Not East Village-related but of possible interest... the "New York in the 70s" series starts Wednesday at the Film Forum with "Midnight Cowboy." (Cheating! This movie is from 1969!)
In total there are 44 films in the 23-day series, including some expected classics like "Dog Day Afternoon," "Serpico," "Manhattan" and "The Warriors" as well as more lesser-known titles like "Across 110th Street" and "A New Leaf."
Find the full schedule here. The Film Forum is at 209 W. Houston St., west of Sixth Avenue.
nice movie selection
ReplyDeletetoo bad you have to register to find out the cost of a ticket
pain in the ....
Ticket prices are listed on the right side of the page in the "General Information" box - $8 for members, $14 for non-members!
ReplyDelete"Hey, Warriors! Come out and play-ay!"
ReplyDeleteI have to, have to mark my calendar! Thanks for posting this, EV!
$14 for an old movie I can buy on dvd new or used for less or rent on Netflix (The Warriors) - GTFOH.
ReplyDeleteThat actor is in TWIN PEAKS. He plays Jerry Horne.
ReplyDeleteSince it's a return to the 70s, why not double features for the $14 bucks? Oh right. It's all about the money and gloss..
ReplyDeleteCorrection. Yes, there are a few double features. Way to go!
ReplyDeleteTo 12:42 am,
ReplyDeleteIf you'd really like to save money, check out the DVDs from the New York Public Library. The TS branch has an impressive selection of films. Save your $14.
It's also less expensive to do ALL things at home, like make a cup of coffee, prepare a meal or cut your hair. You can wash your clothes in the sink, eliminating the need for laundromats. But it is nice to leave the apartment every so often to buy a cup of coffee or see a movie on a screen larger than a TV set or laptop and experience it (again) with an audience. It's one of the reasons people live in cities like NYC — to have these kinds of opportunities. Unfortunately, big city living can be expensive. I imagine in the 1970s people were complaining about having to pay 2 or 3 dollars for a movie!
@10:04, I didn't know a lot of people came to NY for the movie theaters, I thought it was for the frozen yogurt...$14 might be tolerable, but if you go as a couple, that's $28 if I bring my own snacks and beverages, which is more than I generally want to pay to enjoy the company of my fellow New Yorkers...
ReplyDeleteAt 10:04 AM, Anonymous said:
ReplyDeleteIt's also less expensive to do ALL things at home, like make a cup of coffee, prepare a meal or cut your hair. You can wash your clothes in the sink, eliminating the need for laundromats. But it is nice to leave the apartment every so often to buy a cup of coffee or see a movie on a screen larger than a TV set or laptop and experience it (again) with an audience. It's one of the reasons people live in cities like NYC — to have these kinds of opportunities. Unfortunately, big city living can be expensive. I imagine in the 1970s people were complaining about having to pay 2 or 3 dollars for a movie!
When my roommate first moved into this apartment in 1976, he washed all his clothes in the bathtub and dried them on lines hanging over the tub—which are still there, incidentally.
That said…The Warriors falls into the category of audience-participation flick; my recommendation for the "Hey Warriors, come out to play-ay" scene: get yourself some shortneck beer bottles, so they're not as likely to fall on the floor and break when you're clinking them.
Oh, and in the 70s, movies were as much as $5, which did make people complain—considering that the minimum wage was less than a buck 50.
First off 10:04am I have gone to DOZENS of movies in my life. My point which you obviously missed was $14 is a ridiculous sum for an old movie one could buy then watch any time anywhere, and yes, take out of the New York Public Library for free. $14 is a new movie price, "new" meaning one I've never seen before. Part of paying that price is not knowing how the movie is gonna turn out and of course end. There's no thrill in seeing a movie I've seen on a movie screen, some movies many times like Serpico (although I will say it'd be funny to see the bald guy yell "You weren't doin' a lil' Peepin' Tom you were suckin' his cock weren't you?!!" at Serpico and Pacino saying "Whaddaya you tawkin' abou?" on a big screen LOL.) It's not worth $14 - try $7. If people who never saw these movies before or on a big screen, who want to see 'em on a big screen again and blow $14 on it, they can have at it. Charging $14 is just pure greed (old movies and new - but that's for another discussion.)
ReplyDeleteSecond, all those things you wrote one could do actually make sense in an overpriced city, so what's your point? I have to spend whatever the hell Starbucks charges for a cup of coffee, eat meals out, and spend $20 or more on a male's haircut as much as possible? I could use the money saved to spend $14 on a movie I've seen before and perhaps own? Well, guess what? I don't drink coffee, I cook dinner four nights a week, have a cheap eats dinner once a week (usually two plain slices), and go out to dinner in a restaurant twice a week (one dish is enough for me and I drink water only.) I also get a $12 haircut ($8 haircut + $4 tip.)
Last I don't have to go to a fucking movie to "go out" and be among the people. Quite frankly, I think going to a movie is the absolute worst thing you can do as you don't see or interact with the people surrounding you. I think an even better way to see a movie and the best of both worlds is watch one on a portable dvd player with at least a 9" screen under a tree in a park like Washington Square Park. And I don't know what rock you've been living under but there's this thing called an HDMI cable which costs about $5 online you can connect between your laptop and tv so you can watch a movie on the internet on your tv which could be as big as 50" or more, so more watching movies on laptops in 2017.
"and the best of both worlds is watch one on a portable dvd player with at least a 9" screen under a tree in a park like Washington Square Park"
ReplyDeleteNO. Please do not bring your fucking televisions to the PARK. Also, no one wants to hear your shitty music or your overly loud obnoxious cellphone conversations, either. That's not what the park is for. Leave your stupid toys at home. Thanks.
"Hey, let's go to the park and watch TV" said no one with a brain, ever.
"Charging $14 is just pure greed"...Keep in mind Film Forum is not-for-profit. Retrospective screenings are a thing, especially in cities like NYC and Paris. Obviously they aren't for everyone!
ReplyDeleteFilm Forum is not-for-profit? Really? So that means they have to gouge everyone? If they have 503 status they don't pay income taxes right? So WTF are they charging new movie prices for old movies not "retrospectives" (a fancy word for "old movies")?
ReplyDeleteAnd if they're gonna charge $14 at least have better screens, sound, and seats.
Even non-profits have to pay rent, pay employees, maintain and update equipment, keep the AC on. I wish it were cheaper, but there's no economic sense in charging less for a retrospective. There is an audience to see old flicks on a large screen. Check out Metrograph, and prepare to be outraged again. Nice gorgeous new theater and ticket prices are $15. Metrograph also has a bar which likely underwrites the theater operation.
ReplyDelete