Radio City Music Hall
1260 6th Avenue,
New York,
NY
10020
1260 6th Avenue,
New York,
NY
10020
118 people
favorited this theater
Showing 2,851 - 2,875 of 3,332 comments
I don’t think the ‘sunken auditorium’ Benjamin describes is at all uncommon- how many theatres have you been in where you have to step up into the lobby or orchestra level? I can’t think of any.
Thought you might like to see the program from the opening week of the hall. I’m an out of print book dealer dealing in mostly film.
Benjamin: Your description of Krinsky’s photo seems weirdly familiar, and I’ll check it out on Monday. The most familiar photo of the Rockettes in full proscenium is Herbert Gehr’s, taken for Life Magazine in ’42 and reprinted in Charles Francisco’s “The RCMH.†The set depicts a WWII aircraft carrier, on whose deck the full-thirty-six kick up a storm in sailor-suits. (I have memories of this routine from my first visit to RCMH in Sept ’45 to see “Our Vines Have Tender Grapes†at the age of three, but that would take paragraphs to explain and verify geometrically.)
RCMH devoted one display case to “Camera Highlights of the Current Stage Show.†It was located among the front doors, second case from right on the 6 Ave side. (Francisco’s book provides a picture of it in the first color photo insert, third page verso.) If you went to the opening Thursday of a new production, that case would be bare: the pictures were likely taken during the early-morning dress rehearsal and were evidently still in the developing room when the first show let out at 1:15 pm. Unlike the other display cases that exhibited pictures only in b&w, this one offered color.
On 16 Jan. you mentioned the scene in “The Godfather I†shot in the lobby as Pacino and Keaton exit from the Christmas show of ’45. The film was “The Bells of St. Mary’s†(I saw that there too then, but it would take paragraphs to… my strongest memory of it has my grandfather laying a few bucks in the hand of an usher who then smuggled us inside through the 51 Street doors; whoever said the entire white-gloved platoon was incorruptible?). Coppola got the display cases right with their b&w stills of Crosby and Bergman. That’s exactly the format followed in those years, as those of us who stood on long lines around the block remember. About the marquee light bulbs, I know nothing, but a glance at the DVD might help answer the question.
P.S. — Of course I could understand the management wanting the audience to think that they could see performers up close when RCMH was truly a “music hall.” But, of course, RCMH was a true music hall only for a few weeks when the theater first opened.
Finally got around to re-reading the early posts in this listing — great to see that RCMH listing has so many posts!
Especially loved reading the July posts from SimonL (explaining how the theater operated, and the practical difficulties of moving people in and out of a 5,945 seat theater), BoxOfficeBill (on the way the curtains were used to present a movie), and the post listing movies that played the Music Hall that was compiled by Ron3853(?) (which helped me remember when I saw certain movies there).
If I remember correctly, when I went to see “Crossed Swords” at the Music Hall (another poster mentions seeing it there in 1978) it was after it had been announced that they were considering closing the theater for good. It was such an emotional experience each time that the Rockettes came on — everyone thinking that this might be the last series of shows that the Rockettes might ever do.
Around 1978 and 1979, I was a tourgroup leader who used to escort out-of-town tour groups to see the movie and the stage show at RCMH as part of a multi-day NYC tour package. If I remember correctly, RCMH was ususally scheduled for Sunday evening (the last evening of a multi-day visit), and it was great because there was actually very little else that one could do with a tour group in NYC on a Sunday evening.
I believe I saw “The Promise” with Kathleen Quinlan with one of these tour groups. Didn’t realize that (according to another poster) this was the last regular movie shown at RCMH.
I think I also took a tour group to the first edition of the Christmas Spectacular after the Music Hall switched to its new format. I remember thinking to myself that the show wasn’t all that good — or, at least, that it needed a lot of work (although I was, of course, rooting for it to be good enough to “save” the Music Hall).
Perhaps the show wasn’t that good, but to be fair perhaps I was also overcritical because I so wanted it to succeed. (My tour group liked it.)
One very strange “act” in the first edition that I believe they did drop though: at one point in the first of the new Christmas Spectaculars, they had a singer dressed as a homeless bag lady come out to sing a ballad. The idea, I assume, was to make a poignant statement about the disadvantaged at Christmastime.
I thought this was strange scene for the RCMH Christmas Spectacular, however, in part because homeless bag ladies were relatively new in New York City (with the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill in the mid-1970s[?]) and I didn’t think out of town tourists would really get what was happening. (If I remember correctly, the one or two people in my group that mentioned this scene didn’t really know what it was supposed to be about, but more or less got the general gist — rememember the disadvantaged at Christmastime, too — anyway.)
I also thought it seemed to be too severe a departure from the tone of the rest of the show.
Re: why the Music Hall doesn’t look so big from outside
I’ve wondered about this too, and here are some thoughts:
1) Some of the theater’s public spaces are concealed in the office building fronting on Sixth Ave. (the ticket lobby and the lounges, etc. above it);
2) Most of the great size of the auditorium is in it’s block long (200' wide) width, rather than it’s length. And since the theater’s width is concealed by the office building on Sixth and the office building on Rockefeller Plaza, you never really get to see from the outside how wide the theater is.
3) The theater has a plain exterior and the two buildings that bookend it also have the same plain exterior which blurrs the dimensions of the theater — where does the theater begin and where does it end?
4) I’m not sure about this, but I believe RCMH has a somewhat sunken auditorium that lessens the apparent height of the theater.
Explanation: when I went by the theater the other day, the door to the loading dock that leads onto the stage was open and you could see onto the stage. If I remember correctly, this loading dock was flush with the sidewalk, which means parts of the auditorium are below street level.
The same holds, true, by the way with the Hudson Theater (which I’m more sure of). The loading dock to the stage is only inches above the sidewalk, which would mean the the first rows of the orchestra level are probably below sidewalk level.
(This is also common, I believe, in atheletic stadia [when a low water table permits it]. The playing field is below street level, and when patrons enter the field boxes from the surrounding street, they find themselves going down to the level of the playing field. Otherwise a lot of stadiums would be much taller — like Shea Stadium with its high water table — than they are now.)
5) The size of the theater might be camouflaged a bit by the beautiful grills that cover the firescapes and by the windows (to the executive offices and the dressing rooms) which, again, might help blur the difference between where the theater ends and the other buildings begin.
I don’t know, from what I’ve read here and experienced at the Hall, a small screen and bad sound don’t add up to much of a movie-going experience. But I still love the place!
BoxOfficeBill: Thanks for the fascinating info about how the RCMH contour curtain was used. I wish I had thought of observing and counting the folds like that!
I’m not sure, however, if that is what the touch-up artist did in the photo that Krinsky shows and comments upon in her book — but, then again, maybe it is? Let me describe the photo.
First, a brief description to identify it: the photo in the book, and on the back cover, shows 36 (I counted!) towering Rockettes lined up before scenery that … well, is hard to describe. On stage right, there seem to be three enormous circles (hula-hoops?) covered in flowers. (The hoops are about twice the size of the people standing infront of them.) On stage left, there seems to be the top three quarters of a rising moon that is just a bit taller than the performers in front of it. And in the background there seems to be an elevated swan boat. Above the scene there appears to be two floral moons connected by a garland of flowers (or lights) hung from the sky, with more flowers (or lights) in some sort of pattern in the background.
In this photo the contour curtain has 10 “genuine” folds that are fitted within the portion of the arch that contains 9 of the radiating grilles (sunbursts). This is about three-quarters of the way up the arch — which I suspect is much higher than the curtain would really go?
To the left and right of the 10 “genuine” folds, there are very elogated, droopy folds that appear to me to be painted in! Behind these painted in folds, there is a traveling curtain, that also looks to me to be painted in! (For one thing, they seem to be “lighted” differently.) Also the end Rockettes on either end of the line seem to be partially cut off by the traveling curtain.
The clues for me in this photo that the Rockettes are larger than life — and the performers BEHIND the Rockettees make the Rockettes themselves look as big as large dolls! — was that the end Rockettees on stage left(?) not only seem much, much larger than both the people in the orchestra pit and in the audience just in front of them (and closer to the camera, yet), but they also look a bit too big to fit behind those curtains on the stepped stages going up the side of the auditorium.
(By the way, I didn’t notice how large the performers behind the Rockettes were [!] or that the curtains seem painted-in until just now.)
As a kid, I use to love to look at the movie stills outside a theater (there never seemed to be enough of them), and I remember wishing that RCMH, in particular, had more photos (and a greater variety of them) in the display cases along 50th St. I also remember being disappointed that this one photo of the Music Hall’s interior (or a similar photo) seemed to be the one and only photo of the interior of RCMH that they ever showed in the display case — and actually the one and only one of the interior of RCMH that you ever seemed to see anywhere.
Looking at “this” photo as a kid, I wanted to be overwhelmed by the giganticism of RCMH and its stage and was thus disappointed that the performers were so big and that the stage seemed so “small” (judging by the way the performers so easily filled it up) for such a large theater. Examining the photo as carefully as I could, I could sense that something seemed wrong about “the” photo, but couldn’t put my finger on it — couldn’t find the smoking gun, so to speak.
It’s ironic that the management of RCMH specifically wanted the performers to appear large (and thus have the stage appear “small”). I suppose they knew what they were doing, and perhaps my kid’s mentality was the exception. But I would think that most people going to RCMH were not going to see live performers up close, anyway, but were going for the spectacle of it all — enormous scenery, large crowd scenes, etc. — in which case a stage full of tiny scenery and tiny, tiny performers would seem to me to be an asset in a publicity photo rather than a liablity.
To bring in another example: when I was a pre-schooler, and before I ever went to visit the Empire State Building, I remember being thrilled by the tales told to me by my slightly older friends who had been there. “The people on the sidewalk are so tiny, they look like little ants!” When I finally went to the Empire State Building, however, I was disappointed because the people on the sidewalk really didn’t look all that small (and the Empire State Building, itself, didn’t really look all that tall either)!
There are certain experiences where you want to be overwhelmed by enormous scale of things — so seeing large crowds of tiny people, in these instances, would seem to me not to be a liablity but an asset! (At least if the sound applification was good enough for you to hear what is going on.) Now if RCMH management chose to enlarge the image of a movie screen in a photo of the interior, that would be a different story!
Benjamin: Thanks for all the expert info you’ve contributed. About those publicity composite photos that show the Rockettes as bigger than members of the audience or orchestra: the contour curtain at RCMH drapes at fourteen folds when fully raised (as it was for film presentations). But most (all?) stage productions that I remember from the late ‘40s-'50s would raise the curtain only in its twelve center folds and not to full height. (Even as a kid, I figured this out as I tried to analyze the illusionistic transformations of space in those great spectacles.) For small-scale specialty acts, the curtain rose in even fewer folds. The expansive proscenium simply did not open to a performance area that filled its entire width. To compensate, many productions deployed some stationary scenery on the apron in front of the curtain at either or both sides of the arch: snowy pine trees at Christmas, statuary altar niches at Easter, a lighthouse and some fish nets for the often repeated Underwater Ballet, etc. As a result, for publicity photos that aimed to display the contour curtain in its complete fourteen-fold glory, the composite artist needed to blow up the shot of the Rockettes et al. taken in their twelve-fold setting. These pictures, even the best of them, look contrived and out of proportion.
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?)
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.)
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.”
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Good movie with wonderful Sandy Dennis, but maybe wrong for the Music Hall.