Ziegfeld Theatre

Chic is chic.

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

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

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 From the very beginning this theater superseded all the others still standing and I will never know why.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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