Warren: on the website it only says it was written by “Variety staff”. But I have a xerox copy at home of the original review as it appeared in the paper, and the nickname should be listed there. I’ll let you know tonight, in this space.
Ed: Strange thing about the 1969 Almanac’s Movies page – all the 1968 releases were listed with their star ratings EXCEPT “2001”!
Tonight I’ll post the New York Post’s negative “2001” review. Critic Archer Winsten was baffled and annoyed by it, and called it the first time Stanley Kubrick lost touch with his audience. At the end of the year, he included it in his list of the Top 10 films of 1968!
I know, Don – she couldn’t resist giving that away. Even worse is the “Psycho” review in Variety, posted below. The critic reveals practically everything that happens in the movie. Hitchcock must have been furious.
Psycho
Paramount. Director Alfred Hitchcock; Producer Alfred Hitchcock; Screenplay Joseph Stefano; Camera John L. Russell; Editor George Tomasini; Music Bernard Herrmann; Art Director Joseph Hurley, Robert Clatworthy. At DeMille Theatre, N.Y., June 16, 1960.
Norman Bates – Anthony Perkins
Marion Crane – Janet Leigh
Lila Crane – Vera Miles
Sam Loomis – John Gavin
Milton Arbogast – Martin Balsam
Sheriff Chambers – John McIntire
Dr. Richmond – Simon Oakland
Anyone listening hard enough, might almost hear Alfred Hitchcock saylng, “Believe this, kids, and I’ll tell you another.” The rejoinder from this corner: Believability doesn’t matter; but do tell another.
Producer-director Hitchcock is up to his clavicle in whimsicality and apparently had the time of his life in putting together “Psycho.” He’s gotten in gore, in the form of a couple of graphically-depicted knife murders, a story that’s far out in Freudian motivations, and now and then injects little amusing plot items that suggest the whole thing is not to be taken seriously.
The “Psycho” diagnosis, commercially, is this: an unusual, good entertainment, indelibly Hitchcock, and on the right kind of boxoffice beam. The campaign backing is fitting and potent. The edict against seating customers after opening curtain (as observed at New York’s DeMille Theatre) if respected may add to the intrigue. All adds up to success.
Hitchcock uses the old plea that nobody give out the ending — “It’s the only one we have.” This will be abided by bere, but it must be said that the central force throughout the feature is a mother who is a homicidal maniac. This is unusual because she happens to be physically defunct, has been for some years. But she lives on in the person of her son.
Anthony Perkins is the young man who doesn’t get enough exorcise (repeat exorcise) of that other inner being. Among the victims are Janet Leigh, who walks away from an illicit love affair with John Gavin, taking with her a stolen $40,000, and Martin Balsam, as a private eye who winds up in the same swamp in which Leigh’s body also is deposited.
John McIntire is the local sheriff with an unusual case on his hands, and Simon Oakland is the psychiatrist who recognizes that Perkins, while donning his mother’s clothes, is not really a transvestite; he’s just nuts. Vera Miles is the dead girl’s sister whose investigation leads to the diagnosis of what ails Perkins.
Perkins gives a remarkably effective in-a-dream kind of performance as the possessed young man. Others play it straight, with equal competence.
Joseph Stefano’s screenplay, from a novel by Robert Bloch, provides a strong foundation for Hitchcock’s field day. And if the camera, under Hitchcock’s direction, tends to over-emphasize a story point here and there, well, it’s forgivable. Further, the audience’s indulgence is not too strained with the inevitable appearance of Hitchcock himself. He limits himself to barely more than a frame.
Saul Bass' titles are full of his characteristic trickiness, Bernard Herrmann’s music nicely plays counter-point with the pictorial action and editing seems right all the way.
1960: Nominations: Best Director, Supp. Actress (Janet Leigh), B&W Cinematography, B&W Art Direction
Wanda did like it! She wrote about it in the 1969 World Almanac’s Movies section and called it a “grand spectacle”. There was also a Daily News editorial written soon after the premiere which praised the movie. I looked for it today at the New York Public Library, but I didn’t know the exact date and was unable to find it.
You’re welcome, B.O. Bill. What a pleasure to be able to bring back a special memory to you, after all those Radio City and Roxy programs you’ve given to us.
The day after Carroll’s review appeared, this ad made me feel a little better. MGM even managed to include some of the good things Carroll said about the picture:
From the 4/4/68 New York Daily News: Kathleen Carroll’s pan of “2001”, which traumatized me at age 13. She was disappointed in the film, I was disappointed in her:
From the Los Angeles Times, November 1963: the premiere of “It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World” and of the Dome itself. Get a load of that celebrity guest list:
Two ads from the Los Angeles Times – two big premieres of two big pictures at the Chinese – an overload of celebrity guests. If the hosts of these events had to stop and talk to every one of those guests, the show would never get under way on time.
This New York Daily News ad features 1956 Roxy patrons praising “Carousel” and CinemaScope 55. It’s hard to read the names, but you think there are any Cinema Treasures regulars in there? :)
BoxOfficeBill: Thanks to you, I was able to hand out photocopies of an actual 1956 Roxy program to each viewer when I showed “Giant” on a movie night several months ago. Also did the same thing with your Radio City program for “The Nun’s Story”. Cinema Treasures hasn’t been the same without you. It’s good to have you back!
Thanks for the great ad, RobertR. I’d forgotten how much I missed those great old New York critics. Starting October 6th, we can all re-create that day in 1972 by going to the Ziegfeld.
Vito: I guess we won’t be seeing you at the Ziegfeld this fall. But we can still, as Jesse Jackson used to say, keep hope alive. They already have those two 35/70mm projectors up there – what’s wrong with giving them a little workout once in a while?
Ed: I felt the same way when I found out that “How the West Was Won” had its world premiere in London in November 1962, then had several more 1962 openings in Europe, Japan and Australia before finally coming to the US in February 1963. It didn’t even open in New York until April. An unusual release pattern, but I’m sure MGM and Cinerama had their reasons.
They did have a curtain at the Rivoli, but they didn’t always use it. They kept it open with the lights down during the overture for “Cleopatra”, and I had no idea why all those yellow scratch marks were squiggling around up there on the screen. I was around 10 then, and didn’t know that the music was actually printed on the film itself. But it made for a good memory (which I haven’t thought about in many years).
Vito, hope you can make it into NYC for a Ziegfeld show when the classics start again.
In my old neighborhood theater, the Rivoli in Rutherford NJ, they often showed double features right up against each other without a moment’s break. The last shot of the first feature would change over directly to the studio logo of the second feature on the other projector. Sounds strange, but I kinda miss that.
When “The Exorcist” was re-released in 70mm at the Warner Twin (formerly the Strand), the reel alarm was broken and we heard the ding-ding-ding throughout the entire picture.
The front of the Ziegfeld’s marquee, which you could only really see from the other side of 54th St., said “THE ZIEGFELD A Walter Reade Theatre” for several years after it stopped being a Reade theatre. That part of the display is now covered up by a Clearview Cinemas sign.
Warren: on the website it only says it was written by “Variety staff”. But I have a xerox copy at home of the original review as it appeared in the paper, and the nickname should be listed there. I’ll let you know tonight, in this space.
Ed: Strange thing about the 1969 Almanac’s Movies page – all the 1968 releases were listed with their star ratings EXCEPT “2001”!
Tonight I’ll post the New York Post’s negative “2001” review. Critic Archer Winsten was baffled and annoyed by it, and called it the first time Stanley Kubrick lost touch with his audience. At the end of the year, he included it in his list of the Top 10 films of 1968!
I know, Don – she couldn’t resist giving that away. Even worse is the “Psycho” review in Variety, posted below. The critic reveals practically everything that happens in the movie. Hitchcock must have been furious.
Psycho
Paramount. Director Alfred Hitchcock; Producer Alfred Hitchcock; Screenplay Joseph Stefano; Camera John L. Russell; Editor George Tomasini; Music Bernard Herrmann; Art Director Joseph Hurley, Robert Clatworthy. At DeMille Theatre, N.Y., June 16, 1960.
Norman Bates – Anthony Perkins
Marion Crane – Janet Leigh
Lila Crane – Vera Miles
Sam Loomis – John Gavin
Milton Arbogast – Martin Balsam
Sheriff Chambers – John McIntire
Dr. Richmond – Simon Oakland
Anyone listening hard enough, might almost hear Alfred Hitchcock saylng, “Believe this, kids, and I’ll tell you another.” The rejoinder from this corner: Believability doesn’t matter; but do tell another.
Producer-director Hitchcock is up to his clavicle in whimsicality and apparently had the time of his life in putting together “Psycho.” He’s gotten in gore, in the form of a couple of graphically-depicted knife murders, a story that’s far out in Freudian motivations, and now and then injects little amusing plot items that suggest the whole thing is not to be taken seriously.
The “Psycho” diagnosis, commercially, is this: an unusual, good entertainment, indelibly Hitchcock, and on the right kind of boxoffice beam. The campaign backing is fitting and potent. The edict against seating customers after opening curtain (as observed at New York’s DeMille Theatre) if respected may add to the intrigue. All adds up to success.
Hitchcock uses the old plea that nobody give out the ending — “It’s the only one we have.” This will be abided by bere, but it must be said that the central force throughout the feature is a mother who is a homicidal maniac. This is unusual because she happens to be physically defunct, has been for some years. But she lives on in the person of her son.
Anthony Perkins is the young man who doesn’t get enough exorcise (repeat exorcise) of that other inner being. Among the victims are Janet Leigh, who walks away from an illicit love affair with John Gavin, taking with her a stolen $40,000, and Martin Balsam, as a private eye who winds up in the same swamp in which Leigh’s body also is deposited.
John McIntire is the local sheriff with an unusual case on his hands, and Simon Oakland is the psychiatrist who recognizes that Perkins, while donning his mother’s clothes, is not really a transvestite; he’s just nuts. Vera Miles is the dead girl’s sister whose investigation leads to the diagnosis of what ails Perkins.
Perkins gives a remarkably effective in-a-dream kind of performance as the possessed young man. Others play it straight, with equal competence.
Joseph Stefano’s screenplay, from a novel by Robert Bloch, provides a strong foundation for Hitchcock’s field day. And if the camera, under Hitchcock’s direction, tends to over-emphasize a story point here and there, well, it’s forgivable. Further, the audience’s indulgence is not too strained with the inevitable appearance of Hitchcock himself. He limits himself to barely more than a frame.
Saul Bass' titles are full of his characteristic trickiness, Bernard Herrmann’s music nicely plays counter-point with the pictorial action and editing seems right all the way.
1960: Nominations: Best Director, Supp. Actress (Janet Leigh), B&W Cinematography, B&W Art Direction
… and a midnight show every night! Those really were the good old days.
Wanda did like it! She wrote about it in the 1969 World Almanac’s Movies section and called it a “grand spectacle”. There was also a Daily News editorial written soon after the premiere which praised the movie. I looked for it today at the New York Public Library, but I didn’t know the exact date and was unable to find it.
You’re welcome, B.O. Bill. What a pleasure to be able to bring back a special memory to you, after all those Radio City and Roxy programs you’ve given to us.
The day after Carroll’s review appeared, this ad made me feel a little better. MGM even managed to include some of the good things Carroll said about the picture:
View link
From the Los Angeles Times, April 1968. “2001” was about to begin its very long run at the Warner Cinerama:
View link
Here’s the Daily News “Journey” review. This Fox picture is also (according to the headline) a Paramount picture:
View link
“Ryan’s Daughter” Daily News ad, November 1970. I hope it finds its way back there again someday.
View link
From the 4/4/68 New York Daily News: Kathleen Carroll’s pan of “2001”, which traumatized me at age 13. She was disappointed in the film, I was disappointed in her:
View link
Here is an ad for “Journey to the Center of the Earth” from the New York Daily News – December 1959:
View link
Here is an ad for “Journey to the Center of the Earth” from the New York Daily News:
View link
In honor of Joseph Stefano, who died yesterday:
View link
From the New York Daily News, September 1951:
An unusual ad for the Mayfair’s next attraction:
View link
Kate Cameron’s review. She sounds a little surprised to have enjoyed it – I guess science fiction didn’t get much respect back then:
View link
From the Los Angeles Times, November 1963: the premiere of “It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World” and of the Dome itself. Get a load of that celebrity guest list:
View link
Two ads from the Los Angeles Times – two big premieres of two big pictures at the Chinese – an overload of celebrity guests. If the hosts of these events had to stop and talk to every one of those guests, the show would never get under way on time.
West Side Story – December 1961:
View link
On the Beach – December 1959:
View link
This New York Daily News ad features 1956 Roxy patrons praising “Carousel” and CinemaScope 55. It’s hard to read the names, but you think there are any Cinema Treasures regulars in there? :)
View link
BoxOfficeBill: Thanks to you, I was able to hand out photocopies of an actual 1956 Roxy program to each viewer when I showed “Giant” on a movie night several months ago. Also did the same thing with your Radio City program for “The Nun’s Story”. Cinema Treasures hasn’t been the same without you. It’s good to have you back!
Thanks for the great ad, RobertR. I’d forgotten how much I missed those great old New York critics. Starting October 6th, we can all re-create that day in 1972 by going to the Ziegfeld.
Vito: I guess we won’t be seeing you at the Ziegfeld this fall. But we can still, as Jesse Jackson used to say, keep hope alive. They already have those two 35/70mm projectors up there – what’s wrong with giving them a little workout once in a while?
Ed: I felt the same way when I found out that “How the West Was Won” had its world premiere in London in November 1962, then had several more 1962 openings in Europe, Japan and Australia before finally coming to the US in February 1963. It didn’t even open in New York until April. An unusual release pattern, but I’m sure MGM and Cinerama had their reasons.
They did have a curtain at the Rivoli, but they didn’t always use it. They kept it open with the lights down during the overture for “Cleopatra”, and I had no idea why all those yellow scratch marks were squiggling around up there on the screen. I was around 10 then, and didn’t know that the music was actually printed on the film itself. But it made for a good memory (which I haven’t thought about in many years).
Vito, hope you can make it into NYC for a Ziegfeld show when the classics start again.
In my old neighborhood theater, the Rivoli in Rutherford NJ, they often showed double features right up against each other without a moment’s break. The last shot of the first feature would change over directly to the studio logo of the second feature on the other projector. Sounds strange, but I kinda miss that.
When “The Exorcist” was re-released in 70mm at the Warner Twin (formerly the Strand), the reel alarm was broken and we heard the ding-ding-ding throughout the entire picture.
The front of the Ziegfeld’s marquee, which you could only really see from the other side of 54th St., said “THE ZIEGFELD A Walter Reade Theatre” for several years after it stopped being a Reade theatre. That part of the display is now covered up by a Clearview Cinemas sign.