Roxy Theatre
153 W. 50th Street,
New York,
NY
10020
153 W. 50th Street,
New York,
NY
10020
83 people
favorited this theater
Showing 976 - 1,000 of 1,209 comments
I used to work for Jerry Lewis. He told me that he and Dean were having so much fun in those early days, it didn’t bother them how many shows they did a day. They probably didn’t finish at the Copa until 3 or 4 AM, and then would have to be at the Roxy for the first show in the morning.
I know when they played at the Paramount, the first stage show was around 10 or 11 AM! I don’t know how they did it.
Boy did performers have energy and discipline then. Today a star performer can’t even make 8 perfs a week on Broadway. Maybe it’s the air.
Fascinating information, thanks Warren. I should add that Martin and Lewis were also playing at the Copacabana during their engagement at the Roxy. Their star was certainly rising!
I had heard the organ was damaged when they converted to the ice shows. Is that true?
Bob
There is a color photo of Gloria Swanson, in a red boa, standing in the rubble of the Roxy at View link
Re: The cost of the Roxy and the price of admission
Thanks for the dates Ziggy! It just so happens that I was reading a book by a favorite author of mine, Jane Jacobs, and she mentions that in 1936 she was a stenographer in New York and that her weekly wages were … $12 dollars a week. A few pages later she mentions that in 1941 she got a better secretarial job that paid $15 dollars a week.
Also noticed this in the CD booklet for the “Ziegfeld Follies of 1936” (coincidentally at the Winter Garden, across the street from the Roxy entrance): “By the end of two additional tryout weeks in Philadelphia, word filtered back to New York that the [show] would be worth the unusually high $5.50 top ticket price.” (This amount is almost one-half of Jane Jacobs' weekly wages!)
So by adding all of this info together, a picture begins to emerge as to what prices REALLY meant in the mid- to late-1930s.
I wonder how much it cost to go to the Roxy at this time? My 1939 guidebook to NYC doesn’t give the price of admission to the Roxy, but it does give the price of Radio City Music Hall, and I assume that the Roxy’s prices were similar for competitive reasons
“Single Admissions. Radio City Music Hall: 40 cents to $1.65, performances begin about 11:30 A.M. Observatory (RCA Building, 70th Floor): adults 40 cents, children 20 cents; 10 A.M. to midnight.”
Assuming Jacobs worked a 40 hour week, she was getting paid 30 cents an hour. So she had to work an hour and twenty minutes to pay for her admission to Radio City Music Hall.
It’s interesting that the opening day ad for the Roxy reproduced in the Hall book says the theater cost $10,000,000 (1927) to build, but the 1939 guide book says it cost “fifteen million dollars.” (I was thinking that maybe the $10,000,000 does NOT include the cost of land, which Hall gives as $3,000,000, but that still leaves about $2,000,000 unaccounted for!)
Whichever numbers are correct, it would be interesting to compare the cost of building the Roxy to the prices charged for admission — to get a true indicator of how enormously expensive the theater must have been. Unfortunately, however, 1927 dollars were different from 1936 prices, so to do this right you’d really have to find out the price of admission to the Roxy in 1927 (or pre-1929 crash).
The only ad I could find in the Hall book that states the price of admission to the Roxy was the ad for the closing attraction, “The Wind Cannot Read”: 90 cents, opening to noon; $1.25, noon to 6 P.M.; $1.50, 6 P.M. to closing.
How much is this in today’s dollars?
I haven’t gone to the movies in ages, so I went by the multiplex on Third Ave. and 11th(?) St. in Manhattan. Their prices were $10.50 for adults and $7.00(?) for children and seniors. (I should have written it down the price for a child’s ticket, but I know that it was more than ½ price.) (I’m wondering if these prices are unusually high as you mentioned that the average price of a movie is $7.00. How did you arrive at your figure — for what localities and for what showings?)
For the moment, I’ll stick with the $10.50 price and round it down to $10.00 — since that is exactly ten times what I think it cost for a regular movie in NYC in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
Using this standard, the Roxy’s prices were $9.00, $12.50 and $15.00.
But given today’s tastes, I don’t think there are enough general interest movies (that appeal to a very wide spectrum of the population) and enough general interest live entertainment (that also would appeal to a very wide spectrum of the population) to make something like the Roxy profitable at these prices.
That’s why I compare the Roxy to ocean liners. Even if the price of a transatlantic journey remained, the advent of new, more competitive alternatives made it seem less worthwhile than it once had been. In the case of ocean liners, the competition was jet planes; in the case of the great movie palaces, the competition was changing tastes (free TV and more niche entertainment in the movies?) and the development of suburban America (and theaters showing the niche products closer to home and conveniently accessible by car).
I’ve refined my Gloria Swanson quote:
Reporter: Why, you’re Miss Roxy Music Hall — you used to be a stupendous value!
MADAM Roxy Music Hall: I AM still a stupendous value — it’s the world that’s gone cheap!
Re: Projection and acoustics
While this doesn’t answer the question posed by “mjc,” I thought people might be interested in reading part of what the Hall book does say. The author of the article, Maurice Kahn, that is reprinted in the Hall book and from which the quote is taken, makes some interesting statements.
“The unique location of the projection room — in a cut in the balcony — has a three-fold purpose, the bettering of the theater’s acoustics, the improvement of projection and creation of an atmosphere of intimacy despite the theater’s size. The distance from the booth to the screen — the "throw” of the picture is exactly 100 feet, instead of the customary 250 feet. All distortion is eliminated by this innovation.“ (from a reprint of "Roxy, A History” — the lavish 60-page souvenir book prepared by the editors of “The Film Daily” that is reprinted in Hall, pg. 87 [unnumbered])
The full page picture of the interior of the Roxy on pg. 132 shows only the beginning of where there is a recess in the balcony for the projection booth.
Re: acoustics
If the acoustics for movies were good at the Roxy, it’s interesting to consider that the theater was probably not designed with acoustics in mind since when the Roxy was being designed, actors in movies didn’t “really” talk yet. The Hall book gives the impression that Vitaphone was still being perfected (pg. 240) while the foundations for the Roxy were being laid (pg. 78, unnumbered).
Perhaps part of the Roxy’s good fortune in this regar (as opposed to that of Radio City Music Hall which was built about five years later) can be attributed to the very irregular surfaces created by its more traditional, ornate architectural decoration (which I believe can be helpful to acoutics in certain instances). In contrast, Radio City Music Hall has, of course, a strikingly modern interior with very untraditionally “flat” surfaces for a theater, which would seem to foster an echo. (According to Krinksy [pgs. 180, 182-183] RCMH’s acoustics were never good, apparently, even for its intended use as a music hall.)
Warren: I’ve seen this and they are the BEST. Are these the ones showing “Stormy Weather” and another with “My Friend Flicka”? What’s so great about these pictures is that they are clear and you can see so much.
I would have liked to have seen more details and photo’s in Ben Hall’s book about the projection booth at the Roxy. It was located in the front of the balcony, eliminating the long throw that resulted from booths that were over the top of the rear balcony.
Maybe Vito or others could weigh in here. What did the projectionists think of this arrangement, which Hall calls an “innovation”? I was in contact with a former theatre chain technician who thought the “head on” projection at the Roxy created other problems such as ghosting from the lenses.
Also Hall refers to a staff of 16 projectionists on various shifts which was unheard of anywhere else. How does that compare to RCMH? Was the movie presentation more complex at the Roxy?
I would have liked to have seen more details and photo’s in Ben Hall’s book about the projection booth at the Roxy. It was located in the front of the balcony, eliminating the long throw that resulted from booths that were over the top of the rear balcony.
Maybe Vito or others could weigh in here. What did the projectionists think of this arrangement, which Hall calls an “innovation”? I was in contact with a former theatre chain technician who thought the “head on” projection at the Roxy created other problems such as ghosting from the lenses.
Also Hall refers to a staff of 16 projectionists on various shifts which was unheard of anywhere else. How does that compare to RCMH? Was the movie presentation more complex at the Roxy?
Benjamin, as a P.S., I suppose another analogy for the Norma Desmond quote could be “I am a big bargain, it’s just that the rest of the world lowered their standards” ;–)
Hello Benjamin! You’re right, I should have mentioned the years of my grandparents recollections. These prices would have been from the late 1930’s, and would have been typical for Rochester, NY. I think also, if we compared prices then we should compare experiences. Granted, a great many movies from the 20’s and 30’s are pretty bad but suppose a typical theatre seat in a city cost 50 cents, and for that half dollar you get an orchestra, organist, newsreel, travelogue, short subject, feature film, and a stage show. You also get to experience this in a magnificent hall ornately decorated with copies and originals of various works of art. Now, I know that 50 cents was a lot of money 70 or 80 years ago. As a guess I would say it translates into 10 or 15 dollars today. If it were possible to replicate the moviegoing experience of the 20’s and 30’s for 15.00 per person (which, given minimum wage laws and theatre union wages, I assume it’s not possible) I would definitely be more of a moviegoer than I am. I just don’t think I get my 8 bucks worth. To get back to my grandparents, my grandmother remembered going to the Eastman, which was Rochester’s largest and highest class theatre in the mid 20’s. She said you could sit in the balcony for a quarter and after it was all said and done you definitely felt you had gotten your quarter’s worth, and then some!
Back to my great aunt’s hats. You could be right about hand crafted clothing. She married a rich man and had no children. I’m just amazed because catalogues from the same era show very pretty women’s hats for $1.50 and less.
There was always a “slap” at the Music Hall but I don’t remember it being that bad. In fact the Sound of Music sounded great there in ‘75. The organ in the wedding sequence sounded as if it were being played live. Also the revival of Singin in the Rain in '75 used a fake stereo(which I normally hate) extremely well done. I’ve never heard Conrad Salinger’s wonderful arrangements again with such clarity and impact. Canby called this presentation “gilt edged.”
Re: Accoustics of the Roxy vs. The Music Hall. The accoustics at Radio City were excellent for the live show but terrible for the films. There was an echo; especially when I saw Audrey Hepburn films there like “Two For the Road” or “Charade”. The Roxy had no echo and the films were clearly audible.
Went to the museum of the moving image and few weeks ago to check out the exhibit on Loews theatres, and although it was good, wish it was larger. They had some newsreels of openings at the Loew’s state including some like it hot, lolita, ben hur and lots of photos. The museum is fun and if you have not visited you should. As a kid I always would want to go to the music hall, it was just more special to me than the Roxy, also it might have been the movies. But as someone else said (or did they) they were both great and the Roxy is missed along with the other great theatres. I don’t think there was much hue and cry of the destruction of the Roxy, it was just another day in the city. Sad but I have my memories and all my programs from RCMH and the Roxy.
P.S. — Sorry, but I made a significant typo in my previous post. One sentence should have read: “ … but these prices are NOT recorded for cost comparisons.”
(In other words, some people WERE paying similar prices for hot tickets in the old days, we just don’t know about it.)
Ziggy:
Thank you for the accurate version of that wonderful quote! While that version of the quote could also be used as a launching pad for an analogy, it is also quite unlikely, however, that someone would ever, ever admit to it!: “I AM still a big bargain; it’s that the rest of the rest of the world got less expensive!”
I think the illustrative prices provided by your grandparents and aunt are great (although dates would make it even better) and help illustrate my two points: 1) that you have to compare across the board within an era; 2) that comparisons across eras are nevertheless tricky because of other changes in the way people live (like hats not holding the same place in a well-dressed woman’s wardrobe as it used to have).
By the way, given what people tell me about prices for woman’s clothing — especially hand crafted, high fashion items — $1,500 for a hat (if hats still held the same place in a woman’s life as they did then) would not be all that outrageous. I forget exact prices that woman have told me that they’ve paid for things they’ve purchased, but I do remember being shocked at the price of “simple” things like scarves, tiny bathing suits, handbags, etc.
Vincent:
I think the key thing you mentioned in your last post about the $7.50 for “Follies” was that it was for a Wednesday matinee. I’m not sure about these days, but traditionally that’s the cheapest set of prices for a Broadway show, and in the “old” days such prices were SIGNIFICANTLY lower than those for the top tickets on a Friday or Saturday night. Usually when people talk about prices for Broadway shows they make comparisons between the top prices for a Friday or Saturday night, which is what I thought your $7.50 figure was referring to.
The $250 and $500 tickets you mention are a new phenomenon and using them to compare to past prices is misleading. In the old days “scalpers” would also charge (illegally) such exorbitant sums for “hot” tickets — but these prices are recorded for cost comparisons. The $250 and $500 tickets today are a way of producers seeing to it that such money spent goes into the hands of the producer rather than to a scalper (who hasn’t shouldered any of the risk of putting on the show).
But in addition to prices that are, in fact, genuinely higher than those of the past, another way of charging more for Broadway show is to charge higher for the lower priced seats — 2nd balcony, matinees tickets, etc. — and my guess is that THAT is where you probably are going to see the biggest price difference between prices today and in the “old” days.
Going back to the discussion of the Roxy and movie palaces, in a way the movie palaces provide another example. Although their prices probably remained quite reasonable until the “end,” the demand for their product at that price became less and less (as the public’s taste changed). In other words, given all the other inexpensive entertainment options that existed, and were being developed, fewer people were still interested in seeing that type of combo film and stage show, even if the prices for it were eminently reasonable. People preferred spending their entertainment dollar on something else.
(Another better example, I think, might be transatlantic ocean travel. It’s not that ocean liners became more expensive, but that the development of jets made other options quicker and cheaper.)
Ziggy
I agree for adults it’s ok, just too morbid for kids to see about her dead grandparents and all.
Vincent, in response to the legalized extortion, I agree. I can guarantee that I will never see a Broadway show, simply thinking about how much I paid would keep me from enjoying myself.
I think “The Little Princess” is another technicolor film for Shirley Temple. I agree with you about “The Bluebird”, but it is a fascinating film, in a weird way.
I always thought the Bluebird was such a sad and morbid film. It was sad that this was the only Technicolor film she made. This seems so unusual for the Roxy to play a moveover in those days, but then again they were pretty much the premiere Fox house.
Benjamin I assure you that a full price $7.50 for the orchestra is correct. I bought my Wednesday matinee ticket the Monday after Easter on my way to seeing A New Leaf at at Radio City.
Again remember that $100 is the advertised top price for a musical, but it is not the case. As I noted prices are really $250 to $500 for the center orchestra.
At the Palace I bought an advance ticket for Lauren Bacall in Applause at the box office for a June matinee. The 5th row center on the aisle seat cost $8.00.
Remember at this time the top price for a movie was $3.00. today it is 10.25. A top Broadway ticket was $15.00 for a Saturday night today it is officially(though not in practice)$100. If you do the math the Broadway producers are indulging in daylight robbery to an astounding degree. Why do you think corporations are the producers today. It’s called legalized extortion. But then I must admit nobody is forcing people to buy tickets.
We must be as a society becoming individually and collectively very stupid.
Benjamin I assure you that a full price $7.50 for the orchestra is correct. I bought my Wednesday matinee ticket the Monday after Easter on my way to seeing A New Leaf at at Radio City.
Again remember that $100 is the advertised top price for a musical, but it is not the case. As I noted prices are really $250 to $500 for the center orchestra.
At the Palace I bought an advance ticket for Lauren Bacall in Applause at the box office for a June matinee. The 5th row center on the aisle seat cost $8.00.
Remember at this time the top price for a movie was $3.00. today it is 10.25. A top Broadway ticket was $15.00 for a Saturday night today it is officially(though not in practice)$100. If you do the math the Broadway producers are indulging in daylight robbery to an astounding degree. Why do you think corporations are the producers today. It’s called legalized extortion. But then I must admit nobody is forcing people to buy tickets.
We must be as a society becoming individually and collectively very stupid.
My Mother commented once that the most expensive movie she saw in her younger days was “The Best Years of Our Lives” which was a whopping $4.00 in it’s first release. She said the price was unheard of.
Hi Benjamin, I think the Norma Desmond quote you’re looking for is “I AM big. It’s the pictures that got small.”. This in response to William Holden’s character when he said “You’re Norma Desmond! You used to be in silent pictures! Used to be big!” Regarding prices, it’s hard to say what may have seemed inexpensive to our grandparents without being there to experience it ourselves. A line from the 1933 film “Footlight Parade” has someone saying “It’s a lot better to fill your theatre 4 times a day at 50 cents a head, than to have it half full once a night for 5 dollars per person.”
My grandparents used to recollect going to the movies for 35 cents, and buying a week’s groceries for a family of five for $5.00, yet I had a great aunt who was known for buying $75.00 hats! If the average movie admission today costs $7.00 this would compare to expensive hats costing about $1500.00! This would also mean one could feed a family of five for about $100.00 a week. If I can go by my own grocery bill, this may not be a reasonable amount. I guess one can’t simply compare prices across the board. Some items have increased a great deal, some not as much, and some items (like expensive ladies' hats) don’t seem to exist at all anymore!
Re: great “low” prices of tickets to movie palaces (and musicals) in the “olden” days
While it is indeed probably true that tickets to the movies and the great movie palaces were great bargains (and great entertainment values!) in years gone by, it should also be remembered that people MADE a lot less money in those days too, and that prices for other things — including other forms of entertainment — were also correspondingly lower in those days too.
In other words, it’s important to account for inflation across the board and not just selectively when comparing prices from one era to another. What is “really” more accurate (to the extent that one can be accurate about such things in the first place — it’s stubbornly tricky) is to compare the RATIO of prices within one era to the RATIO of prices within another era. For example, a more accurate way of making such a comparison would be to say that the price of a ticket to a musical was, say, eight and a half times more than that of a movie in 1960, versus, let’s say, eleven times more than that of a movie in 2004. (Don’t know if this is true, just guessing here.)
If I remember correctly, in the early 1960s (too late for the Roxy, but as far back as my memory of these things go) prices were as follows (wasn’t earning money yet, so don’t know about wages):
15 cents for bus or subway fare to go to the movies; 50 cents for a child’s ticket ($1.00 for an adult’s ticket); 15 cents for a slice of pizza, before or after the movie; about $8.60(?) for top price to a big Broadway musical on Friday or Saturday night — both Wednesday and Saturday matinee prices seemed to be about one-half that (even without “twofers”) though. Don’t remember what the cost of a ticket to the Grand Tier of the Metropolitan Opera was, but I think it was “considerably” more (maybe in the $20 range?) than the top price of a Broadway show.
I say all this because although prices for tickets to Broadway musicals, for instance, are indeed higher than what they were in the past (even accounting for inflation), it is not quite as dramatic as it is often made out to be. (Although the cost of tickets for musicals have probably, indeed, outpaced inflation because of higher labor costs and much more technically elaborate scenery, etc.)
To paraphrase the great line said by Gloria Swanson (as Norma Desmond) — (I think it was something like) “It’s not that pictures got bigger, it’s that the people got smaller” — “It’s not that plays and musicals got expensive, it’s that everything else ("records,” home movies, etc.) got so much cheaper."
P.S. — I’m very surprised that a top priced ticket to “Follies” (whose poster design does indeed seem to consciously evoke that great Life Magazine picture of Gloria Swanson in the ruins of the Roxy — the photo is reproduced on the last page of Ben Hall’s “Best Remaining Seats”), would have cost only $7.50 in the early 1970s. I distinctly remember higher prices than that even in the early 1960s, and a collection of reviews of Broadway musicals (“Opening Night on Broadway,”[?] by Suskin[?]) includes posters of Broadway musicals that show higher prices than that, also earlier than the 1970s.