope screen. Has anybody else ever seen masking come up? I have always seen it come come down and across.

Yes, I've seen this many times over the years. It can be useful in small to medium auditoriums to achieve maxium screen size, and is called "sissors masking." Loews 34th St. in Manhattan uses top, bottom and side masking in the smaller theaters to achieve the proper projected aspect ratio.

Thanks Pablo

Fox saluted Andrews for her Mary Poppins Oscar win while she was packing them in at the Rivoli in Sounf of Music.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/AndrewsOscarSOM.jpg

"I'll clear up one matter which I have mentioned on other sites.
My neice was visting me and playing on the Dell under my name andsaw the listing of my book so she said she's give a review. It wasoriginally poster under her name but then for whatever reason, it was changed to my name. At first I thought it was amusing but then gotnegative feedback from it so I'm glad it was removed. Other reviews by her are listed under her name elsewhere I believe. So much for that." (Richard W. Haine, Jun 18, 2005)
*************************************

Yeah, right! And James Bond is a virgin.

I remember reading that when MGM re-released GWTW in the 70 mm stereo version they expected it to do well. They never expected though how incredibly successful that reissue would be. The roadshows were extended in most cities. I still have the souvenir program my parents bought me in the lobby.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/GWTW70mm1968Rivoli.jpg

Robert R - I have a picture I can send you of the Rivoli Theatre marquee during the 70mm engagement of "GWTW." If you are interested just let me know your email address and I will send it to you.
Dennis - Lancaster, PA

Thanks Dennis I would love to see it

Robert4770@aol.com

Remember "Your in the Show, With Todd-AO

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/OklahomaatRivoli.jpg

Great nostalgia there! Wouldn't it be spooky if after you printed out the form, filled it, and mailed it in with a check, the tickets arrived in a few days!? You would go and there would be a magic Rivoli showing Oklahoma in Todd-AO.
...Trouble is, you would then wake up.

I got those photos from DennisZ also and I would recommend them to everyone here if they're interested. They're clear and show everything. I particularly like the shot of The Rivoli. Amazing that they even got the title of "Gone With the Wind" up on the vertical marquee!

Somewhere on this board, someone posted an ad for a roadshow and I could just barely make out the phone number to call for tickets. So I called it just to see what would happen and all I got was a busy signal.

Part of the Rivoli site is still in show biz as Carolines Comedy Club. In fact, the Carolines entrance at 1626 Broadway is roughly in the same spot as the Rivoli's. You can see photos at www.carolines.com

"Song of Bernadette" opened at the Rivoli in January of 1944. I went to Catholic school and every month or so they would rent 16mm prints and run them in the auditorium. This was one we saw every year along with "The Miracle of Our Lady of Fatima".
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/SongofBernadette.jpg

In 1971 even American International could book films into the Rivoli between major bookings.
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/DrPhibesYog.jpg

3 Roadshows
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/3Roadshows.jpg

3 Roadshows
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/3Roadshows.jpg

"StereoVision was a new attempt at 3D which only required one camera and one projector. The left/right images were on a single 35mm frame, one above the other." (vito, Jun 22, 2005)
_______________________________________________

Some StereoVision (and other similar) productions had 70mm prints struck, in which case the images were side-by-side rather than one on top of the other.

Although not advertised as a 70mm presentation in the Boston area newspaper ads at the time, Variety reported that a 70mm print of the X-rated 3-D flick "The Stewardesses" had been prepared for its Music Hall engagement. (The use of a 70mm print in a large screen situation is likely an attempt to recover some of the light loss that occurs during 3-D projection; perhaps this explains the lack of presentation format notations in the ads since its use wasn't "prestige" or "excellent performance" oriented.)

It's doubtful that the Rivoli's engagement of "The Stewardesses" mentioned somewhere in this thread was 70mm since it began prior to the Boston run and the Variety article referenced mentioned x (no pun intended) number of 35mm prints struck plus the one special 70 for Boston.

Thanks Michael for reminding me of that. Rob Endres, Radio City Music Hall chief projectionist, describes it as follows:

There were two kinds of single strip 3-D films in wide release. The "over/under" variation used for wide aspect ratio films such as "Andy Warhol's Frankenstein" and Arch Obler's "The Bubble". (Talk about blurring distinctions: even though those films had an aspect ratio similar to "Scope" technically they were flat.) The 3-D attachment superimposed the upper two-perf portion of the image over the bottom portion. With films made in the 1.37 ratio such as "House of Wax" and "The Stewardesses" the image, although "Flat" was actually two anamorphic images side by side with a slightly reduced frame height on the film. The 3-D attachment was in line with the anamorphic lens and put one of the images over the other. The 70mm 3-D release of "House of Wax" wouldn't have been anamorphic since there was room on the frame to put to "Flat" images side by side.

posted on the Radio City Music Hall site by REndres on Jul 6, 2005

Robert could you post that photo of the Rivoli with the GWTW marquee?
Any othe roadshows would be great too that we haven't seen like Sweet Charity, West Side Story, and Star.
And how about the great back wall billboard with its smaller billboard underneath? We haven't seen any of those.
And then there's that great billboard of Star above the Astor and Victoria in the fall of '68.

By the way GWTW was shown again at the Rivoli in 70mm in the 70's.
I saw a late afternoon showing after seeing a matinee of Angela Lansbury in Gypsy at the Winter Garden in I believe '73 or '74. They were selling the souvenir book for the film as well.

Vincent - I am the one who emailed the picture to Robert.I just emailed it to you. Hope you receive it. I look at that picture on my screen saver and wish I could walk back into the Rivoli Theatre again to see a 70mm presentation! Of course, it would be nice to walk into any theatre and see a 70mm presentation again!

Dennis: If you check this site periodically, you may soon be lucky enough to see 70mm again ...

http://www.in70mm.com/now_showing/index.htm

Most of the theaters seem to be in Europe, but you never know. At least 70mm is not completely dead, and most likely never will be.

I would love to see a film in 70mm again. I was really pissed this weekend when I saw War Of The Wolrds and as usualSteven Speilbeg filmed it in flat. I don't know what his damn problem is but of all his movies he has filmed very few in scope.

Huh? *Most* of Spielberg's (note the correct spelling) movies have been scope. It's just that most of his *recent* movies have been flat.

I think Spielberg chose flat to emphasize the height of the alien war machines. At least that's the reason he gave for shooting "Jurassic Park" in flat: the height of the dinosaurs.

Mikeoaklanpark
I felt the same way you did. I saw War of Worlds at Loews Raceway which has good size screens but it looked small in flat. All I kept thinking was imagine seeing this in Cinerama.

"GWTW was shown again at the Rivoli in 70mm in the 70's.
I saw a late afternoon showing after seeing a matinee of Angela Lansbury in Gypsy at the Winter Garden in I believe '73 or '74." (Vincent, Jul 6, 2005)
_________________________________________

The engagement you're recalling was probably the one that began Oct. 16, 1974. It returned again on Sep. 1, 1976.

Huh? *Most* of Spielberg's (note the correct spelling) movies have been scope. It's just that most of his *recent* movies have been flat. - posted by Michael Coate on Jul 6, 2005 at 11:02am
===========

23 films: 14 flat - 9 scope. He hasn't used Panavision since 1991; Minority Report was Super 35 and so poorly photographed it wouldn't matter if it was Cinerama.

War of the Worlds (2005) - FLAT
The Terminal (2004) - FLAT
Catch Me If You Can (2002) - FLAT
Minority Report (2002) - SCOPE (Super 35)
Artificial Intelligence: AI (2001) - FLAT
Saving Private Ryan - FLAT
Amistad (1997) - FLAT
The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) - FLAT
Schindler's List (1993) - FLAT
Jurassic Park (1993) - FLAT
Hook (1991) - SCOPE (Panavision)
Always (1989) - FLAT
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) - SCOPE (Panavision)
Empire of the Sun (1987) - FLAT
The Color Purple (1985) - FLAT
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom - SCOPE (Panavision)
Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983) - FLAT
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) - FLAT
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) - SCOPE (Panavision)
1941 (1979) - SCOPE (Panavision)
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) - SCOPE (Panavision)
Jaws (1975) - SCOPE (Panavision)
The Sugarland Express (1974) - SCOPE (Panavision)

OK, in adding up Spielberg's movies, he has actually made more "flat" than "scope...but not by much and hardly worth claiming that "he has filmed very few in scope." Most of his recent movies, in my opinion, have been disposable in the same way most contemporary movies seem to be. Whereas, when I think of Spielberg, I tend to think of his great movies from the 1970s and early '80s, most of which were scope: "Jaws," "Close Encounters," Raiders," etc.

I'm going to break one of my "rules of looking information up and instead will try this from memory. Chime in if any corrections are necessary.

The Sugarland Express (1974) flat
Jaws (1975) scope
Close Encounters Of The Third Kind (1977) scope
1941 (1979) scope
Raiders Of The Lost Ark (1981) scope
E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) flat
Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom (1984) scope
The Color Purple (1985) flat
Empire Of The Sun (1987) flat
Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade (1989) scope
Always (1989) flat
Hook (1991) scope
Jurassic Park (1993) flat
Schindler's List (1993) flat
The Lost World (1997) flat
Amistad (1997) flat
Saving Private Ryan (1998) flat
A.I. (2001) flat
Minority Report (2002) scope (super-35 originated)
Catch Me If You Can (2002) flat
The Terminal (2004) flat
War Of The Worlds (2005) flat

List is theatrical films as director. I did not include TV stuff, his segment of "Twilight Zone: The Movie" (which was flat) or stuff he is "recognized" as having directed but is credited as a producer ("Poltergeist," scope).

Summary
Scope: 9
Flat: 13

Spielberg preferes 1:85. Here is a quote from an interview:

To me, widescreen formats like CinemaScope were a Hollywood invention of the 1950s. I find the widescreen to be an artificial aspect ratio, whereas 1.85 more closely approximates the way the human eye really sees, in the sense that we see as high to low as we do from side to side. If I had to make a choice, I'd rather see from high to low. I think the most human perspective is [the range] from 1.66:1 to 1.85:1. The slickest format for theaters is 2.35:1. I've chosen the 1.85 format for my last four pictures because they were intended to be more lifelike.

Spielberg said:

" ... whereas 1.85 more closely approximates the way the human eye really sees ..."

Heck, I thought Cinerama did that the best.

"23 films
Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983) - FLAT" (PeterApruzzese)
___________________________

22 1/4 :)

Mention should be made of the unconscionable practice of some theatres to pretty much ignore proper ratio on 'Scope films. They have to use the correct lens, yes, but they crop the right and left sides of the image simply because there is not enough screen space. There is a theatre here in Providence notorious for doing it all the time. In New York, I believe the Little Carnegie, yes the Little Carnegie, used to do that. Death in Venice, when shown there, was cropped on the right and left. It was not shown in proper 'Scope (Panavision.) Then too, some theatres show 'Scope in the correct ratio, but at the same width as 1:1.85 presentations. If there is masking, you can see it drop. This, of course, defeats the purpose of 'Scope, which is meant to increase width, while not sacrificing height.

Gerald, you have opened a deep wound for me with that one. When a theatre is designed, the projection lenses should be choosen to fit the screen. This is done by choosing the proper focal length which is determined by the distance from the projector to the screen ("throw") and on the screen size, in far to many theatres not enough care in taken in this area. What you are describing is a theatre which simply threw a lens in the projector that closly fit the size of the screen. The proper method is, once you have determined the proper lens focal length, a test film (loop) should be run to properly fit the aspect ratio. These test films, provided by SMPTE or your lens provider, are projected on the screen and guide you in the proper aperature plate cutting to fit the image to the screen perfectly. Some theatres simply put a white light (no film) on the screen and cut the plates to match the screen with no regard to the lose of image or cropping caused by this method. Every new theatre must buy properly fit projection lenses, one for flat and one for scope. The anamprphic attachment is a one size fits all and is attached to the prime lens, but the prime lens MUST be the proper focal length. I am sure someone on this site might be able to explain the technicalities of all this better than I can but that is the jest of the problem you have described.

Sorry I made a typo with anamorphic which is of course the scope lens

Actually SUGARLAND EXPRESS was in scope, not 1.85.

This was another argument against scope for Spielberg. He disliked
pan n scan for VHS, he went on record stating how much he hated the format. There was a bit of a war with "Raiders" when he fought the format from being used. He later gave in.

Weren't all Speilberg films shot(or at least directed)flat?

Sept 65 Fox did a block ad for it's two roadshows "Sound of Music" and "Magnificent Men in Flying Machines" which was at the Demille.
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/MedHolidayManchurian.jpg

"The Sugarland Express (1974) flat" (Michael Coate, July 6, 2005)

"Actually SUGARLAND EXPRESS was in scope, not 1.85." (bufffilmbuff, Jul 7, 2005)
__________________________________________

I don't remember typing in "flat"! I certainly know "The Sugarland Express" was scope. I've seen it; I've reported it as scope in magazine articles and reviews on which I contributed; and, even if I mistyped it, it should be obvious I knew it was scope because in that post's summary I correctly claimed nine as the number of scope films directed by Spielberg.

So...which Cinema Treasures guy edited my post to make me look bad??!! Or better yet, how 'bout I use the excuse of my niece messing around on my computer, and she was the one who actually made that Spielberg post and somehow, as if by magic, my name ended up on it!

Old Rudolph Valentino ad from the Rivoli for sale:

http://www.genealogyimagesofhistory.com/images/rodopho.JPG

I love the block ad Robert posted of SOM and Magnificent Men. I assume its from the summer of '65. And to think at the same time I saw MFL next store at the Criterion.
Boo to the nouvelle vague americane of the late 60's and early 70's.
It ruined movies forever.
Now tell me honestly all the movies of Coppolla, Scorcese and Altman put together are they worth How the West was Won in 3 strip Cinerama?

Hey Vincent, don't go knocking the 70s Scorcese and Coppolla. Yes, today their creativity is pretty much gone but back then, they literally (IMO) saved film. I don't think I would be as big a movie fan or even on THIS site if it were not for them. They created some of the most exciting and original film making of all time. I'm not a big fan of Altman, though. I find his films phony and overly self reverential. "Kids" today talk about Scorcese and Coppola as Gods. They do not know much about Altman.

The issue that may be dragging you down about the 70s American "New Wave" is how dramatically different it was from the films released just a few years before. As bad a critic as he is, Jeffrey Lyons once made an interesting point that there was barely a four year difference between "The Sound of Music" and "Midnight Cowboy", two films as different as night and day.

But like you, I LOVED that ad that RobertR posted. What I found surprising was that "The Manchurian Candidate" (hands down, the absolute BEST political thriller EVER made!) was in re-release. I thought Sinatra had pulled it out of circulation after the Kennedy assasination.

I could never figure out what Sinatra meant when he said he pulled it from circulation after JFK. The film was shown at least twice on network TV (which is where I saw it) - on CBS in the '60's a few years after Kennedy's death, and again on NBC in the early '70's. The '70's showing included the gory shot of the brains splattering the wall, which somehow got past the NBC censors.

Here's another double ad from 1965 that I posted on the Capitol page:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/billhuelbig/cinerama2.jpg

Well I guess we agree to disagree on the Scorcese and Coppolla front as I find their films as exciting as somebody else's unpleasant home movies.(Recently flipped on a channel and saw what I thought was a particularly dull and unimaginative Masterpiece Theater episode and it was Scrocese's Age of Innocence one of the most beautiful of american books!)
But we agree on Manchurian Candidate. A terrific film and I was as surprised as you to see that ad.
By the way only a year separated Oliver and Midnight Cowboy.

One of the things that shocked and still shocks me about "Candidate" is that brain splattering scene. This is a film made in 1962! The late great movie critic Pauline Kael called "The Manchurian Candidate" one of the most exciting American films of the 60s.

As for "Oliver", in my opinion, it's the very last of the great movie musicals. Remarkable that it's kind of forgotten but it really is an excellent film. Dramatically speaking, it's better than "The Sound of Music". "Music" is pretty thin material if you look very closely at it. "Oliver" has a much more compelling storyline and characters. The mood and music are perfect.

Scorcese did a fine, fine job with "The Age of Innocence".

I don't want to be a pain in the butt, and I misspell things too, but I get annoyed at the frequent misspellings by many folks of the last names of Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola. I guess it bothers me because I am an Italian American. So that leads me to recommend to you Martin Scorsese's "family film" entitled Italianamerican if you haven't seen it. It's a hoot.

The Scorcese mispelling was a typo but you got me on the Coppola.

I've always felt Scorcese had great taste in movies as an audience. We love a lot of the same films and I appreciate his attempt to evoke Minnelli, Cukor, Wyler, Visconti, and Ophuls in Innocence. But due to their cultural upbringing they had a style and taste which from what I've seen can no longer be recreated. That's why everything to me in period films seems like Masterpiece Theater-weightless and dull.
Cukor could make Pat and Mike or MFL, Minnelli Gigi or Some Came Running, Ophuls Liebelei or Madame De, Visconti Rocco or Leopardo,
Wyler Carrie or Ben Hur. By the way they were also lucky with the craftsmen amd women they had working for them.
Yep, they were film giants. Is there a person alive today you could compare to them?(I'll give you Bergman.)

Ha ha! Is it a typo again? It's Scorsese, -sese, not -cese. I'm glad we like a lot of the same films, especially Visconti's Rocco and Il Gattopardo. They're incredibly great.

Oh my goodness I must have a mental block. However I never mispell Minnelli.

From October 1961 - opening night of "West Side Story":

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/billhuelbig/rivoli1961.jpg

I agree with Vincent todays film director's can't compare with the master film director's from Hollywood's Golden Era. Due to Hitler's Nazi Germany the great European directors fled Europe to make there films in Hollywood at the height of the studio system.It was a rare time that produced quality mass audience films of all types. The Hollywood of today produces few quality films each year and todays A list films such as Batman Begins,Spiderman2 and War of the Worlds would of been the B films during the studio sytsem.brucec

Hey Bill Huelbig, Whats the history of some of these ads you are listing for us? Some are real pieces of old newsprint, have you been saving them for years. Some have tape marks, did you have them on the wall at some point? They are the ones I like best they are nice and sharp and the paper has yellowed and I find them very evocative. Sometimes I feel like I am scanning the pages of the NY Times again when there was a choice of great films to see every day. Try doing that today. Thanks and keep up the good work!

Bill,I would like to second Porter's remarks, the ads are a treasure
What great memories they stir up!

The ads I posted yesterday for West Side Story, The Wizard of Oz, Marty etc. were copied from microfilm in 1972, the year I began college. The location of the New York Times microfilm collection in the library basement of Seton Hall U. was probably the best thing I learned the whole time I was there! I taped them to pieces of oak tag and hung them on my bedroom wall, and they were still taped to the oak tag 33 years later. They were only collecting dust where they were, so it was better to post them here and share them with people who'd really appreciate them, like you guys.

Most of my other posts are from the Hackensack Public Library's microfilm collection - I've been going there on my days off - but a few of them are from an actual New York Times Arts and Leisure section from 1968 that I still have intact (because of "2001: A Space Odyssey").

Bill,
the ads are great stuff! Thanks for sharing them.

You have a complete Arts and Leisure from 68?!!!
Nothing is like the real paper, I wonder if these are obtainable on E bay or is this just too arcane.
By the way I wonder what was the size of the screen for West Side Story here. I have never seen this film in real 70mm as it has not been shown here in NY probably since it left the Rivoli in '63.

Vincent, I played "West Side Story" all over Long Island, New York in 1962-63 and can only recall one 70mm run, at the Syosset, which I believe was in the spring of 1962. All the other runs I did were 35mm. I don't even recall any 35mm mag stereo prints only optical mono, mag prints were getting scarce by then.
Perhaps Michael Coate knows of some other 70mm runs im NY.

A timeworn exterior image from 1932, long before UATC assigned the theatre's management to its Skouras division, which never tried to preserve its original decor and ruined its classy reputation through banal "modernization" into a wide-screen roadshow venue:
www.i8.photobucket.com/albums/a18/Warrengwhiz/130-3023_IMG.jpg

1974 and "Gone With the Wind" was back again in 70mm but this time continuous showings.
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/Movie%20Ads/airport75.jpg

While people bash the 70mm version of GWTW it was great seeing this at the Rivoli in '74. What I would give to see it like this again!
Is it really any better seeing it on DVD?
(Of course the original at the Capitol, Astor or Atlanta Loew's Grand would be best of all.)

Upcoming DVD anniversary release of Oklahoma and Todd AO.
Wouldn't it have shown an ounce of ingenuity to show all of this on a specially installed screen at the Ziegfeld?
So ironic that Todd AO was meant to get people away from TV and now its the only place you can see it.

1955 Rodgers & Hammerstein musical film with Gordon MacRae, Shirley Jones, Gloria Grahame, Gene Nelson, Charlotte Greenwood, Eddie Albert, Rod Steiger. Includes Cinemascope and Todd AO versions that were filmed simultaneously in 1955. Extras: commentary by Ted Chapin and Hugh Fordin, Sing Along Subtitles, the trailer and a separate chapter list for songs only with a play-all feature, commentary by Shirley Jones and Nick Redman, "Cinemascope vs. Todd AO," "The Miracle of Todd-AO" and "The March of Todd-AO" featurettes, vintage stage excerpts "Oh, What a Beautiful Mornin'" performed by Gordon MacRae and "People Will Say We're in Love" performed by Gordon MacRae & Florence Henderson (from the 1954 General Foods 25th Anniversary TV Special), still galleries. Both versions in widescreen

Good notes Vincent, might I add that Frank Sinatra was originally signed on to play the lead but backed out when he heard everything had to be filmed twice, once in Todd-Ao and again in CinemaScope.
I understood that the production was not filmed simultaneously but each scene shot twice. The irony was, part way thru filming, reduction printing was improved and developed making filming the two versions unnecessary. Any idea if any of this is true? Thanks for the info on the DVD I will be looking for that.

Vito: The problem with Todd-AO that caused the double shooting was the speed on the first two pictures of 30 F.P.S. which couldn't readily be converted to 24 frame 35mm. (The same problem exists with the orignal Cinerama 3-strip features which were shot at 26 frame. While transfers to video exist of "Brothers Grimm and "HTWWW" which were shot at 24 frames to make transfer to conventional 35mm possible, no one has transferred or made a new print of any of the orignal Cinerama material possibly because of the special equipment that would be needed.) I worked as a projectionist in Otto Preminger's home screening room for a while, and read up on him. One of the storys was that he wanted to shoot "Porgy & Bess" in Todd-AO, but Sam Goldwyn balked, saying that they would have to shoot everyting twice. Preminger told him that was no longer necessary. ("South Pacific" was the first Todd-AO film shot at 24 frames for subsequent transfer to 35mm.) Preminger got to shoot "Porgy" in Todd-AO and went on to do "Exodus" in 70mm as well.

I believe it was Carousel Sinatra walked off of. Boy did he get bad advice from his agent. Though neither he nor Macrae were right for this musical perhaps the worst adaptation of a R and H show. But then there was nobody. You would have needed a Brando who could sing magnificently. A very young Raitt from a kinescope is tremendous but he did not have star quality on the screen.
By the way the Todd AO Oklahoma is far superior to the Cinemascope version.

Thanks for that info Rob, I had not known all all that came together, your posts are always so informative and educational, thanks! any more Preminger stories?
Vincent, of course you are right, it was Carousel, but didn't Sinatra walk off for the same reasons? Carousel had to be shot twice, once in CinemaScope 55 and again in reg 35mm CinemaScope?
Perhaps Rob Endres knows the technical facts behind the CimemaScope reduction prints which apprentantly were not possible during that shooting. I am so happy to have been around to see both Oklahoma in Todd-Ao at the Rivoli and Carousel at the Roxy, although I believe Carousel was a 35mm reduction print.

Lucky you Vito.
You're right about Carousel. It was never, ever shown in Cinemascope 55.(I believe there is a thread on that somewhere.)
Also the 30 frames was far superior to the 24 frames image so its too bad it was only used for two films.
Also interesting is that 80 Days had a much longer theatrical history than OK. Yet OK still exists in the Todd AO format and 80 Days does not.

An order form for the Roadshow of "West Side Story"
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/Movie%20Ads/b4721bc9.jpg

1961 re-release of "The King & I" 70mm roadshow
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/Movie%20Ads/421cd32c.jpg

Thanks for the two great ads, Robert. You always see hype like "one of the greatest" tossed around in movie ads, but in the case of "West Side Story", they were being 100% accurate.

Thanks all for the posts. My only regret is that I didn't get to see Moonraker at the Rivoli, where it premiered in NYC back in 79. I just came from part of a Bond program at the Museum of Modern Art with my youngest brother, and we walked to the Rivoli and were tempted to buy tickets, but the line went around the block! Then in 83 Moonraker again played for a week with From Russia With Love, but again I missed it.
I recall seeing only two movies there, DC Cab with Mr. T and Easy Money with Rodney Dangerfield.

By the way, the Bond program was a two day event, on opening day of Moonraker they showed You Only Live Twice and The Spy Who Loved Me, followed by a panel with Lewis Gilbert, Albert Broccoli and Ken Adam. The next day was a series of TV shows about the making of Spy Who Loved Me (which unfortunately I missed) followed by an appearance by Maurice Binder, who showed the titles for the Bond films he worked on, as well as trailers and titles for non-Bond movies.

I saw "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" in that Museum of Modern Art series, and the print was missing the important scene in Berne, Switzerland, in the lawyer's office. It just skipped right over the entire sequence. And that was supposed to be a print from Broccoli's personal collection. Never could figure out what went wrong there.

A 1947 view of the Rivoli's electric signs and billboards on the west side of Seventh Avenue:
www.i8.photobucket.com/albums/a18/Warrengwhiz/134-3463_IMG.jpg

Hi Bill, I remember that screening at the MOMA, that was in '87 for the 25 Anniversary of the Bond series. I think it was also missing the scene in M's office during the pre-title sequence. I wrote to the person at the museum in charge of the exhibit telling her how much I enjoyed the program~~they also featured many props, photos, artwork and posters from the movies as well as a tv monitor that showed pre-title sequences from many of the movies. I also mentioned the missing footage. She actually wrote back thanking me for writing and said she was aware of the missing scenes, and they were in the process of restoring them. I don't know if they were ever shown at the museum again, so I can't say if they restored the scenes. All the same, it was a wonderful exhibit, and I wish I could have been able to see all the movies (I only got to see OHMSS, Diamonds Are Forever, The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker).

Hi Bill, I remember that screening at the MOMA, that was in '87 for the 25 Anniversary of the Bond series. I think it was also missing the scene in M's office during the pre-title sequence. I wrote to the person at the museum in charge of the exhibit telling her how much I enjoyed the program~~they also featured many props, photos, artwork and posters from the movies as well as a tv monitor that showed pre-title sequences from many of the movies. I also mentioned the missing footage. She actually wrote back thanking me for writing and said she was aware of the missing scenes, and they were in the process of restoring them. I don't know if they were ever shown at the museum again, so I can't say if they restored the scenes. All the same, it was a wonderful exhibit, and I wish I could have been able to see all the movies (I only got to see OHMSS, Diamonds Are Forever, The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker).

Hi Bill, I remember that screening at the MOMA, that was in '87 for the 25 Anniversary of the Bond series. I think it was also missing the scene in M's office during the pre-title sequence. I wrote to the person at the museum in charge of the exhibit telling her how much I enjoyed the program~~they also featured many props, photos, artwork and posters from the movies as well as a tv monitor that showed pre-title sequences from many of the movies. I also mentioned the missing footage. She actually wrote back thanking me for writing and said she was aware of the missing scenes, and they were in the process of restoring them. I don't know if they were ever shown at the museum again, so I can't say if they restored the scenes. All the same, it was a wonderful exhibit, and I wish I could have been able to see all the movies (I only got to see OHMSS, Diamonds Are Forever, The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker).

Here is one of American Internationals attempts at something other then drive-in flicks. The world premiere was at the Rivoli
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/Movie%20Ads/deSade.jpg

In 1957 I was going on 14, and my Mom insisted that I see "Around The World In 80 Days" at the Rivoli, so she sent me into Manhattan from Brooklyn one Saturday morning with about $1.75 (!!!) to catch the first showing. I can still remember standing in front of the theater. 12 years later I remember being amazed that I could see "Hello, Dolly !" there while the show was still on Broadway. The last film I saw there was "Coal Miner's Daughter" with my brother. A note on Bette Davis in "The Little Foxes": In several books I've read,it seems that Wyler wanted the character played as more charming and womanly, whereas Bette seemed to go for a cold, steely interpretation. Incidentally, "Another Part of the Forest" is a phenomenal film. The original Broadway production starred Patricia Neal, who I kissed on the cheek on vacation this summer in a roadside gourmet grocery store in Oakland, Maine !!! frankie from Brooklyn

Attention Richard Dziadzio and Tim Elliot.
Could you contact me privately by e mail re some info from your previous posts?
Thanks.

Does anyone remember the RKO Cinerama, which sometime in the '80's was renamed the RKO Warner? It was on Broadway in the upper 40's, either 47 or 48 Street. I was only there twice, once in 81 to see Superman II, and then in 83 to see The Right Stuff. I actually saw Superman II in a brief re-release around Thanksgiving, it was a twin theater by then, and I saw it in the balcony theater, which I remember was HUGE. The Right Stuff played in the lower, orchestra theater. I recall it being large but a bit smaller than the balcony theater. The sound was a little better than the upstairs theater, and the screen seemed to be curved, like the old Cinerama screens were reported to be. I don't remember when the theater was closed and demolished, I would assume it was late 80's or early 90's.
Anyway I didn't see this theater listed on this site, so I was wondering if anyone remembers it or has any info on it. Thanks.

It is listed under the original name of the theatre. Look under the Strand Theatre New York, NY.

francan;The theatre you mention above is listed here:- http://cinematreasures.org/theater/2975 Normally theatres on Cinema Treasures are listed by their last name, in this case it is listed under its original and most well known name. The aka's are not searchable at the moment.

Thank you William and KenRoe for the info on this theater, that's another interesting page. I'm pretty sure both The Right Stuff and Superman II were 70mm prints, which seemed to be a specialty of this theater. Even though I hardly see current movies anymore (I prefer revivals at the Film Forum), and I am aware that with today's economy it's more practical to open mulitplexes with 200 seat auditoria, I still really miss these huge movie palaces.
By the way, I recently read The Best Remaining Seats by Ben M. Hall, which got me interested enough in movie palaces to find this site. It was a very interesting read, and I like Mr. Hall's sense of humor, which makes it more entertaining while still being respectful of the subject. I have the Da Capo trade paperback edition, which seems to have printed a "color" photo section in black and white. It's currently out of print, but I just checked amazon.com and found they have a few copies available. I strongly recommend it to anyone not familiar with it.

to frankcan,
I rememhber seeing Superman 2 at the Cinerama 1. Definately not the 2. Perhaps they moved it at some point. You're right the 2 was huge I always felt that it was the entire Strand Balconey with modern decor. It you see original pictures of the balcony it is exactly the same but with ornate moldings. Stadium seating before the term was coined. You are right about the sound in 1. It was great. there isn't a theater I've been in since the destruction in the late 80's of the great Times Square houses where the sound is as good. Or maybe its just a different type of sound that I do not like. Too glassy, not enough warmth and richness. And geez is it loud.

Hi Vincent. Actually I had missed Superman II during its first release in the summer of 81, but for some reason it returned to the theater that fall, probably to make a few more dollars during Thanksgiving weekend. That's when they moved it to Theater 2. I don't remember any decor, I think it was just curtains and surround speakers, though I could be wrong as it was so long ago. I actually saw The Right Stuff there at a sneak preview, the sound design was rich enough to begin with, and the Cinerama's awesome sound system did it justice. Personally I'm not too big a fan of all these new digital sound systems, they seem mainly to make the explosion sounds louder and are starting to sound so cliched as to be "canned" and not very realistic anyway.

Currently there are three Digital sound formats available. All releases today carry Quad sound tracks, which means all four sound tracks (3 digital and 1 analog) are on the print. Of the three the most popular is Dolby, it's a good sound when it works properly, however it must be maintaned. The original installations included a penthouse reader similar to the old magnetic penthouses which sat above the projector head, but most installations now have a "basement reader" which has both the analog and digital pickup heads mounted in the optical sound head below the projector head.
The basement reader does not seem to work as well as the penthouse reader, there are LEDs that begin to dimish and must be kept at a recommended power to operate properly. When this is not monitored you will experience the kind of sound Vincent described. In addition the quality of the sound can be determined by the condition of the print and how the sound image was printed on the print. You might notice a change in the quality of the sound from reel to reel. Clearly there is work to be done but when it works properly and the amplifiers and equalization is set to spec, the sound can be rather good. Unfortunatly some theatres just let the equipment run and run without proper maintenance and the result can be rather awful. The six tracks: left,center,right,left surround, right surround and sub woofers must also be balanced, I have heard theatres were the surround levels are set too high and that can be distracting.

king of the khyber rifles-1953
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b15/myrtleave/scan0010.jpg

This is an old photo of the entrance to the Rivoli Theater from the Carrier Air Conditioning Co.

Another Rivoli roadshow
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/Movie%20Ads/BigFisherman.jpg

Here's an image of the "presentation curtain" that was installed for the Todd-AO engagement of "Oklahoma!":
www.i8.photobucket.com/albums/a18/Warrengwhiz/138-3837_IMG.jpg

anyone who complains about those old ads being posted needs to really rethink thier feelings about old film. I spend alot of time looking at the periphery and seeing what else was going on.

I was in NYC this past Saturday and walked up Broadway and recalled where all of the great theatres were. Seeing them adding an apartment building a block up from where the Rivoli stood. Then explaining to my nephew how there were nothing but movie theatres along 42nd street and then all up and down Broadway.

SIGH.

How well I remember those wonderful theatres, during the 50s I worked for 20th Century Fox on 50th, or was it 52nd, and 10th. When weather permitted I would get off the subway at 42nd st and walk to work from there. Sometimes I walked along 42nd down to 8th ave and looked at all those great times square theatre marquees. Other times I would take B'way or 7th, passing theatre after theatre. I can't stand looking at it now.

So Robert Wise dies who is one of the very last of the top tier talents from the golden age of Hollywood who was still alive and he does not even rate a one line mention on the front page of the New York Times. What a culturally disastrous world we live in and the "paper of record" certainly leads the way.

I agree with Vincent here. The obituary in Variety was more in keeping with Wise's great talent. The headline read "A Master of Cinema".

The Rivoli page is a good place to talk about Robert Wise. His films kept the theater packed with thrilled, satisfied customers for several years.

Now that he's gone (and Guy Green, director of "A Patch of Blue", died yesterday at age 91, same age as Wise), who's left? I can only think of Stanley Donen and Sidney Lumet.

To be fair to the New York Times, they did mention Wise on the front page of yesterday's late edition, which we get here at work. It was a listing in the "Inside" index at the bottom of the page: "Robert Wise, Director, Dies" ... page A29.

Thanks Bill for pointing that out however a late edition blip seems hardly the distinction the man deserves. Am I alone in feeling that way? I guess my world has passed by.

No, you're right, Vincent. He deserved one of those front page below-the-fold articles with a picture. He got the same treatment as Bob Denver. He should've gotten the same treatment as Marlon Brando.

I found it odd that IMDB didn't have much of a blurb either but I might've missed something. I read about Wise's death on another website but was surprised to see little or nothing about it on IMDB.

Good movie or not (sorry, but it's debatable...) "The Sound of Music" is loved by millions. For that Wise deserved more. BUT you have to remember that Wise is considered by many (including PAULINE KAEL) to be one of the major talents behind "Citizen Kane".

He also made a lot of other great films as well.

In addition he was a supreme gentleman. Had the privilege of meeting him and Portia Nelson at the Biograph when they held a Wise festival in the early 90's. Do those kinds of classy people in anybody under 70 exist anymore?

I met Mr. Wise also, when the Biograph showed "Star!" sometime in the '90's (may have been the same festival Vincent attended). During intermission, I got to thank him personally for "The Day the Earth Stood Still" and "The Haunting".

I moved to NYC in 1979...saw several movies at the Rivoli over the years while it was still open. The first was Coal Miner's Daughter...I was blown away by the size of the screen...the biggest I had ever seen.

Saw about a half hour of Cleopatra on TCM last night. Does anybody have any memories/recollections of seeing it at the Rivoli in Todd AO? That must have been something!

World Premiere of Come To The Stables B&W photo.
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~angell/thsa/jc05-2.jpg

Vincent: instead of seeing "Lizpatra" at the Rivoli, I travelled to Boston to see it at the Wang Center (then called the Music Hall) in July '63. There the prices were cheaper and the waiting time for tickets was shorter. (Never mind the expense and the time it took to get to Boston.) I just posted a Playbill program for that event on the page for the Wang Center of the Performing Arts (Boston) on this site. The Todd-AO presentation at that huge theater was superb.

The Playbill runs to twenty-four pages, and I reproduce only six of them, but I like the ads, especially the one on the title page that implies the "Hungry Pilgrim" restaurant at the Statler Hilton Hotel served an After Theater supper up until noon the next day. Now, we all know that the film is egregiously over-long and that patrons would have been famished after it; but did restaurants discover that the After Theater crowd would keep arriving until the following day's lunch hour?

In 1954 the Rivoli revived "Lost Weekend" but this time on the Giant Miracle Screen.
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/Movie%20Ads/LostWeekend1954reissue.jpg

This ad from 1/76 shows a holiday re-issue of "Snow White" at the Rivoli.
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/Movie%20Ads/1976SnowWhite.jpg

BOB
Amazing that you went to see Cleo in Boston. Though I imagine I would have done the same at the time had I been able to. I would have even flown to London to see Lawrence at the Odeon Leicester, MFLady at the Warner Leicester and SOM at the Dominion just to see how these big movies were presented at the various roadshow houses. Also just imagine who you would have been able to see on stage there!
Oh yes, and then to Paris for Cinerama.

Vincent--

Now that I think of it, another first-run film that I skipped at the Rivoli and saw out-of-town was “West Side Story.” The film opened in October ’61, but I had already stood twice through the play at the Winter Garden a block north and the Rivoli's price-scale and advance sell-out deterred me. As it happened, I saw it the following Spring in Brussels during a break in my foreign studies. The dialogue had been dubbed into French and presented with Flemish sub-titles; the songs remained in English, with a line of French sub-titles added to the Flemish ones. Quite a bit of alphabet competed with Natalie on the screen. I remember its roadshow presentation at a large, modern theater with an impressively curved screen—a somewhat scaled down version of the one at the Rivoli. The price was well within my $4.00 per day travel budget, though it might have pressed me to forego a Belgian beer or two to stretch my wallet that night. The theater could have been the Acropole or the Vendôme or the De Brouckère before any of them was cut into a maze of mini-theaters. The Varieties at the time was showing Cinerama.

"Hello Dolly" was part of this 2/70 holiday block ad from Fox. A few blocks away "Patton" was playing roadshow at the Criterion.
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/Fox1970HolidayBlock.jpg

Front and rear views (1963):
www.i8.photobucket.com/albums/a18/Warrengwhiz/rivoli1.jpg
www.i8.photobucket.com/albums/a18/Warrengwhiz/rivoli2.jpg

Warren it looks as though a Brando film(between WSS and Cleo?) was playing when the 7th Av photo was shot. Did the Rivoli eventually paint Harrison over Liz's shoulder or did he stay in the snapshot in the right.
Remember meeting Harrison once to get his autograph on my MFL souvenir program. He seemed astonished and delighted to see it(didn't he have copies lying everywhere in his home?)
Amazing to meet this man who I had seen in 70mm glory at the Criterion and who had starred in Todd AO splendor at the Rivoli and the State.

Another great Harrison peformance I believe opened at the Rivoli. Unfaithfully Yours(or was it the Roxy?)

A night in 1961: www.i8.photobucket.com/albums/a18/Warrengwhiz/rivoli3.jpg

On the up coming "Oklahoma!" 50th Anniversary Edition there are some great featurette material. Like "The Miracle of Todd-AO", The March of Todd-AO" and a new one called "CinemaScope vs. Todd-AO". In some of this material there is footage of the Rivoli and Egyptian Theatres that opened "Oklahoma!". And during the featurette "The Miracle of Todd-AO" during the rollercoaster scene you can see the stagehouse and rear half of the old Fox Dome Theatre in Santa Monica. That scene was taken on the roller coaster at the old Pacific Ocean Park at the border of Santa Monica and Venice Beach in California.

The destruction of the Rivoli theatre is another result of the Broadway district being revamped for skyscrapers that are
more profitable. Unfortunately, the character and appearance of Broadway has and is changing-and not for the better. A certain charm has been lost. It is now being geered for the tourists and the rich. Culture has taken a "side seat." It is now an area of mega glitz.

Well said ERD, we have only our memories and photographs of a wonderful time. I was there, trouble is I did not appreciate how magnificent it all was at the time. I never expected to lose it all, but we did. I was working for UA when the Rivoli was carved into three theatres, I worked on the projection installation. It was then I realised things were changing fast and not, in my opinion, in a good way.

Sorry, I meant to say the theatre was carved into two theatres, it was the Syosset on Long Island that was carved into three shortly there after.

Flo & Sam & Eddie make whoopee in Technicolor (1930):
www.i8.photobucket.com/albums/a18/Warrengwhiz/whoopee.jpg

Your thoughts resonate with me, Vito... I feel like I didn't appreciate the beauty of those old Times Square theaters either. I was mostly attracted to the more lurid double-bills presented at the grind houses on 42nd Street, but I did make my way to a few of the old "roadshow" palaces on B'Way from time to time during the very late '70's and early '80's. The Loew's State was already a twin by that time as was the RKO Cinerama (former Strand) so, much of their beauty was obscured by the conversion - although I do recall admiring the upstairs theater at the State. The Rivoli was the only one of these theaters that I can remember seeing before it was cut up or altered in any way. The movie was 1979's "Dawn of the Dead" and I remember the place was immense.

I wish I could say that I recall with clarity any details of the interior design and architecture, but I really don't. I took it all for granted. I know for sure I came back here to see Sylvester Stallone in "First Blood" but I think the place had been twinned by that time. I don't think I started appreciating the magnificence of some of these old theaters until the last time I visited the RKO Keith's in Flushing around 1986. I felt as though I was in a place that was "out of phase" with the rest of the world... It was as if I had been transported to a place where time stood still and the world outside had completely passed it by (despite the fact that the theater had been already been converted to a triplex). But it was obvious that time had caught on to this forgotten space and was quickly closing in. The smell of death was on the old place and I thought I'd better have a look around and drink it all in before it was too late.

Unfortunately, by then, my trips into Times Square were few and far between and I don't think I had the same opportunity to "drink in" and appreciate those old palaces as I had with the Keith's. And now they're ALL gone. I'm thankful that the redevelopment of 42nd Street has allowed me to finally visit the New Amsterdam Theater (which was either already shuttered or about to be when I started attending movies on the Deuce in '79-'80) and the New Victory (which was porn at the time and me and my buddies weren't into that). Plus, I get to go back and revisit the Selwyn Theater with some frequency as a subscriber to the Roundabout Theater. I've also visited the AMC Empire 25 and tried to remember, as I ascend on escalator through the preserved proscenium arch to the modern auditoriums beyond, what the old Empire felt like back in the grind-house days. I hope someday that I can get back inside the Liberty and Times Square theaters after their refitting for "adaptive re-use" is complete, but I wonder how much will remain for me to reflect back upon my youth.

I just wonder why did they forget about the big first-run houses on the Square itself? Why do cinematic landmarks take a backseat to theatrical ones? Particularly when some of these theaters might have been refurbished for live performance?

Anyway... enough of my lamentations. Does anyone know what the last film was to have a splashy Hollywood-type premier in one of the old palaces on Times Square? I know from the DVD that "Jaws" premiered at the Rivoli in 1975, and as we know, began the whole "blockbuster imperative" that changed the way films were marketed and distributed. I also know that many films have had big premiers at the modern Loew's Astor Plaza, but was "Jaws" the last hoorah for the old-time theaters?

The Whoopee photo is great. You can only imagine what this looked like at night. Was it cont. perfs or roadshow?
Interesting for a major release like WWS the front of the marquee had no translucent panels and why did does Natalie get the same billing as everyone else?
This sold out for months. It's hard to imagine today that large theater filling its seats for every performance, including those narrow sections at the very sides of the orchestra where the seats were two across.

June 1963
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/Movie%20Ads/Cleopatra.jpg

Well Liz might of played a queen at this theater but the real queen of the Rivoli was Shirley(!) with 3 roadshows. Andrews was the queen of roadshows with 4 in all(she might have had two more if distribution and Hollywood hadn't changed.)
I guess the king was Omar Shariff with three roadshow home runs. Others though may have had more films play roadshow however like O'Toole(5) and Harrison(4.)I count 3 for Heston.

This photo was originally posted on the Winter Garden Theater site, but I thought I'd link it from here as well since you can clearly see the monstrosity that would replace the Rivoli Theater rising on the right side of the image.

I also didn't notice until now that the sign for the old Hawaii Kai night club was still in existence at the time of this photo, though I'm not sure if the club itself was still open. My Mom came to the house the other day and showed me an 8x10 souvenir photo from the Hawaii Kai that she had found in her box of old scraps. The photo is from the very early '60's and shows Mom, Dad, my Grandparents and my Aunt & Uncle dressed to the nines for a night out on the town. Priceless.

I just saw that Andrews and all the kids were on Good Morning america to celebrate the 40 anniversary of SOM.
Wished I had known.
Too bad they didn't give it week's run in Todd AO.

Here's a photo I took this weekend of the Winter Garden Theater blockfront on Broadway and you can see all but the very tippy-top of the very large skyscraper behind it that was built on the site of the old Rivoli:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b110/GuanoReturns/Manhattan%20Theaters%202005/IMG_1172.jpg

At ground floor level is Caroline's Comedy Nite Club and a Ruby Foo's chinese restaurant. By the way, if you're ever in the neighborhood, Ellen's Stardust Diner is a fun - if crowded - place to take luncheon. The singing wait staff puts on a good show as you dine.

The first film I saw at the Rivoli was "Francis of Assisi" with Bradford Dillman back in 1961.Since then I saw "70 mm version of "Gone With the Wind" and "Sound of Music". It's a shame these fabulous movie houses were never deginated as landmarks.

One of the Rivoli's early orchestra leaders was Erno Rapeé (1891-1945), who was also a noted film composer. He began conducting theatrically at the Rialto after a successful American tour. He later was the leader at the Capitol, Philidelphia Fox, UFA Berlin Theater, the Roxy and finally the Radio City Music Hall orchestra.

The breakdown of the Rivoli original orchestra was:

8 First Violins, 4 Second Violins, 4 Violas, 4 Cellos, 3 Basses, 2 Flutes, 2 Clarinets, 1 Oboe, 1 Bassoon, 2 Horns, 3 Trumpets, 2 Trombones, 2 Drummers, 1 Harp

"For The First Time On The Giant Miracle Screen!" (March, 1954):
www.i8.photobucket.com/albums/a18/Warrengwhiz/rivoli354.jpg

United Artists Twin should be an additional name here. Like it or not, it ran under that name for almost three years.

Here is an Opening day ad for "Hollywood", July 29th, 1923.

i saw the sound of music at the rivoli when i was in high school
and thought what a great theatre to manage...
in 75 i was made city manager of the rivoli...first theatre to play jaws, great waldo pepper and the savage is loose..do to the fact we
held a picture for two or three months, every new grand opening
ment a paint job front to back up and down and a new screen..i have some photo's of the theatre would like to share them...
tell me how
longislandwally75

Wally... If you have a scanner, you can scan the photos into your computer hard drive and then host them on a website (such as flickr.com, photobucket.com or webshots.com). You can then link those photos in a comment as many of us who contribute regularly do. You can get a free account relatively easy at most of those websites. If you don't have a scanner, you should be able to go down to your local CVS (or other chain store with a photo development center) and they should be able to have your photos digitized and placed on a CD ROM for you. If you have the negatives, I think it's cheapest.

I have many theater photos that I've personally shot and many that I've snagged online (more than a few thanks to CT contributors like Warren, RobertR, Jerry Kovar and others) located in my photobucket album. If you already have the photos scanned into your computer (or once you do so) I'd be more than happy to throw them up on my account and post a link to them for you. You can click the following link to peruse the photos I have already placed on my account: http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b110/GuanoReturns/

Anyway... no matter how you manage to share them, I'd sure love to see your photos. Good luck. If you click on my name below, you will find my email address located in my profile. Feel free to contact me.

UA destryoing the Rivoli (uselessly renamed UA Twin)
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/Movie%20Ads/SlaughterHigh.jpg

From Rogers & Hammerstein to Troma :(
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/Movie%20Ads/MonsterintheCloset.jpg

edsolero

let me know if you have the photos rivoli and 59th street twins

wally1975

Wally... I didn't get an email. It's possible I didn't recognize the name and deleted it with the tons of junk I get, but I usually check the subject line for items of interest. Anyway... send it again and I'll look out for it.

edsolero

i may be a mixed up,,i post pictures of rivoli and rko 59th st.tiwns
ny..on the photo bucket..

isn't that you...when i clicked on your name it fliped to that..
my e mail is:
www.longislandwally@yahoo.com
get me through it..wally 75

ps...as i said i posted it..but there wasn't a submit or send

i just checked it the pictures are sill there,

wally1975

Wally... I'll email you. You might have posted into your own account, I don't see any new photos on mine. You shouldn't be able to post directly to photobucket without a password.

RobertR... Thanks for those ads! That "Monster in the Closet" ad shows that the film was booked at the two absolute worst theaters in all of Queens! Compare either of them to the Rivoli - even in its UA Twin configuration!

Well... I got Wally's photos taken at the Rivoli during the 1975 premier of "The Great Waldo Pepper" (thanks again Wally)...

The crowd under the marquee
The red carpet in B&W
A country boy
Star and director are shown their seats

That last photo of Robert Redford and director George Roy Hill being shown their seats evidences the drapery on the side walls of the auditorium that obscured much of the decoration in the place. I don't recall if they ran all the way up the wall - I'm thinking not, but I'll let Wally or others with better memories than my own clarify that. Were drapes installed in all '50's road show modernizations for acoustic purposes (to hide surround speakers and inhibit reverberation) or just for the asthetics of the time?

Bonus points if someone can identify the porn theater whose marquee is partially reflected in the glass under the canopy towards the right in that first photo. Expand the pic to full size and you can make it out under the "W" in "Waldo" on the marquee. Judging from the reflection of the sign for Colony Records, the marquee looks to be on the south west corner of B'way and 49th.

Ed
I think it was the Cine Lido.It later turned into a legit theater that played Pump Boys and Dinettes
Mike

ed
i think i was the pussy cat 1 or 2....before that..

i remember watching woodstock in 4 or 8 track stereo...

i however can't remember the name...
wally 75
ps....the record store would put a display in the window for every
sound track of the movie playing at the rivoli...

Wally: "Woodstock" played on Broadway at the Trans-Lux West. Was that the name of the theater that became the Pussycat?

nice going...bill

wally 1975

Amazing! The gentleman in the tuxedo, standing between Robert Redford and George Roy Hill is Wally Walters. At least that was his radio name when he worked with me at WGBB on Long Island in the early 70s. I knew he was manager of the Rivoli.

The theater in the reflection was indeed the former Trans Lux 49th Street which opened as a newsreel theater in the late 1930's and later became the Trans Lux West (to compliment and often day and date with the Trans Lux East on 3rd Ave). "Woodstock" did indeed play there in 1970. Later that decade it became the XXX Pussycat Cinema (and later still the Grand Pussycat). The former Cine Lido and Pussycat 2 - I believe - were on the east side of Broadway closer to 48th Street.

don...

back in new york...631 321 wnyg.....4-8pm m-f..

wally1975

Mikeoaklandpark... I looked up Pump Boys and Dinettes on the ibdb.com website and found that it played from Feb 1982 through June 1983 at the Princess Theater. There is no further information on the Princess at that site, unfortunately. The Cine Lido is not listed here either - at least not under that AKA. Does anyone know if it had a history prior to its years as a porn house or was it converted from retail space specifically for that purpose?

Here is "Oklahoma" in its 9th month at the Rivoli. The ad is dated June 22, 1956.

Hey, Ed and you other guys and girls. Pls answer a question for me. Someome once asked what was the longest run of any film in NYC. My guess is the double feature of "Deep Throat" and "Devil & Ms Jones" somewhere in Manhattan. Opened in the 70's and ran well into the 80's. Can someone correct me. pls.

i think it played in a small theatre on 7th ave...between the back of rivoli and the old castro show room...

it lasted so long for out of towners it was a must see...

wally7

There is a Movie Clock listing from December 1980 for that double feature at the Frisco. The same listing (with the exact same showtimes) appears in March of '82. AlAlvarez and I had been pondering just exactly what/where/when the Frisco was, but it looks like that might be the theater you're thinking of veyoung. Here are the listings:

NY Post 12/11/80 (second column about half way down)
NY Post 3/10/82 (top of the third column)

I found this photo from a link to a Roger Ebert article on the films of Gerard Damiano:

Frisco Theater circa 1973

At first I thought it was a Chicago photo (since it's an Ebert interview) but then I noted the Avon 7 in the background and pretty much knew it had to be Times Square. It's a small photo and the background is pretty dim and washed out, but I think you make out a sliver of the Mayfair Theater and billboard on the left edge of the image and beyond that the old RKO Palace building and marquee.

Here's a link to the Ebert article:

Ebert Interviews Damiano

Now the question is... was the Frisco ever known as anything else? Was it merely a converted store front porn palace?

By my records of continuous runs in Manhattan, I agree DEEP THROAT/DEVIL IN MISS JONES is probably the record holder but due to the nature of the films and the way they were advertised, this is difficult to prove. There is also THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW at midnight at the 8th Avenue Playhouse to contend with if that counts.

Here are other lonest runs saw I show them:

THE RED SHOES (1948) 2 years, 4 weeks –BIJOU
AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS (1956) 1 year, 51 weeks – RIVOLI
OPEN CITY (1946) 1 year, 49 weeks - WORLD 49
THE BIG PARADE (1926) 1 year, 43 weeks – ASTOR
THE SOUND OF MUSIC (1965) 1 year, 41 weeks – RIVOLI
LILI (1953) 1 year, 40 weeks – 52nd ON LEXINGTON
THIS IS CINERAMA (1952) 1 year 36 weeks – WARNER
(Moved over after 35 weeks at the BROADWAY)
MY FAIR LADY (1964) 1 year, 34 weeks – CRITERION
SEVEN WONDERS OF THE WORLD (1956) 1 year 25 weeks – WARNER
WEST SIDE STORY (1961) 1 year 25 weeks - RIVOLI

I believe that the Throat/Devil combo played at a number of midtown theatres, and not continuously at just one. Some of the venues weren't even "theatres," but conversions of business space. Also, both movies had long runs of their own before being double-billed.

Warren... it appears that the Frisco on 7th Ave played the XXX twin bill as early as 1973 or '74 and my newspaper clippings show the pair still going strong in 1980 and 1982. Have you information that shows the Frisco run was not continuous?

Ah. So I was in here! Thanx Warren on the Embassy thread for pointing out that the Rivoli and UA Twin were one and the same. I've been going nuts trying to figure out if I was in the Strand/Warner, State & Rivoli/UA Twin. I know for sure I patronized the Strand/Warner at least once (Star Wars revival in '83) and the Rivoli/UA Twin for a film called BEDROOM WINDOW sometime in '87, the same year the theatre closed. I remember the night well because a) I had a date; b) I left my umbrella in the theatre. I remember the theatre as being empty and BW was kind of a schlocky title in line of an earlier comment that UA was booking B movie fodder in here.

I've must walk down that block again to refresh my memory about where the theatre actually was.

Hardbop... you wouldn't recognize the block today at all!!! A gleaming glass tower now occupies the site on which Broadway's own Parthenon (the Greek-inspired facade of the Rivoli) once stood.

Was this the same block where later they opened an RKO Video Store? I know the video store was on one of those short streets (east/west) between Broadway/Seventh Avenue at the north end of Times Square? I remember that video store had a great selection and I would go there on my lunch hour every Friday and rent four videos in the late eighties/early nineties. Alas, like the Rivoli, that video store is long gone.

Does anybody familiar with distribution during the roadshow era know if a film which had a long run in New York had its national distribution held until the end of its Times Square hard ticket run?
I doubt if in the smaller cities throughout the country runs in a single theater were so long. So for instance did the whole country wait until the summer of '66 for My Fair Lady to end its Criterion run though its hardticket run had ended long before in many other cities?
Did the whole suburban market have to wait til the summer of 63 for West Side Story to end its Rivoli run?

Vincent, in most cases, no. The order of delivery was: NY opening, then LA, then CHI, then Philly. Usually within a month. However, and this the crux of the matter, distribs often restricted the suburbs until well after the "hard-ticket" engagement had ended. For an instance, and I hope this answers your question..."Ben-Hur" ended at the Philly Boyd in Jan or Feb 1961, replaced by "Exodus." The 35mm prints of "BH" didnt get around into the burbs until late Spring (probably Easter time) or early Summer. But smaller locations in Pennsylvania had runs prior to that, too.

To answer Vincent's question about "West Side Story": it did move out into the suburbs sooner than that, and in 70mm to boot. The 35mm engagements in theaters all over the area didn't begin until April 1963:

From Michael Coate and William Kallay's excellent website, which all Cinema Treasures fans will enjoy:

http://www.fromscripttodvd.com/70mm_in_new_york_1961.htm

October 19:
West Side Story
Super Panavision 70 / Six-Track Stereo
Reserved Seat Engagement
United Artists

Manhattan: [UA] Rivoli

Includes World Premiere on October 18, 1961

Expanded release on April 13, 1962:
Asbury Park: [Walter Reade] St. James
Syosset: [Skouras] Syosset
Upper Montclair: [UA] Bellevue

Expanded release on June 28, 1962:
Nanuet: [Skouras] Route 59

"Was this the same block where later they opened an RKO Video Store? I know the video store was on one of those short streets (east/west) between Broadway/Seventh Avenue at the north end of Times Square? I remember that video store had a great selection and I would go there on my lunch hour every Friday and rent four videos in the late eighties/early nineties. Alas, like the Rivoli, that video store is long gone."

Hardbop, that would be the block before The Rivoli. The store started out and was for many years Video Shack. It was one of the first video rental stores in the country. They would have in store singings and real studio displays in the windows. What set it apart was you could actually buy the tapes brand new. There wasn't sell through yet. The prices were outrageous, like $99.00 for a tape. In the VHS days video stores actually paid about $60 to $75 wholesale for each tape. Later RKO bought it.

I have been putting up images from souvernir programs and other great movie material that I have and most are for sale.
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/irajoel/004419.jpg
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/irajoel/005669.jpg
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/irajoel/001764.jpg
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/irajoel/002784.jpg
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/irajoel/002120.jpg
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/irajoel/001781.jpg
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/irajoel/001774.jpg
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/irajoel/000948.jpg
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/irajoel/000547.jpg
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/irajoel/000869.jpg
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/irajoel/007221.jpg
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/irajoel/005762.jpg
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/irajoel/005742.jpg
I also have a great website www.cinemagebooks.com
where you can view over 5,000 film related items including programs and much more. Please feel free to email me irajoelirajoel@yahoo.com
don't understand why members don't give email addresses. I'm new to the photobucket site but i guess you can view all my images using my
name irajoel.


posted by ij on Jul 23, 2006 at 12:15pm

I wonder if was by accident or by design that 1987 was the year that saw the Rivoli, Strand & State all closed? Because it was roughly around this time that Cinemplex Odeon had come into Manhattan with a storm, promising us *real* butter on our popcorn, burnished marble floors and the multi-plex boom began. I remember they actually re-opened or turned a porn theatre on the Northwestern corner of Times Square (@42nd & Seventh where the Reuters building now stands) into a movie theatre and moved the entrance from 42nd Street to Seventh Avenue.

Times Square was still Times Square back then and it is probably one of those weird coincidences that all three closed in one year.

It was not coincidence but it was not the cause either. All the major chains were in financial crisis and up for sale. Cineplex Odeon had a cash infusion from Universal Pictures as that studio had faith that Garth Drabinsky's multiplex concept would help save the business. Through their financial backing to took over RKO and Walter Reade within months.

Most of the Times Square properties, including the RKO Warner Twin were already sold. Cineplex Odeon actually saved several theatres that were on the verge of being demolished and extended their lives.

Cineplex Odeon added real butter, fixed structures, added faux- marble to every flat surface, added art-deco touches, raised all prices to record highs and made everything first-run. New Yorkers bitched and moaned as they made those old houses some of the highest grossing in history and Garth a folk hero in Hollywood. Loews scrabbled behind trying to keep up until Sony did the same for them. City Cinemas, made up of left over Cineplex disposal sites, was hardly registering.

It took ten years for everyone to notice that the profits just weren't there since the leases were so bad.

That "porn theatre" you mention is listed here as the Rialto.

Per a current biography about MGM founder Louis B. Mayer, in approximately 1949, Mayer purchased the Rivoli.

"ij," you are polluting this website by turning it into a billboard for your business. I suggest that in future, you buy an ad for placement on the homepage.

Here's a clipping from the News in November of 1963 just after the assassination of JFK:
Daily News 11/25/63

"Cleopatra" was 5 months into its run at the Rivoli, while "How the West Was Won" had already been playing 9 months at the former Capitol on a reserved seat basis.

The Rivoli presented its first CinemaScope movie in December, 1953. Also on display in CinemaScope in midtown at the time were "Beneath the 12-Mile Reef" at the Roxy (sans stage show) and "How To Marry a Millionaire" at the Globe & Loew's State:
www.i8.photobucket.com/albums/a18/Warrengwhiz/rivoliscope.jpg

In December, 1926, with the "Largest Screen in the World":
www.i8.photobucket.com/albums/a18/Warrengwhiz/rivscreen.jpg

I wonder if that was a verified fact or just advertising hyperbole.

This 1938 booking must have been one of the lowpoints of the Rivoli's glory years:
www.i8.photobucket.com/albums/a18/Warrengwhiz/rivoli38.jpg

"Old Ironsides" premiered Dec. 1926 at the Rivoli. If featured several sequences in Magnascope. Magnascope was a special projection process. It used a wide angle short throw lens to project a large image on a 30 by 40 foot screen during those special sequences. That screen was twice the size of their regular screen at the time which was 15 by 20 feet. The non-Magnascope sequences were projected using a longer throw lens. An illusion of gradual image enlargement was produced by the movement of the black masking around the screen.

In Woody Allen's "Broadway Danny Rose" you get a nice view of the Rivoli as Woody crosses from the west side of Broadway (In front of Colony Records) east.

The "Little Tough Guys" in Warren's ad from 1938 were a comedic Universal Studios knock off of Warner Brothers' Dead End Kids during a time before the latter bunch would morph into the low brow Bowery Boys. At this point, the Dead End Kids were still playing it fairly serious, having been featured in not only the original "Dead End" but in the drama "Crime School" as well, both along side Humphrey Bogart. Still to come was the classic "Angels with Dirty Faces" and several other dramatic (or at least semi-dramatic) features for Warners before Leo Gorcey and Huntz Hall would settle into the broad caricatures of Slip Mahoney and Satch Jones and lead the Bowery Boys into dozens of low budget programmers for Universal and Monogram.

You might say that the "Little Tough Guy" series was the prototype for the Bowery Boys formula. No need to thank me for the OT bilge.

Anyway, for Independence Day 1986, low brow comedy found its way back to the Rivoli - by now stripped of even its great name and advertised as the seemingly generic UA Twin:

No Respect - NY Post 7/4/86

One of the Roadshow swan songs
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/Movie%20Ads/SweetCharityorderform.jpg

Christmas in the glory days
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/Movie%20Ads/OklahomaChristmas.jpg

The start of summer blockbusters and repeated movie going on the first release
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/Movie%20Ads/Jaws8thweek.jpg

Thanks for the great "Jaws" ad, Robert. I saw it again last night (the Ziegfeld standing in for the Rivoli) and it was just as exciting the 14th time as it was the first!

The Sound of music at the Rivoli theater in 1965.

In 1930 with "The Vagabond King," Paramount's first all-Technicolor talkie: www.i8.photobucket.com/albums/a18/Warrengwhiz/rivoliking.jpg

Concerning Los Memory's picture of opening night of SOM at the Rivoli does anybody have the picture I once saw in a publication?
This showed a line of people outside the Rivoli waiting to buy their reserved seat tickets and showed a closeup of one of the outdoor displays showing pictures from the film.
If you could post it I would greatly appreciate it.

Sometimes theatres turn up in the "updated" section and I'm at a loss to find anything different from the last time that I read the listing. Can anyone tell me what was updated today for the Rivoli?

Warren,
Does The Vagabond King still exist?

Vincent, checking the IMDB, apparently the film was thought "lost" until 1998, but was found and has since been restored, but not released. There is apparently a clip in "Broadway: The American Musical" that aired on PBS, but that appears to be the only place anything can be seen from this.

Paramount did a remake of "The Vagabond King" in 1956, which may be the reason why the 1930 version got "lost," but more likely was deeply buried in a vault somewhere. I believe that the 1956 version was originally intended for Mario Lanza, but negotiations failed and he was replaced by Oreste Kirkop, who was shorn of his surname and billed only as Oreste. Kathryn Grayson, who had worked with Lanza at MGM, co-starred. "The Vagabond King" was actually a musical version of the dramatic stage play, "If I Were King," which Paramount filmed in 1938 with Ronald Colman in the leading role.

Did negotiations fail or was he ill? I think his not doing Student Prince was a great loss and in The Hills of Rome(I believe,is there a 7 in there?)this 30 something looks 50 something.

Lanza was under contract to MGM and notoriously difficult to work with. He was always involved in battles at MGM with Louis B. Mayer, directors and stars. It was agreed that only his voice would be used in THE STUDENT PRINCE in order to keep him off the set and further projects at the studio. THE VAGABOND KING was a Paramount film and SEVEN HILLS OF ROME was filmed in Italy and away from the MGM lot while he was possibly already ill.

That compromise on THE STUDENT PRINCE was part of an agreement to lift an injuction against Mario Lanza by MGM for walking off the set and costing the studio a fortune.

You can find out more about the Mario Lanza battles in the Charles Higham book MERCHANT OF DREAMS: LOUIS B. MAYER, MGM AND THE SECRET HOLLYWOOD including Mayer's purchase of the Rivoli, and eventually other United Artists theatres, in defiance of the Paramount Consent Decrees.

Higham's "Merchant of Dreams" is filled with lies and fabrications. I wouldn't trust anything written there any more than I would postings here by "mikemovies."

The American Film Institute Desk Reference also backs this up but what the hell do they know.

Here the Modern Theatre article about the conversion of the Rivoli Theatre into a Todd-AO house.

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/rivoli-01.htm

Fascinating, William. Thanks for posting the link. And later on, those new "modern" clean lines that replaced the old fashioned "gingerbread" plaster decoration on the auditorium sidewalls were hidden behind an apron of heavy drapes that ran from the proscenium curtains to the back wall of the theater. A shame that so much of the original decor was lost - not only in the Rivoli but in many of the Broadway palaces during the road-show era. But I would have the 1970's Rivoli back today, drapes, kitschy carpeting, streamlined look and all.

I really miss the Rivoli. For some reason it always was one of my favorite New York City theatres.

I'm not sure if it was because of the articles I read about now allowing popcorn sales during Gone with the Wind. If its cause I know it played "Old Ironsides" one of Boris Karloff's first movies. If its because it was across the street from Paramount Plaza and was featured in "King of Comedy".

I saw alot of movies there, 1941, some bad 3-D movie ( probably Comin at ya). If I hit the lottery, Id probably buy one of the residences that now makes up where the Rivoli was. sigh.

I hope I have posted this 1997 picture under the correct theater:
http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k79/hollywood90038/NYC-UATwin.jpg

No, you posted it in the wrong theatre. That is the former Criterion Theatre in Times Square (now a Toys R Us location).

Sorry.

DennisZ,

If I ever met you, I would shake your hand proudly and maybe even throw in a hug to boot! You have just thoroughly described why I choose to call myself "Love movies - hate going".

I'm 40 years old, but just old enough to still remember the days of single-screen neighborhood playhouses, double features and sometimes even a cartoon before the movie. Today, because of the reasons you described, going to the movies has become a stressful chore instead of fun. If I do choose to go now, I'm incredibly picky about what I see, the day of the week and the time I see it.

The final straw came for me last summer when I went to see MIAMI VICE in Hampton Bays. My first mistake was going to see it on a Saturday night of opening weekend instead of waiting at least a week. Most people are usually smart enough to know not to talk on their cell phones during the movie or they'll get their asses kicked! BUT WHERE DID PEOPLE GET THE IDEA THAT IT'S OKAY TO PLAY WITH THEIR PHONES DURING A MOVIE (MAINLY THE SCROLL FEATURE) AND GENERATE THAT DISTRACTING BRIGHT LIGHT FOR OTHERS TO SEE??? Well, would you believe that on that night, I had an entire family of people in the row in front of me doing that??? I almost started a fight with them.

DVDs are definately taking over. I fear by the time my infant son becomes a father, movie theaters of all kinds will become extinct.

So, now you know. I love movies, I hate going.

Richard W. Haine,

Amen to you, too, my friend. What you say about theaters themselves is not without merit. I have noticed people conduct themselves with more consideration and grace in a theater like The Paris or the IFC Center than in any typical multiplex "amusement park".

What I'll never ever be able to understand is why, in any type of theater, would a person pay the skyrocketing ticket and food prices only to spend more of their time talking and playing with their cell phone?

Am I completely unreasonable to consider this behavior UNINTELLIGENT???

I think it is a sign of the times. I had the same experience at the Lincoln Art with a foreign film and senior citizens chattering away and playing with their phones.

Apparently, there is a new device that one or more theater chains are trying called the "TECHNO-TATTLER" which a movie-going audience member can use to silently alert the theater manager during a movie if someone is behaving in an inconsiderate manner.

FINALLY, SOME OF US WILL STRIKE BACK!!!

Does anyone have any additional information about this device?

Well, if there is such a device, it certainly WON'T be used at the Rivoli Theatre!

I saw another news clip on the "Today" show this morning regarding this device. I believe it's called the "TECHNO-TATTLETALE" and Regal Cinemas is trying it out. You can press buttons for picture problems, sounds problems or disruptive people problems.

In the long run how effetive will it be? I'm sure the manager will get tired responding to all the complaints.
Thank god this wasn't needed at the Rivoli during the roadshow period. Though after that they probably could have used it big time with all the junk the theatre was showing.

Well the manager will just send a usher to handle it.

What madness, it will soon bcome a toy for folks to play with causing even more disruptions than we already have.
Ridiculous!

When I went to the Rivoli I think In the 80's they had removed the giant curved D-150 curved screen. The sign above the Rivoli out side said A D150 Theatre. That is what I went to see the screen not the movie. I had a big fight with the UA manager. I wanted my money back and told him it was false advertising to advertise a screen you did'nt have. He gave me my money back after I told him I'd call the police. To bad I missed it by just a few weeks.

Does anyone know when the Rivoli's "Oklahoma"-pattern curtain was removed? Or was it just never used post "80 Days"?

When I first laid eyes on the UA Rivoli in the summer of 1967, it was playing the 70mm reissue of GONE WITH THE WIND "in New Widecreen Splendor" (which I didn't know meant it was cropped at the top & bottom).

I vividly remember being shocked that the Rivoli had a permanent metal and neon blade sign made up specifically with the title of the film. I have video and pictures that show the same blade sign was completely redone that October to spell out STAR in neon, with star shapes alternating with each of the letters. (check out a little movie called THE PROJECTIONIST) to see a glimpse of the NY premiere of STAR! at the Rivoli)

Considering that they went to such expense to change the exterior of the Rivoli from one feature to another, I have absolutely no doubt that the OKLAHOMA! curtain was replaced the instant the picture left. If you look closely at photos of the OKLAHOMA! curtain, you'll see it was so entirely themed to that one picture that it would be inappropriate for any other.

With showman Michael Todd involved in both OKLAHOMA! and 80 DAYS, I am certain he would not let his own 80 DAYS run with an OKLAHOMA! curtain. I wouldn't be surprised to hear 80 DAYS had its own curtain at the Rivoli, but I've not seen or heard any indication that another picture there had a special curtain.

The October 16, 1969 date of the "Hello, Dolly" world premiere as recently added to the Rivoli summary is probably incorrect. I remember "Dolly" as a holiday season release, and the NY Times review is dated December 18, 1969. I assume the correct date is December 16, 1969.

The world premiere for "Dolly" was December 16th, 1969. The feature opened on Dec. 17th. 1969 to the public.

I believe you you are correct Erik, "Hello Dolly" opened in mid December 1969, at the Rivoli.I seem to recall playing it later at the D-150 on Long Island in March 1970.

The Hello Dolly date was a typo and will get repaired. Sorry about that; thanks for the correction.

I believe that Mike Todd's main connection with "Oklahoma!" was via the Todd-AO process, which he helped to develop. The movie itself was produced by Arthur Hornblow, Jr. and directed by Fred Zinnemann. I seriously doubt that Rodgers & Hammerstein would have permitted it being billed as Michael Todd's "Oklahoma!." It was R&H's most famous and revered collaboration.

Warren,
would the Intro be accurate if "his" would be changed to "the" as in the following:

the Rivoli was one of New York City's finest 'roadshow' theaters and was converted to 70mm Todd-AO with a deeply curved screen by Michael Todd for the feature, "Oklahoma!"

Well the marquee for the Rivoli Theatre during the engagement had Rogers and Hammerstein's "Oklahoma!"

Mike Todd was a Director of Magna Theatre Corp. at the time of "Oklahoma".

Michael Todd supervised the installation of Todd-AO at the Rivoli, but I think it would be incorrect to say that the theatre "was converted to 70mm Todd-AO with a deeply curved screen by Michael Todd." Why can't you just say "converted to 70mm Todd-AO with a deeply curved screen for the feature...?"

By the late 70's the Rivoli was playing showcase runs pretty much all the time. At least they were still major releases. I remember they played all the Universal product at that time.
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13/ChmnofBrd/Movie%20Ads/TheSentinel1977FirstRun.jpg

Ugh! One of the worst movies I ever saw - but not at the Rivoli (I was suckered out of my money at the Century's Green Acres in this particular situation). Thanks for jogging the memories just the same, RobertR. Keep those ads coming! Do you have an ad from when George Romero's DAWN OF THE DEAD played here in 1979 by chance? I remember walking into the great vastness of the Rivoli for that zombie classic and there was a faint aroma of vomit at the rear of the auditorium. I almost walked out due to the odor, but as we approached our intended destination within the first 10 rows, the air - thankfully - smelled a bit fresher and more tolerable.

One scene from "The Sentinel" comes to mind: Christopher Walken, who didn't even make the cast list in the ad, plays a cop and says the immortal line, "She went to a birthday party with eight dead murderers", as only he can.

I think I actually saw it at the Rivoli, come to think of it. And I haven't thought about it for many, many years.

This photo is supposed to be a circa 1936 photo of the Rivoli Theater. You be the judge.

Yes, I judge that to be this theatre. The British-made movie was reviewed in the American Film Daily on 4/20/36, so it probably opened at the Rivoli around that time. "Circa 1936" is unnecessary, since it was definitely 1936.

I concur. The columns above the marquee give it away.

The Rivoli was at least five good-sized blocks from the Rialto, and the theatres were also on opposite sides of Broadway. I don't consider that "nearby," as the introduction claims. The Roxy, Capitol, and Strand were nearby the Rivoli, but not the Rialto.

What an awesome photo, thanks for posting it Lost Memory! I too recognized it as the Rivoli from the columns in front, above the marquee.
I only saw two movies there, Easy Money and DC Cabb. Wish I had seen more, and I regret not seeing Moonraker there when it premiered in 1979. It only played for about two weeks then moved to the National.

"One reason why 'White Zombie' clicked on Broadway" in the summer of 1932:
www.i8.photobucket.com/albums/a18/Warrengwhiz/belarivoli.jpg

Anybody know why South Pacific moved from the Criterion to the Rivoli midway through it's hardticket run? Especially because it was probably a very successful one.
As far as I know only a couple of Cinerama films switched theaters.

"LeonLeonidoff," if you must use a pseudonym, could you please select one that isn't the same as a famous and revered person? I find it spooky and disrespectful.

The Carrier Corporation contents that the Rivoli was one of the first theatre's to be air conditioned.

http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa081797.htm
"The boom in human cooling spread from the department stores to the movie theaters, most notably the Rivoli theater in New York, whose summer film business skyrocketed when it heavily advertised the cool comfort."

The Putnam Building, which was demolished in 1924 to make way for the Paramount Theatre and office building, used to have spectacular signs on its roof. It also had a streaming message sign similar to the one that carried the news around The New York Times Tower. In summer, the sign on the Putnam building streamed: THE RIVOLI COOLED BY REFREIGERATION. ALWAYS 69 DEGREES. A photo can be seen in the centerfold of Darcy Tell's recent book, "Times Square Specacular: Lighting Up Broadway," which I highly recommend for its rare photos and reportage.

To Warren
I will change it but in a way I felt I was keeping the name alive. I mean who in the world knows who this guy was except for you and me and about 4 other people.
He WAS famous and revered I'll give you that but the people who knew of him are fast dying off.
And his name was known for the Glory of Easter and Nativity towards the end but we will never see those pageants again.

In response to Bwayniteowl's comment of 4/12, I believe that the Rivoli was not one of the first, but was THE first theatre to have actual air conditioning (as opposed to the earlier "air cooling" systems).

I think it was "American Heritage" magazine in which I read about it. According to the article, the system was not ready in time. The theatre's doors opened anyway, while the crew kept trying to get the air conditioning running. They finally got it started about 20 minutes into the show. A quote from the manager stated that he could see patrons all over the auditorium stop fanning themselves as the cool air reached them. As it turned out, the audience thought that the delay in the cooling was intentional to point up the difference between a non air conditioned auditorium and one with air conditioning.

In the older houses "air cooling" was done by storing blocks of ice in what are referred to as "ice tubs". They were large rooms in the plenum with sloped floors and drains. If you look closely you will see circular covers in the orchestra floor. Most of the time you will trip over them. Using convection the cooler air stayed close to the more expensive seats and the rest of the audience endured the heat. Today the tubs are used as a return for the air conditioning system.

I've even come across some older theaters that didn't have "air tubs" at all but relied on opening large skylights using a winch and a cable running into the projector booth. Back in the days before automobiles, noise would have not been an issue.

The Chicago Theatre (Chicago) had a shaft running down to railway freight tunnels forty feet below street level for the purposes of cooling.

Here's January 1918 advertising for the Rivoli and its older sibling. Note how the names of the starring actors were more important than the titles of their movies: http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a18/Warrengwhiz/bwaytwins.jpg

I just found out that the Wurlitzer organ that was originally in the Rivoli has recently been restored and installed in the City Museum in St. Louis, Missouri. This attraction is a children's museum that is housed in a former shoe factory. The Wurlitzer has been installed in the "Enchanted Caves" section of the Museum. You can read a brief description of it at http://www.citymuseum.org/organ.html Also, there is a video describing this instrument at http://youtube.com/watch?v=vP4YL7EAv7k
You can view a video description of the Museum itself on Youtube under "City Museum in St. Louis by OFFICIALBESTOF.com TV Series." Very interesting way to expose theater organ music to the younger generations.

During the summer of 1949 or 1950, I was an usher in the Rivoli, across from Jack Dempsey's Restaurant. (He sat in the window signing autogrtaphs.) I had gotten the job through pull with the owner Spyros Skouras (I was a relative of William Bendix) and "Come to the Stable" played all summer: I saw it 125 times. The audience changed with the type of movie so mostly we got priests and nuns instead of hoods that you'd get with the noir movies. In the lobby, they had a photo contest so I clued my girlfriend of the week in to the answers and she won. The summer was hot but the Rivoli was cool.

Hi Bwayniteowl!

In response to your post of April 14, in actuality before the automobile cities were even noiser, and dirtier too. Cars make a lot of racket what with horn blowing, engine noises, radios, and such, but if you read accounts of street noise in the day of the horse it was much worse. Imagine the noise created by thousands of iron shod horses continually passing by, pulling carts, carriages, and wagons, all with iron rimmed wheels, plus the frequent shouts of the teamsters (who were known for colorful language). Then add to that the droppings of all these animals getting ground into a powder by the constant traffic and then being blown into your eyes, nose and mouth. Yuchh. Articles I've read stated that pedestrians on the sidewalks of lower Broadway (which was Manhattan's chief shopping district in the mid 19th century) would sometimes have to shout to talk above the racket.

What a kick it was to see big pictures here such as "Star" and "The Sand Pebbles." Sorry my regular NYC access had not begun early enough to catch "West Side Story" here.

Wow. I'm amazed at the amount of information that has been contributed to this site. I hae 2 ticket stubs from the Rivoli and I'm looking to identify the films that were playing on those particular days:

Wednesday July 24th 1963
Wednesday January 18th 1967

If anyone wants the stubs for archival reasons, drop me an email and I'll send them off to you at no charge.

Stephen
somo1@aol.com

For Wednesday July 24th, 1963, the feature would be "Cleopatra" in Todd-AO at the Rivoli. It opened on June 13th, 1963 and ran for 64 weeks.
For Wednesday January 18th, 1967, the feature would be "The Sand Pebbles" at the Rivoli. It opened December 21st, 1966 and ran for 35 weeks.

With the Wall-E salute to HD(and I am not refering to High Def)
I think I should point out that this was the last genuine 70mm film to open at the Rivoli.
Too bad it was such a failure and only lasted 7 months at the theater. It's a much better film than the critics gave it credit for and gets better as the years go on.
It should have run at least a year but the people writing reviews then hated musicals. And as Ethan Mordan has written they reviewed these mammoth films as if they were personally billed for them.
How else to explain why they trashed movies like PYW, SC, and HD.
All three are terrific and I only wish we could still see them as they were first seen on their hard ticket runs.
Thank god they were made so we have them and their lavishness to enjoy today.

I will never forget seeing FIDDLER ON THE ROOF at the Rivoli in Summer, 1972. My mom took me into NYC weeks before to order the tix at the box office. While she did that, I looked at the beautiful lobby cards that were on display (remember them?). The film itself, on that screen was mind-blowing. I was 8 years old, and sat through that three hour movie completely in awe.

I only wish I could have seen SOM, STAR!, HELLO DOLLY!, and the other biggies there as well!

I wish that you could have seen the Rivoli with its original decor, before it was savaged for the installation of Todd-AO. The introductory photo gives a sampling of what was destroyed forever.

Judging from the photo, it was so beautiful!!

It WAS beautiful, and its a sin that it was destroyed. This building, along with many other old palaces, were built of brick, mortar and plaster, not like these sheetrock screening rooms they build today.

I actually work in the area, and I pass that black glass skyscraper frequently. It only occured to me just the other day that it sits on the site of the Rivoli.

I have the dvd's of many of the Todd-AO films that played there - DOLLY, STAR, SOM - and somehow, I get the feeling that aspect ratio is not exact - I'm sure that the picture area must have been wider than the letter-boxing on those dvds.

Warren was the original proscenium there behind the Todd Ao screen?
If they removed it would the Rivoli have looked the way it was before?
What do you remember seeing before '55?
Did you see the original showing of Oklahoma and what was your reaction? Or were you angry because of what they did.

Here is the conversion of the auditorium of the Rivoli for Todd-AO.

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/rivoli-01.htm

I attended "Oklahoma!" when it first opened at the Rivoli. When I saw the desecration of the auditorium, I wept, and it spoiled my enjoyment of the film. I never returned to the Rivoli, but I'm told that it was an even sorrier mess by the end.

MikeJW: The letterboxing on your DVD's is probably pretty close. All of those films were shot on 65mm film, and when magnetic tracks were overlayed the aspect ratio should be 2.21:l, as opposed to CinemaScope's 2.55:1 aspect ratio with magnetic tracks and "Foxhole" perfs., or 2.35:1 with optical or mag/optical soundtracks. The picture area on 65mm without the inside two mag tracks would be closer to 35mm, and perhaps a bit of cropping top and bottom was done to fill out the 35mm ratio. Of course, "Oklahoma" was shot with both 35mm and 65mm cameras (since Todd-AO originally used a 30frame/sec. speed vs. 35mm.24 frame/sec) so those aspect ratios would automatically be correct for each format. My laserdisc (remember those?) copy of "Oklahoma" has an extra with both versions placed one over the other so you can see the difference between the formats. If you want more information, Martin Hart's "Widescreen Museum" mentioned above has tons of fascinating material.

Thanks REndres! I always though that Panavision and TODD-AO were pretty much the same aspect ratio - I noticed that the images on my dvd's of FIDDLER and FUNNY GIRL (Panavision) are a wider than the images on the SOM, DOLLY, and STAR! dvd's. Now I know why!

Although- WEST SIDE STORY was filmed in PANAVISION 70, and on the dvd, the box states that the ratio is 2:20, which is the TODD-AO ratio, right? And indeed, when watching the dvd, you can see that the ratio on the WSS picture looks like the above-mentioned TODD-AO dvd movies. Interesting!

If this got "off topic", I'm sorry!

Warren,

In your opinion, do you think that the Todd-AO install was a "hack" job? Or perhaps, with a little more thought and effort, the conversion could have accomodated both the big screen and the integrity of the original architecture?

JSA

I do consider it a "hack" job in both senses of the word, but I doubt that it could have been done in a way that preserved the original decor. Friends of Mike Todd have told me that he didn't care how much damage was done to the Rivoli in order to present Todd-AO under the best possible circumstances.

To answer an old question (LeonLeonidoff on Mar 24, 2008 at 1:07pm), “South Pacific” moved here in October 1958 in order to accommodate the roadshow run of WB’s “The Old Man and the Sea” at the Criterion. Magna Distributors, Todd –AO and the theatre agreed to pull “Around the World in 80 Days” after two years in order to make room for “SP” with the Todd-AO presentation. The contract for “80 Days” at the Rivoli had run out anyway.

I assume WB would not let the Criterion off the hook and “80 Days” had recently opened other roadshow runs in the greater NY market anyway. It opened a “popular price” run in the city at Loews by Thanksgiving of that year.

Why would the Criterion pull South Pacific for something like The Old Man and the Sea?
It had it for 8 months and probably could have played the film there for another year.
How long did Old Man and the Sea last?

It seems that Todd could have fit the screen initially at the Criterion for Oklahoma which would have caused little damage instead of at the Rivoli. Then Around The World. And after that SP.
And the Rivoli could have roadshowed Ten Commandments quite comfortably.
From what I have read there was no special presentation of it at the Criterion except hard ticket and I believe it wasn't even shown in real Vistavision!

"The Old Man and the Sea" played for only ten weeks, but I am sure WB had a deal even before "SP" came into play.

The Rivoli may have been more attractive due to the extra seats.

Warren,

Thanks for your response from 7/11. Although I'm a fan of the widescreen/roadshow era of the 50's & 60's, I also recognize that the drastic interior design changes needed to accomodate the new giant screens did not always work for the best.

JSA

As sad as the desecration of the Rivoli's auditorium was, I really wish she was still standing there at 49th and B'way - even if just as she was under UA's shabby management in the 1980's. Even with its once gorgeous interior stripped and clad in heavy dark drapes, it was still a great theatre in which one could enjoy a movie on a huge screen.

Totally agree.
For those of us who never saw these theaters before they were roadshow houses we still could appreciate their greatness and enjoy their large wonderful screens and 8 track analogue sound.
Though I started going at the very, very end of the roadshow era.
At that point it was almost dead and who wanted to see Tora Tora Tora? I remember the Criterion marquee but wild horses couldn't drag me in to see it.
Now if I had seen them in their great heyday then it might have been another story.
But really how long did the Roxy last with it's great proscenium. It seems it did not last through the 30's before it was being draped over. Same with the Capitol and Loew's State and possibly the Strand. Didn't seem any of them lasted too long with their original interiors.
Possibly only the Paramount stayed the same until Vistavision changed it's interior in the mid 50's.
And I thought the Criterion stayed the same until it was split in the early 80's.
Warren maybe you could shed some light on this on the pages of each theater?
It would be great info.

I miss them all but I was too young to have ever seen the Roxy, Capitol or Paramount.
I do remember however walking in front of the doors of the Paramount with my parents when I was a little boy and them pointing it out to me telling me that Frank sinatra used to sing there.
The doors had been whitewashed(remember when they used to do that?) and I guess they were preparing it for demolition.
Now that I remember the few times we went into the city then I probably walked in front of the Astor and Capitol as well but they made no impression as they were just buildings to me.

Here's an ad from the long-defunct newspaper the New York Journal-American:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/billhuelbig/magmen1.jpg

The date is August 11, 1965. Imagine two spectacular Todd-AO films from 20th Century-Fox within a couple of blocks of each other. And you could get "Choice Beatle Tickets" for only $10 - the 1st Shea Stadium concert was held on August 15th.

Great find Bill.
I was working at the Syosset on Long Island that year, I recall it being a good year for 70mm.
Also notice the amasing list of plays on B'way at the same time.

Also look at the prices for "The Odd Couple" with a top ticket price of $7.50 and "Hello Dolly" with a top of $9.50.

I think it's amusing that "My Fair Lady", filmed in Super Panavision 70, makes no mention of that in their roadshow ad. I guess in 1965, 70mm was just taken for granted. Those really were the days.

Vito and William: here's another page from the same 1965 paper which you might not have seen, posted on the Strand and Capitol pages:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/billhuelbig/magmen2.jpg

Thanks, Bill
Those were the days. Going to the movies and Broadway in Times Square.

On the "My Fair Lady" ad it was in it's 11th month at the Criterion out of 88 weeks. What was the day of the week for the paper?

It was a Wednesday (8/11/65).

Thanks, that would make sense for that size ad that many weeks into the engagement. Mid week ads were smaller that the Fri-Sun versions.

Those are the oldest actual newspaper pages I had. I probably saved them because of the Beatles ads.

If memory serves, and forgive an old man if it doesn't, 1965 was also the year we first saw D-150. I seem to recall going to a UA house in Queens (lefrack city?) for a demonstration.

Vito: "The Bible" was the first D-150 feature which opened in 1966, but I'm sure you're right about the year you saw the demonstration.

Looking at the ads back then, I always thought the D in D-150 stood for Dino DeLaurentiis, producer of "The Bible". I'll bet he liked to think it stood for that too :) When "Patton" was released in 1970, it was called Dimension-150.

Dimension-150 is just the long name for the process, or D-150 for short.

This and another view of the world premiere of "Come to the Stable" can be seen at the Life Magazine archive: http://images.google.com/hosted/life/f?q=preview+source:life&imgurl=817ebec138817d5b

I hope this photo hasn't been posted before. The year given is 1981.

A unique view of the Rivoli and other theatres in the vicinity in 1979, compared to the same view in 2008, can be found here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/25/nyregion/25thennow.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=David%20W.%20Dunlap&st=cse

A list of films shown when it was the United Artists Twin.

10/26/1984 theatre became United Artists Twin
10/26/1984 Body Double (4 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
10/26/1984 Country (3 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
11/16/1984 Missing In Action (4 weeks)
11/21/1984 Supergirl (4 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
12/14/1984 Starman in 70mm (5 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
12/19/1984 Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo (3 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
1/11/1985 Emmanuelle 4 (2 weeks)
1/18/1985 Maria's Lovers (2 weeks)
1/25/1985 The Perils Of Gwendoline (3 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
2/1/1985 Torchlight (2 weeks)
2/15/1985 The Mean Season (3 weeks)
2/15/1985 1984 (2 weeks)
3/1/1985 Missing In Action 2: The Beginning (3 weeks)
3/8/1985 Lovelines (1 week, Dolby Stereo)
3/15/1985 Hellhole (1 week)
3/22/1985 Amadeus (MO, 4 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
3/22/1985 Baby: Secret Of The Lost Legend (3 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
4/12/1985 Nine Deaths Of The Ninja (1 week)
4/19/1985 Alamo Bay (1 week)
4/19/1985 The Company Of Wolves (2 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
4/26/1985 Just One Of The Guys (2 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
5/3/1985 Code Of Silence (7 weeks)
5/10/1985 Rappin' (3 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
5/31/1985 Future Cop (1 week, Ultra Stereo)
6/7/1985 Perfect (4 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
6/21/1985 Lifeforce in 70mm (4 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
7/3/1985 Day Of The Dead (6 weeks)
7/19/1985 The Legend Of Billie Jean (2 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
8/2/1985 Fright Night (6 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
8/16/1985 Volunteers (2 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
8/30/1985 American Ninja (4 weeks, stereo)
9/13/1985 Sudden Death (3 weeks)
9/27/1985 Maxie (3 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
10/4/1985 Jagged Edge (4 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
10/18/1985 Re-Animator (2 weeks)
11/1/1985 Death Wish 3 (6 weeks, two weeks on two screens)
11/15/1985 Once Bitten (2 weeks)
11/27/1985 Santa Claus: The Movie in 70mm (5 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
12/13/1985 Guardian Of Hell (1 week)
12/20/1985 Sword Of Heaven (2 weeks)
1/3/1986 Head Office (2 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
1/3/1986 The Alchemist (3 weeks)
1/17/1986 Troll (3 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
1/24/1986 My Chauffeur (2 weeks)
2/7/1986 F/X (9 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
2/7/1986 Foxtrap (1 week)
2/14/1986 The Delta Force (4 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
3/14/1986 Crossroads (2 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
3/28/1986 3:15: The Moment Of Truth (1 week, stereo)
4/4/1986 P.O.W.: The Escape (3 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
4/11/1986 Basic Training (2 weeks)
4/25/1986 8 Million Ways To Die (2 weeks, stereo)
4/25/1986 Low Blow (1 week)
5/2/1986 Agent On Ice (1 week)
5/9/1986 Dangerously Close (1 week, Dolby Stereo)
5/9/1986 In The Shadow Of Kilimanjaro (2 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
5/16/1986 Stitches (1 week)
5/23/1986 Violets Are Blue (MO, 1 week, stereo)
5/23/1986 Ninja Turf (1 week)
5/30/1986 At Close Range (3 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
5/30/1986 Demons (2 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
6/13/1986 Back To School (7 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
6/20/1986 The Karate Kid Part II (5 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
7/25/1986 Haunted Honeymoon (2 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
8/1/1986 Choke Canyon (2 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
8/8/1986 Cocaine Wars (2 weeks, stereo)
8/15/1986 Armed and Dangerous (2 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
8/22/1986 The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (2 weeks, Ultra Stereo)
8/29/1986 Reform School Girls (3 weeks, stereo)
9/5/1986 Tenement: Game Of Survival/The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1 week, mono/Ultra Stereo
9/12/1986 Bedroom Eyes (2 weeks)
9/19/1986 American Justice (1 week)
9/26/1986 Last Resort (1 week, stereo)
9/26/1986 Women's Prison Massacre (3 weeks)
10/3/1986 Armed Response (2 weeks)
10/17/1986 Crawlspace (2 weeks)
10/17/1986 Combat Shock (1 week)
10/24/1986 From Beyond (2 weeks, Ultra Stereo)
10/31/1986 Sky Bandits (1 week, Dolby Stereo)
11/7/1986 Something Wild (2 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
11/7/1986 52 Pick-Up (4 weeks, Ultra Stereo)
11/21/1986 Eye Of The Tiger (2 weeks, Ultra Stereo)
12/5/1986 Rebel (1 week, Dolby Stereo)
12/5/1986 Weekend Warriors (1 week, stereo)
12/12/1986 Three Amigos (5 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
12/12/1986 Class Of Nuke 'Em High (2 weeks)
12/25/1986 The Boy Who Could Fly (RE, 2 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
1/9/1987 Assassination (4 weeks, stereo)
1/16/1987 The Bedroom Window (6 weeks)
2/6/1987 From The Hip (2 weeks, stereo)
2/20/1987 The Good Wife (1 week, Dolby Stereo)
2/27/1987 Hoosiers (4 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
2/27/1987 Rage Of Honor (2 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
3/13/1987 Death Before Dishonor (MO, 1 week, Ultra Stereo)
3/20/1987 Iron Warrior (1 week, Dolby Stereo)
3/27/1987 Street Smart (2 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
3/27/1987 Prettykill (1 week)
4/3/1987 Return To Horror High (1 week)
4/10/1987 Children Of A Lesser God (RE, 1 week)
4/10/1987 Crocodile Dundee (RE, 2 weeks, Dolby Stereo)
4/17/1987 Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2 (1 week)
4/24/1987 Slaughter High (2 weeks)
4/24/1987 The Princess Academy (1 week)
5/1/1987 Campus Man (1 week)
5/8/1987 Steele Justice (2 weeks, stereo)
5/8/1987 Blind Date (MO, 1 week, Dolby Stereo)
5/15/1987 Monster In The Closet (1 week)
5/22/1987 Enemy Territory (1 week, Ultra Stereo)
5/22/1987 Happy Hour (1 week, Ultra Stereo)
5/29/1987 Morgan Stewart's Coming Home (1 week, stereo)
5/29/1987 Hunter's Blood (1 week, stereo)
6/5/1987 Munchies (2 weeks)
6/5/1987 Creepshow 2 (MO, 2 weeks)
6/14/1987 theatre closed

It's hard top believe this was the treatre that premiered "The King and I", "Oklahoma", "West Side Story", "Cleopatra", Hello, Dolly", etc...

I believe that "The King and I" had its NYC premiere engagement at the Roxy, not at the Rivoli.

I believe that "The King and I" had its NYC premiere engagement at the Roxy, not at the Rivoli.
posted by Warren G. Harris on Jan 14, 2009 at 6:34am

Indeed it did premiere at the Roxy in June 1956
Here is the NY Times review

http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9A0CE3D6143BE03ABC4151DFB066838D649EDE

Sorry everyone,I did not realise you had to log on to see that review.

What a bunch of garbage for the last few years at this once great palace. I wonder if they were purposely booking junk in order to close it?

It should also be noted that "The King and I" was treated as a "normal" release at the Roxy and accompanied by a stage show. There were continuous performances and no reserved seats.

Unfortunately Bob, exploitation did best on Times Square during the eighties. Some of those titles were massive hits for a week or two. These theatres survived with drive-in product as their bread and butter.

My two cents here:

A.) Although I'd never been to the Rivoli Theatre, judging from at least a couple of photos that I'd seen of it, the Rivoli was clearly a beautiful theatre, both inside and out.

B) It looked like a fabulous place to see some of those venerable golden oldie-but-goody classic movies in, and West Side Story was no exception. William--I guess you answered my question--I was going to ask if the Rivoli Theatre was the same theatre where my alltime favorite movie, West Side Story opened in late October 1961. Bill Huelig: Thanks for the historical newsprinted photographs of the poster of the film West Side Story. Every time I see such historical ads, my nostalgia for West Side Story burns brighter and I end up humming one of the great songs from this movie/musical classic.

C) What a sin that this great-looking theatre was closed and demolilshed. Why couldn't they have just restored and renovated it as necessary, instead of razing it? Come to think of it, I've made at least a couple of road trips down to NYC for screenings of West Side Story; one at Radio City Music Hall, in October 2001, for the special 40th year Anniversary screening of WSS, and, five years later, a screening of WSS at the Ziegfeld Cinema, which are both fabulous theatres for showing movies like West Side Story and other venerable old classics, but I would've loved to see a screening of West Side Story at the (now-nonexistant) Rivoli Theatre.

D) Vito--you've got a point about that so-called "Technical Tattletale" that's been proposed for theatres--there's the potential for gross abuse, and particularly now, in this post-9/11 climate, when many people are already twitchy to begin with, it could be dangerous.

E) Bob Furmanek: What happened at the Rivoli, when it started playing all the really junky, schlocky films prior to its closing, also happened at the Wang Center for the Performing Arts here in Boston, shortly before they did away with their Classic Film Series. Although I didn't read it as such back then, now, the more I think about it, the more I believe that the screening of schlockier movies in such great movie palaces was an omen of what was to come....and it wasn't good, if one gets the drift.

In my humble opinion, the Rivoli lost whatever architectural appeal it had when the theatre was converted to Todd-AO for "Oklahoma!" in 1955, which was about four decades before it finally closed. Prior to seeing "Oklahoma!" there, I'd never been in the Rivoli, and I was disgusted with what I found. Original decor had been removed or painted over. I couldn't believe that this had once been considered in a class with rivals like the Paramount, Roxy, and Capitol. After that, I tried to avoid the Rivoli as much as possible, but when I did see a movie there, the theatre seemed to be getting dumpier and dumpier.

If that be the case, it's really unfortunate, Warren. Again, however, from the photos that I saw of both the interior and exterior of the Rivoli Theatre, it seems like it had a great deal of potential for renovation and revival. Why didn't people see past the decaying conditions and realize the potential that this theatre could've had? That's what I don't understand. Unfortunately, this is happening with far too many of the venerable movie palaces here in the United States at large, as well as throughout the world. it's sad, and it's pitiful that these grand old movie palaces have never been integrated into the fabric of downtown redevelopment(s), instead of just being destroyed outright.

The fact that the Rivoli Theatre was getting dumpier and dirtier, as well as playing junkier, schlockier movies shortly before it closed, and the fact that it was "Twinned" were all omens of what was to come. Often enough, when these movie palaces are "twinned", or cut up into several screens, it destroys the very character of the theatre. Too bad that many people don't realize that this is the beginning of the end for a lot of these movie palaces.

I don't know what "potential" the Rivoli had for the future. It was never more than a movie house, and had no stage facilities or dressing rooms. I doubt if they could have been added due to the limitations of the land site. The Rivoli might have been refurbished as a multiplex, but property in the Broadway/Times Square area had become too valuable for that type of business. The same will happen with the nearby Mayfair/DeMille/Embassy 2-3-4 as soon as the owners find a buyer.

Most movie theatres, to what limited knowledge I have about them, have never had dressing rooms or anything like that. I think it's pitiful that developers couldn't think of anything to do with most of these venerable old movie palaces except to knock them down and build a parking lot or whatever else they thought they could make a really great profit on. Many developers didn't seem to have the hint that the arts, which the movies are a part of, have also always played a great part in the average, ordinary people's lives.

As Warren pointed out about the Rivoli, it had no stage facilities and dressing rooms to help it be saved as a stage venue in Times Square. Many chains started unloading theatres during the 50's,60's,70's. This theatre was able to survive till the late 80's in this marketplace. Many theatres that were built in the time of the Rivoli, Capitol, Roxy, Strand, State all had full stages and dressing rooms for large stage shows that were presented with the movies. The Capitol and Roxy Theatres were just too big to fit into the new era of entertainment in the area at the time. With both theatres seating 5000 people and the studios wanting to release in larger amount of prints to make their money. The chains tried to hold on to select houses and convert them into 2-3 screen houses and try to maintain that First-Run class feel (The State, Warner & Rivoli). The chains let their prizes go one by one when they could no longer make a profit as a theatre. Depending on the area, many people went to mall plexes. It's hard to keep a great theatre open with no one coming.

This:

"It's hard to keep a great theatre open with no one coming."

is true too, William.

I guess the fact that mall cineplexes became so popular was/is a sign of the times, but, from what I understand, many of these multiplex ciinemas that're situated in malls are in pretty big trouble too, from what I understand. Too bad. Maybe, if and when times change, movie palaces such as the old Rivoli Theatre will come back in vogue. Or is that wishful thinking?

"It's hard to keep a great theatre open with no one coming."

This particular theatre was always packed. Times Square theatres rarely close due to poor business. Like drive-ins, they close because the land they are sitting on is worth so much more than the business of movie theatres.

If this particular theatre was always packed, then why was the Rivoli ultimately closed and demollshed? Why wasn't it revitalized and restored?

Yes, select areas some of these Grand house could return, but as AL pointed out the land they sit on is worth more than the business of movie theatres.
Also worth the theatre chains couldn't keep pouring money into these locations without shareholders of the company having a problem with profits.

When so many of these grand, venerable old movie palaces get torn down, is the fact that the land is worth more than the business of movie theatres why these grand old movie palaces have all too often gone the way of office space, parking lots, arcades, and retail, etc?

Los Angeles is still pretty lucky as that they have only lost a few of their large houses to progress. (Paramount Downtown, Carthay Circle, Hill Street) The palaces along Broadway in Downtown Los Angeles holds one of the best collections of theatres in the country. These theatres remained pretty full most days of the week till the late 80's. When VCR and cable entertainment became cheaper for the spanish patrons that used these theatres and closer theatres opened up. As with the Rivoli and Times Square there is alway people there and business. The UA chain saw the writing on the wall for this theatre. You can only project what could happen in this business and what the market could look like for this house. As a few posts above said about changing some of the facade. They were able to close and sell and have theatre razed fast. The Rivoli was UA's Flagship Theatre in New York City as was the Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood, CA.. At one point UA was planning to build a large 6-8 plex around the main house of the Egyptian. Making it the center piece of this new complex in Hollywood. They were to restore and maintain the main house for Big features and premieres and use the rest of the complex for other new films. The main house had a full D-150 size screen in it and there was the land behind it to use. The city planning commission vetoed the plan and UA started to run the house like a 3rd run theatre with tickets at $1.00 . Not to soon after that they dropped the house from the chain.
The Rivoli Twin sat on a small piece of land on Broadway. They could have cut the theatre up alittle more into a 4-6 screen house. I've worked for afew chains that had large theatres that they had plans made to further cut and plex houses.

I should also add to the above list with the Paramount Downtown, Carthay Circle, Hill Street, Warner Beverly Hills, The Beverly.

MPol, here is an example. When Cineplex Odeon took over the profitable Warner Twin (Strand), they were offered the equivalent of ten year's profit in exchange for getting out of the lease and an option for a new theatre in the new building. Since they had other Times square locations including the National, Rialto, and the brand new World Wide in the pipeline, they took it. Once all leases were bought out the building was replaced by an office tower and no theatre was included.

In later years the National was also in constant play as the landlord felt that the theatre crowd hurt their office tenants's image and they could lease the space out for more money. Cineplex Odeon refused to budge for years but the deal was promptly made in 1997 once the company ran into Chapter 11 problems. It is now the GOOD MORNING AMERICA studios.

The landlords did not like the movie theatres because they were huge spaces that in the late seventies, eighties and early nineties attracted a steady stream of inner city hoodlums which disrupted the screenings and often caused mayhem in the area. They were crowded but not easy to run locations.

Al, in the last part of your post about the steady stream of inner city hoodlums. We had the same problem with them crusing down Hollywood Blvd. and making it very hard to get to the many theatres that operated there. One booking the theatre I was at had "Colors" in the main house (1200 seats) and "Blood In, Blood Out" in one of the upstairs houses (500 seats) and another action type film in the other 500 seat house. We were running full Friday and Saturday. Boy, those were the days. We had Police and News just waiting for something to spark.
That's what I remember from many of those Times Square houses, those action films brought in a tough group of patrons on visits to NYC from LA.

Boston lost a lot of its fine movie theatres to so-called progress, too. I'm more than grateful that the Coolidge Corner Theatre and the Brattle Theatre are still around.

With regard to "inner city hoodlums":

I saw a movie once on 42nd St. It was about '89 and I think the theatre was the Harris. The theatre was completely packed, balcony and all. I was really surprised to see such numbers in an old movie theatre. But the crowd was so rowdy that you couldn't hear the sound track of the movie. It was a really crazy experience.

Oh, that's too bad, Life's too short. It's a shame that people can be so rude as to drown out the movie soundtrack with excessive amounts of noise. You know what? I think that the theatre staff really should be tough on people who're excessively noisy and threaten them with expulsion from the theatre if they don't quiet down. if that doesn't work, then outright ousting from the theatre in cases like that is probably the best. Or, maybe the projectionist can shut off the movie until the crowd quiets down? Wishful thinking, maybe.

The Rivoli was probably the best place in NY to see 70mm. I only wish I got to see the 60's films there.
The orchestra level of the Strand was also wonderful.
Both had large curved screens that hit you head on.
And then there is my beloved Criterion...

But I am also torn with what Warren says about the old house.
From post cards it was very beautiful and though it did not have a real stage I understand it held concerts initially. Surely in the back there was enough room to have concerts again before they twinned it.
It would have been 100 times better than the Beacon.
I am sure you could put up a lot of nice skycrapers where Broadway theatres are. In fact there are a lot of legit houses that don't hold a candle to the Riv. And then of course the most beautiful of them is now a church. Yuck.(Though it was originally a movie theater.)
The above picture does not do justice to it's interior. Can one post a postcard of the house from the balconey?
I got one off ebay but I don't know where I put it.

As somebody who's never resided in NYC, or the NY area generally, the Rivoli sounds like it was probably the best place...period...to see the great, venerable, golden oldie-but-goody classic films, particularly a lot of the prominent 1960's films! Again, tp reiterate what I said earlier on another post here on this thread, I would've LOVED to drive down from Boston for a screening of the film, West Side Story at the Rivoli.

Again, if the old house was really run down, it might've been cheaper for them to renovate and restore the Rivoli than to just tear it down and demolish it. Whether it be in the Rivoli or any other theatre, large, curved screens are the best. To digress just a bit, the CineStudio in Hartford, CT, the Brattle Theatre, and maybe even the Coolidge Corner Theatre have somewhat curved screens. Not sure about other movie theatres that I've been in, however.

The date given for this photo is June 12, 1963.

Wow, that's a really nice one.

Beautiful photo, Lost Memory! Thanks for posting it and sharing it with everybody here on CT.

In what might have been a "first" for reserved-seat, roadshow bookings in the Greater New York-New Jersey area, UA's "Man of La Mancha" had its world premiere engagement at three theatres-- the Rivoli on Broadway, the UA 150 in Syosset, Long island, and Century's Paramus in the Garden State Plaza (NJ). On the night of December 11, 1972, the Rivoli held a gala screening to benefit the Will Rogers Hospital. Regular performances began the next day at all three theatres. Ticket prices were the same all over: $5 and $4.50 for evenings, $4 and $3.50 at matinees. $5 is equivalent to around $25 in 2009. Here's an ad:http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a18/Warrengwhiz/man1072.jpg

"The Greast Waltz' had a similar three theatre opening the month before. They advertised it as "Reserved Performance" and I wonder if the "Man of La Mancha" run was similarly handled as there is no mention of reserved seats in the ad.

I'd be willing to bet that the "La Mancha" policy was the standard reserved-seat ticket, which specified an excact location where the holder had to sit. The policy used for "The Great Waltz" was something different, which MGM used to make the movie seem like an epic rather than a remake of an earlier film that was virtually forgotten by that time. "La Mancha" was an eagerly-awaited film of a musical that had been a smash hit on Broadway, and hard-tickets were sold in the usual way.

I think that man Of La Manch was the last roadshow engagement that I rememebr being around. In Phila where I was it played roadshow att eh SamEric AKA Boyd.

The 1969 re-issue of "Ben-Hur" opened simultaneously with three NYC area reserved-seat bookings. That was about three and a half years before "Man Of La Mancha."

"Fiddler On The Roof," also released prior to "Man Of La Mancha," at one point in its reserved-seat run, was playing five NYC area hard-ticket bookings.

The 1969 re-release of "Ben-Hur" opened exclusive at the Palace. Other runs may have come later.

"Last Tango in Paris" had a roadshow run after "Man of La Mancha". It was much more successful that the the disappointing "La Mancha"

I was on a media junket for "Man of La Mancha" when it opened at the Rivoli, which is where we were bused for the invitational screening. Although I had seen the stage version on Broadway and the national touring company and has visited the set for interviews, I had no preconceptions as to whether it would work on film.

To my surprise and dismay, the audience of media people had its knives sharpened before the screening began. I don't know how they could possibly have picked up a negative scent before that day, but it was pervasive in that audience, I can tell you.
I remember one outspoken, pompous critic from Ohio saying repeatedly that if he had to listen to "Impossible Dream" (correct name: "The Quest") one more time, he'd lose it.

I remember thinking: This is "Man of La Mancha," for Pete's sake, and that's precisely the song that has been bringing them in for the past five or six years. What would you begrudge the film version that?

We learned, as we so often have, that theatrically stylized stage pieces tend not to work nearly as well on the screen. The film somehow couldn't escape seeming stodgy. But I never thought it was nearly as bad as many of the reviews indicated.

The '69 roadshow re-issue of "Ben-Hur" opened on June 19, 1969 simultaneously in Manhattan (Palace), Montclair (Clairidge) and Plainview (Plainview). I was careful to mention NYC *area* and not just Manhattan.

I agree with you, Ed, about "Man of La Mancha". I avoided seeing it for years because the reviews were so lousy. When I finally did see it, I was quite surprised at how good it was. Peter O'Toole and Sophia Loren were perfect choices for their roles. And even if Peter's singing wasn't so good, it sure fit his character (I think he was overdubbed for "The Impossible Dream", and maybe other songs as well). But you're right - the critics never gave that movie a chance.

Long before Todd-AO, the Rivoli Theatre pioneered in wide-screen projection, starting in the silent era with epics like "Old Ironsides." Spectacular scenes magically zoomed to twice their size with help from the Magnascope system, which used special lenses and aperture plates on the projectors and movable maskings around the screen. In January, 1931, the Rivoli presented its first wide-screen "talkie," but this was for the entire length of the film and not just in certain scenes. United Artists' "The Bat Whispers" had been photographed in 65mm as well as conventional 35mm. For its initial release, UA made 35mm reduction prints from the 65mm negative and booked them into major first-run theatres like the Rivoli that were equipped with Magnascope. The resulting image was sharper and brighter than one taken with a 35mm camera, and looked much better when enlarged to twice its size. This new system was advertised as "Magnifilm," but was essentially the same thing as Magnascope, using a feature shot with a 65mm camera instead of with the usual 35mm. Including the Rivoli, "The Bat Whispers" was shown as a "Magnifilm" in about 20 theatres in key cities before UA switched to the conventional 35mm version for general release. Both the 65mm version (photographed by Robert Planck) and the 35mm (shot by Ray June) can be seen on the DVD of "The Bat Whispers." The 65mm is presented in 2:1 letter box format, and the 35mm in 1.33:1 full screen.

Here's an ad for the 1931 wide-screen engagement of "The Bat Whispers" at the Rivoli Theatre: http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a18/Warrengwhiz/morris31.jpg

When my parents were first married they would travel to the city from nearby Astoria, Queens virtually every week to see a show, movie or whatever. Somewhere in the back of my mind I recall my father saying the Rivoli had a wonderful orchestra. I presume there were movie - stage programs at this venue from that statement.

How awesome, rvb!!

I grew up in a suburb that was roughly 20 miles due northwest of Boston. When my sister and I were kids, and, for quite some time even after my brother came along, we would often travel into the city for a live theatre show, or a movie. Often, though, my parents would travel into the city by themselve, without us kids, to see a movie or a show, too.

During the silent era, the Rivoli had a resident orchestra which provided all music (and some of the sound effects) for the movie fare, including the feature, newsreel, shorts, etcetra. The Rivoli did not have stage facilities, so it did not present vaudeville or revues. Sometimes there would be "live" prologues to the feature, with a few singers and dancers performing on the steps to the simulated stage or along the side aisles of the auditorium. At certain shows, music would be provided by the Rivoli's organ instead of by the orchestra to give the musicians a break.

The Rivoli sounds like it was a neat theatre to attend!

http://cgi.ebay.com/PC-The-Rivoli-Motion-Picture-Theatre-in-New-York-City_W0QQitemZ250337429022QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item250337429022&_trksid=p3286.m20.l1116#ebayphotohosting

This link will take you to a postcard view (being sold on ebay) of the Rivoli's proscenium.

Renewing link.

As the United Artists twin.

http://americanclassicimages.com/DesktopModules/CATALooKStore/MakeThumbImage.aspx?ID=%2fPortals%2f0%2f1%2fN%2fNY799.jpg&PORTALID=0

The 1971 Lawrence of Arabia re-issue
http://americanclassicimages.com/Default.aspx?tabid=141&txtSearch=CATAdvancedSearch1%2c32%2c3%2c-1&catpageindex=144&ProductID=31137

1979 Invasion of the Body Snatchers
http://americanclassicimages.com/Default.aspx?tabid=141&txtSearch=CATAdvancedSearch1%2c32%2c3%2c-1&catpageindex=144&ProductID=31138

As the Rivoli Twin
http://americanclassicimages.com/Default.aspx?tabid=141&txtSearch=CATAdvancedSearch1%2c32%2c3%2c-1&catpageindex=144&ProductID=31139

Back Wall
http://americanclassicimages.com/Default.aspx?tabid=141&txtSearch=CATAdvancedSearch1%2c32%2c3%2c-1&catpageindex=145&ProductID=31140

In those pictures, you can even see the decline of the once great Rivoli Theatre into the depths that if became just before the end.

It's a pity that American Classic Images has so few interior photos of theatres. One might assume that the buildings existed only for the sake of holding a marquee. As some sage once said, "You can't tell a book by its cover."

The Rivoli opened with a platform stage in 1917. In 1926 it was remodeled by Publix, better stage space was allocated, and stage revues were introduced as per this NY Times review of "A Kiss for Cinderella".

"The new idea at the Rivoli is to have a John Murray Anderson revue in addition to the screen feature, and no real prologue. This theatre, which now is run by the Publix Theatres Corporation, has been remodeled so as to have more stage space. Mr. Anderson's current production is hailed as "The Melting Pot," in which the dancers of different nations, after giving their native performance, pass through the melting pot and emerge clad in glistening gold. There is too much of a contrast between this stage effort and the delicate charm of Barrie's story."

Didn't United Artists rip the freize down, or remove the columns, or some such thing, as a strategy to prevent landmarking?

The stage revue policy at the Rivoli in 1926 was just a temporary measure, designed as a testing ground for John Murray Anderson, Frank Cambria, and others who would be producing the stage shows at the new Paramount Theatre when it was completed later that year. After the Paramount opened in November, the Rivoli closed down for two weeks for removal of the stage equipment and preparation for a new policy of "prestige" roadshow films. The first booking was Paramount's seafaring epic, "Old Ironsides," which was projected at the Rivoli in Magnascope on what was advertised as "The largest screen in the world" and ran for four months through April, 1927. By that time, the Rivoli had acquired still another rival in the Roxy Theatre and changed to a continuous-run policy at popular prices, starting with Paramount's "Chang."

The Rivoli may have abandoned stage shows but it still had stage in the mid forties when it was used by Skouras for fund raising benefits on a regular basis.

It was apparently also also quite large.

Jan. 1943
"one hundred women in uniform from various war organizations will appear on the stage in formation" (Jan 1943)

March 1943
Evening performance canceled for Stage Show to benefit the Good Neighbors Center.

Nov. 1945
Movies cancelled for a revue version of "East Side, West Side" to benefit St. Vincents Hospital

An article regarding the $1,250,000 front payment made by the Rivoli for rights to show the "CLEOPATRA" roadshow can be found here.

http://issuu.com/boxoffice/docs/boxoffice_011463

Although it was obviously an industry publicity stunt, it was a good one.

Here is a photo of the Rivoli with "Around the World in 80 Days" on the marquee.

I'm doing some reseach on when and where some of the early Fox Cinemascope pictures opened in Manhattan in 54'55'. I have the Roxy dates. I'm looking for GARDEN OF EVIL, THE ADVENTURES OF HAJJI BADA, CARMEN JONES, PRINCE OF PLAYERS, WHITE FEATHER, VIOLENT SATURDAY, THE SEVEN YEAR ITCH, HOUSE OF BAMBOO & THE TALL MEN. Can anyone help me? I believe many of these played at the Rivoli

Well "Garden of Evil" played at the Roxy. I think "The Seven Year Itch" played over at the State. And I think "The Tall Men" played over at the Paramount. The Paramount Theatre Times Square played alot of Fox during that time along with the Roxy Theatre. The Roxy was Fox's showcase house since it was operated by them.

"Garden of Evil" did open at the Roxy in July 1954.
"The Adventures of Hajji Bada" at the Globe in October 1954.
"Carmen Jones" at the Rivoli in October 1954.
"The Prince of Players" at the Rivoli in January 1955.
"White Feather" at the Roxy in February 1955.
"Violent Saturday" at the Mayfair in May 1955.
"The Seven Year Itch" at the State in June 1955.
"House of Bamboo" at the Mayfair in July 1955.
"The Tall Men" at the State in October 1955.

The Seventh Avenue side of the Rivoli Theatre can be seen in the background of this 1968 photo of an abortion rights protest parade. The Rivoli was presenting a reserved-seat engagement of "Gone With the Wind" at the time:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/11/29/weekinreview/29stolberg02.html

One of many classics to debut here. Snack-size packets of Sun Maid raisins were handed out free on opening day: http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/images/column/121207/wrath.jpg

The cinemascope list above omits one of the better ones: "King of the Kyber Rifles" with Tyrone Power. It played the Rivoli.

The cinemascope list above omits one of the better ones: "King of the Kyber Rifles" with Tyrone Power. It played the Rivoli.