Roxy Theatre
153 W. 50th Street,
New York,
NY
10020
153 W. 50th Street,
New York,
NY
10020
83 people
favorited this theater
Showing 1,001 - 1,025 of 1,209 comments
I know this isn’t the RCMH site, but after realizing that the Music Hall wasn’t really intended for films, isn’t it somewhat ironic that it’s now being used mostly for live performances?
I attended the World Premiere of “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” at RCMH last May. The theater was packed, and I was sitting in the orchestra section, about 20 rows from the stage on the right side. There was a really pronounced echo in the theater, and I was very surprised. At times it was so bad, you couldn’t understand the dialogue. I thought with all those people, the standard acoustical reverb that you normally hear in such an immense theater would have been dissipated.
I am too young to have seen any shows at the Roxy. Were the acoustics similar in that showplace?
All of the participants in this full Roxy/RCMH discussion should be thanked for contributing so much to the history and analysis of the impact of these two theaters. And appreciation to “Cinema Treasures” for providing the venue. One further thought, touched on earlier: Radio City Music Hall was not built as a movie palace. So, despite its reputation for premiering the finest pictures of the mid-century, it was never the best place in New York City in which to view and hear films properly. But, as a New Yorker whose first experience at RCMH was a morning premiere at RCMH of “Bambi” in August, 1942, and who even enjoyed the “fiasco” of the three-strip “Windjammer” at the Roxy years later, I loved ‘em both.
From Frank S. Nugent’s 1939 NY Times review of “The Wizard of Oz”, it establishes that it opened at The Capitol:
“By courtesy of the wizards of Hollywood, The Wizard of Oz reached the Capitol’s screen yesterday as a delightful piece of wonder-working which had the youngsters' eyes shining and brought a quietly amused gleam to the wiser ones of the oldsters.”
Warren: You mention “Follies” and yes, it’s still one of the greatest musicals ever produced. It was somewhat dismissed by critics during it’s initial run (John Simon, critic of New York Magazine now admits this…) but it’s now considered a classic.
Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this but the concept of “Follies” was begun with the famous photograph of Gloria Swanson in the ruins of the Roxy.
You must be right. Somebody once told me “The Wizard” played at the Roxy which was strange since they showed mainly 20th Century-Fox Films. Did Shirley Temple ever appear live at the Roxy? I remember one of my cousins said they saw her there.
You are so right Warren, Oz did indead play at the Capital with Judy Garland appearing opening night.
I meant to say the curved CinemaScope screen of the Roxy in my last comment. The curvature gave more depth and enjoyment. It’s a matter of taste. If you had noisy people sitting in front of you; neither theatre was a pleasure; often there were no empty seats to change to. We recently attended a Broadway show and the people kept talking and ruined the show for us. Why do people spend over $100 just to talk? This is off-topic, so please forgive me!
Warren it was interesting seeing your post about 1960. I wasn’t able to go on my own into NY until ‘70. At that point the Roxy might as well have the the Colossus at Rhodes. I believe the Rivoli was playing The Stewardesses in 3D, the Criterion was playing Beyond the Valley of the Dolls and the Thanksgiving film Sherlock Holmes at the Hall crashed and burned after two weeks and they had to rush in the Christmas Show. The axis of the earth must have shifted in those ten years. I don’t think things change culturally so quickly even today.
However the Hall had a weekday morning admission price of $1.75 and a weekday matinee prime seating on Broadway could be had for $8.00.
Follies, the most lavish(and best produced, I still remember the audience in shock) musical I will ever see, had a top full price of $7.50! Today you cannot even get prime seating for $100 the announced top price. You’ve got to spend 3 to 5 times as much. And what you get is a golden oldies revue. Insane.
Both the Roxy and the Radio City Music Hall gave my family pleasure. We can compare them but they both had their own specialties. It’s like comparing London, Paris and New York. All these places are/were special. The RCMH had a better value(stage show and film) while the Roxy was more ornate, had a nicer CinemaScope screen, but until “Rains of Ranchipur”, had no stage show. In my opinion, the Roxy showed better films; I think they even showed “The Wizard of Oz”. I can’t find a comprehensive list of films shown at the Roxy. As spomeone pointed-out RCMH screened more family-oriented films, such as “Mary Poppins”. The RCMH screen seemed to be flat as opposed to the flat screen of the RCMH according to my memory. I love them both and it breaks my heart when I pass the spot where the Roxy used to be.
Fascinating discussion above. Loved reading it.
With regards to whether The Roxy or RCMH was “better”, let’s just leave it that one (The Roxy) is sadly gone and will be missed and the other (RCMH) is still with us and we should be grateful.
BUT….I will always go with what my Mother, born and raised in Manhattan in 1925, felt. The Roxy was better. She loved RCMH but had a soft spot for this great place. The Roxy and her vivid memories and descriptions of the place is what brought me to this great site in the first place.
Regarding the reputations and relative popularity of the Roxy vs. Radio City Music Hall:
I was looking through a 1939 guidebook to NYC, the “WPA Guide to NYC,” and noticed that the entry for the Roxy is less than five lines long and comes at the end of a paragraph that includes info about the Casa Manana nightclub (across the street from the Roxy) and the Brass Rail restaurant (just south? of the Roxy). This listing is similar to the listings for the other Times Sq. movie palaces: the Strand (3 ½ lines); the Rivoli (essentially 5 lines); the Capitol (1 ½ lines); the Continental [Warner Hollywood or Mark Hellinger] (2 ½ lines).
However the the entry for Radio City Music hall takes up almost an entire page! (It’s just two lines short.)
Here’s the entry for the Roxy: “The ROXY, Seventh Avenue and Fiftieth Street, is the most elaborate of the first-run motion-picture houses in the Broadway district. The huge oval lobby, highly ornate in its decorations, can accommodate three thousand patrons, about half as many as the auditorium itself. The Roxy opened in 1926, representing an investment of fifteen million dollars.”
So it would seem that in 1939, Radio City Music Hall had a much higher profile, and was considered more of a wonder, than the Roxy.
By the way, another poster mentioned something like the Roxy was of one era and the Radio City Music Hall was of another. While I don’t disagree with this — they do seem to be of two different eras — isn’t it fascinating that these two theaters, representing these two “eras,” were built only five and a half years apart! For instance, imagine comparing something that opened on December 27, 2004 with one that opened on March 11, 1999!!!
This says two things to me:
1) They were very tumultuous times! And they were. Just for some quick for instances, in 1927, the year the Roxy opened, I believe NBC and CBS radio networks were also founded. (NYC got its first radio station, WEAF, only in 1922.) And Vitaphone became the rage later on in 1927. Also I think the Paramount and probably many, many more other movie palaces were also built or under construction in 1927.
2) The “old fashioned” architectural style of the Roxy made it seem prematurely “old.”
Originally I was thinking this about the Roxy’s interiors as being less photogenic, but looking at some of the photos of the Roxy on various websites, I think this is also true of its exterior architectural design.
For one thing it’s design does not appear to have aged well, even in a short period of time — city dirt, grime and soot really “show” on its ornate architecture. But dirt, grime and soot actually form a somewhat attractive “patina” on Radio City Music Hall’s (and Rockefeller Center’s) sleek modern walls — or are at least less unattractive in my opinion. (I remember watching them steam clean the walls of Rockefeller Center and at first thinking how wonderful they would look when they were clean. But I was then surprised when my reaction was that it really didn’t make that much of a positive difference (the way it did with ornate St. Patrick’s), and in a way it seemed to me that something was actually lost. Looking back, I think this is because on the large plain walls of Rockefeller Center, the soot forms kind of a marbelizing pattern on the large plain walls — “decorating” them in a way with sweeping modernistic dark columns!)
I also noticed that the Roxy had an ENORMOUS, exposed, and very prominent, lot line wall facing busy Sixth Ave. that was left “undesigned” — it just had some ugly firescapes on it. In contrast Radio City Music Hall facades incorporated its firescapes behind very handsome grilles.
So it’s easy for me to see how people can see the Roxy as being “old fashioned” and of a different “era” even though it was built only five and a half years before RCMH!
Plus one of the “wonders” of the Roxy was the P.T. Barnum-like Roxy himself and his proto-Disney like obsession with “presentation” — one can imagine him rather than Disney as coming up with the idea that employees such as ushers and ticket takers were “characters” rather than just employees. So it seems likely to me that when Roxy and his Roxy “magic” left the Roxy Theater for RCMH, some of the air inevitably left the Roxy balloon and it became more of just a very big, ornate theater.
More on Roxy and the Roxy Theater from Ben Hall (“Best Remaining Seats,” 1961), David Loth (“The City Within a City,” 1966) and Carol Krinsky (“Rockefeller Center,” 1978). (As you will see, each writer has a different focus and a different “take.” I don’t necessarily agree with all the details of any of the versions — I just thought Cinema Treasure readers would be interested in seeing this info.)
Re: Roxy abandoning the Roxy for the Radio City Theaters (I didn’t find any mention in any of the three books about Roxy being forced out of the management of the original Roxy Theater.)
Hall (pg. 252): “What happened to Roxy? In 1930 he had another vision, one that led him another block eastward … . The Rockefellers were building their Center, and it in the largest theatre in the world, the International Music Hall.”
Loth (pg. 81): “RKO was generally considered to have brought off an admirable coup when they persuaded him to take over the management of the new Music Hall.”
Krinsky (pg. 164): “On hearing that the radio group [RKO] planned to join the Rockefeller development, he proposed that he build a rival for his own namesake. The president of NBC [at the time, both NBC and RKO were subsidiaries of RCA, pg. 48, Loth] spoke to Rockefeller who approved of the idea… . In April 1931 Roxy announced his affiliation with the Center, having severed his ties to the Roxy Theater.”
(pg. 79) (She’s discussing why RCMH’s management wanted Roxy out in 1933) “… perhaps they thought that he was abandoning their sinking ship more quickly than he had abandoned his own Roxy Theater … .”
(Although they all agree with each other in fundamental ways, they also all present slightly different versions of what happened!)
Re: the closing of the Roxy
(I didn’t find any mention in any of the three books of the Taft not being willing to renew a lease for the Roxy’s ticket lobby.)
Hall: As far as I could see, he doesn’t really go into the particulars about the demise of the Roxy — but he does have a full page reproduction of that wonderful Gloria Swanson photo as the last page of the book.
But regarding the Hotel Taft site, Hall does present what appears to be an apocryphal story — or sloppily written one — about how Herbert Lubin (the man who hired Roxy to create the Roxy Theater) originally purchased the land needed to build the Roxy. Hall says that in the spring of 1925 Lubin decided that the Seventh Ave. and 50th St. corner “would be ideal to build his big theater on,” asked the agent how much it would cost, and agreed to pay the $3,000,000 on the spot.
The problem with this story is that the corner of Seventh and 50th is where the Roxy’s ticket lobby occupied the first floor of the adjoining hotel. Now, there are ways for Hall’s version of the story to be true — say, for instance, if the Roxy leased to the hotel the right to build over the ticket lobby — but without any further explanation, this story appears to be sloppily written.
Loth: (pgs. 186-187) He mentions that after Rockefeller Center was “complete,” the management decided to expand to the other side of Sixth Ave. and began purchasing land there — first purchasing the land where the Time-Life Building would eventually be built (in 1953) and then purchasing the Roxy Theater, which was the adjacent property to the west (in early 1956?). Originally when they started buying land on the west side of Sixth Ave., they were considering building a TV City with studios for NBC and a skyscraper for Time-Life. But NBC pulled out of the deal before the Roxy was actually purchased.
(pg. 191) “The purpose for which they had bought it was a thing of the past, but they had acquired air and tower rights for the Time & Life Building … priced at $2 million. So the Center could afford to be relaxed about the Roxy’s fate in the entertainment world.
“Various attempt to revive its old popularity by a couple of lessees, one of whom was Roxy’s nephew were short-lived. They even at temped a combination of stage and screen show, but apparently the Radio City Music Hall has a monopoly on success in this field. [Don’t know what the author means here; maybe he means attempted to revive a combination of stage and screen show?] Shortly before the Time & Life Building opened (late 1959?), Rockefeller Center had to take over the controls; it was already dickering for an entirely different sort of deal. That deal was consummated in February, 1960, when it was announced that the theater had been sold to Webb & Knapp for an office building … .”
Krinsky: (pgs. 111-114) Her version is essentially the same, but again with some differences. “To let the Center build a slab as tall as this one [Time-Life Building] while conforming to the requirements of the Zoning Resolution, Westprop, Inc. a Center subsidiary, had to buy the Roxy Theater immediately to the west, for its air rights. This also guaranteed that no rival tower could abut the new building in the future.”
The Loth and (especially) the Krinksy book also have lots of interesting info (and Krinksy has lots of great photos) about the creation of the Center Theater and Radio City Music Hall. If I get the chance, I will post some of this info on the appropriate site for each of the theaters.
The Roxy presented stage shows from the day of its opening until 16 Sept ‘53, when “The Robe” premiered and the theater suspended its live shows. In the late '40s (I’m not sure exactly when), the Roxy had added a small ice stage. It lowered the central stage elevator, flooded and froze the cavity, and used it for skating acts accompanying the conventional stage presentation with the toe-dancing Gae Foster Roxyettes. It called its m and f ice-skaters the Roxy Blades and Belles, and put them before the footlights during summertime shows (perhaps to cool off patrons with the power of suggestion).
I recall seeing two such shows in Summer ‘48, one accompanying the Dan Dailey musical, “Give My Regards to Broadway,” the other accompanying Betty Grable’s effort with Ernst Lubitsch, “That Lady in Ermine.” The latter’s Viennese theme extended into the ice show, with the Blades and Belles performing unseasonable waltzes.
In December ‘52, the Roxy closed briefly for alterations, shamefully covering up its proscenium’s glorious Spanish retablo with a new contour curtain, and also adding an all-ice stage illuminated by neon lights embedded in the permafrost (the display was called “Ice Colorama”). At this point, the feet-on-the-ground Roxyettes became twenty-four ice-skating Roxyettes. The theater initiated this format with that year’s Christmas show, headlined by “Stars and Stripes Forever.”
All-ice stage shows (without the neon Colorama) resumed with the Christmas show of ‘55, “The Rains of Ranchipur.” A couple of presentations with negligible 20C-Fox films (“The Lieutenant Wore Skirts” and “Bottom of the Bottle”) intervened before “Carousel” opened on 16 Feb '56, with an ice show (“Gala Paree”) somewhat abbreviated because of the film’s longer-than-usual length.
Las Vegas-style neon: yes, that’s an apt description, on the stage and on the marquee.
Vito, you are correct, the Music Hall didn’t sell popcorn, according to my sister, whose memory is better than mine and she visited RCMH maybe 50 times. Is it true that the ice-skating Roxyettes was added during the presentation of “Carousel”? Before then, there was no stage show with the Roxy’s film; this explains why there were either shorter lines or no lines at all at the Roxy. You would be admitted even in the middle of the film. I also found the Roxy marquee more attractive. It was bright red with changing patterns of neon light, sort of Las Vegas style. How I wish I had a camera then. None of the photos I’ve seen show the Roxy sign in color at night; they’re all in B&W.
I’m a little dizzy reading all this.
My copy of the Ben Hall book, “Best Remaining Seats,” is a Bramhall House (div. of Clarkson Potter, Inc.) edition from the mid-1970s. Although I was able to find the photos referenced in Jim’s post, I read them very differently and hope that those interested get a chance to look at the Hall book, especially the following pages: pg. 128, for what appears to me to be a modified “plan” of the first floor of the Roxy; pgs.82-83 (unnumbered), for what appears to me to be a loosely done “section” of the theater; and pg. 90, for a loose equivalent of an “elevation” of the proposed theater.
While there are also some good photos, including a photo of the Roxy’s main entrance on opening night (pages 2-3, unnumbered), these suffer (for our purposes) from severe foreshortening (the photographs being taken looking down relatively narrow streets).
But looking at the loose equivalents of a “plan,” “section” and “elevation” of the Roxy, it seems to me that pretty much only the ticket lobby of the Roxy extended into the hotel next door and that the five floors above the ticket lobby were most probably NOT used by the Roxy Theater — especially for things like the Usher’s Locker Room that is shown on the cutaway section.
Looking at an artist’s rendering of the Roxy (pg. 90), which also shows the adjacent hotel structure, and comparing it to the “plan” and “section” one sees that the Roxy facade was divided into three sections:
a very large section on the east (the auditorium itself);
a slightly lower section to the west of that (labeled the “Grande Foyer” on both the plan and the section);
and a yet smaller section, only three windows wide, to the west of that (labeled “Recpt. Hall” on the plan and the “Entrance Hall” on the section).
It is this last section, three windows wide, that appears to me to contain the five floors or so (there is a set back after the “third” story) of ancillary activities that are shown in the cutaway section.
Looking at both the plan and the cutaway section one notices that no ticket lobby whatsoever is being shown on either of them — the ticket lobby is the long, low area of the theatre that extended into the first floor of the adjacent hotel. In other words, neither the plan nor the section actually choose to show the ticket lobby — only the artist’s rendering, which shows the southern facade of the hotel, shows where the long, low ticket lobby was.
To a smaller extent this also seems to be borne out in the photo of the Roxy’s main entrance on opening night. One sees that the floors above the marquee appear to be conventional hotel type rooms — not rooms being used for the facilities being shown on the cutaway drawing.
Also, looking through the Hall book (flipping through the pages and using the index) I found no reference to 1) a story that the adjacent hotel choose not to renew the lease of the Roxy Theater’s ticket lobby; and 2) no reference to Sam Rothafel being forced out by the “new” owners of the Roxy.
The only reference in the Hall book to Sam Rothafel being force out that I could find was the account of his being forced out of the management of Radio City Music Hall (the last section of the book, “The End of the Dream”). And surprisingly for a book with so much info on the Roxy, I was not able to find any sustained account of how it closed or why it was demolished.
Now the book is very loosely organized, with info about the Roxy, included reprints of various magazine articles, etc., spread (non-chronologically) all throughout the book. So it is possible that I might have missed such accounts.
But in any case, none of the accounts were a major part of the Roxy story in the Hall book — plus I’ve discovered accounts elsewhere (more about that latter) that would seem to dispute these versions of Roxy’s and the Roxy’s history.
I have some additional comments on what I found last night in the Hall book about the Roxy Theater — plus some interesting relevant info from the Carol Krinsky book (“Rockefeller Center”) and the David Loth book (“The City within a City”) about Rockefeller Center. But that will have to wait till later.
Benjamin mentions that Ben Hall’s book was essentially an ode to the Roxy, and in that he is essentially right (it is a standard literary tool to select a subject to be the focus of a book so as to make the narrative more personal and relevant to the reader), but it might surprise him to know that while I will defend the Roxy if necessary, it was and is not my favorite movie palace. It was a themed decor if by that one means that the decor can be realistically identified as of a particular period, as opposed to mere ‘anonymous’ or eclectic ornament to create a modest attempt at decor, such as was characteristic of most opera houses. The Roxy’s decor was basically Spanish Baroque, but it, like virtually all movie palaces, was not pure and depended upon a liberal interpretation of any theme designation. RCMH, in contrast, was a more pure theme, in that it was an Art Deco/Art Moderne interpretation not dependent upon styles of ornament to define it. For this reason and others, it is probably best that one not describe the Music Hall as being a movie palace, even if its erection did realistically mark the end of that era, coincidentally. The Music Hall really falls into a class of its own, not only due to its gargantuan size, but also due to the show policy that it promoted and then succeeded in delivering for longer than many true movie palaces/presentation houses existed! It could be called a “Presentation House” by virtue of its performances with films, but it is really more in the category of a ‘Pagentorium,’ (my own coinage for lack of a better term), a less populated class of specialty structures such as the OLYMPIA in London of 1911, though such structures may be more akin to the Civic Auditorium class than theatres. Note Simon Tidworth’s photo of this on page 198 of his excellent book: “Theatres: An Architectural and Cultural History,” Praeger Publishers, London and New York, 1973. (He makes the sad statement on his page 187: “The interwar years belong to the cinema, an architectural romance in its own right, but one that regretfully cannot be told here.”)
Too much speculation about the Roxy’s ownership and that of the land beneath it would be counterproductive, so I suggest that Benjamin or any other New Yorkers interested in this matter go to the Register of Deeds or such other local office as contains the records of legal land ownership and contracts for constructions, to determine once and for all who owned the land in question and whether or not there was a legal tie between the hotel and theatre owners. This may be tedious research, but history is founded on finding facts such as these. Date of construction of the original hotel should also be there, along with its chain of ownership through the years. Who knows but that Roxy himself may be mentioned among the documents. If any reader is in the Chicago area, the collection of author Ben Hall is maintained at the Theatre Historical Soc. headquarters outside of Chicago (www.HistoricTheatres.org) and one might go to their Archive to see if Mr. Hall had retained any such records.
I would have to agree with saps, thanks very much for the insitefull writing. Oh, and by the way myron, I too loved hearing the Fox fanfare at the Roxy, and the popcorn question is easy to answer, RCMH never allowed popcorn be sold there.
How wonderful to remember the Roxy and the Radio City Music Hall. I believe the Music Hall always had the stage show in the 50’s and 60’s with the film, so my mother, may she rest in peace, always preferred RCMH, no matter what the film. As a young kid, I didn’t appreciate the live stage show; and I preferred the Roxy. Later on, the Roxy added a live show with the “Roxyettes” ice skaters. I believe it started with “Carousel” in CinemaScope 55. I know there was no live show with “The Robe”. I always thought the Roxy’s screen was wider but the Music Hall’s screen was higher. Both theatres were wondrous when you compare them to the cineplexes of today with small screens, no curtains, no live shows, a zillion commercials, over-priced refreshments. The good ole days!
Some really heartfelt writing here. Thanks, guys.
I get the feeling from the discussion of the Roxy vs Music Hall that the Music Hall had the better stage shows and the Roxy has the better film presentation. The Music Hall grossed more than the Roxy with a couple of exceptions becuase it was a tourist attraction and it had the Rockettes. I get the feeling that Ben Hall preferred the Roxy over the Music Hall as an all around movie palace.The Roxy was built at the height of the movie palace boom where the Music Hall was built at the tail end during the great depression.The Roxy played many of the same films as the Chinese in Hollywood since they were both flagship houses for 20th Century Fox. Hollywood’s greatest film studio Loew’s MGM was divorced by 1960 and movies greatest movie palace the Roxy was demolished in 1960. It was the end of an era and the start of the demolition derby of our great movie palaces.brucec
The Ben Hall book, “The Best Remaining Seats,” is indeed a fantastic source of info about the Roxy. And, it is one example of a discussion about movie palaces where the Roxy is actually “numero uno” (written about more extensively than any other theater) while RCHM hardly even rates a mention! Just the other day I was thinking that one might almost consider this book to be an ode to the Roxy, as the extensive Roxy material appears to be the centerpiece of the book. I don’t have my copy of the book here with me at work, but will, of course, look at it again when I get home.
Although the Roxy may have used the first five floors above the ticket lobby for theatrical purposes, the building above the ticket lobby was still essentially part of the hotel’s structure — at least that’s the impression that I had from general reading of the book, from walks by the hotel post-Roxy demolition and from a general understanding of the way New York City “works.” And it’s not all that uncommon for one use in one structure to “infiltrate” another use in another structure. For instance when Barney’s clothing store was on 17th(?) St., it expanded into (among other structures) a neighboring apartment house — remodeling apartments in the apartment house to be an extension of its sales floor, fitting rooms and administrative offices. Also I think part of Radio City Music Hall may have also extended into the office building above the ticket lobby portion of RCMH.
As to “why” these things are done: I believe in the Carol Krinsky book on Rockefeller Center she too mentions “effect” as a partial reason for a low ticket lobby — but in this case the reference is to the “low” ceilinged lobby of RCMH. But practically speaking, I think it’s very rare — perhaps even unheard of — for any auditorium in Manhattan to NOT have any office space (or something similiar) above the ticket lobby. So to some degree it also seems to be a question of how much office space, administrative space or hotel rooms the theater’s builders are going to allow to be “displaced” by a “uselessly” high ticket lobby.
I think my comments about the clean lines of RCMH may have been misunderstood. Actually I was talking mostly about the clean lines of the interiors (especially the sunburst auditorium) that make the theater very unusual for a “movie” palace — and thus rather distinctive. I think these interiors probably make RCMH more “photogenic” — especially to the modern day tastes of the general public at large.
Regarding the exteriors — it seems to me from photographs that the Hotel Taft’s exteriors somewhat MATCH those of the Roxy. This is one of the reasons I think that the same corporate builder may have been involved in both. (The exteriors of the Hotel Manhattan, the Majestic, the Golden and the Royale — which indeed had the same corporate parent — also, similarly, “match.”) While at the time of the Roxy’s demolition, the ticket lobby area (as well as, of course, the Roxy facilities in the hotel structure above the ticket lobby) were apparently owned by someone else, I wonder if this was true when they were constructed?
While, I will have to keep an eye out for info on the construction of the hotel, it seems to me that the that kind of hotel structure is of the same era as that of the Roxy — another reason that it appears to me that there may have been some sort of corporate connection between the Roxy and the hotel.
With regard to the aesthetics of the interior of the Roxy: “… perhaps not the most artistic and memorable at all levels, but certainly overwhelming if for no other reason that vastness.” If I understand this comment correctly, this is close to my point: that the effect of the Roxy largely depended upon being overwhelmed by its size when you were inside it.
While technically speaking, Roxy may not have “abandoned” the Roxy but been forced out, if the Roxy theater were a “first” wife she would have had good grounds for divorce because of Roxy’s “unfaithfulness” with the two much younger and more stylish young beauties he was having “an affair” with. I think this is closer to how the general public may have seen Roxy’s relationship with the original Roxy.
I hope I didn’t come across as being “anti” Roxy. I was just trying to add some more reasons to those already given as to why RCMH may have had (if it indeed did have) a higher profile than the Roxy.
I wish those commenting on the ROXY building would go to the trouble of looking at photos of it and the extensive description given in what is probably the single largest writing about it: the 1961 landmark book, “The Best Remaining Seats: The Story of the Golden Age of the Movie Palace” by the late Ben M. Hall. It is available at most large libraries or they can order it for you via Inter-Library Loan. It can even be purchased in any of three editions at such as Amazon.com. Therein will be seen on pages 3 and 79ff, that the five floors above the ticket lobby were devoted to offices of the theatre, and not to the adjacent Taft hotel, then called the Manger. As explained in the book, the hotel did own the land under the lobby areas, so when the newly remodeled Taft wanted the land under the Roxy, it merely declined to renew the lease. Since the Roxy was then in the 50s not exactly prospering with first run films, it was likely a good deal for the Roxy’s owners to be able to not have to pay the lease any longer, and also to sell all the remainder of the land with the provision that the theatre be razed. Once again, the soaring land value under a theatre determined its fate, as money always will.
Yes, the ticket lobby was a low ceiling area, and yes, it was no doubt partially for the ‘gee whiz’ effect of then proceeding into the “Rotunda” and all its vast glory, but it was also practical since the Roxy had the room to allow building five floors above the ticket lobby and adjacent low ceiling areas to create the space for offices, mechanical room and ushers' lockers. It is the windows for these rooms that one sees in the page 3 photo. See the cross section drawing on page 82. The Roxy like many theatres used the space above the entry for a Musician’s gallery and in its case also the console of a pipe organ, something for which there was precious little room at the floor level, what with perhaps thousands waiting in the huge Oval (actually, an ellipse) for the next show. MARQUEE magazine of the Theatre Historical Soc. has many other photos to verify this.
To follow on Benjamin’s comments: “also think that the clean lines of RCMH makes it more distinctive – especially among movie palaces! – and also more "photogenic” (i.e., a beauty that easily comes across in photos).“ This comment ignores the fact that different owners of the hotel and the Roxy were faced with the common dilemma facing any builder: you can’t control what the neighbor’s building does, or will, look like and how that impacts one’s own building. The Roxy was built to communicate its lavish decor on the exterior, but the existing Manger hotel was not about to redesign itself to address the advent of the Roxy with its more ornate exterior, the two structures having much different purposes. Thus the Roxy may not have been "sleek” as the RCMH done in a different style in a sky scraper structure would be, but it did have the visual distinctiveness amid other nearby buildings to set it apart form them, as most any theatre tries to do.
“I also think that the Roxy interior was maybe more overwhelming for being "gargantuan” than for being visually engaging. (Personally, I think as a kid I was my fascinated by spectacular “themed” theaters, like the Loew’s atmospherics, than by the Roxy.“ If one prefers ‘atmospherics’ (the ‘stars and clouds’ theatres of the 20s) then it is understandable that one would not see anything wonderful in the Roxy, which was diametrically the opposite, or ‘hard top’ school of decor. I find the photos of the Roxy’s interior to reveal a very engaging interior, perhaps not the most artistic and memorable on all levels, but certainly overwhelming if for no other reason than vastness. True, it may not actually have had the vaunted "6000” seats that the RCMH has, but it was indeed vast and “gargantuan” from most any other theatrical definition of the term. One reading of the book will take on into its luxurious appointments and let one see that it had almost all the appointments of the Music Hall without a gleaming complex of buildings to surround and enframe it.
Some may have seen the Roxy as “old hat” when the Music Hall opened, but Roxy himself did not abandon it. As related in the book, he was forced out by new owners who were desperately trying to cut costs as the Depression was descending. Roxy was invited to help with the RCMH opening and it was publicized as having this ‘master’ at hand, and no doubt with a very nice salary to boot, but it seems that he did not get a private box there as he did at the Roxy. When any new theatre opened in those days, there was a concentrated effort to mine the press for maximum publicity, and with the Rockefeller’s fortune behind them, the Music Hall did indeed have the press department it needed to make it seem to eclipse all previous ‘palaces’ even though it never termed itself that. The Hall might have been said to ‘stand upon the shoulders’ of its many predecessors, and would have done anything to make other theatres seem ‘old hat’ if for no other reason than to ensure patronage which means profits, the purpose for which it was built.
I admire both theatres for what they were and see no competition between them in memory, though of course, the Music Hall can today dismiss the Roxy as merely an inflated memory if it wishes. Those of us who study theatre history will always know otherwise.
Re: the lobby area of Roxy
Actually, in spite of the differences in architectural styles, I think the lobby area of RCMH and the Roxy are actually quite similar.
Both of them sit beneath a skyscraper that is separate and apart from the theater itself. In the case of the Roxy, the building was a hotel; in the case of RCMH it is an office building with an entrance on, I believe, Sixth Ave. (just to the north of the entrance to RCMH itself).
In both cases the theater patron goes from a long, relatively low, lobby/ticket area into a vast and grand theater lobby. In the case of RCMH the lobby space is rectangular and goes across the block. In the case of the Roxy, I believe it was oval – which was a clever way for the architect to mask the fact that the auditorium itself was not parallel to the street it fronted on, but was at a angle (to make the most of a relatively small plot of land).
In both cases, having a skyscraper over the ticket lobby area is a way of optimizing the value of the land. The lobby/ticket area of a theater is pretty much the only part of a theater overwhich one can economically build another structure. (Interestingly, it appears that the builders of that grand movie place in Atlanta, for example, had no need to maximize the value of their land in this way. From the illustrations I’ve seen they only have stores to the left and right of the lobby/ticket area — but no office building above.
Don’t know what the arrangement was between the Roxy and the Taft, but both of them seem to have exteriors built in the same style. So my guess is that they were built together — pehaps by the same owner who then leased or sold off the parts? For a similar arrangement look at what was once the Hotel Manhattan (don’t remember if that’s its current name) on Eighth Ave. It was built by the same builder and in the same architectural style as the Majestic Theater (44th St.), the Golden and Royale Theaters (45th Sts.). The theaters all share a common service alley way on 45th St. that used to be open but is not gated off.
By the way, I think the Michealangelo is some sort of condo/corporate hotel. I think big corporations own apartments there where they put up workers visiting from other places. For instance, I once temped at a fabric company (in the building just across the street to the north) that housed an employee from North Carolina who was temporarily assigned to a project at the New York office.
Re: Popularity / fame of Roxy vs. RCMH — some additional thoughts
Interesing question. I agree that the fact that one was demolished “ages” ago is part of the reason. Also think that the clean lines of RCMH makes it more distinctive — especially among movie palaces! — and also more “photogenic” (i.e., a beauty that easily comes across in photos).
Also think that the Roxy interior was maybe more overwhelming for being “gargantuan” than for being visually engaging. (Personally, I think as a kid I was my fascinated by spectacular “themed” theaters, like the Loew’s atmospherics, than by the Roxy.
Also, RCMH was the newer and “better” theater — after all didn’t Roxy himself(!) forsake the Roxy for the Roxy Center and Radio City Music Hall. So, I guess, people may have just seen the Roxy as being a bit old hat.
(Interestingly, I think it was generally believed that RCMH was the largest theater in the world (which would certainly have added luster to its image) although maybe the Roxy was the larger of the two? — not to mention other theaters that also might have been larger than either of them. So maybe RCMH also had a better press department?
Plus RCMH is part of a large and famous group of buildings — and that probably also helped.