Radio City Music Hall

1260 6th Avenue,
New York, NY 10020

Unfavorite 118 people favorited this theater

Showing 2,976 - 3,000 of 3,332 comments

chconnol
chconnol on November 30, 2004 at 11:42 am

Bob Furmanek: why the hell they couldn’t keep it there for a couple of weeks is beyond me. Yes, I think it could’ve/would’ve been sold out for that time. Again, the Music Hall’s handlers probably have no concept of creativity except for making a buck. Pathetic. I can imagine what that movie must’ve looked like in the Music Hall. Awesome.

HenryAldridge: you are 100% correct about Crowther’s review of “Bonnie and Clyde” and taking it in context. This was a man who lived during the time that the real Bonnie and Clyde “did their thing” so to speak so he may have been rightfully appalled that a film would actually celebrate their spree. He was “old” at the time but his review reads like the rantings of an angry grandfather. By the time of that review (1967) the old school of film making was dying and so were his views. I believe he retired not soon after.

The changes in film making that brought us “Bonnie and Clyde” were also effecting and would effect the great screen palaces in New York such as Radio City.

HenryAldridge
HenryAldridge on November 30, 2004 at 11:24 am

Bosley Crowther had the old-fashioned notion that filmmakers had a duty to make films that showed socially responsible behaviors. He believed that it was not in the best interest of the culture to elevate petty criminals to the status of heroes. However, he consistently championed independent filmmakers and urged that outstanding foreign films be imported. He was instrumental in defending Joseph Burstyn in the Miracle Case that led to first amendment protections for films. Crowther’s review of Bonnie and Clyde should be read both in the context of its times and in the context of Crowther’s beliefs.

BobFurmanek
BobFurmanek on November 30, 2004 at 11:20 am

I had the pleasure of attending the world premiere of “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” at RCMH this past May. It was so cool to see a movie in that grand showplace again, and every seat was full. When the stars of the film were brought on stage, the cheers and screams were deafening. It’s a shame the film couldn’t have played its regular New York engagement there. I’m sure it would have been a smash!

chconnol
chconnol on November 30, 2004 at 11:13 am

If the Music Hall could pick and choose what it ran, it would do fine. As an earlier post mentioned, “The Spongebob Movie” would’ve been great there as well as (even better!) “The Incredibles”. What I would’ve given to see that WHOPPER in the Music Hall!!!! The problem is, movies lately are just not that great. Ok..so let’s imagine they book the latest Harry Potter flick (for arguements sake…) or they had run “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy upon each of their sucessive openings (now THOSE suckers would’ve been sold out for WEEKS!!!). What about everything else? My opinion is that the Music Hall should be more of a mixed venue…concerts, shows, and movies. How often (if ever?) is the theater unbooked? I work within view of it’s marquee and I never see nothing showing there even if it’s Yanni in Concert (now there’s a sellout show!).

Imagine if they showed the original three Star Wars films there again? Every single geek within 300 miles would be there in addition to more laid back fans. There’s just no creative management running the place. What a terrific and totally underutilized place it is.

Bill Huelbig
Bill Huelbig on November 30, 2004 at 11:07 am

CConnolly asked:

I don’t think it would be difficult to imagine the Music Hall filling up if every now and then they showed worthwhile. And I don’t mean just classic films … But what movies do you think could or would fill up the Hall enough to warrant this?


The Music Hall showed Alfred Hitchcock’s “Psycho” on a weeknight back in the 1990’s as part of a classic film festival. There wasn’t too much advertising for this event, but the word got out anyway. There wasn’t an empty seat in the house. Man, what a thrill that was!

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on November 30, 2004 at 5:58 am

Simon talks about Kirby’s flying ballet. I’ve read that they were also part of a 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea spectacle included in the ‘62 Easter show along with the film Moon Pilot. The entire secular portion of the stage show was produced by Disney and I once had a beautiful color photo of the finale. Did anyone see this?
I once saw the Undersea Ballet with the film Butterflies are Free which certainly fufilled expections though an usher told me it had been scaled down probably from its last appearance with Where Were You when the Lights Went 0ut.

Vito
Vito on November 30, 2004 at 4:07 am

Yup Simon, how well I remember those prices. During the 50s and 60s We went to every new show. New movies would normally open on a Thursday and we would get there before 6 for the matinee price of, as you mentioned, about $.90. Seats wee unreserved so you could sit anywhere you liked. Once inside we would head down to the front row of the orch, to watch the stage show, then rush up to the 3rd mezz for the movie, and sometimes head down to the front row of the 1st mezz to see the stage show again. As to those awfull speakers, I certainly agree they are an eyesore. The smaller ones hanging on the side walls and along the back walls are course for Dolby surround when ever a movie is shown, but I think they over did that, Seems to be an awfull lot of them. But at least they lok a bit better now, after the restoration, when a gold fabric was put on them.
Did they actually use the curtain much during the Christmas show? That beautifull curtain just sems to hang there much of the time these days and never move.

Mike (saps)
Mike (saps) on November 29, 2004 at 7:41 pm

Yes, the Christmas Spectacular is often at the TKTS half-price booth in Times Square; I’m not sure about the South Street Seaport location. Thanks for reminding me…maybe I’ll check it out at half-price, and it’ll be a good opportunity to explore the Hall again. I love going into the upper mezzanines and looking out over the lobby, or sitting in and watching the show from that extreme perspective.

Simon L. Saltzman
Simon L. Saltzman on November 29, 2004 at 5:19 pm

Imagine standing on line for 3 hours to see one of the best Christmas shows ever at the Music Hall and it only lasted 22 minutes. That was when “Sayonara” was the 152 minute feature. The Nativity was only 7 minutes long followed by a 2 minute overture. The Rockettes did their traditonal 6 minute routine as 36 tapping Santas,followed by the 7 minutes Underseas Kingdom finale featuring Kirby’s flying ballet. How about .95 before noon; 1.25 noon to 6pm and 1.50 6pm to closing. 1st Mezzanine reserved seats were 1.80 matinees and 2.40 for all evenings and Saturday and Sunday. Eat your heart out.

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on November 29, 2004 at 2:48 pm

CC now you’ve really got me started. The narration in the current Nativity has to be proof positive of the non existence of God. I thought I was reading a poster in a Christian Right church basement. Whoever came up with that should have been buried in the foundation of the Times Square Mariott. And then they follow this with a Walgreen inspired creche! Fortunately when I saw it the midgets in the toy house popping out singing Fa la la la la la put me into such a state of shock that the effect was somewhat mitigated.

chconnol
chconnol on November 29, 2004 at 1:21 pm

Vincent: YES! Thank you for that great description. THAT’S the Nativity I remember so well. That friggin' thing would give me goose pimples when I was a kid. And THE BLUE LIGHT!!!! That was one of the most amazingly beautiful things I have EVER seen and I’m not religous. It was dramatic and awe inspiring.

The show today is lame. Yes, the shepherds descend from the side flanks but it’s near the end. Then at the end, they do this weird scrolling story thing about the glory of Jesus while a narrator recites what’s written on the screen. I thought I was in the midwest (sorry.). One of the reasons I took my daughter to see it was that I assumed (wrongly) that it would be the same.

Why the HELL could they not have kept the original Nativity? Do you know when the one you and I saw was last performed?

Thanks again…

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on November 29, 2004 at 12:53 pm

I consider it a real loss that they don’t do Leonidoff’s Nativity any more. When the stage show started and the house darkened turning to a deep blue the orchestra rose with only the sound of chimes playing the opening of Silent Night. It would repeat going up an octave and the chorus dressed as Renaissance shepards and such would appear on the side flanks lit up as tableaux and sing the entire carol. Then the curtain would go up to reveal the night sky over Bethlehem and they would only descend when the angel would appear and start singing o Holy Night which they would all join in at the end. After the Nativity the orchestra would rise to its normal height and always play Sleigh Rise introducing the more secular part of the spectacle.

chconnol
chconnol on November 29, 2004 at 12:07 pm

Vincent: hey, I was a kid and Mom paid admission so what did I care, right? In my mind, the Christmas show back then was excellent. It was a great thing to go see. We never got reservations and always got great seats OR we’d move to another section after the first show (or movie) to see it again even better. Best deal in the city by far. Yeah, I had to sit through some less than desirable movies (“Slipper and the Rose” stands out in my mind as one of the worst I had to endure) but the show and the Music Hall made it all worthwhile.

People today have asked me what I thought of the show and all I could think of was that it seemed like one of those shows you see at Disney World or such with much more exhorbitant admission price.

I’m not sure how events are booked at the Music Hall these days but whom ever is doing it probably doesn’t care about the quality as long as whatever the venue is, it brings in $$$. I know that it’s somehow tied into The Theater at Madison Square Garden now.

PGlenat
PGlenat on November 29, 2004 at 11:54 am

Sadly, there is nothing ‘popular’ about todays prices…… the term usury comes to mind.

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on November 29, 2004 at 11:26 am

No CConnolly, $7 would have been considerd an outrageous admission price. Top general admission,including all of the orchestra from 70 to 76 would have been from $3 to $4. The Music Hall while still in its movie phase prided itself on popular prices(when was the last time you saw that term used?)

RobertR
RobertR on November 29, 2004 at 11:23 am

I think that when I saw The Promise in 1979, it was $5 for eve shows. I was there the last day.

chconnol
chconnol on November 29, 2004 at 11:09 am

Warren: not to sound cynical but the cut rate deals are often for off peak dates and/or times (typically before Thanksgiving or if after, for unpopular times like 9:00 AM or so…). I believe that after a certain point, every show is Peak and the discounts mean you get the dregs of the seating like the rear of the orchestra to the far right or left. I paid premium for the tickets because I used a certain credit card and was assured that they were great seats. They were mediocre at best. I can only imagine what the cut rate folks got.

Like RobertR says, during the 70’s, you could see the show any number of times for around $7. (I’m not sure of the exact price but I’m sure it wasn’t anything near to what I paid…)

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on November 29, 2004 at 10:04 am

Robert I hate to tell you this but when I saw Scrooge with an elaborate Christmas show if you got there in the morning before 12 I believe it was $2 on a Saturday. A first run movie at the time was $3. Movies are now $10.50. That’s less than a 400 percent increase. Today to see the Christmas show it’s $100. That’s a 5,000 percent increase. And back then you could stay and watch it all over again! So the price of a Music hall ticket today is 10x’s more than it should be at current price standards.

RobertR
RobertR on November 29, 2004 at 9:32 am

It’s hard to believe we now pay $100 for what we used to spend $5 for with a movie.

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on November 29, 2004 at 9:32 am

They could do this for the Easter show and during the summer. Cut the stage show back to 45 to 50 minutes cutting out a lot of the annoying filler and utilize the old set designs and the old staging(if anybody around still remembers it.)At this point I assume all the old sets have been destroyed and all the old lighting charts as well. At Christmas of ‘69 the Colorama magazine in the Sunday Daily News had a two page color spread of the Nativity. It was one of the best photos I’ve seen of it. The powers that currently be should get a hold of it and see how it’s supposed to look. Their own poverty of imagination would stun them.

chconnol
chconnol on November 29, 2004 at 9:30 am

Judging from how mediocre the Christmas show was, I could not agree with you more.

How amazing it would’ve been to have seen the shortened one that I remember so well (and saw every year when I was a kid) along with “The Spongebob Movie”!!! My daughter would’ve had a REAL treat.

Though she enjoyed the show overall, I could tell after 45 minutes or so, she was getting “itchy” as was I. Since there’s no story or anything, it’s hard to keep interested in one “spectacular” production number after another. There were at least three parts of it that I remember from when I saw it as a kid. The rest was filler to make people feel like they were getting their money’s worth.

RobertR
RobertR on November 29, 2004 at 9:14 am

Since Radio City is no longer the exclusive movie house it once was, they could most definately play a film like “Lord of the Rings”, “Spongebob” or any Disney feature when it opens for general release. Put a stage show with it and charge $20.

chconnol
chconnol on November 29, 2004 at 8:19 am

“If only there was a fair balance between the "crap” and classic movies. "

On that note, I will completely agree with you. I don’t think it would be difficult to imagine the Music Hall filling up if every now and then they showed worthwhile. And I don’t mean just classic films. My feeling is that if they had been able to premiere and show, say, “The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King” (very epic sized) it would have done pretty well. I for one would’ve loved to have seen it there. There are many times during the year where the offerings at RCMH are slim (not sure if it’s ever dark, though). But what movies do you think could or would fill up the Hall enough to warrant this? I don’t know anything about bookings and such so it would be hard to figure whether or not they’d be able to either make a profit or at least break even.

RobertR
RobertR on November 29, 2004 at 8:14 am

If only there was a fair balance between the “crap” and classic movies.

chconnol
chconnol on November 29, 2004 at 8:06 am

Well, I was there on Friday for the show and I hate to say Vincent’s right, but he is. They’re treating the place like it’s Madison Square Garden now. It’s still grand looking but it’s unique aspects that I remember (like the beautiful lounge) is not like it was. It’s got some of the art deco furnishings and such but whole areas are kept behind these partitions to store the overpriced krap souvenirs.

BUT….I think you have to understand the realities of a place like this now. In order for it to survive in some form, they have to do whatever they can to keep it going even if it means cheapening it’s heritage. Entertainment is not what it was 40 or 50 years ago. People don’t go to the movies like they used to even 20 years ago. Yeah, it’s a little nauseating when you think about “Dora the Explorer” playing the Music Hall and such. But it pays the rent and keeps the place alive. That is what we have to be thankful for.