Month: May 2018

Part 412: Moses & Hamilton – “Quo Vadis”

Thomas G. Moses & William F. Hamilton established the scenic art firm of Moses & Hamilton during the spring of 1900. Their first production, “Quo Vadis,” was a project for the theatrical management firm of Sosman, Landis & Hunt – the same Sosman & Landis who owned the scenic studio in Chicago. Earlier that spring, the “New York Times” reported, “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).

The Sosman, Landis & Hunt production of “Quo Vadis” used a script that was prepared by Jeanette Leonard Gilder (1849-1916). Gilder was a pioneer for United States women in journalism. She came from a family of distinguished journalists. By the age of ten, she had published her first story in the “New York Weekly,” – “Kate’s Escapade.” Later, she worked with her brother, Richard Watson Gilder, for “Scribner’s Monthly.” Gilder also worked for the New York Tribune as “J. L. Gilder,” and spent six years on the staff of the New York Herald as their literary, musical and dramatic critic. In 1881, she established “The Critic” (later “Putnam’s Magazine”) with another one of her brothers, Joseph B. Gilder, and was the co-editor of the magazine during her time there. Gilder also wrote several books of that included “Pen Portraits of Literary Women” in 1887. She was a friend of Robert Louis Stevenson and his family.

There were a few “Quo Vadis” productions that appeared alongside Gilder’s. Each production was an abstract of Henry Sienkiewicz’s historical and religious story; a love story set in imperial Rome. Sienkiewicz’s story was published in three installments in Polish; his novel told of a love that developed between a young Christian woman, Lycia (Ligia in Polish) and Marcus Vinicius, a Roman patrician. It takes place in the city of Rome under the rule of emperor Nero in 64AD.

One “Quo Vadis” dramatization was written by Marie Doran for the Baker Stock Company, while another was written Stanislaus Stange. Stange’s version was produced by F. C. Whitney and Edwin Knowles, it opened at the New York Theatre. Many criticized that all versions of “Quo Vadis” too closely resembled Wilson Barrett’s 1895 production of “The Sign of the Cross,” that appeared prior to Sienkiewicz’s writings. Barrett explained that the Christian theme was an attempt to bridge the gap between the church and the stage.

Gilder’s production opened at the Herald Square Theatre – 1331 Broadway (the corner of 29^th and 35^th Street). The premiere was April 9, 1900, but it closed after only 32 performances. The competing Whitney and Knowles production at the New York Theatre ran for 96 performances. The “Buffalo Courier” later reported, “Mr. Whitney’s production forced Hunt out of the business in New York, where it was billed for an indefinite run, and compelled its withdrawal after a run of four weeks” (Buffalo, New York, 10 May 1900, page 9). Of the Herald Square 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.” Regardless of their failure in New York, Sosman, Landis & Hunt toured their production to other cities.

The “New York Tribune” characterized the New York Theatre production as “literary art” and labeled the Herald Square production as a “scenical picture,” commenting that each show included “considerable stage carpentry” (14 April 1900, page 9). The production was often credited solely to David Hunt, instead of the theatrical management firm of Sosman, Landis & Hunt. It would be Hunt’s name, and neither Sosman nor Landis, who would later be connected to the failed show – smart men.

Interestingly, the Sosman & Landis Scenic Studio did not produce the scenery for the production either; instead they secured a variety of scenic artists to produce individual scenes. Maybe they sensed that this production was a sinking ship. The use of multiple scenic artists, however, was a common practice throughout the nineteenth century, as individual artists were selected to be responsible for a single scene.

In addition to Moses & Hamilton, other scenes were created for the show by John H. Young, Gates and Morange, and Fred McGreer. From an April article in the “Cincinnati Enquirer” we know that McGreer designed and painted the setting for Nero’s banquet hall and the arena scene (15 April 1900, page 12). The show was reported to be “rich in scenic opportunities.” The article provided some details about the “Quo Vadis” banquet hall and arena settings:

“The entire scene was originally painted on one big drop and then after it was completed I ‘red lined’ the whole scene. This is to outline the columns and vases with a delicate red line, which the carpenter follows in sawing out these separate sections. They are then all placed in position on the stage and the stuff that has been cut out is fastened together with a delicate netting which is invisible to the audience. The perspective created the impression that they are standing alone though really the entire set is one big drop. Some idea of the work required can be gained from the explanation that a single drop of this description generally requires the efforts of the carpenter and four assistants an entire evening to fix up. On the drop for this garden scene we used 1080 feet of cloth and about 75 pounds of paint. In order to attach them to the rigging loft about 300 feet of rope is also used. Now another heavy scene is in the arena setting for the last act, in which over 700 feet of platform space is required, built up to a height running from two feet and reaching the topmost platform 15 feet above the stage. These platforms are all hinged and made so they will fold for shipment as the piece goes on the road after it is used here. In ‘Quo Vadis’ every scene is numbered and arranged so that it can be put together hurriedly and when brought into a theater is very much like the animal puzzles that are so popular with the Children at Christmas. Only the stagehands will just know where every piece goes without being puzzled.”

In addition to McGreer’s contribution to the production, Young painted two scenes, and Gates and Morange painted one scene. It is unknown which scenes Moses & Hamilton painted, but the “Buffalo Courier” reported, “The play was produced in seven acts and nine scenes” (22 May 1900, page 7). This meant that Moses & Hamiton would have created four of the nine scenes. One spectacular scenic effect was the burning of Rome.

But the trials and tribulations for the theatrical management firm of Sosman, Landis & Hunt did not end after the show’s short run. Two years later, “The New York Times” published an article, “Miss Gilder Goes to Law.” It reported a court case against Sosman, Landis & Hunt filed by Miss Gilder (Oct 19, 1902, page 1). The company failed to produce Gilder’s exact version of “Quo Vadis ” for five weeks each in two years at their various theatres, including the Pike Theatre Opera House in Cincinnati.” A legal battle with a member from a family of well-respected journalists must have been costly, and it could have contributed to the quick end of Sosman, Landis & Hunt around this same time.

To be continued…

Part 411: Thomas G. Moses in 1900

Two distinct styles of painting were apparent during the development of scenic art in the United States. Over the past few weeks, I explored the English tradition of glazing. This artistic approach was widely accepted by American scenic artists who worked in cities along the Eastern seaboard. I examined articles from 1866, 1871 and 1881 that traced the artistic lineage of English scenic artists and the history of painted scenery for the London stage. Meanwhile in the Midwestern region of the United States, the European tradition of an opaque application of solid colors dominated the scenic art word in studios such as Sosman & Landis.

Thomas G. Moses was trained in the Midwestern tradition; the “slap dash” application of solid colors in an opaque manner, not the English glazing tradition. This gives some context when Moses decided to leave Chicago and live in New York. Remember that in 1899, Henry Savage, John C. Fisher, and Jacob Litt all wanted to hire Thomas G. Moses to be their scenic artist. Sosman & Landis also wanted Moses to work in their Chicago studio. Moses traveled to New York during August 1899 to work for Savage at the American Theatre in New York for $165 a week.

Savage contracted Moses to produce scenery for the Castle Square Opera Company’s third season. Moses’ first project for Savage was designing and painting “Die Meistersinger.” This was the show that would open the third season on October 2, 1899. Other notable scenic artists who had worked for Savage during the first two seasons were Walter Burridge, Frank King, H. Logan Reid, and John Clare. The increased volume of subscriptions during the first three seasons of the Castle Square Opera Company, supported Savage’s plan to establish a permanent home for opera in English at the American Theatre. The opera company also had branches in Chicago and St. Louis. By 1900, it was advertised as “the largest operatic company in the world,” having “gained a larger clientele than any other established musical organization.”

In early January 1900, Moses wrote, “I sent for Ella to come on and see if she would care to move to New York. We looked over the ground pretty thoroughly, and made up our minds to try it.” The couple secured a large house at Mt. Vernon on New Haven Road, approximately 13 miles outside of New York City. In the early 1900s Mount Vernon was experiencing significant development; it was an important stop on the Harlem Division and warranted a new, larger station.

After only a week’s visit in New York, Ella returned to Chicago, rented out their Oak Park home, packed up the furniture, and moved the family to New York. Ella’s capacity to do this all on her own while Moses remained working in New York demonstrates that she was quite a strong and capable woman.

The 1899-1900 season with Savage closed on June 1, and with it, Savages’ operatic company and business venture. The reason that Moses had moved his family to New York evaporated into thin air. Moses wrote, “Savage felt he was not making enough money.” So, a new firm took over the American Theatre and Moses was contracted to furnish all the necessary scenery at $150.00 per week. Moses was to have use of the paint frames and light. This meant that he could to paint any project during the upcoming season, if there was not a production on the stage. It was at this point that Moses decided to partner with William F. Hamilton.

To be continued…

Part 410: “Art on the Stage” 1881, Other Materials Used

“The Building News and Engineering Journal” published an article on the art of scene painting in 1881. Here is the third, and final, part.

“Other Materials Used
The scene-painter, however, is not confined to colours in producing his effects. There is a number of other materials of great importance in scene-painting. The gorgeous dashes of blue, crimson, yellow, and purple that make the resplendent fairy grotto are not alone sufficient. The glitter that is seen on the many-coloured stalagmites and stalactites is produced by ordinary gold and silver leaf. Sometimes it becomes necessary to produce upon the scene a smooth, glittering surface which shall be coloured. This is produced by foil papers. They are made of paper with a polished metallic surface, and are very effective in fairy scenes. What are known as bronze powders are made of all shades. They are metallic powders of gold, silver, bronze, steel, blue, red, purple, and other shades. A brush full of glue is drawn across the required surface, and the bronze is spread over it. The consequent appearance is that of a rough metallic surface similar to that frosted silver.

In some scenes it is necessary to represent precious stones. The jewels in the walls of some Eastern despot’s palace cannot be imitated by paint with a sufficient degree of realism to stand the glare of gas and calcium light. Hence, theatrical art resorts to what are called “logies.” These are made of zinc, in the shape of a large jewel, and are set in the canvas. They are made in all colours; and thus, by a very cheap and easy process, the barbaric splendour of Persia or of Turkey may be reproduced in all its original opulence. Sometimes it becomes necessary to represent that changing sheen that is visible upon highly-polished metals when exposed to the rays of the sun. This is done by means of coloured lacquers. The surface of the metal is painted, and a wash of those lacquers, blending from one tint into another, is put over it. The light reflected from these different coloured washes produces the desired effect, and gives a highly realistic representation of a surface of metal.

An ice scene is never complete without some thing to produce glitter and sparkle. This effect is produced by “frostings” of crushed glass, which are made to adhere to the canvas in the same manner as the bronze powders. The elaborate ornamental work of interior scenes is always done by means of stencils cut in pasteboard. There are books published on fresco painting which give large numbers of beautiful designs for panels, ceilings, mouldings, and other ornamental work. Every scene-painter has a collection of these works. The ingenious artist, however, is constantly combining the different designs, and often invents new ones. He is thus enabled to present to the public an ever-changing variety.

The last thing that the scene-painter does before the production of a new play is to have his scenes set upon the stage at night in order that he can arrange the lighting of them. The “gas-man” of a theatre is the artist’s mainstay. It lies in his power to ruin the finest scene that was ever painted. Ground lights turned too high upon a moonlight scene, calciums with glass not properly tinted, or the shadow of a straight edged border-drop thrown across a delicate sky – all these things are ruin to the artist’s most careful work. The proper lighting of a scene is, therefore, a matter that requires the most careful study. The artist sits in the centre of the auditorium and minutely observes every nook and comer of his scene under the glare of gas. Here a light is turned up and there one is lowered until the proper effect is secured. The gas-man takes careful note of his directions, and the stage-manager oversees everything. Long after the audience has left the theatre on the night before the production of a new play, the stage-hands, the artist, and the stage manager are at work, and the public sees only the charming result of their labours when the curtain rises on the next night.

The end.”

To be continued…

Part 409: “Art on the Stage” 1881, Secrets of the Scene Painter

“The Building News and Engineering Journal” published an article on the art of scene painting 1881. Here is the second of three parts.

“Secrets of the Scene-Painter

The next step is the laying in of the groundwork. The sky is, of course, the first point. This is done with whitewash brushes, the painter being absolutely free from all restraint in his method of putting on the colour. The principal point is to get it on quickly. And here the great advantages of painting in distemper become thoroughly plain. These advantages are two in number: the first is, that the colour dries very quickly, thus affording the artist a high rate of speed in working; secondly, all the colours retain, when dry, precisely the same tint as they had before being mixed. The addition of the sizing makes each colour several shades darker than it is when simply in the powdered state. The knowledge of this fact and thorough understanding of the effect the tints will produce after drying is one of the great secrets of the art. Oil-painters of high standing have been known to try the distemper method with utterly disastrous results. Colours mixed with oil always darken several shades and remain dark. Colours mixed with sizing always dry out to their original shade.

Different painters have different methods, and there is as much variety in the school of scene-painting as in other branches of art. The German, French, and American artists use opaque washes, or, as it is usually expressed, work in “body colour.” The English school, in which the greatest advances have been made, use thin glazes. This in scene painting is the quickest and most effective. Morgan, Marston, Fox, and Voegtlin are among the leading representatives of this school in America, and their method is gradually spreading among the artists of that country. Its rapidity may be judged from the fact that one of these artist’s lately painted a scene measuring twenty by thirty feet in less than four hours.

One of the greatest differences in scene-painting from ordinary water-colour painting is that, while the colours of the latter are transparent, those of the former are opaque. For instance, the water-colour painter can lay in a wash of yellow ochre, and, by covering it when dry, with a light coat of madder lake, can transform it to a soft orange. In distemper, however, the coat of madder lake would not allow the yellow to show but would completely hide it, and the tint presented would be pure pink. From this fact results a total difference in the painting of foliage. The water-colour painter lays in his light tints first and puts in his shadows afterwards. The scene-painter may do this or not as he pleases. He may put his light tints over his dark ones and they will not lose any of their brilliancy. The advantage of this in regard to speed may be easily seen. If the water-colour painter wishes to put a high light in the middle of a shadow, he must first erase with a sharp knife a portion of his dark tint, or else put on a heavy spot of Chinese white. Over the spot thus erased or whitened he puts the required tint. The distemper painter is relieved of this roundabout process, for he simply dots in his light colour wherever he needs it over the darker shade, and it shows with perfect brilliancy. Again, in painting skies the scene-painter works by a method of his own, not unlike that adopted by oil-painters. The water-colour painter must leave all the broad light of his sky when putting in the main colour, and is obliged to work with his tints wet. The scene-painter may lay in the entire sky with blue, and paint his light yellowish clouds over it afterward. If the ordinary water-colour painter were to do this, his clouds would be green. Some scene-painters, however, work their entire skies wet. The effect of a sky painted thus is always very fine, but only an artist thoroughly conversant with the values of his several pigments can do this. For the colours, it will be remembered, present a very different appearance when wet from that which they have when dry.

Scene-painting has become so important an art that one large firm in New York makes a great specialty of imported materials. There is a long list of colours and other things used exclusively in scenic art, and improvements are being constantly made. Formerly scene-painters were obliged to grind their own colours, but these are now prepared in “pulp” – that is, ground in water. Among the colours used almost exclusively by scenic artists are English white, Paris white, zinc white, silver white, drop black, Frankfort black, Turkey umbers, Italian siennas, Cologne earth, Dutch pink, Schweinfurter green, Neuwieder green, ultramarine green, Bremen blue, azure blue, Persian scarlet, Turkey red, Tuscan red, Solferino, Magenta, Munich lake, Florentine lake, Vienna lake, and blue lake. Some of these colours are also used by fresco painters.

Those which are never used except by scenic artists are celestial blue, golden ochres, green lakes, Milori greens, French green and yellow lakes. The colours specially imported for scene-painters are carnation, royal purples, green lakes, and the English chromes. Indigo is used in very large quantities by scenic artists, but it is used very moderately by water-colour artists. It adds considerably to the expense of getting up scenery.

To be continued…

Part 407: “Scenery and Scene-Painters” 1871, Fifth installment

E. L. Blanchard wrote the article “Scenery and Scene-Painters” in 1871, reflecting on the history of English scenic artists. I divided this fifth and final section into two parts due the detail. This final installment describes the contributions of David Roberts, RA, and his contemporaries.

“The late David Roberts, who died November 25, 1864, won his spurs by painting scenery for an al fresco theatre at Venice, and for years displayed his mastery of architectural perspective in the Rialtos, Piazzettis, and Grand Canals, which enriched the Italian pictures presented on the boards of both Drury Lane and Covent Garden. He made his metropolitan debut at the Drury Lane, where he commenced his career in 1822, in conjunction with his friend and brother academician, Clarkston Stanfield. David Roberts was also famous for his dioramas, but he never produced works which equaled Stanfield’s moving dioramas, he never produced works which equalle Stanfield’s moving diorama of Alpine scenery, or the memorable views of Windsor and the neighbourhood, which included the sparkling tableau of Virginia Water, wherin the real element was so effectively introduced.

In 1828, the principal Covent Garden artists were David Roberts, and the famous scenic triumvirate, Messrs. Grieve, and T. and W. Grieve. The drop scene painted by Roberts for this Theatre, the Interior of a Temple to Shakespeare, consisting of fluted Corinthian Sienna columns, supporting a soffite dome, the perspective terminating with a monumental group introducing the immortal Bard, with St. Paul’s Cathedral in the distance, will be vividly remembered by the mature playgoer. The Grieves had long been famous for their Pantomime scenery, and in the brilliancy of their style, the strong feeling of reality which they communicated to the spectator, and in the taste and artistic beauty of their landscape compositions, they have since had few rivals and never been excelled. To Mr. T. Grieve, and his son Mr. Walford Grieve, the modern stage has been largely indebted. Several drop scenes for the late Theatre known as Her Majesty’s, though coloured by the later William Grieve, were drawn by Pugin, the great restorer of ecclesiastical Gothic architecture in this country.

At the present time [1871] the stage is richly supplied with scenic artists whose reputation needs no better security than the production they are constantly giving to the public. With a remembrance of the old days of Tomkins and Pitt at the Adlephi, or Philip Phillips at the Surry, and of the clever artist, Brunning, who died a mere youth, and yet figured conspicuously among the scenic corps of twenty years ago, we may pass confidently to the catalogue of our present distinguished representatives of the scenic art.

Mr. William Beverly, on his own ground at the Drury, is the unrivalled delineator of the fanciful region in which fairies may be imagined to dwell. Mr. William Callcott is a richly-endowed and skillful artist, whose “Transformation Scenes” have long won for him a special celebrity. Mr. John O’Connor, Mr. Lloyd, the late Mr. Charles James, Mr. Hawes Craven, Mr. J. Johnson, Mr. George Gordon. Messrs. Brew, Mr. Frederick Fenton, and his brother Mr. Charles Fenton, have severally produced works of art which will long keep their names vividly impressed on the memory of the playgoer.

Mr. Marshall, though not now before the public as a scenic artist, is not likely to be forgotten by those who can appreciate the services he has rendered to this important department of the stage; and Mr. Telbin has so distinguished himself by the triumphs he has achieved in the highest region of the Scenic Art that it is only to be regretted, for the sake of playgoers, his pencil is not now as frequently employed as heretofore for their own gratification.”

The end.

To be continued…

Part 403: “Scenery and Scene-Painters” 1871, second section

E. L. Blanchard wrote the article “Scenery and Scene-Painters” in 1871 for “The Era Almanack.” Blanchard was an author of Drury Lane Pantomimes from 1852-1888. This article is one of three that I transcribed a few months ago as I examined a series of newspaper publications describing the scenic art and design process for the theatre. I just completed a five-section series titles “A Gossip about Scenery and Scene-Painters” that was published in “The Era” (February 4, 1866). This second article gives another viewpoint of scenic art five years later. Much of the information is the same about the history of theatre scenery and scenic artists as in the previous article – almost a little too similar, but it is a delightful addition for historical context. I am posting it in five parts; here is the beginning of the second part.

“Jameson, called the Scottish Van Dyke, designed the scenery for private theatricals at Holyrood House for his patron, King James VI.”

George Jameson (the Scottish Van Dyke, 1588-1644) was the son of Marjorey Anderson and Andrew Jamesone. The elder Jameson was a master mason and architect whose father (Deacon William Jamesone) apprenticed him in 1576 to Andrew Bethleam in Aberdeen for a period of seven years. As a noted mason, Andrew Jamesone rose to become a Burgess of Guild in the city and his work included Provost Ross’ House. George Jameson was sent to study under Peter Paul Rubens in Antwerp. In 1620, he returned to Aberdeen and established himself as a portrait painter.

I’ll start the article again: “Jameson, called the Scottish Van Dyke, designed the scenery for private theatricals at Holyrood House for his patron, King James VI. This monarch [King James VI], when called to the English throne, selected Inigo Jones, his renowned architect, to design the scenery for his Theatre at the palace of Whitehall. His successor, Charles I, and his tasteful Queen Henrietta, during their happier days, gave a new character to the stage.

All was elegance at their youthful Court. There, Ben Johnson presented his Masques, and Inigo Jones was still retained as scene-painter and machinist. Charles spared no expense in the decorations for these romantic pieces, in which himself and his Queen and the young lords and ladies of the Court took an active part in the performance. The skill and ingenuity displayed in these scenic contrivances seem to have been remarkable. Streater, a painter of eminence, and who sketched many views of old buildings for his royal patron, Charles II, designed the scenes for Dorset Gardens Theatre and the Phoenix. When this house fell under the management of Fleetwood he employed his gay friend, Frank Hayman, as principal scene-painter to the Theatre.”

To be continued…