Radio City Music Hall

1260 6th Avenue,
New York, NY 10020

Unfavorite 116 people favorited this theater

Showing 2,851 - 2,875 of 3,325 comments

Benjamin
Benjamin on January 19, 2005 at 9:15 pm

The David Loth book, “The City Within a City,” also has lots of interesting info about the Music Hall.

One of Loth’s most informative interviewees when he did the research for the book seems to be G.S. Eyssell who ultimately became president of Rockefeller Center, but started out with Rockefeller Center in the Radio City Music Hall organization. So there is lots of info in the book about the business of running the Music Hall (the problem of finding movies for it, etc.), especially during its tumultuous early days.

For example on pg. 85 he says that “The president of RKO … had talked to Eyssell reservedly about the Music Hall’s problems only a few days after the debut. A few days later, he invited Eyssel to work out of his office at RKO as a troubleshooter, and the first trouble to be shot was finding pictures for the Music Hall.”

He also mentions (pg. 78) that after RKO went bankrupt (about a month after the Music Hall and the Center Theater opened), the leases on Radio City Music Hall and the Center Theater were “automatically terminated. Claims for damages as a result of this liquidation went in and out of court for the next seven years before a complicated settlement was finally reached in 1939.”

Some interesting tidbits:

Loth claims (pg. 127) that about twenty pounds of chewing gum a day, on average, was removed by hand from underneath the Music Hall’s seats!

The Music Hall was closed for five days early in 1965 for a thorough cleaning (pg. 158). (Maybe this is when that very laudatory article about the Music Hall, that I read in Reader’s Digest, came out?)

Benjamin
Benjamin on January 19, 2005 at 8:36 pm

Chapter XIII of Carol Krinsky’s book, “Rockefeller Center” has very detailed info and lots of great pictures about the history and development of both Radio City Music Hall and the Center Theater.

The portion of the chapter dealing with the Radio City Music Hall, pgs. 164 to 187, has two photos of the early clay models that were used to judge various proposed designs for the interior of the auditorium. It also has a photos of some early theaters, and drawings of proposed theaters, that may have influenced the ultimate design of the theater (five photos). There are (very small) reproductions of a cross section of the theater and the floor plans for the ground floor and first balcony levels. Plus there are photos of Roxy’s studio/reception room, the grand lobby (one photo looking north; one photo looking south), the basement lounge, the side/back of the auditorium, the men’s smoking room, the women’s powder room that has painted murals, and the women’s powder room that is encircled by mirrors.

Some interesting tidbits from the chapter:

Edward Durell Stone (an architect who later became famous and controversial) was in charge of the designs for both Radio City Music Hall and the Center Theater (pg. 180).

Donald Desky won a limited competition to decorate the interiors of both theaters (pg. 183). (If I understand her correctly, because he could not do all the work for both theaters, he apparently subcontracted out the work of the Center Theater to Eugene Schoen who shared a similar interest in contemporary design.)

Krinsky challenges the Roxy story that he conceived of the idea of a radiating sunburst design for the auditorium after seeing a glorious sunrise or sunset while at sea. She says that he did not even embark on the trip in question until six days after the model for such a design had been photographed (pg. 180).

Krinsky says (pg. 180) that shortly before the theater opened, Roxy “entered the auditorium to demonstrate its acoustic properties” and discovered that the sound was unsatisfactory. So, according to Krinsky, “several stretches of auditorium wall had to be moved, and their fabric coverings rewoven in time for the opening night.”

Krinksy claims (pg. 180) that certain publicity photos (like the one shown on page 175) that show the auditorium with a stage show in progress are, in reality, composite photos that show the Rockettes and the performers behind them to be bigger on the stage than they really are (so as to make the stage not seem so far away). (I think as a kid I suspected this.)

Benjamin
Benjamin on January 19, 2005 at 7:40 pm

Re: the underside of the marquee

The main point of posting about the change from incandescent to florescent was really to alert first-time, post-renovation visitors that, despite the vaunted “restoration” of the Music Hall, there are actually a few changes from the original that have diminished the original effect of the theater’s wonderful architecture.

And while none of these may be big things, a lot of little things (e.g., the heaters, the loudspeakers, the pedestrian fences) do add up to give the visitor a different (and, unfortunately, less impressive, in my opinion) experience when waiting outside, or entering into, the Music Hall.

This was also the reason for pointing out in an earlier post that the grand lounge had been radically re-designed. (I must admit that I’m skeptical that the lounge has been restored to its original grandeur, as one poster seems to feel. I’m not sure, but I think I did visit the grand lounge on my last visit in 2001, and I believe the alterations to the grand lounge had been “prettied up” a bit, but not undone.)

While one certainly doesn’t expect the owners of the Music Hall to jeopardize its financial viability by refusing to cut corners here and there, it’s also kind of interesting to look at, and to note, what corners the owners of a building choose to cut and what corners they choose not to cut — as it ultimately shows the values that are placed on various things.

For instance, I doubt the owners of the Music Hall would replace interior incandescents with florescent. So apparently the marquee incandescents were seen as an expendable part of the Radio City Music Hall “experience.”

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on January 17, 2005 at 1:25 pm

Warren, maybe this will help. Back then the woman in Blossoms was a heroine. Today in the movies it is Vera Drake(yeah right she was performing abortions because she was a deeply sympathetic and concerned woman and it didn’t have anything to do with money. Is this a true story or was it made up by one of today’s idiot screenwriters?)
This was a way the screenwriter in ‘41 could broach such a sensitive subject and make his heroine a staunch foe of it. Today the movie would be picketed by the women’s movement.(I’m pro choice by the way but I do think it’s a great line.)

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on January 17, 2005 at 1:11 pm

But if you think about it it does. A woman working to give dignity to young mothers without husbands would never say “Good girls don’t have babies."
Speaking about Garson(who was also radiant in black and white-Random Harvest, Pride and Prejudice you name it) I obtained a Music Hall program for Blossoms and there is an article included which discusses her Titian Hair in technicolor.
She was actually crowned at the Music Hall in a ceremony celebrating the success of her films there. I suppose the tiara is gathering dust in Texas somewhere.

RobertR
RobertR on January 17, 2005 at 12:38 pm

This reminds me of the classic Summer Place when Sandra Dee asks Troy Donahue if he’s ever been “bad” with girls. Kinder, simpler times.

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on January 17, 2005 at 12:18 pm

I think “bad” is correct(not sure because I read the article 35 years ago and as I’ve said I’ve never seen the film.)Think about it in the context of a woman trying to eliminate the stigma of illegitimate children and unwed mothers. Then it makes perfect sense and would cause a strong reaction from people. It would today as well, though not all of it positive unlike those 6000 people(well the adults anyway) sitting in the Hall in ‘41.

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on January 17, 2005 at 10:33 am

In 1970 Look magazine had a one page article where one of its writers talked about his experiences of going to the Music Hall starting with Swing Time. He recalls that one of the biggest audience responses to a film were the cheers that followed when in Blossoms in the Dust Greer Garson says “Bad girls don’t have babies."
I had no idea what that meant and why people would cheer. I still haven’t seen the film but of course now understand the line. I wonder though today how people would respond to such a declaration.

JimRankin
JimRankin on January 17, 2005 at 9:25 am

It is sad if today’s remodeling of the soffit of the marquee is not being done to the standards with which it was built, but one can understand the replacement of the incandescents with fluorescent lamps, even though they are ‘colder’ in appearance than the “fire-like' bulbs. Fluorescents are much cheaper in the long run, and that is how the accountants of the management are responsible to look at it. The Hall is not owned by a charity, but by businessmen who intend to make a profit, else they will abandon the whole thing, and then once again, the Hall will be in danger of demolition! The odd light bulb sockets Benjamin does see now, may well be the remains of the 1950s trend of adding Goose Neck lamp holders to project on occasional banners under the marquee or even one sheets or standees. These did the spotlight job cheaply, but they also rusted out over the years and now many a marquee bears scars of where they once were, often with eye screws poking out of the metal with remnants of the hanging wire that once went down to the PAR-type bulb that was in the gooseneck lamp holder to keep it in the curved position. Just a little speculation on my part, but I have a hunch that it is true.

Benjamin
Benjamin on January 16, 2005 at 8:51 pm

I went by the Music Hall a few weeks ago to take a closer look at the underside of the marquee to figure out what it was that bothered me about the changes made to it during the most recent renvation.

Now that I’ve looked at it more closely, I’m wondering if I remembered correctly when I thought it originally had those “silver bowl” lightbulbs that Jim Rankin so kindly looked into in his December 17 posts. There seems to be mixed evidence about what the underside of the marquee was like:

On the one hand almost all of the recesses (coffers?) in the grid currently have plain reflector tiles (which appear to be metal pans coated with enamel) which give no indication that original light sockets had been filled in. Did the renovators actually reproduce all those pans, but this time without light sockets, for the renovation?

On the other hand, there seem to be about three or four very rusty light bulbs sockets scattered amongst the hundreds of plain coffers in the grid, which would seem to indicate that “silver bowl” lamps were indeed part of the original lighting scheme and that the renovators did indeed replace the old reflector pans.

But then again, at least one of these light sockets was plainly off-center — so maybe these three or four light sockets were just ad hoc additions to the original reflector pans?

The interior ticket lobby has a ceiling scheme that is similiar to — but actually different than — that of the “silver bowl” scheme I thought the marquee had. Maybe I confused the ticket lobby’s scheme with that found at the Whitney Museum?

I think either the “Godfather I” or “Godfather II” has a scene with Al Pacino and Diane Keaton that was done on location beneath the unrenovated marquee of the Music Hall. I wondered if one can tell from this scene what the underside of the marquee was like?


Whatever the case, one of the strong negatives about the renovation is that the reflector pans now reflect ugly, cold bluish florescent light — instead of the warm, fire-like incandescent light which I’m pretty sure was there pre-renovation.

Two other changes that lessen the original effect:

1) There are now obtrusive (but, sadly, necessary) security cameras hung from the underside of the marquee.

2) There are also lots of electric heaters hung from the grid. While these are certainly welcome, perhaps they could have been hung slightly differently to work better with the aesthetics of the grid, rather than to damage its original handsome effect.

While I realize all of this is not major, I think the cumulative effect of all these kinds of little changes (like the addition of those ugly pedestrian barriers on Sixth Ave. and the addition of blaring outdoor speakers) really distorts the original beauty and dignity of the theater.

Dorothy
Dorothy on January 15, 2005 at 9:08 am

Just came across some old wooden hangers with names:

Radio City Music Hall Taylor Shop
Roxy Clothes Stores in Principal Clothes

can anyone shed some light on these?

(father-in-law was violinist in orchestra pit during opening followed by many years at RCMH)

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on January 11, 2005 at 8:26 am

I’m sure that even if it had occured to anybody at Cablevision or Disney(not that it would) the powers that be would not have seen any point to it. When I worked at SONY years ago they didn’t see any reason to release the soundtrack to My Fair Lady because they already had the Broadway cast album out. It took them years to put it on CD(of course all that time it was available in Europe.)
Ah, to make a lot of money sucking up to the right people and making bad decisions.

chconnol
chconnol on January 11, 2005 at 7:32 am

Vincent wrote:
“The restored [Mary Poppings] film should have been shown with an abreviated Christmas show in November to launch the DVD. That way people would have been able to see the film as it was mean’t to be seen(they would have been stunned.) and there would have been enormous publicity for the Hall and the DVD.”

THAT is a great, grand idea. But the folks who run Disney and the Music Hall aren’t creative types interested in booking unique things. They want their $$$ and run with it.

We bought the Mary Poppins DVD for our children and they could not sit through the entire thing at home. I anticipated this because people don’t remember that the movie is a surprising two-hours and fifteen minutes long. When I saw this in the theaters (at Green Acres in Valley Stream) at the age of 8, I was in a captive audience meaning that I couldn’t just get up and walk out. So you’re kind of forced to sit through it and either get into it or not. And yep, I got into it BIG TIME. That’s the problem with DVD viewing at home, especially with young children. If and when they bored, they can simply get up and walk out and move onto something else.

Having seen this years Christmas show (read my comments above concerning this dismal thing..) it would’ve been truly awesome for my daughter to have seen “Mary Poppins” there. She, like I, would’ve been captive and would’ve LOVED it.

And if they had re-issued it at RCMH, I would’ve made it a point to take her to see it there. It’s one of the best musical films ever made.

PeterApruzzese
PeterApruzzese on January 10, 2005 at 12:05 pm

Vincent –

It’s sad, but Disney does not currently offer Mary Poppins for regular theatrical bookings. I tried to get it last November for my Big Screen Classics series and it’s out of circulation. Disney should have had an East Coast re-premiere of the film (they did so at, I think, the El Capitan in LA), but it’s not the RCMH’s fault if they didn’t show it.

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on January 10, 2005 at 11:10 am

The restored film should have been shown with an abreviated Christmas show in November to launch the DVD. That way people would have been able to see the film as it was mean’t to be seen(they would have been stunned.) and there would have been enormous publicity for the Hall and the DVD.
Why are the powers that be so obtuse? Can somebody please tell me?

ErikH
ErikH on January 10, 2005 at 10:50 am

Speaking of coming attractions at RCMH, the 40th anniversary DVD of “Mary Poppins” includes a trailer announcing the film’s return to RCMH to launch the film’s reissue in the early 1970s.

RobertR
RobertR on January 10, 2005 at 9:59 am

I think by the 70’s the Music hall had no choice but to run regular coming attractions. One of the main reasons was that some of the family films they booked were so obscure people would have no idea what they were.

Mike (saps)
Mike (saps) on January 10, 2005 at 9:45 am

Good movie with wonderful Sandy Dennis, but maybe wrong for the Music Hall.

BoxOfficeBill
BoxOfficeBill on January 10, 2005 at 9:42 am

bad movie, poor stage show, just days before strike.

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on January 10, 2005 at 9:11 am

BOB Why do you say “on that dark day?” Is it a bad movie or was this during the strike?

BoxOfficeBill
BoxOfficeBill on January 7, 2005 at 9:19 pm

That’s right too—Even though I was a thirty-year-old presumptive adult at the time, I marvelled that Hollywood could advertise a yet unfinished and certainly unedited movie six months in advance of its scheduled opening—a marketing marvel. That, by the way, was the first time I’d seen coming attractions at RCMH. In the ‘40s and '50s, as Simon L has so eloquently described, the announcement of the next attraction unreeled as a b&w film strip, home-movie-style, in minuscules running bottom to top against a cross-hatched mesh background, while the grand organ played a pertinent melody (minor key for drama, major for comedy), always at the end of the newsreel and before the orchestral overture. In '72, I was shocked that RCMH was showing coming attractions, just as the local dives did. Before “Butterflies,” the previous picture I had seen there was “Up the Down Staircase” in '67, and even on that dark day there were no coming attractions. Sometime in-between, something had happened.

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on January 7, 2005 at 4:48 pm

By the way I remember that during this run of Butterflies in July there was what seemed like a 20 minute trailer for the Christmas attraction 1776.(Interesting because Blythe Danner created the Goldie Hawn role but was in 1776 instead.) And I remember seeing Cool Cool Considerate Men. But when I saw the film at Christmas the number didn’t exist at all!

BoxOfficeBill
BoxOfficeBill on January 6, 2005 at 10:33 pm

Right—the setting was Hawaiian, and the routine concluded on the runway. I should’ve stayed through repeat performances ‘till I caught a shoe.

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on January 6, 2005 at 2:22 pm

But BOB did they do that in this stage show? I seem to remember them doing an Hawaiian number in grass skirts. Maybe I’m just dreaming it.

BoxOfficeBill
BoxOfficeBill on January 6, 2005 at 12:00 pm

Warren—As a kid in the ‘50s, I heard people refer to this theater as “the RCMH,” much as one would refer to its rival as “the Roxy.” On his “Toast of the Town” TV review, for example, the stolid Ed Sullivan would introduce celebrity guests as “starrrs of a fffine fffilm nnnow playing at the RCMH.” The particle nonetheless struck me as funny, since none of my family used it in that way—we always omitted it in deference, perhaps, to the theater’s exceptionality: “We went to RCMH” (often just “Radio City,” without “Music Hall,” but sometimes “the Music Hall” [particled!] without “Radio City”—gotta assign a linguist to this case). I remember a neighborhood kid who wrought a splendid inversion: “Radio Music City Hall.” (Fatefully, she is now married to a world-class musician and is herself a great political activist.)

Vincent—Through a quirk, I too had seen “Butterflies Are Free” at RCMH, and I vividly remember the Rockettes' routine: the thirty-six of them (still thirty-six in ‘72) opened their act on center-stage, then filed out onto the narrow (what-do-you-call-it?) runway that rimmed the orchestra pit to perform their high kicks. I was sitting in the third row, and could only hope that one of them might dropkick a shoe into my lap—just as in '40s Hollywood musicals would happen to a perplexed old geezer in the front stalls.