Loew's State Theatre

On that we can heartily agree, Vincent. “Gladiator” certainly deserved a proper palace for its premier presentation, rather than the unceremonious standard-issue wide release it was given. Even that granddaddy of the modern Hollywood blockbuster imperative, “Jaws” had the magnificent Rivoli for its gala premier back in ‘75.

Thanks for pointing that out, Mike… I meant to say that those theaters had no lengthy history showing films (as opposed to the Lunt-Fontanne, Mark Hellinger, Broadway, Palace, 42nd Street grinders, etc). The “Gigi” engagement was more like a one shot deal, wasn’t it? Or were there other runs like this at the Royale and/or other erstwhile legitimate houses?

Anyway… I agree with TJ in principal. At least corporations have paid their way onto the marquees of theaters by contributing money towards restoration, renovations and maintenance. The Shubert situation smacks a bit of vanity.

Ed Solero
Actually the Royal now the Jacobs had the roadshow engagement of Gigi. I have a clipping of it in a book of NYTimes movie reviews that I bought in 1978. Interesting that the book At This Theater which is all about the broadway theaters history doesn’t show Gigi as being at the Royal. If I can ever figure out how to scan a pic and put it in here I will.

The Shuberts have recently renamed a couple of their legitimate theaters after board members… therefore the Royale is now named after deceased and former long time President of the Shubert Organization, Bernard Jacobs; and the Plymouth is named after the current (and therefore very much alive) chairman, Gerald Schoenfeld. At least the Jujamcyn group continue to honor the artistic history of Broadway by renaming thier Martin Beck and Virginia theaters after famed caricaturist Al Hirschfeld and playwrite August Wilson, respectively. Anyway… none of these theaters have ever had a history of exhibiting films, so this is probably a topic better explored elsewhere than on Cinema Treasures.

How about “Paint Your Wagon” or “Song of Norway”, Vincent? You have to draw the line somewhere, right? Seriously, I’m with you on that point… I’d take any of those turkey’s (plus “Hello Dolly!”) just to see an old fashioned road-show engagement at The Rivoli, Capitol or Strand as well.

As for your other point… not every actor is cut out for every role. I wouldn’t want to see Pacino, Costner or Reeves in an old time biblical epic. That’s no reason to denigrate the fine work he has done in his own idiom. Pacino is a wonderful stage and screen actor. While he has certainly chosen to ham it up and become caricature in much of his recent work – “Scarface”, “Heat”, “Scent of a Woman” and “Devil’s Advocate” leap immediately to mind – he is also capable of beautifully nuanced, even sublime performances such as those in the first two “Godfather” movies, “Scarecrow”, “Panic in Needle Park” and, more recently, “Donnie Brasco” and “Insomnia.” But I sure wouldn’t want to have seen him as Judah Ben-Hur. Costner has his charms when confined to his limited range (playing washed up jocks seems to be work for him). Reeves… OK, you have me there.

My problem with Heston is that he always played Heston. I guess that can be said of most iconic movie stars from the golden age of the studios, but Heston’s emotional range is rather limited and his personality as square as his jaw. Compare him to a current star like Russell Crowe who has great range and can command the screen for a costume epic like “Gladiator” or “Master and Commander” – he’s probably one of the few contemporary actors who can pull off those sort of Heston-like roles and lend to them an emotional core that was missing with Heston. Anyway… I seem to recall from other comments on this site that your cinematic preferences don’t particularly favor the sort of European-influenced filmmaking and acting styles that were ushered in during the ‘70’s. To each his own. I respectfully bow to your opinion.

I rather like the ‘59 “Ben-Hur,” though I’d have to agree that too much praise has been heaped upon it over the years. I’ve only ever seen it on the small screen (though, via a nice widescreen DVD on a 60 inch LCD projection monitor) and would salivate at the opportunity to see a proper big-screen presentation. Having said that, Heston is pretty wooden and the film occasionally suffers from the usual lumbering weight that all 1950’s Hollywood biblical epics carried around with them – not to mention that it lacks a certain poetry that the original silent version was able to achieve. Still, I find it a stirring entertainment all-around.

EdSolero;
There is information about the Lane on another section of this site. I don’t know the theater’s number, but I thought I should tell you. I never went to the Lane, but we had a bagel store near there, and it was closed at the time we had it. At that time and presently I lived on Long Island. We are now looking for a home on Staten Island and I sometimes pass the Lane. It had a nice exterior and I hope it does reopen, but not as a nightclub. Anyone want to bring legitimate theater to it?

Very sad, RobertR. I saw this version of Kong at the Astoria, which has been gutted to it’s bare walls for retail/commercial use. But, on the bright side, at least the Paradise, Metropolitan, Elmwood and Valencia are still standing and being well preserved (or in the process) as houses of worship. Better still, they are all more or less open to the public. I dare say that for the most part these theaters are in better shape now than when they last saw a feature film presentation, with all traces of multiplexing having been elmininated. One might argue against the current garish color scheme of the former Valencia (which was never twinned or triplexed), but at least it retains it’s original configuration, unlike the partitioned American.

Is the Lane in Staten Island still open as a nightclub? I thought I read on this site that the interior is landmarked.

Yes, it’s the combination Apollo/Lyric on 42nd. It was recently called the Ford Theater.

Gustavelifting… the Loew’s State and the Hilton Theater are within a few blocks of each other, never mind a mile. Haven’t seen the “Chitty” show yet, though my ex did take the kiddies to see it. I saw the movie in theaters as well when I was a very young boy, but it was in a neighborhood theater in Queens, not Times Square. I loved the Loew’s State all the same, even though I never knew it as a single screen theater. Both theaters were spacious, but I remember the upstairs theater being the better of the two because of the original high ceiling. This and the Rivoli were the nicest and most ornate of the theaters on the Square as I can recall, although, I must admit I never made it into either the Criterion or Movieland during the years I frequented the area in the ‘80’s.

Life… It was the so called “bow tie” building on the next block down from the old Loew’s State that was gutted rather than being completely demolished. This would be between 45th and 44th street and used to house the Criterion Theater as well as Bond’s Clothing Store and Bond’s International Casino. Toys ‘R’ Us now occupies. Some folks have posted on the Criterion Theater site that remnants of the old theater can be found on the 2nd level of the store.

The description at top says that the Loews State was gutted in the 90’s. I was under the impression that the theatre and adjoining office building were completely demolished and replaced by new development. Does some part of the old building still exist?

This is a repeat of an earlier posting of mine, but with an added photo. Loew’s State did not normally play foreign-language films, but they did run the Italian Tomorrow is Too Late in 1952 in a subtitled print to enormous business (Variety: ‘Tomorrow’ Smash 45G). It was a lovely but now forgotten movie featuring Pier Angeli and Vittorio De Sica and dealt with the sexual awakening of adolescents. The movie went on to play art houses around the country, and in a dubbed version was even shown at drive-ins. Click here for a photo of patrons in line for Tomorrow is Too Late.