Roxy Theatre
153 W. 50th Street,
New York,
NY
10020
153 W. 50th Street,
New York,
NY
10020
83 people
favorited this theater
Showing 1,026 - 1,050 of 1,213 comments
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.
As Myron cites above, the Taft hotel is still there. Where the entrance was to the Roxy is now where the TGIFridays is.
My question to all of you Roxy people, was the ticket area to the Roxy very low and narrow? I seem to recall that my Mother told me that it was almost claustrophobic but it then opened up into a huge space. You have to wonder if it was intentionally done this way to create a sense of drama.
Also, if the Roxy used part of the Taft Hotel’s lobby for their box office/entrance, did they have to pay rent? Just curious…
CC Connolly is right, the Taft Hotel was not demolished but re-named as the Michelangelo. I passed by this week and it does look the same. It’s very depressing to remember all the good times we spent at the Roxy. By the way, the Roxy didn’t always offer a live show with the film. They were in competition with the RCMH, so had no choice. We often strolled over to the Roxy if the Music Hall’s line was too long. I preferred the Roxy because I preferred films from 20th Century-Fox and loved the Alfred Newman Cinemascope fanfare. Also, I felt the Roxy had a more attractive marquee, while the RCMH had an art-decor marquee. Which theatre had better popcorn, I don’t remember.
The closest I ever got to the Roxy was seeing the incredibly detailed scale model of its auditorium on display at the American Museum of the Moving Image in Astoria, Queens, NY. Even in miniature form it looks like one of the grandest theaters that ever existed.
Bill, for a moment, while reading your notes I was able to forget the troubles of the world, travel thru time, and imagine myself watching the grand curtain rise at RCMH to the MGM logo on “Teahouse” and hear the Fox Fanfare at the Roxy for “Anastasia”. Thanks for that.
Oops—a gremlin crept into my preceding note. Not “Sayonara” but “Teahouse of the August Moon” was the Christmas film at RCMH concurrent with “Anastasia” at the Roxy. But, hey, both of those films are set in Asia (and both would have pitted Brando against Bergman), so: point made (though I should have said “Asian thematics” in the above post). Gaffes like this will erode my credibility.
On the RCMH page yesterday, SimonL evoked the “Ave Maria” chorales that the Roxy had offered (inconsistently) in their Christmas shows. He rightly questioned my recall of that presentation with the screening of “Anastasia” in ‘57. But since after twenty-eight years I recently opened my sealed storage-box of programs and playbills from the '50s and '60s, I’ll act badly and quote from the souvenir of that show.
It was an expanded program celebrating the first anniversary of return of the Roxy’s stage shows, which had been suspended since CinemaScope overtook the proscenium in ‘53 (“The Robe,” et al.). The show was titled “Wide Wide World Holiday,” and Sandy Szabo, who last 10 October wrote on this page that she had skated at the Roxy, is listed among the Ice Roxyettes. It began with a segue from the Fox Movietone Newsreel, in which the then ubiquitous television personality Dave Garroway congratulated the theater’s Managing Director Robert C. Rothafel for his wisdom in resuming the live presentations. Next followed “the Roxy Orchestra under the baton of Robert Boucher and the Roxy Caroleers under the direction of Robert Nicholson” [at this point might it have been possible that the latter intoned “Ave Maria”? I remember this chorale from shows past, but might have transposed it here?].
Segment #2 was called “Happiness Street—Anywhere, U.S.A.” and it enlisted “the entire ensemble featuring the Ice Roxyettes” along with the Caroleers, first in a number entitled “Song to a Star,” and then in a number (confounding Cole Porter, Mary Martin, and Eartha Kitt) entitled “My Heart Belongs to Santa Baby,” the latter “introducting Miss Mae Edwards …a 1957 Chrvrolet Corvette … Manuel Del Toro [the lead male skater] … the Roxy Blades [the male skating corps] and Paula Newland, vocalist.” My memory of this scene goes quietly blank.
Segment #3 was called “Three Spots of Cheer” and it featured the Roxyettes, Blades, and Caroleers “in a holiday visit to Merrie London Town and Holand and … a touch of ‘Christmas in Killarney.’” Here my visual recall summons an image of those snow villages that you place on train sets at this time of year, with appropriate Victorian, Dutch, and Gaelic touches.
Segment #4 was called “The Bruises” and offered “holiday hilarity and nonsensical fun!” Clowns on skates, no doubt: don’t hold me to it.
Segment #4, “Winter Blossom Time,” introduced, with thanks to Eastman Kodak, “the scenic presentation of the innovation known as ‘SpectaColor.’” I recall that the latter was a gigantic projection device, like a 35 mm home-slide-show pumped up to unimaginable dimensions. Its three numbers were comprised of “The Jingle Belles of Ming in Fan Fare” with Miss Edwards, the Roxyettes, and Caroleers (hazy memories of the Tibetan Roof, Chongqing, Suzhou, the Great Wall, and the like), “Love Is a Many Splendored Thing” with Miss Edwards and the Blades (the program notes “with apologies to the Kabuki and Noh plays of Japan”: but why apologize?), and “Geisha Gaiety” with “the entire ensemble in a holiday celebration.” Here SimonL recalls a striking image of Japan’s Matsumoto mountain as the curtain fell.
Two notes: (1)The Christmas film at RCMH that year was “Sayonara,” and the co-incidental Japanese thematics conveys a whiff of the rivalry that those theaters pitched coyly at the time. (2) The following year, Kodak photographed the Rockettes in their Christmas routine accompanying “Auntie Mame” (my Showplace program for the week of 4 Dec. ‘58 calls the number “Rocket to the Moon”). That enormous photomural was then put on exhibit at Grand Central Terminal, and in Dec. '61 was returned to the stage of RCMH as a self-referential backdrop for the Rockettes who were clad in the same outfits they had worn for the picture. By that time, as we all know, the Roxy had been razed, with a scant remainder of Kodak moments to remind us of what it had been.
RCMH is still going (whether strong or not is arguable). People (NY-ers, tourists, etc) know the place by name whether they’ve been in NY or not.
The Roxy? It’s more of a legend than a reality for most people. What other NY theaters were posted here before The Roxy?
The Roxy is what brought me to this site in the first place due to my parent’s descriptions of the place.
There was a truly lame “Modern Marvels” program on the History Channel last Thursday evening about Times Square. My mouth salivated at the thought (before it started) that they would at least dwell in part on the great movie palaces in Times Square. But lo and behold, the program barely discussed the item touching upon it ever so briefly and never ONCE discussing any particular theater by name except for The Hippodrome(??!!) and showing still photographs of The State and some semi-interesting photos of The Capitol and The Rivoli. The stupid ass thing about it was that they showed the photographs but did not identify the theaters by name. Only because of this site did I know what I was looking at.
Why hasn’t someone done a documentary on the movie houses of NYC? You’d think PBS could do something amazing with it. The Roxy alone sounds like it could make a fascinating documentary. That’s just me, of course.
I find the above comment about RCMH being a tourist destination and The Roxy not being one very interesting.
My Mother (a Manhattan native) always said she preferred The Roxy. She loved RCMH but spoke very fondly of The Roxy. Because she was a native NY-er, I think this fits into Warren’s description.
But why was this so? I know it’s pointed out that RCMH got exclusives but there must’ve been some other reason why a building as grand as the Roxy got second billing after RCMH. My Mother said that The Roxy was truly grand and opulent whereas RCMH was more austere (art deco) and had “clean-lines”.
Just curious on everyone’s thoughts. Did RCMH advertise more to tourists or something also?
You’re right about “clearance.” As a kid visiting family in Quincy MA in the late ‘40s and early '50s, I remember a billboard at the local train station (the Red Line to Boston) advertising current attractions at RCMH (“Look For the Silver Lining,” “On the Town,” “Sunset Boulevard”) in the usual austere format (no pictorials, except for an abstract sketch of the proscenium arch and a single Rockette) with a starred notice: “Now playing at RCMH. Coming soon to Boston.”
I’ve got to agree with Vito about better screen and sound at the Roxy. Its screen was a tad smaller (60' seems about right), but it was gently curved, and the projection was sharp as a tack. And its stereo sound was perfect. On the RCMH page at this site, I’ve remarked about horizontal lines on its screen where the panels joined (and on a resolutely flat screen, too), along with a persistent echo (especially in a less-than-full house) and evident lack of magnetic stereophonic sound. Fly space at RCMH was too narrow for a curved screen and a multiple sound system. But because the Roxy sacrificed fly space for its film presentation, its stage shows offered fewer elaborate sets and a more static display. Win some, lose some.
Brucec,I would have to agree with Warren. As a tourists, the Music Hall was high on the must see list of attractions to see. I don’t ever remember seeing lines at The Roxy that compared to those wraped around RCMH. Of course the Christmas shows were on everyones santa list, including us locals. One of the few exceptions was when
“The Robe” played the Roxy, everyone flocked to see
CinemaScope “the Miracle you could see with glasses”.
AS to film presentation, I always felt the CinemaScope screen and stereo sound at the Roxy was more impressive than RCMH. I was always bothered by the echo watching movies at RCMH.
How did the Music Hall and the Roxy compare in boxoffice during the Golden Era into the mid 1950’s. I noticed the Music Hall played a lot of MGM product during the 1950’s and the Roxy showed mostly Fox films. It seemed the Roxy was more progressive in 1950’s than the Music Hall,when Hollywood developed the wide screen format.I would also like to hear how the theatres compared in film presentaion and what theatre was more enjoyable to watch a film.I know the Music Hall had the better stage presentations by the comments I have read.I would love to hear your comments.brucec
The Hotel Taft has not been demolished. It’s just renamed “The Michaelangelo”. I know because I work right next to it. The TGIFridays resides where the entrance lobby to the Roxy was. In old photographs, you can clearly see the moorish arches above the entrance that are still there.
Actually, I have no idea what the hell the building is used for. I think part of it is the Michaelangelo. Other parts of it seem to be used for apartments or something.
I did research and found that the Hotel Taft, the neighbor of the Roxy was demolished,too, if that’s any consolation. It has been replaced by a new hotel, “The Michelangelo”!
RoxyDon—Thanks for acknowleding my research. It was a sweat-free effort: the info comes from “The NY Times Directory of the Film,” ed. Arthur Knight, Arno Press/Random House, 1971, an index to the first six volumes of the complete multi-volume “NY Times Film Reviews,” currently compiled through the early 1990s. It’s cool to know that you were ushering at the Roxy when I saw a bunch of films there as a kid—betcha we encountered each other!
Vito through Box Office Bill’s efforts I stand corrected. I remember having the album from the movie and thought it came from the Roxy. Thanks for the correction
Concurrently, the Roxy was showing “Carousel” (16 Feb, eight weeks) and “The King and I” (28 June, nine weeks).
“Picnic” began a five-week run at RCHM on 16 Feb ‘56, and “Duchin” played at RCMH for seven weeks beginning on 22 June '56.
Vito for some reason I recall the Eddie Duchin Story playing at the Roxy not at RCMH. I could be wrong after all its been a few years.
As I recall, Columbia and RCMH agreed on a two picture deal of
“Picnic” and “Eddie Duchin Story” playing back to back.
I just remembered it’s the Clearview Chelsea Cinemas.