The past few installments have concerned an article about the Pike Theater’s scenic artist, Fred McGreer (15 April 1900, page 12). He was interviewed just prior to his departure for New York while he was working on “Quo Vadis” in Cincinnati. McGreer was going heading to New York to paint scenery for another production of “Quo Vadis” with Gates & Morange. The artists for that production included Thomas G. Moses, Will Hamilton, John H. Young, Fred McGreer, and Gates & Morange. Of the production, Moses wrote, “It was not a success, as another company with the same play got in a week ahead of this production at a better theatre, which naturally killed the Herald Square Show.”
The New York Times reported that Manager David H. Hunt was one of the gentlemen interested in the production of the Jeanette Gilder’s version of “Quo Vadis” (6 April 1900, page 2). Hunt was listed as the manager of the Pike Theater in Cincinnati where McGreer worked from 1898-1900. In New York, “Sosman, Landis & Hunt” would produce “Quo Vadis.”
Later, the New York Times article “Miss Gilder Goes to Law” reported a court case against Sosman, Landis & Hunt (Oct 19, 1902, page 1). The company failed to produce Gilder’s version of ” Quo Vadis ” for five weeks each in two years at their various theatres, including the Pike Theatre Opera House. This is about the same time when Sosman, Landis & Hunt disappears from print. The firm started in 1894. So what happened?
Hunt was also mentioned in the typed manuscript of Thomas G. Moses. Nothing in Moses’ records was ever complimentary about David Hunt. My impression from his writing is that Hunt was a “wheeler and dealer” who didn’t necessarily value his employees, or listen to them. Hunt was one of the reasons that good artists left Moses’ crew at the studio when he was working for Sosman & Landis. The tone of Moses’ writing about Hunt conveyed his distrust and dislike for the man.
Heretofor, I believed that Hunt worked in a marketing or management position as an employee of Sosman & Landis who moved to New York and founded New York Studios. His studio was the eastern affiliate of Sosman & Landis. Similarly, Sosman & Landis Studio was the western representative of New York Studios. I had always wondered where Hunt came from and why he was connected with Sosman & Landis. What did he have to offer? The answer was theatre management. Hunt was a manger and theatrical producer who entered the picture in 1894. He was also part of a Cincinnati-based company called Sosman, Landis & Hunt.
Sosman, Landis & Hunt managed the Pike Opera House in Cincinnati, starting in 1894. 1894 was a time of transition for Soman & Landis; they were expanding and diversifying. As Chicago theatrical scenic outfitters, they were also the lessees of the Masonic Temple Roof Theater. This was their first management opportunity. It is possible that with the sharp decline in scenic contracts at the end of the Columbian Exposition, they decided to diversify to ensure their success. They not only were involved with the manufacture of painted scenery, stage machinery, and rigging at their scenic studio, Landis was also one of the three founders for the American Reflector & Lighting Company. Producing and managing the two electric scenic theatres on the rooftop of the Masonic Temple diversified their interests even further. Sosman, Landis & Hunt expanded their company to manage venues in other cities too.
By 1897, Hunt was in the process of remodeling and redecorating the Pike Theater in Cincinnati, hiring the Chicago theatrical architect Sidney R. Lovell. At this point the style of shows that Hunt managed primarily included the big vaudeville theaters. This would change to stock company management. Hunt was also looking after four summer theaters that they controlled in Atlantic City and Asbury Park. By 1899, the Chicago Inter Ocean reported “David H. Hunt of Cincinnati, a member of the firm of Sosman, Landis & Hunt, the well-known theatrical managers, says: ‘Chicago can’t compare with New York as a theatrical town” (16 July 1899, page 14).
An 1899 article in the Los Angeles Herald provided a little more insight into Hunt’s roll in the Sosman, Landis & Hunt theatrical management venture. It was an interview with Hunt titled “How the Stock System Pays” that made me think of all “get rich quick schemes.” Here is the article in its entirety:
“The growth of the stock company idea in the west would surprise you easterners,” said David H. Hunt, of Sosman, Landis & Hunt, the other day. “I have charge of the Pike opera house In Cincinnati, and we are making more money with a stock company than we did when the house was given over to vaudeville and variety was the society fad. A haphazard stock venture will not succeed, but properly managed the scheme is a huge success, and the companies are now so plentiful that it has become a matter of difficulty to obtain players who are not only willing but capable of doing leading stock work. The lesser people are not hard to get hold of, for there will always be an excess of players, but to get good names to head the company is constantly becoming more difficult because of the advance of the idea. We have a big company, and not only get good plays, but we try to give for seventy-five cents as good a production as is provided by a visiting company for double the money. We have two scene painters and two assistants always at work, and we never use a rag of scenery for more than one play. [The scenic artists in Cincinnati at the Pike Theater for Sosman, Landis & Hunt were Thomas G. Moses and Fred McGreer. McGreer is covered in installments #301-304.].”
Hunt continued, “We give the property man money enough to hire really good furniture and we have as good a stage manager as we can get, for we very early awoke to the fact that we could save money on this department of the work. A competent man will get all there is that is good in an actor, while an incompetent one will spoil a good player. Then we have found that we must spend a little money in royalties. It is a nice thing to have the old plays to fall back on, but a season which lists a succession of ‘East Lynne’ and ‘A Celebrated Case,’ with ‘Leah’ and similar plays to follow, will not be a remunerative one in the west, and we find that by laying out four or five hundred dollars for the use for one week of a play like ‘The Prisoner of Zenda,’ we cannot only get back the money we pay out, but enough more to make it worth our while to get the best. Of course, there is the constant study to be urged against the stock system, but to offset this, there is the avoidance of the discomforts of travel and to be able to settle down in a flat for a season instead of alternating between the one night stands and the sleeping cars, is a sufficient attraction to many to offset the fact that they will have to get up a new play each week instead of one or two for the season.”
Hunt will be the subject of the next few posts as he remains in the background for many of Thomas G. Moses’ activities during the late 1890s.
To be continued…
Here are a few images from “The Prisoner of Zenda” that Hunt refers to in the 1899 “How the Stock System Pays” article. Enjoy!
