Radio City Music Hall
1260 6th Avenue,
New York,
NY
10020
1260 6th Avenue,
New York,
NY
10020
118 people
favorited this theater
Showing 2,826 - 2,850 of 3,332 comments
CConnolly and others have asked for the complete text of the Christmas message that was presented as part of the holiday show. I found it on the web.
One Solitary Life
Here is a man who was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He grew up in another village. He worked in a carpenter shop until He was thirty. Then for three years He was an itinerant preacher.
He never owned a home. He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never had a family. He never went to college. He never put His foot inside a big city. He never traveled two hundred miles from the place He was born. He never did one of the things that usually accompany greatness. He had no credentials but Himself…
While still a young man, the tide of popular opinion turned against him. His friends ran away. One of them denied Him. He was turned over to His enemies. He went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed upon a cross between two thieves. While He was dying His executioners gambled for the only piece of property He had on earth â€" His coat. When He was dead, He was laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend.
Nineteen long centuries have come and gone, and today He is a centerpiece of the human race and leader of the column of progress.
I am far within the mark when I say that all the armies that ever marched, all the navies that were ever built; all the parliaments that ever sat and all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as has that one solitary life.
This essay was adapted from a sermon by Dr James Allan Francis in “The Real Jesus and Other Sermons†© 1926 by the Judson Press of Philadelphia (pp 123-124 titled “Arise Sir Knight!â€). If you are interested, you can read the original version . Graham Pockett
I remember “Hare Do”! I always preferred the Warner Bros. cartoons to any others, even as a kid. Now I have nieces and nephews who just don’t get it.
Ok, the presentation of the stage shows might’ve changed but we’re running the possibiltiy of re-opening the can of worms that was run into the ground earlier about the abysmal (sp?) Christmas Show.
Yep, I was born in ‘66 and that probably puts me in the LAST generation that remembers (fondly) single screen large theaters that were well maintained. My guess is that anyone born after 1970 cannot remember these theaters at all well.
I first the Christmas show in 1972 with “1776” (a thudding bore to a 6 year old). But the Christmas show? Fantastic. And I saw it every year after that until around 1978. Each year was great. And as I stated above, I took my 8 year old daughter to see it this year expecting her to be amazed by it like I was and I cannot tell you how incredibly, jaw-droppingly AWFUL the thing was.
I do not recall ever seeing another show at RCMH besides the Christmas show though. I might’ve but I don’t remember them.
BUT…the Music Hall itself is still grand and I will take my daughter on the tour sometime in the future. She LOVED the place more than the insipid show.
So CC I guess you were born in 66 making that the year I first visited the Hall(October.) I thought the stage show was spectacular and my mother, who hadn’t been there in years, remarked that it was pretty disappointing in comparison to the ones she had seen in the 40s and 50s.
Amazingly enough I saw a program on ebay from 33 or 34 where the stage show included some of the same features or acts that I saw in my very first show! Also the stage show I saw with the Timothy Dalton Wuthering Heights in 71(the Rockettes did a thing called Bayou Rythym and it was one of their great numbers) was the same as with the film Picnic in 56. I guess as the years went on the thing that basicially changed was scale of the presentation.
That joke, Ziggy, would go FLYING over the heads of everyone under the age of 50 or so. I’m 38 and I “get-it” because of my scant experiences and mostly due to my parent’s descriptions of places like The Roxy and RCMH.
And yes, I know the “Hare Do” cartoon Bob speaks of. It’s the one that culminates with Bugs Bunny leading Fudd through the darkened theater (he’s actually wearing dark sunglasses) and it seems to take forever (at one point you hear the sounds of them walking through water!) and Bugs constantly saying (with an abrasive accent) “right this way sir.”
Another funny scene that plays into the BIG theater theme is when Fudd is sitting in one of the upper balconies. When he looks down, he’s so far up that the stage is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay below him.
And how the audience runs out of the theater to smoke up a storm in the lobby!
Very funny stuff and Thanks Bob Furmanek for brining that one up.
That’s a funny joke Ziggy, thanks for posting it.
If you want to see a really prime cartoon with lots of great theater gags, check out the 1949 Warner Bros. cartoon “Hare Do.” Elmer Fudd chases Bugs Bunny around a movie palace!
All this talk about the overblown aspects of theatres and stage shows reminds me of a joke I read in a 1920’s joke book. (interesting that movie palaces were such a part of the public psyche that one could publish jokes involving them). Anyway..here goes.
A couple went to the movies on a date. During the presentation the young man got thirsty, so he left his seat and asked the usher if he could direct him to a drinking fountain “Certainly sir” was the reply, “just take the staircase to the left and walk through the art gallery, turn left and proceed down a row of potted palms. Then turn left… ” and so the usher continued. After getting thoroughly lost, the young man finally stumbled into what seemed to be a forest glade with a babbling brook. In desperation he threw himself down to drink from the stream, and somehow found his way back to his seat. Seeing that the picture had started he asked his date “How was the stage show?” She replied “You ought to know, you were in it.”
What about the line that goes something like-when you find yourself climbing up(to the 2nd and 3rd Mezz) and find the going hard
They are on their guard.
They send a St Bernard.
While I agree that the picture was not the second item at RCMN — that, for most of the year at least, people usually went to RCMH depending on what movie was being shown, and not depending upon what was in the stage show (the true details of which they probably didn’t know about most of the time anyway) — I think it’s important to remember that the Rodgers and Hart song is an affectionate send-up with a lot of teasing “zingers” along the lines of a Friar’s Club Roast. He’s joking about some of the “awful” things that make RCMH so “wonderful” (the performers twirling on their digits with the balconies so high that they look like midgets, etc.)!
In a sense, Hart even contradicts himself, saying that while the show is “worth the dough” one shouldn’t even bother looking at the ads — since the show is the same every time anyway. This would hardly be true if “the picture is a second item.”
Regarding the Roxy Music Hall Scene in “I Married an Angel.” As I understand it (from either Richard Rodgers' or Joshua Logan’s autobiography?), Hart originally got some flack for suggesting this scene, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with the storyline of “I Married an Angel” — which takes place in Hungary(?)!
But Hart said it would be a fun, light-hearted, satirical diversion, and he was right — people did enjoy it.
(Not only does it have a lot of great lines, the Rodgers' melody is a lot of fun too.)
By the way, how many other movie theaters/palaces have songs about them?
Hart got that last line wrong. Even back in the 30’s the success of a week at the Hall depended on what film was being shown.
Also the song from I Married an Angel(the whole musical is wonderful but would be too expensive to revive today and I would be the only person in the audience in any case)introduced a Balanchine production number which was the highlight of the show. From what I gather it was very funny including a Rockette line of 2 and an Undersea Ballet terrorized by a sea monster.
Also the photos of the stage shows alluded to above and placed in front of the theater were quite wonderful and I believe taken by a company called Impact. What I liked were the photos of old stage shows which were on 50th St. These were more spectacular as they were from the 50’s and 60’s. I’d like to know what happened to them as they are an invaluable record as to the what the shows actually looked like. A few can be seen in souvenir books from the era but there were many more.
Re: Stadium seating vs. the sunken, gradual rake of RCMH
One of the interesting benefits of a stadium seating design, at least as shown by the current Ziegfeld (movie theater), the Majestic, the Richard Rodgers and the Virginia (“legit” theaters), is that a very steep rake allows a theater’s builder to save space and use his/her land more efficiently by tucking the theater’s lobby beneath the rear of the theater’s orchestra level (or its equivalent) seats. (The orchestra level then rakes downward, so that the front rows of the orchestra level are at or near ground level.)
In the case of at least two of these “legit” theaters (and perhaps all three), one actually first steps DOWN into the main lobby, before one must ascend a full flight of stairs again just to access the orchestra-level seating! And then, remember, all the “legit” theaters with stadium seating have balcony levels too, which involve even more stairs. Speak of being inconvenient! (And, as far as I know, none of the OLDER [pre-1960s] Broadway theaters [or concert halls, opera houses, etc.] — even the more conventional ones — had passenger elevators or escalators for ticket holders to use! Speak of being inconvenient for everyone — let alone inaccessible and inhospitable to the handicapped!)
So I think one reason this design didn’t catch on more in NYC, even in the pre-accessibility for the handicapped era, was because it did involve the introduction of a lot of stairs at a time when escalators (also, not seen as very classy) and elevators (in those days, with attendants!) were probably seen as being unnecessarily expensive. (As compared to the newer Broadway theaters and, I believe, the current Ziegfeld, which depend on escalators to get almost all patrons into the theater.) But I suppose, for certain theaters in the “old” days, where they really wanted to put a relatively big theater on a very small site, such a design probably was the only economically viable way to go.
In Radio City Music Hall, on the other hand, because of its enormous seating capacity (especially on the orchestra-level), the importance of its grand foyer to its overall presentation, the economic feasibility of elevators for grand movie palaces and the relative availability of a large parcel of land, a sunken and more modestly raked orchestra level was, quite understandably, a better way to go.
Re: photos of the interior of RCMH
The photos that I’m referring to, do not just show stage show, but also include a good deal of the “telescoping” interior of the auditorium PLUS the stage show. While these photos may have changed weekly, I’m guessing that this wasn’t the case, as it was probably too involved to do every week. So I’m guessing that the “Camera Highlights” that BoxOfficeBill refers to was probably more of a photograph of what was happening on the stage and didn’t include the auditorium with hundreds (thousands) of people filling the orchestra-level seats.
When I say I wished they had more photos of the interior of the auditorium, I am talking about a “greedy” little kid. (Same holds true for the wish for more movie stills, in general.) I’m just explaining why I think I so closely poured over the few photos that were available.
Of course, there is very little economic reason for the owners of the RCMH to provide more than just one stock shot of the interior (to acquaint those, who are otherwise unfamiliar with the theater, with its spectacular auditorium). For most potential customers, however, this one stock shot was probably sufficient to make them interested — if they had any interest in the first place — in seeing the theater.
It seems to me that in her book Krinksy (pg. 180) is implying that this photo, and others like it, are the work of the Radio City Music Hall publicity department — meant to show off the theater rather than the stage show. In any case, as far as I know, almost all the shows produced at RCMH were done by RCMH itself, anyway. (The one exception that I can think of is I believe Disney was invited one time to put on a stage show to accompany one of his own films.) So I don’t think the photo was altered to highlight the glories of a particular production. (Plus even with the enlargement, the photo doesn’t really tell you much about what is happening on stage anyway.)
Although it is true that enterprises like RCMH are often run by MBA types rather than theater people, etc., I think this is very much more of a current day phenomenon — something that wasn’t true as much when Roxy “built” the theater, and probably wasn’t all that true even when this photo was re-touched either. Reading various things about the history of RCMH, the history of the movies (with a lot of garment entrepreneurs become movie titans) and the history of business in general (prior to the 1960s), a surprising number of “big-time” businesses in the “old” days seem to be entrepreneurial operations (with non-college graduates running the show) or even “Mom and Pop” family operations.
Although RCMH management may, indeed, have been making the right decision regarding enlarging the Rockettes and the stage shows in these photos (my feelings could be the exception), it seems to me that they were being misguided and somewhat overly sensitive. To the limited extent that the photo makes any difference in the first place, I think they would probably be attracting more potential customers than they would lose.
Aside from being “fake” and “inauthentic” such photos seems to rob RCMH of some of its wonderful grandeur. How disappointing that, in the photo the world’s largest stage, it is barely big enough to fit all 36 Rockettes! (It looks like you can squeeze in an additional two Rockettes on stage right and one more on stage left — but that’s it.) It would be like having an interior shot of the RCMH auditorium where they take out some of the seats and enlarge the rest of them to fill out the space!
Also, it seems to me that the kind of stage shows they had — especially the ones that were the most effective — did not depend upon theatergoers seeing the faces of the performers up close. Now my memories of these stage shows are a bit fuzzy (it was a long time ago and I was just a kid for most of them), but it seems to me that the actual appeal of the shows was in their overscaled pageantry — something that is enhanced not diminished in a photo of a gigantic stage brimming over with spectacular scenery and dozens upon dozens of costumed performers.
Actually, as much as I know I enjoyed the stage shows at RCMH, I remember only one specific scene from, maybe, the five to ten shows I saw at RCMH: the Rockettes falling down like dominos during their “March of the Toy Soldiers” routine. (As far as I know, I never got to see gems such as the “Underwater Ballet” mentioned in previous posts.) So I don’t think of these shows as conventional shows — something to be seen, heard and understood — but rather as shows intended to entertain through spectacle.
I hope those older than myself will correct me if I’m wrong. But aside from the Rockettes and some other clever and truly theatrical spectacles, it seems to me that the live shows at RCMH were bright, cheery, melodic and insipid (genuine) entertainments. While the shows were genuinely entertaining in the 1950s and 1960s, they were an entertainment world equivalent of 1950s and 1960s “comfort food”! (As was much of show business in the 1950s?!) The shows at RCMH were kind of a fancifully done up, spectacularly presented, feast of “Campbell’s Chicken Noodle Soup,” “Wonder Bread,” “Peter Pan Peanut Butter,” “Welch’s Grape Juice” and “Hostess Twinkies” all presented in an unparalleled environment! I don’t think such entertainment, “suffers” from being seen on a giant, far away stage, but actually is enhanced by the theaters vast spaces, its echoy sound, its warm glow, the boomy rumbling organ, the mass of fellow spectators, and the giant, far away stage with tons of scenery and a virtual small town of costumed performers.
By the way, I suspect that this was true of the Music Hall in the 1930s as well as the 1950s. As mentioned previously there is a wonderful 1938 Rodgers and Hart song, “At the Roxy Music Hall” which is an affectionate send-up of Radio City Music Hall. The Lorenz Hart lyrics say that you don’t have to read the ads to decide whether or not to go to the Roxy Music Hall:
“It’s always worth the dough.
Any week you go,
It’s the same old show!”
This lyric can be heard by the same performer who introduced it on Broadway on track 19 of the “Ultimate Rodgers & Hart, Vol. II” which is produced by the Pearl division of Pavilion Records Ltd. in England. (I got it at a local chain store.) But I noticed in the published version (from the “Complete Lyrics of Lorenz Hart” by Hart and Kimball, Knopf, 1986) that there is even more that isn’t on the CD.
“The ballet that you saw is called "Othello”,
though it might as well have been some other fellow.
The stuff’s been here so long it’s good and mellow."
Hart says that on the stage of RCMH you can see the Grand Canal and the Bridge of Sighs of Venice — “They do Venice swell, and without the smell.”
He also says:
“Where the spectacle goes on ad infinitum, and the picture is a second item.”
I am curious about the great steam curtain that was used for special effects many times and was wondering if it is used any more. Jets, set around the perimeter of the stage apron, started to hiss and spout steam, and before you knew it the entire proscenium opening was hidden behind its billowing cloud- it literally obliterated the whole front of the auditorium. A dazzling effect when back or front lit to be sure. Also, I remember the hapless stagehand in a dark outfit slealthily scooting a mop over the nozzles after the effect was over.
But guys even if the Hall management would want to do this(yeah right)is this a Christmas family film? Better a revival of Meet Me St Louis or Singing in the Rain.(They blew Mary Poppins big time.)Of course then I would have to go in and completely redo that wretched stage show.
Oh Eric, what an interesring idea, I think Mel Brooks would love to see that happen. Perhaps we should write him about it. Of course it could not be exclusive, too much money to be made in a wide Christmas release. I like your wishful thinking, it would make a grand time for Christmas in New York.
To those who miss the combination film and stage shows at RCMH: wouldn’t the upcoming film of the stage musical version of “The Producers” —-scheduled for release in mid-December—-be the ideal Christmas attraction for RCMH? I know, wishful thinking.
Yes— red corpuscles and all! Benjamin has mentioned Carol Krinsky’s 1978 book on “Rockefeller Center,” which I’ve just examined. The composite photo on p. 175 (recalled from a 50 Street display case) is an at least double composite, with Rockettes superimposed upon a crowded stage superimposed upon an open proscenium. Writing on the eve of the theater’s change of policy, K refers to “giantism” as “the fatal flaw of the RCMH” (p. 180) and speculates about its future as “some sort of multi-purpose structure, or even a department store” (p. 183) (!).
For me, the most interesting visual in K’s book is the theater’s full floor plan and section cut on p. 169, showing the rake below street-level and the various scene docks and stage assembly rooms. What I had never encountered before is the small protruding room at the rear of the stage, elevated to mezzaine level and extending into the Associated Press Building behind RCMH. It appears to be labeled “projection room” (?) and was used for rear-screen projection?
Vincent here hits upon the old dilemma which confronts all owners and builders/designers of theatres: at what point are more seats facing the law of diminishing returns? As more seats are added the owner may get greater income, but the audience will see less of the performance since they must be seated farther from the stage. The old opera houses of the previous centuries were galleries not only because they did not have the steel to create cantilevered balconies, but because the stacks of galleries kept the audience closer to the stage so that one could see the performers in some reality of size. And the human voice can only project so far. With the advent of motion pictures, the scale of image and the force of sound were much larger and it was then possible to cram lots more people into roughly the same foot print of land, thus making the potential profit on greater attendance much greater. This is why Radio City M.H. and a few other ‘pageantoriums’ like it cannot really be called ‘theatres’ in the traditional meaning of the word; they are beyond the size of realistic use of the human voice without amplification, and seeing someone on the stage —as opposed to one the screen— means looking at dwarfed images that make the experience a parody of the real thing. With these concerns, RCMH faced a unique situation in that it was more of a civic auditorium than a traditional theatre or opera house, so one can easily see why special photos were made to enhance the performers rather than the hall.
Refering to comments above about the size of performers in relation to the size of the house if one reads the Variety reviews of the stage shows in the 30’s even then in an era used to large presentation houses critics complained about the size of the Hall and how distant and small the performers seemed. I remember one review that described the ballet as an army of red corpuscles battling the white.
Also the line from the Rodgers and Hart “At the Roxy Music Hall”-Where the actors seem to be a lot of midgets.
My second to Vito’s comments. One of the great pleasures of this site is the extreme care with which it is maintained. Thanks again!
Thanks Bryan, It’s nice to know someone is out there watching over us as we stroll along memory lane thru your magnificent website.
Yes Warren, it’s been bugging me as well.
This has happened to me on a lot of other pages here too, and yes it is annoying. Maybe Pat Crowley will read these words and offer an explaination, if not a cure. :)
Does anyone know if the steam curtain is used anymore? I remember it so well as the jets, set around the perimeter of the stage apron, started to hiss and spout steam, and before you knew it the entire proscenium opening was hidden behind its billows. A dazzling effect when lit from the front or behind. I remember too the stagehand in a dark outfit slealthily scooting a mop over the nozzles after the effect was over…funny how the details of certain images stay with one over the years…
Whether or not a theatre was “sunken” (having a rake to the floor) was often determined by local ordinances especially if they adopted the IFPA standardized building code into law. Obviously, the two primary criteria for an auditorium is that the audience be able to see the performance, and that the traffic patterns therein be swift and safe especially in an emergency. The best means to accomplish these objectives in a theatre of a single level of seating was to ‘dish’ the floor so that it sloped to some permissible extent, sometimes in the front as well as the rear. This also allowed the patrons to enter from grade at the sidewalk elevation, and gradually descend into the auditorium to preserve the sightlines for the audience. In many photos of theatres one can see the ramps or steps going up to grade in those exits at the front of the auditorium. In those auditoria with the ‘stadium’ plan of seating with a bank of seats on risers at the rear, the depth of the curve was even more important to allow access and good sightlines for all. Much of this is diagrammed on page 4 of the 1927 book “American Theatres of Today”, sometimes still available as the 1977 reprint in one volume. While most theatres had stairs to some extent, every architect knows that they are a hazard, especially to the young and the elderly, so are to be avoided if possible, thus the impetus to avoid them at grade, and only employ them as an option for those who prefer the balconies. While wheelchair access was not usually thought of in early years, it turns out that the use of slopped (raked) floors was very beneficial to wheelchair users to this day.
As to the apparently odd photos that Benjamin mentions earlier, I wonder if he wasn’t looking at skillful process prints which where there to promote the stage attraction, not the theatre. We visitors here are primarily theatres buffs, but the management of a theatre usually is not. They are businessmen charged with the task of turning a profit, and whether they manage a great theatre or a grocery store is often immaterial to them, since they are usually MBA types that see the same business principles as applying to both. So no, the theatre did not figure large in the viewpoints of such men, and if one wanted to see the theatre, then they expected one to buy a ticket for that privilege and not get a ‘freebie’ by viewing large photos of it. Also, if an outside producer were involved, you can bet that he didn’t want his production to be dwarfed in the photos by the immensity of the Music Hall. He would therefore supply agreed photos to the theatre that he probably had made specifically to emphasize his people, and not the Hall. Process photography and expert retouching were commonplace even before the age of computer manipulation of images, so distorted views having a preferred, or ‘enhanced’ image were not unusual.
While I think most theaters — especially large older ones — probably try to use a “sunken” arrangement, I can quickly think of quite a few theaters (in New York City at least) that, for one reason or another, haven’t.
The two that come to mind the quickest are the main auditorium of Carnegie Hall and the now demolished Helen Hayes on 46th St. I believe in both of them you had to go up a steep, but small flight of stairs to get into the theater at the orchestra level (the back of the orchestra). Since both of these theaters also had box offices in their very small “stairway” lobbies, it made for very lobbies that were awkwardly memorable. (The renovation of Carnegie Hall somehow did away with the awkwardness — can’t remember exactly how.)
Plus there are two big old Broadway theaters (from the 1920s?), the Majestic and the Richard Rodgers, that have early versions of stadium seating in which the back of the orchestra level is a between a half-story and a full story above street level. (I believe in the Richard Rodgers you first go down a few steps to get into the lobby and then you go up a full flight of stairs for the back of the orchestra). I believe the Virginia (which used to be called the ANTA?), also from around the same time, has a similar set-up. Plus there are the more modern Broadway theaters (the ones that were built as part of office buildings) that really only begin after you get one or more flights off the ground: the Minskoff, the Uris, and the Mariott Marquis (correct name?).
Getting back to movie theaters, I think in the current Ziegfeld Theater, the entire (single screen) seating area of the theater is on the second floor. Plus in Manhattan and all over the country there are all those small multiplex theaters, probably very few of which are sunken.
But generally speaking, putting the back of the orchestra level at the same grade as the surrounding sidewalks does often seem to make the most sense, especially for a large theater.