AppreciationMovie PalacesSome Came Running by Glenn Kenny

Your messiah, now

By April 4, 2010January 12th, 202611 Comments

Lafayette Great news that I ought to have blogged about earli­er: the vis­ion­ary theat­er man­ager Nelson Page and his sound and vis­ion ace Pete Apruzzese are, after a brief hiatus, back in charge at Suffern, N.Y.‘s Lafayette Theater, a beau­ti­ful old-time movie palace built in the late ’20s and main­tained in pala­tial splendor, com­plete with a fully-functioning and truly mighty Wurlitzer organ. Which means, among oth­er things, that the Saturday morn­ing spe­cial screen­ings of clas­sic films—Big Screen Classics, as the series (which oper­ates at three theat­ers, in fact) is called, is also back. I revis­ited the site yes­ter­day, Holy Saturday to us Catholics, for a par­tic­u­larly apro­pos screen­ing: Cecil B. DeMille’s 1956 rethink of his silent 1923 The Ten Commandments.

More about the movie in a moment. First, I want to rhaps­od­ize a bit about the house itself, which I wrote about for the first time here. It’s one of the few movie empori­ums wherein one feels thrilled to be just sit­ting there before the lights go down. Look in front of you, and there’s the gor­geous cur­tain. Front Look behind you and there’s the lovely chan­delier.Behind   It’s just a spec­tac­u­lar atmo­sphere. And when the Wurlitzer’s really going—you can see its per­cus­sion array in a nook stage left—the atmo­sphere is like noth­ing else out there. Just transportive. 

I also hugely admire Nelson’s atten­tion to detail. During the actu­al screen­ings, he has the sound from the movies piped into the rest rooms, so incon­tin­ent view­ers can some­what fol­low what’s going on. I haven’t been in a theat­er that spor­ted such a fea­ture since the old Palace in Dumont, New Jersey in the mid-’60s, and even now I think I might be mix­ing that house up with a long-gone theat­er in Fort Lee.  SpeakerWith typ­ic­al wit, Nelson does­n’t just pipe the audio into the men’s room—he’s got the speak­er secreted in the body of an old-school radio, a nice touch.

In short, it feels like a priv­ilege to watch a film at the Lafayette, and I implore those of a sim­il­ar bent to mine to make an effort to check it out, even for a show­ing of the new Clash of The Titans, which is the theat­er­’s first-run fea­ture at the moment. 

But it was a spe­cial treat to see Commandments there. The crit­ic J. Hoberman once pro­nounced, “Bluntly put, to not get Bresson is to not get the idea of motion pic­tures,” and while I thor­oughly agree with that notion, I also think it applies equally to DeMille, who some might con­ceive as Bresson’s dir­ectly oppos­ite num­ber. DeMille’s is a cinema of utmost and utter spec­tacle (some­thing Bresson actu­ally had an appre­ci­ation of, as wit­ness his admir­a­tion for Goldfinger), and what’s inter­est­ing to note when watch­ing this VistaVision-shot film, in glor­i­ous col­or and such, is how very much it resembles a silent pic­ture. DeMille stages a num­ber of sequences prac­tic­ally as tableaux, hav­ing some char­ac­ters hold poses when not in action (I was par­tic­u­larly struck by the frozen mourn­ful atti­tude of Nina Foch’s Bithiah, Moses’ adopt­ive moth­er, as the Pharaoh Seti (Sir Cedric Hardwicke) pro­nounces the ban­ish­ment of Moses). The cut­ting is not fast. The cam­era does­n’t move a whole lot, and when it does, the dir­ect­or makes you feel it; as, for instance the way the cam­era backs up as the mist of pes­ti­lence creeps into the labyrinthi­an dwell­ing place of the Hebrew slaves, while John Derek’s Joshua make his way to the house of Moses.

All pretty great stuff, I think. And as screened at the Lafayette, pretty wide: 

Wide commands 

Yep, that’s a 2.20 aspect ratio, wider than VistaVision’s 1.85. This ver­sion is the full “road­show” length, but the print was a “Super VistaVision” ver­sion cre­ated for a reviv­al of the film in 1989. Coming soon   The stu­dio trans­ferred the pic­ture to 70mm, and cropped the image for a wider frame. (This cre­ates some issues with the title crawl at the begin­ning, which pro­jec­tion­ist Pete Apruzzese had to re-rack through­out so folks could actu­ally read the whole thing.) After the screen­ing, Pete came out with my old friend Joseph Failla and I for a brief repast, and I asked Pete why he and Nelson had chosen to screen this par­tic­u­lar ver­sion. He answered that it was­n’t a choice. Rather, this was the only print Paramount had for the­at­ric­al screen­ings. An odd state of affairs, par­tic­u­larly giv­en that in 1999 the pic­ture was selec­ted for pre­ser­va­tion by the Library of Congress—you’d think a stu­dio might be proud of this fact and, you know, do part of its part. Well, now that Paramount seems to be tak­ing a slightly more act­ive interest in pre­ser­va­tion and res­tor­a­tion (see its really ter­rif­ic new DVD and Blu-ray disc of The African Queen, which Dave Kehr wrote evoc­at­ively about a few weeks ago), per­haps we shall see some pos­it­ive action on the Commandments front. In the mean­time, a few weeks hence the Lafayette will be screen­ing that newly restored print of Powell and Pressburger’s The Red Shoes that I’m sure many of you have heard about. I’m sure to be there. And I’m temp­ted to see Hitchcock’s The Man Who Knew Too Much there in about two weeks. Heck, if Suffern wer­en’t such a chal­len­ging trek from Brooklyn, I’d be there every Saturday this season. 

BTW, the title of this post is, of course, a ref­er­ence to the fam­ous line that Edward G. Robinson, in fact, nev­er actu­ally says in the film. The word his treach­er­ous char­ac­ter Dathan (and every oth­er char­ac­ter in the film) uses is “deliver­er.” Which isn’t as catchy as “mes­si­ah,” is it.

11 Comments

  • For what it’s worth, I do know that Paramount has archived COMMANDMENTS in HiDef; that ver­sion screened for I believe the first time last night on ABC, and looked ser­i­ously beau­ti­ful. I’m not sure why they haven’t put it on Blu-ray yet, as it’s one of the stu­di­o’s per­en­ni­al best-sellers. Unfortunately, with these all-digital res­tor­a­tions, it’s become more and more com­mon to not strike any prints.

  • jasctt says:

    Ah, yet anoth­er reas­on to make me pon­der a move to NYC.

  • Ryan Kelly says:

    Lovely piece, Glenn. I’ve had the priv­ilege of see­ing a hand­ful of films there, as well, and the exper­i­ence is every bit as magic­al as you describe. I grew up in the age of the mul­ti­plex, and it’s very unique for me to go to a theat­er where the movie theat­er itself is a part of the exper­i­ence as much as the movie is. The vin­tage movie posters as you walk in, like the one you have pic­tured, is a great treat as well. Unfortunately I work Saturday in the early after­noon, and can­’t go as often as I like (it’s only like a half hour drive from Fort Lee, well worth it), but when there’s some­thing I can­’t res­ist I’ll get our of work and go (I’m torn between “The Man Who Knew Too Much”, and “The Red Shoes” two weeks fol­low­ing. Unfortunately I’ll have to pick one!). I’ve seen “North by Northwest”, “King Kong”, and “Vertigo” at the Lafayette, not exper­i­ences I’d ever trade.

  • colinr says:

    I’m jeal­ous of course! Did they do SuperVistaVision ver­sions of oth­er films, such as the Hitchcock remake, or was Ten Commandments the only one to receive such treatment?

  • lipranzer says:

    Lovely trib­ute to the theat­er, but I can­’t get behind the “if you don’t get DeMille, you don’t get motion pic­tures” idea. Granted, I’m always going to fall on the con­tent side of “form vs. con­tent,” but that con­tent in most of DeMille’s pic­tures is always an issue with me, even in his non-Biblical films. I mean, we’re talk­ing about the dir­ect­or who made a not only bor­ing but wretched movie about the cir­cus, which in the­ory should be impossible.

  • Glenn Kenny says:

    Interesting ques­tion, Colin! It’s got a two-pronged answer. When Paramount made this ver­sion of “Commandments,” it was under the impres­sion that it was coin­ing the term “Super VistaVision.” In point of fact, in 1954 a man named Frank Caldwell devised a three-35mm-frame pro­cess that aspired to Cinerama-ness. It under­went a couple more name changes, but no fea­tures were pro­duced with it.
    The Harris/Katz res­tor­a­tion of “Vertigo” was kind of a Super VistaVision pro­ject, as the VistaVision fea­ture was trans­ferred to 70mm, but in this case the ori­gin­al aspect ratio was preserved.
    @ Lipranzer: Yes, “Greatest Show” is a train wreck, train wreck aside. But con­sider “Why Change Your Husband?” Or “Sign of the Cross.” Or “Four Frightened People…”

  • Or his 1927 King of Kings, which I watched the oth­er day. It is indeed the polar oppos­ite of Bresson, and I for one am glad of that fact.

  • That all looks great. The only cinema in Melbourne I think that com­pares is the Astor cinema, which William Friedkin raved about while he was down here screen­ing a new print of SORCERER. Before read­ing the blog prop­er, the mes­si­ah title made me think it was going to be about Verhoeven’s new JESUS OF NAZARETH hardcover.
    A restored Blu of COMMANDMENTS would be very nice.

  • Glenn -
    Thank you for the write-up about our show at the Lafayette, glad you enjoyed the presentation.

  • THE FUTURIST! has seen quite a few films at The Lafayette.
    A very mem­or­able view­ing was last year or the year before …
    A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH. IT was splendid.
    He, also,saw HOUSE OF WAX in 3D, PSYCHO (dur­ing their fab­ulous Halloween week­end fest­ivals), FRANKENSTEIN (1931), THE BIRDS and Cocteau’s BEAUTY AND THE BEAST. It is ALWAYS pure fun and a men­tal escape. Bravo, Commander Kenny! This was a sur­pris­ing and great piece.

  • Cadavra says:

    Glad to hear the Lafayette’s back in operation.
    As it hap­pens, I’m the per­pet­rat­or of “SuperVistaVision,” which I coined off of SuperScope, which was pretty much the same concept. It turned out there already was an ana­morph­ic neg­at­ive, pre­pared in part because DeMille took so long to shoot the film that the stu­dio felt they needed a back-up plan. We prin­ted up sev­er­al test sec­tions, includ­ing the Red Sea, and it all looked spec­tac­u­lar, so I bit the bul­let and went with it. (For an addi­tion­al fil­lip, I had them print DeMille’s intro in 1.33, then mask the Paramount logo to that size and then open up the mat­ting as the music came in. It was a great effect and usu­ally got applause.) Yes, there were a hand­ful of cropped shots (not­ably Hardwicke’s poin­ted crown), but in a nearly four-hour movie, it was a more than accept­able trade-off. As for the open­ing cred­its, the her­ald­ic bor­ders match the CinemaScope frame line (delib­er­ately, no doubt), so if they had to reframe, they’re prob­ably overscanning.

Leave a Reply