By the way, Warren, unless I’m not reading correctly it appears that the manufacturer of the house vacuum cleaner is detailed in the various specs given for the new Waverly.
Sooooo … Product Placement is not a new idea, huh?
>>Jack …it’s nice of you to join this site just to union-bash, ad nauseum. Got any opinions on anything else?<<
Most recent post, you said:
>>you also criticize the design of the theater, the neighborhood in which it sits, its future programming choices, the name “Waverly,” and any poster who disagrees with you. <<
Soooo, what is you thought (if you remember)… I make wide ranging comment upon the architectural, business and marketing design of the subject in focus, oorrrrr …. I’m only here to “union-bash?”
You smoking that stuff again, saps?
You’re posting to yourself now, saps, this is the end of my side of this chitchat.
>>I would ask the person who complained about the prices at IFC Center if s/he has bought a ticket at any other movie theaters in New York City.<<
You can ask the question, Mr. White, though the asking likely won’t
get you an objective answer. Posts here have shown, time to time, a set of contributors who express emotional and political views that appear to have scant grounding in either business experience or objective reasoning. God bless ‘em, I say, “whatever gets you through the night.”
>>Well, I would rather see a projectionist get paid a livable wage, even $54 an hour, than see the money go into the rapacious Dolan/Cablevision’s pockets.<<
And in your scenario the projectionist will apply his wages to the operations cost of the property?
>>And the money they are saving by not paying union wages for projectionists is not reflected in the ticket prices,<<
Jeez, hardbop, I’d love it if you’d post the P&L of this theatre that has led you to make the two trenchant observations above. If you don’t have a P&L you’re simply creating bad blood for the business. Not what one would expect from a thoughtful contributor to the “Cinema Treasures” site. (A P&L is a profit and loss statement)
Well said, Mr. Alvarez. Indeed, I am amused that a contributor to a site titled “Cinema Trasures” recommends support of the projectionists union, a business that seeks to act contrary to the best interests of the business of film exhibition.
The support is particularly poignant heard in coment about an exhibition business such as the IFC, a theater focused on so fragile a specie of cinema. I wonder if any commentors on this board have any film exhibition business management or ownership experience?
Aside from my personal thoughts about the operations practices, role and broad brush value of unions, the facts are clear on the subject of public opinion of labor unions operations in US. Support of unions, by both US individuals and the public as a whole, is in the tank.
A pragmatist, a realist, will likely comment that the public does not support unions because unions don’t work well for the majority of those affected by their operations.
Of course the operations focus of unions is revenue flow and salaries of officials, not the good or welfare of either their dues paying members or third party businesses at which uniion members are employed.
A person that supports the projectionist union activities at the IFC seeks to put a thoroughly unecessary expense in the operation of the “Cinema Treasure” at the former Waverly.
That person likely offers support of lip service, not funds, for either a doctrinaire reason or agenda not revealed. I’m not the person to argue or discuss their zealotry with those that cling fervently to idealistic theory or views not informed by experience.
I’ll lurk with interest though, as picket line supporters respond to your thoughtful position. I may comment, time to time, from knowledge gained over 45 years engagement in administration, architecture, design, development, construction, engineering and marketing in both manufacturing & retail business experience gained in both public and private ownership companies. Oh! I almsot forgot ……….. I am a union member. I am a SAG Principal Player with experience in more than six less than a dozen features.
I didn’t realize that the projectionist banner-wavers were standing, whining, behind the portable galvanized fences with the purpose to browbeat and dissuade customers from purchasing tickets. They should be ashamed of themselves for behaving so rudely to total strangers.
Couldn’t they better use the time looking for another job? Are picket line standees paid for their time in front of IFC?
Dunno about your 699 other defining moments. The one in focus in this exchange is the one in which you suggested that IFC submit to histrionic pressure to conform to desires of a third party business with no liability in the matter and no money in the deal.
Sounds, to me, like a terrible idea.
Thanks for the accolade, by the way. I’m happy to have accomplished in 10 what took you 700. Communications are best conducted in concise, clear terms. I’m pleased to have done so.
“Left leaning?” The understatement of the day. I imagine a seeker will need to go deeper than the molecular level to find a conservative in this ‘hood.
>>John Vanco, Jonathan Sehring, and the IFC management change their stance (or show some spine and demand a change) and hire union projectionists.<<
then, br91975 wrote:
>>I suggest you respect it by not utilizing its cloak by taking unwarranted swipes at others… <
What’s it gonna be, br91975, swipes or no swipes? Or maybe swipes are OK for you and not for others?
I stand by my comment, which was: It’s not great for one man to attempt to tell another how to run his business. You may applaud the idea and it may be “legal” in one jurisdiction or another but I surely don’t hold with the concept.
Moreover, I don’t think its a good business idea …… well, except for the party who’s successfully shoving his ideas down the other guys throat. In the case of labor union businesses, doesn’t the union shove it’s management ideas down the throat of both businesses and workers? Doesn’t sound great to me, br91975, though be my guest.
And by the way, as regards your “I’d defend to the death your right to do so.” Properly dramatic, your statement, though please do NOT come to defend me. I’ll handle it myself.
“bold” of IFC to showcase short alternative works?"
Welllll… I wouldn’t say “bold.” I would say it’s a marketing stance, and, the concensus among contributors to this board appears to approve of the marketing position taken. So be it.
They’re surely not for me. I’m not crazy about the navel gazing displayed. In fairness, I must reveal I’m not crazy about George Lucas' navel gazing either.
“bold” of IFC to showcase short alternative works?"
Welllll… I wouldn’t say “bold.” I would say it’s a marketing stance, and, the concensus among contributors to this board appears to approve of the marketing position taken. So be it.
They’re surely not for me. I’m not crazy about the navel gazing displayed. In fairness, I must reveal I’m not crazy about George Lucas' navel gazing either.
Wellllll: the 250 movies-in-theaters a year guy went to IFC on Saturday night and is quick to report that the 50 seat theatre on the second floor of the IFC north building (above former Whitey’s Bar) is very comfortable and a great spot to sit.
Sorry to say the print of Pennybakers “Don’t Look Back” wouldn’t run. John Vanco, the theaters GM, showed admirable grace and issued both rain checks and a refund. Teriffic.
One dislike: Someone has decided to program a short film before the feature of “Don’t Look Back” and Vanco, in his before the program welcome, said such shorts are planned as regular program scheduule items.
This particular short, a small yapping dog and his unseen master, is an example of the various classes of sophomoric navel gazing that often is a feature of “independant” movies and is a painful distraction from the pleasant experince of the theater and anticipation of the feature to come.
I’d rather watch ads that this stuff. At least one can ignore ads, nearly impossible with a yapping dog.
By the way, IFC is suffering a theatre-front demonstration by the projectionist union that includeds a giant inflatable rat perched on the curb and chanting demonstrators, presumably members of the union.
If anyone knows a member of the union, please advise the person about how silly they look whining there on the curb, projecting their protectionist mantra. It’s not our fault they were duped by the union sales pitch and we object to the rude intrusion upon our lives.
…. and IFC, apparently, agrees with you. “Waverly” is included in the name of the bar formerly known as “Whiteys” that IFC has annexed and is now a feature of the gussied-up theater. I salute managmement’s perspicacity for the installation of the bar though I opine its gonna be somewhat more than an uphill battle.
According to www tidbits unearthed “Waverly” should summon the image of a tree lined meadow in Merry Olde England. Hmmmmmm …. I suppose the pierced and tatooed daytrippers that populate the block COULD think they are visiting a tree lined meadow. The block does sorta feel that way to me.
We’ll ask Larry Alaimo, who knows more about the Waverly and the block than anyone.
I agree with you, Mr. Newman. Lets consign “Waverly” to the dustbin of history. No doubt many will wish to use the name but I aint one of them. As long as we have Larry Alaimo and terrific, well priced popcorn, we’ll be happy with the future.
Now: howbout the outdoor screenings in Cornelia Street yard?
Wonderful dream though I can’t imagine there’s a market for such an installation and it feels like a vanity effort and waste of resources to spend even develpment money on such an idea. I guess General Cinema’s filing is a defacto comment. Whats a “retractrable room?” Is Redford still smoking that stuff?
Seems like the market is terminally wedded to their television experience and will not go to a theater frewquently enough to enable the operation of anything but a feature film exhibition house.
As for the people on the sidewalk in the block we surely can’t blame them for their presence. There’s many daytripper magnets in the immediate hood. One of the most powerful pulls is the basketball court directly across the street. Any serious effort to drag the neighborhood to another profile needs to get rid of the basketball court. Nobody from CB2 has played ball in that court, EVER. The court does not serve residents. It serves people who live off Manhattan island and the companies who want to sell them cell phones and sports clothing. A park would be nice in place of the basketball and handball courts.
Then, as more daytripper magnets, there’s the stinky bars on 3rd Street and the smelly bars on Bleecker Street and the foetid falafel stands on McDougal Street. Face facts, it ain’t a tone-y neighborhood and a few more pierced and tattooed and supersize-clothed kids from the boros and far flung Long Island and New Jersey locales aren’t likely to shove either occupants of the sidewalk or the neighborhood any closer to the downbound train.
The area has long been a destination for travelers who think that hanging in the neighborhood confers membership in a privileged club and the idea, however cracked, was run up the proverbial flagpole by the first white people on the island. The neighborhood was popularized by people who took the one hour sail north from their homes and parents located on the southern tip of the island. Why? Youthful loose women and available randy men were reported to be strolling, ready for a date, among the sycamores. The more experience one gets watching things change the more they look the same.
As for the theater, a spy tells me the new operator has restored the former auditorium to it’s pre-twin configuration. I surely hope IFC/Bogdanow redid the seating pitch. My pal has applied for a job as an employee at the new business and if hes hired I think I will apply for the popcorn cooker operator’s job. Stay tuned.
Surprised, I am, to learn that the architect of record on the Waverly Theater job is a New York City outfit. Why am I surprised? The perforated galvanized plank stuck on the 6th Avenue elevation looks more like Los Angeles than Manhattan.
The façade, including the orange IFC logo laid on a grayish field, is wildly inappropriate to the context and site. Maybe IFC instructed Bogdanow to go for a look that Long Island based IFC imagined would attract inexperienced, unsophisticated or youthful eyes. The cladding and lighting fixtures stuck on the theatre building give it the look of an equipment shack adjacent to runways at an airport. Maybe IFC doesn’t have ability or inspiration to do anything more appropriate or attractive.
I’m searching for a reason that IFC would make such a faux pas on the look of the building, searching for a mitigating reason for the woeful personality that has so far met our eager eyes.
It is a truism that most people have heavily flawed notions about what happened/happens “down in the Village†and the notions are often responsible for both baffling personal agenda observed in actions of day trippers and corporate marketing plans unfurled in the ‘hood.
Many Long Island residents have ideas about “the Village†formed when they were youthful travelers “into the city†on weekends, on a mission to buy a bong or spend a racy night drinking beer and eating peanuts on Bleecker Street.
Work completed at the Waverly shows it not likely that IFC has any idea about the contextual elements of the neighborhood surrounding their new property at 325 Sixth Avenue.
OK, the building is ugly. We can live with the architectural mistake. However, I’m fearful the archtectural mistake foretells a deep flaw in the programming concept.
I’d like to submit a plea: I believe that IFC business at 325 Sixth Avenue will be better if the company programs the theater as if it is located in a way-upscale neighborhood on Long Island, the locale of IFC’s home office and likely the area where IFC management lives. Feature films, feature films, feature films. After those first choices, from time to time: revivals of classics and a well received documentary from time to time.
Just because the subject block on Sixth Avenue is chok-a-blok with storefront tattoo parlors and sex aid shops doesn’t mean that the people who come to town looking for the goods and services sold in the storefronts are customers for the IFC movie house.
Customers for the movie house are local residents (about 100K people) none of whom pay less than $30K a year residential rent, many of whom live in apartments with prices somewhat north of $1.5mn. The Walter Reade organization succeeded on the site because the company comprises denizens of our city, and the company programmed the theatre appropriately. Cineplex Odeon, a Canadian outfit, failed because programming was wildly inappropriate for the neighborhood. Who knows why, maybe the theater was booked from Toronto.
Its too much to ask IFC to program with feature films, though I surely hope IFC/Bogdanow will install a rendition of comfortable chairs as are used at present-day AMC or Loews theatres, rather that rock hard seats set closer than minimum pitch as at Angelika and Film Forum and Sunshine. Why must every “art house†experience include the two iconic features …. torturous seats and overpriced stale muffins?
A few remarks to qualify the paragraphs following: I live directly next door to 325 Sixth Avenue. I attend at least 4 movies every week. Sidney Lumet is in my rolodex:
If asked for my opinion, I would champion a 12 or 25 or more screen movie house for the site at 325 Sixth Avenue long before I’d opt for a theatre cast in the “art house†genre, particularly one operated by a company known as Independent Film Channel
In today’s movie marketplace, “Independent†in the name IFC is best seen as a marketing term designed to broadcast the pitchful idea that the company exhibits movies made by outsiders, iconoclasts and rebels.
The term is just another brand of hogwash. Buy it at your own risk. There is no more studio system so every film is made by outsiders. In fact, IFC says they’re in the film financing business.
If IFC wishes to trumpet the fact that they exhibit “independent†movies, they should also, full disclosure please, post samples of relevant sections of their financing agreements offered to movie makers. The sections that stipulate what is IFC’s control over the product released for exhibition. Independent? Yesirree, a filmmaker can independently decide not to take the financing if he doesn’t want to complete the film as the lender wants it done. Fat chance.
“Channel†in IFC the name says television.
Television is an inadequate (OK, terrible) exhibition platform for film. Both dramatic action and production values in “Film†are conceived and executed for exhibition with a projector and screen, in the optimum size available in a largish auditorium.
Video is conceived, designed and executed in a thoroughly different format and platform. Different size, different shape, different realization process. Electric, not emulsion rendition.
Video dramatic action is conceived, blocked and framed for a small screen. It is absolutely possible to conceive and realize top quality moving image narratives conceived and framed for a 30†screen. It is best to view them in the format and size in which they were produced, a television screen.
Film? Watch it in a theater. Video? Watch it on television.
IFC, the name, is an oxymoron loaded with troubling portent.
Moreover, IFC management has given the building at 325 Sixth Avenue a deconstructed look that suggests the business conducted inside will appeal to eyeballs and thought processes more concerned with a seat in a hip-sounding demographic slice than a seat in a theatre that screens a textured cross section of feature films.
IFC has spent a lot of money on the job and we truly appreciate that the company has put their money where their mouth is. We hope the company will not make us pay for mistakes made, though we know â€" it’s been well demonstrated – there’s a market for overpriced stale muffins. Please do not price the popcorn to rapaciously lighten our our wallet.
Please: exhibit a broad cross section of movies. Please: minimize the offering of experimental work sold at full price tickets.
This 200 plus movies a year guy really, REALLY wants a great movie house at 325 Sixth Avenue, literally, next door to my home. I don’t have high hopes. I surely hope IFC management proves wrong my dire predictions.
By the way, Warren, unless I’m not reading correctly it appears that the manufacturer of the house vacuum cleaner is detailed in the various specs given for the new Waverly.
Sooooo … Product Placement is not a new idea, huh?
Great photos, Warren, thank you.
OK saps, last post you said:
>>Jack …it’s nice of you to join this site just to union-bash, ad nauseum. Got any opinions on anything else?<<
Most recent post, you said:
>>you also criticize the design of the theater, the neighborhood in which it sits, its future programming choices, the name “Waverly,” and any poster who disagrees with you. <<
Soooo, what is you thought (if you remember)… I make wide ranging comment upon the architectural, business and marketing design of the subject in focus, oorrrrr …. I’m only here to “union-bash?”
You smoking that stuff again, saps?
You’re posting to yourself now, saps, this is the end of my side of this chitchat.
Fallacious,saps, and can lead you and readers off the point of the “Cinema Treasure” in focus. Use logic … if you can.
For the last couple nights, projectionist union protest managment has hired street urchins in hiphop clothes to hand out flyers.
Could this mean that gen-u-ine projectionists, protesting at projectionist wages, is not cost effective?
Hmmmmmmm …………….
>>I would ask the person who complained about the prices at IFC Center if s/he has bought a ticket at any other movie theaters in New York City.<<
You can ask the question, Mr. White, though the asking likely won’t
get you an objective answer. Posts here have shown, time to time, a set of contributors who express emotional and political views that appear to have scant grounding in either business experience or objective reasoning. God bless ‘em, I say, “whatever gets you through the night.”
>>Well, I would rather see a projectionist get paid a livable wage, even $54 an hour, than see the money go into the rapacious Dolan/Cablevision’s pockets.<<
And in your scenario the projectionist will apply his wages to the operations cost of the property?
>>And the money they are saving by not paying union wages for projectionists is not reflected in the ticket prices,<<
Jeez, hardbop, I’d love it if you’d post the P&L of this theatre that has led you to make the two trenchant observations above. If you don’t have a P&L you’re simply creating bad blood for the business. Not what one would expect from a thoughtful contributor to the “Cinema Treasures” site. (A P&L is a profit and loss statement)
Well said, Mr. Alvarez. Indeed, I am amused that a contributor to a site titled “Cinema Trasures” recommends support of the projectionists union, a business that seeks to act contrary to the best interests of the business of film exhibition.
The support is particularly poignant heard in coment about an exhibition business such as the IFC, a theater focused on so fragile a specie of cinema. I wonder if any commentors on this board have any film exhibition business management or ownership experience?
Aside from my personal thoughts about the operations practices, role and broad brush value of unions, the facts are clear on the subject of public opinion of labor unions operations in US. Support of unions, by both US individuals and the public as a whole, is in the tank.
A pragmatist, a realist, will likely comment that the public does not support unions because unions don’t work well for the majority of those affected by their operations.
Of course the operations focus of unions is revenue flow and salaries of officials, not the good or welfare of either their dues paying members or third party businesses at which uniion members are employed.
A person that supports the projectionist union activities at the IFC seeks to put a thoroughly unecessary expense in the operation of the “Cinema Treasure” at the former Waverly.
That person likely offers support of lip service, not funds, for either a doctrinaire reason or agenda not revealed. I’m not the person to argue or discuss their zealotry with those that cling fervently to idealistic theory or views not informed by experience.
I’ll lurk with interest though, as picket line supporters respond to your thoughtful position. I may comment, time to time, from knowledge gained over 45 years engagement in administration, architecture, design, development, construction, engineering and marketing in both manufacturing & retail business experience gained in both public and private ownership companies. Oh! I almsot forgot ……….. I am a union member. I am a SAG Principal Player with experience in more than six less than a dozen features.
I didn’t realize that the projectionist banner-wavers were standing, whining, behind the portable galvanized fences with the purpose to browbeat and dissuade customers from purchasing tickets. They should be ashamed of themselves for behaving so rudely to total strangers.
Couldn’t they better use the time looking for another job? Are picket line standees paid for their time in front of IFC?
Good idea, Mr. VanBibber.
Dunno about your 699 other defining moments. The one in focus in this exchange is the one in which you suggested that IFC submit to histrionic pressure to conform to desires of a third party business with no liability in the matter and no money in the deal.
Sounds, to me, like a terrible idea.
Thanks for the accolade, by the way. I’m happy to have accomplished in 10 what took you 700. Communications are best conducted in concise, clear terms. I’m pleased to have done so.
“Left leaning?” The understatement of the day. I imagine a seeker will need to go deeper than the molecular level to find a conservative in this ‘hood.
first, br91975 wrote:
>>John Vanco, Jonathan Sehring, and the IFC management change their stance (or show some spine and demand a change) and hire union projectionists.<<
then, br91975 wrote:
>>I suggest you respect it by not utilizing its cloak by taking unwarranted swipes at others… <
What’s it gonna be, br91975, swipes or no swipes? Or maybe swipes are OK for you and not for others?
I stand by my comment, which was: It’s not great for one man to attempt to tell another how to run his business. You may applaud the idea and it may be “legal” in one jurisdiction or another but I surely don’t hold with the concept.
Moreover, I don’t think its a good business idea …… well, except for the party who’s successfully shoving his ideas down the other guys throat. In the case of labor union businesses, doesn’t the union shove it’s management ideas down the throat of both businesses and workers? Doesn’t sound great to me, br91975, though be my guest.
And by the way, as regards your “I’d defend to the death your right to do so.” Properly dramatic, your statement, though please do NOT come to defend me. I’ll handle it myself.
Jimmy Hoffa, John Gotti and others surely will applaud your idea that the concept of one man muscling into another’s business is “decent.”
I urge that you and the union leave managmement of IFC to Vanco and others who are qualifed. Thats the “common sense thing” to do.
“bold” of IFC to showcase short alternative works?"
Welllll… I wouldn’t say “bold.” I would say it’s a marketing stance, and, the concensus among contributors to this board appears to approve of the marketing position taken. So be it.
They’re surely not for me. I’m not crazy about the navel gazing displayed. In fairness, I must reveal I’m not crazy about George Lucas' navel gazing either.
“bold” of IFC to showcase short alternative works?"
Welllll… I wouldn’t say “bold.” I would say it’s a marketing stance, and, the concensus among contributors to this board appears to approve of the marketing position taken. So be it.
They’re surely not for me. I’m not crazy about the navel gazing displayed. In fairness, I must reveal I’m not crazy about George Lucas' navel gazing either.
Wellllll: the 250 movies-in-theaters a year guy went to IFC on Saturday night and is quick to report that the 50 seat theatre on the second floor of the IFC north building (above former Whitey’s Bar) is very comfortable and a great spot to sit.
Sorry to say the print of Pennybakers “Don’t Look Back” wouldn’t run. John Vanco, the theaters GM, showed admirable grace and issued both rain checks and a refund. Teriffic.
One dislike: Someone has decided to program a short film before the feature of “Don’t Look Back” and Vanco, in his before the program welcome, said such shorts are planned as regular program scheduule items.
This particular short, a small yapping dog and his unseen master, is an example of the various classes of sophomoric navel gazing that often is a feature of “independant” movies and is a painful distraction from the pleasant experince of the theater and anticipation of the feature to come.
I’d rather watch ads that this stuff. At least one can ignore ads, nearly impossible with a yapping dog.
By the way, IFC is suffering a theatre-front demonstration by the projectionist union that includeds a giant inflatable rat perched on the curb and chanting demonstrators, presumably members of the union.
If anyone knows a member of the union, please advise the person about how silly they look whining there on the curb, projecting their protectionist mantra. It’s not our fault they were duped by the union sales pitch and we object to the rude intrusion upon our lives.
…. and IFC, apparently, agrees with you. “Waverly” is included in the name of the bar formerly known as “Whiteys” that IFC has annexed and is now a feature of the gussied-up theater. I salute managmement’s perspicacity for the installation of the bar though I opine its gonna be somewhat more than an uphill battle.
According to www tidbits unearthed “Waverly” should summon the image of a tree lined meadow in Merry Olde England. Hmmmmmm …. I suppose the pierced and tatooed daytrippers that populate the block COULD think they are visiting a tree lined meadow. The block does sorta feel that way to me.
We’ll ask Larry Alaimo, who knows more about the Waverly and the block than anyone.
I agree with you, Mr. Newman. Lets consign “Waverly” to the dustbin of history. No doubt many will wish to use the name but I aint one of them. As long as we have Larry Alaimo and terrific, well priced popcorn, we’ll be happy with the future.
Now: howbout the outdoor screenings in Cornelia Street yard?
Wonderful dream though I can’t imagine there’s a market for such an installation and it feels like a vanity effort and waste of resources to spend even develpment money on such an idea. I guess General Cinema’s filing is a defacto comment. Whats a “retractrable room?” Is Redford still smoking that stuff?
Seems like the market is terminally wedded to their television experience and will not go to a theater frewquently enough to enable the operation of anything but a feature film exhibition house.
Did Redford build the Sundance Cinema vision? If so, what towns?
As for the people on the sidewalk in the block we surely can’t blame them for their presence. There’s many daytripper magnets in the immediate hood. One of the most powerful pulls is the basketball court directly across the street. Any serious effort to drag the neighborhood to another profile needs to get rid of the basketball court. Nobody from CB2 has played ball in that court, EVER. The court does not serve residents. It serves people who live off Manhattan island and the companies who want to sell them cell phones and sports clothing. A park would be nice in place of the basketball and handball courts.
Then, as more daytripper magnets, there’s the stinky bars on 3rd Street and the smelly bars on Bleecker Street and the foetid falafel stands on McDougal Street. Face facts, it ain’t a tone-y neighborhood and a few more pierced and tattooed and supersize-clothed kids from the boros and far flung Long Island and New Jersey locales aren’t likely to shove either occupants of the sidewalk or the neighborhood any closer to the downbound train.
The area has long been a destination for travelers who think that hanging in the neighborhood confers membership in a privileged club and the idea, however cracked, was run up the proverbial flagpole by the first white people on the island. The neighborhood was popularized by people who took the one hour sail north from their homes and parents located on the southern tip of the island. Why? Youthful loose women and available randy men were reported to be strolling, ready for a date, among the sycamores. The more experience one gets watching things change the more they look the same.
As for the theater, a spy tells me the new operator has restored the former auditorium to it’s pre-twin configuration. I surely hope IFC/Bogdanow redid the seating pitch. My pal has applied for a job as an employee at the new business and if hes hired I think I will apply for the popcorn cooker operator’s job. Stay tuned.
Jack
Surprised, I am, to learn that the architect of record on the Waverly Theater job is a New York City outfit. Why am I surprised? The perforated galvanized plank stuck on the 6th Avenue elevation looks more like Los Angeles than Manhattan.
The façade, including the orange IFC logo laid on a grayish field, is wildly inappropriate to the context and site. Maybe IFC instructed Bogdanow to go for a look that Long Island based IFC imagined would attract inexperienced, unsophisticated or youthful eyes. The cladding and lighting fixtures stuck on the theatre building give it the look of an equipment shack adjacent to runways at an airport. Maybe IFC doesn’t have ability or inspiration to do anything more appropriate or attractive.
I’m searching for a reason that IFC would make such a faux pas on the look of the building, searching for a mitigating reason for the woeful personality that has so far met our eager eyes.
It is a truism that most people have heavily flawed notions about what happened/happens “down in the Village†and the notions are often responsible for both baffling personal agenda observed in actions of day trippers and corporate marketing plans unfurled in the ‘hood.
Many Long Island residents have ideas about “the Village†formed when they were youthful travelers “into the city†on weekends, on a mission to buy a bong or spend a racy night drinking beer and eating peanuts on Bleecker Street.
Work completed at the Waverly shows it not likely that IFC has any idea about the contextual elements of the neighborhood surrounding their new property at 325 Sixth Avenue.
OK, the building is ugly. We can live with the architectural mistake. However, I’m fearful the archtectural mistake foretells a deep flaw in the programming concept.
I’d like to submit a plea: I believe that IFC business at 325 Sixth Avenue will be better if the company programs the theater as if it is located in a way-upscale neighborhood on Long Island, the locale of IFC’s home office and likely the area where IFC management lives. Feature films, feature films, feature films. After those first choices, from time to time: revivals of classics and a well received documentary from time to time.
Just because the subject block on Sixth Avenue is chok-a-blok with storefront tattoo parlors and sex aid shops doesn’t mean that the people who come to town looking for the goods and services sold in the storefronts are customers for the IFC movie house.
Customers for the movie house are local residents (about 100K people) none of whom pay less than $30K a year residential rent, many of whom live in apartments with prices somewhat north of $1.5mn. The Walter Reade organization succeeded on the site because the company comprises denizens of our city, and the company programmed the theatre appropriately. Cineplex Odeon, a Canadian outfit, failed because programming was wildly inappropriate for the neighborhood. Who knows why, maybe the theater was booked from Toronto.
Its too much to ask IFC to program with feature films, though I surely hope IFC/Bogdanow will install a rendition of comfortable chairs as are used at present-day AMC or Loews theatres, rather that rock hard seats set closer than minimum pitch as at Angelika and Film Forum and Sunshine. Why must every “art house†experience include the two iconic features …. torturous seats and overpriced stale muffins?
A few remarks to qualify the paragraphs following: I live directly next door to 325 Sixth Avenue. I attend at least 4 movies every week. Sidney Lumet is in my rolodex:
If asked for my opinion, I would champion a 12 or 25 or more screen movie house for the site at 325 Sixth Avenue long before I’d opt for a theatre cast in the “art house†genre, particularly one operated by a company known as Independent Film Channel
In today’s movie marketplace, “Independent†in the name IFC is best seen as a marketing term designed to broadcast the pitchful idea that the company exhibits movies made by outsiders, iconoclasts and rebels.
The term is just another brand of hogwash. Buy it at your own risk. There is no more studio system so every film is made by outsiders. In fact, IFC says they’re in the film financing business.
If IFC wishes to trumpet the fact that they exhibit “independent†movies, they should also, full disclosure please, post samples of relevant sections of their financing agreements offered to movie makers. The sections that stipulate what is IFC’s control over the product released for exhibition. Independent? Yesirree, a filmmaker can independently decide not to take the financing if he doesn’t want to complete the film as the lender wants it done. Fat chance.
“Channel†in IFC the name says television.
Television is an inadequate (OK, terrible) exhibition platform for film. Both dramatic action and production values in “Film†are conceived and executed for exhibition with a projector and screen, in the optimum size available in a largish auditorium.
Video is conceived, designed and executed in a thoroughly different format and platform. Different size, different shape, different realization process. Electric, not emulsion rendition.
Video dramatic action is conceived, blocked and framed for a small screen. It is absolutely possible to conceive and realize top quality moving image narratives conceived and framed for a 30†screen. It is best to view them in the format and size in which they were produced, a television screen.
Film? Watch it in a theater. Video? Watch it on television.
IFC, the name, is an oxymoron loaded with troubling portent.
Moreover, IFC management has given the building at 325 Sixth Avenue a deconstructed look that suggests the business conducted inside will appeal to eyeballs and thought processes more concerned with a seat in a hip-sounding demographic slice than a seat in a theatre that screens a textured cross section of feature films.
Indeed, the Cornelia Street elevation â€" the rear of the building – of the property is the most attractive and expressive, far more so than the Sixth Avenue side. Portent of a café with outdoor seating is far more exciting and powerful than any element of the business plan and property personality that has so far been revealed to us eager fans of moving pictures. IFC will make a great stroke if the company serves food and shows movies in a cafe setting in the incipient garden at the Cornelia Street elevation.
IFC has spent a lot of money on the job and we truly appreciate that the company has put their money where their mouth is. We hope the company will not make us pay for mistakes made, though we know â€" it’s been well demonstrated – there’s a market for overpriced stale muffins. Please do not price the popcorn to rapaciously lighten our our wallet.
Please: exhibit a broad cross section of movies. Please: minimize the offering of experimental work sold at full price tickets.
This 200 plus movies a year guy really, REALLY wants a great movie house at 325 Sixth Avenue, literally, next door to my home. I don’t have high hopes. I surely hope IFC management proves wrong my dire predictions.
Jack