Month: August 2018

Part 481: Meet Me at the Fair

“Meet me in St. Louis, Louis,
Meet me at the fair,
Don’t tell me the lights are shining
Any place but there,
We will dance the Hoochee Koochee,
I will be your tootsie wootsie,
If you will meet in St. Louis, Louis,
Meet me at the fair.”

In 1904, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “In the fall, Ella and I went to the St. Louis’ World’s Fair, and enjoyed it immensely. We went direct to the grounds and registered at the ‘Inside Inn.’

“I knew the manager very well, and we felt we would be well taken care of.” The manager was Colonel E. M. Statler. Statler had built and operated Statler’s Pan-American hotel at the Buffalo Exposition. Moses would have known him there as he had worked on Thompson’s “Trip to the Moon.”

For the World Fair in St. Louis, Statler conceived of the idea to construct a grand hotel inside the fairgrounds. In fact, the Inside Inn was the only hotel located on the 1904 World’s fairgrounds. Partially shaded by large oak trees, the ten acres occupied by Inside Inn were situated in the southeast corner and offered premium views of the Plateau of States.

The Inn accommodated 5,000 guests with 2257 rooms. Moses wrote, “Our room number was 6325. Of course there were not that many rooms.” Serviced by a staff of 2,000, there were two restaurants, a drug store, a lounge, haberdashery, shoeshine parlor, newsstand and a barbershop. The Inside Inn was intended as a temporary building, constructed of yellow pine, stucco and fire-proof burlap. Of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition structure, Moses wrote, “It was an awful firetrap and awfully poor furniture, but they had a good chef and he made up for many other defects.”

The price to stay at the Inside Inn ran from $1.50 to $7.00 dollars, some plans offered two meals per day in addition to accommodations. One of the slogans was “A room and bath for a buck and a half.” There was also a buffet that could seat 2,500 patrons. It was reported that at the close of the fair, Statler’s receipts totaled $1,480,743.13. That is not bad, considering the initial investment was 300,000 dollars. In the end, Statler sold the Inside Inn building for $30,000 dollars scrap.

Commenting about the fair, Moses wrote, “We covered a lot of ground in the four days we had to spend there, which was hardly enough. The Art Gallery was very good and I saw many of my old favorites in the English and American schools. Some of the sideshows were also good. The Fair covered so much ground that it was tiresome going from one show to the other.”

To be continued…

Travels of a Scenic Artist and Scholar: CITT, August 18, 2018

We started the day fairly early. Rick Boychuk and I walked to the conference center to see Peter McKinnon’s session about the creation of plays being inspired by theatre architecture. After a lively discussion, we took a quick trip over to Niagara Falls. I had never visited this famed site. There is nothing quite like looking at a composition that I have sketched from photographs! The experience exceeded all of my expectations.

 

Travels of a Scenic Artist and Scholar: CITT August 15, 2018

I am taking a brief break from my tales concerning the life and times of Thomas G. Moses to focus on CITT. This year
CITT is in St. Catharine’s, Ontario; this is the Canadian equivalent of USITT (United Institute of Theatre Technology). My company, Historic Stage Services LLC, was co-sponsoring a  scene painting class with Rosco paint to explore foliage painting techniques. The class consisted of a diverse group of theatre practitioners interested in painting techniques. The class was scheduled from 9AM-5PM on August 15 and 9AM-12PM.

Part 480: Chicago is My Kind of Town

In 1904 Thomas G. Moses returned to Chicago. That same year, he was finally accepted into the prestigious “Salmagundi Club” in New York City. R. M. Shurtleff has sponsored his membership into this fine art society and Moses was eager to continue with his artistic studies. In addition to making inroads into the world of fine art, the scenic studio of Moses & Hamilton was doing very well. This meant that it was very hard for Moses to walk away from future projects in New York, as well as his business partner Will Hamilton. Moses wrote, “When I had to tell Hamilton, I almost gave in to stay with him, for he was awfully broken up over it, as he saw his meal ticket slipping away.” Since the beginning, Moses was the heart and soul of the company. Even five years later, Hamilton would still advertise his previous partnership with Moses as “formerly of Moses & Hamilton.”

Of Moses & Hamilton, Moses wrote, “Our work was rather pleasant and we received good prices. I sometimes think I should have stayed as our business was increasing each year. Our fiscal year was June 1^st and I remained at [Coney] Island up to the last.” They had just opened “War of the Worlds” at Luna Park that season. They received $2,900.00 on this work and made a profit of $2,200.00, as they painted it in less that one half the time they thought it would take. Moses commented, “The show was a big hit.” It was hard for Moses to leave his success to become one of many painters in a studio, even if her were in charge.

But he would not be welcomed with open arms by everyone at Sosman & Landis. Moses wrote about his return to Sosman & Landis that year, “When Mr. Sosman announced to the ‘gang’ that I was coming back and would take charge of all the work, there was much dissention among a few.” In particular, one lead scenic artist resented Moses’ return to a supervisory role. Moses continued, “Fred Scott tried to start a mutiny and went as far as he could by quitting, hoping the others would follow. But none did, and he came back and asked for a job. I put him on for he was a clever painter.” Scott was still working at Sosman & Landis in 1911. Very little is known about this scenic artist other than a few brief comments in Moses’ memoir.

Moses continued to describe his return to Sosman & Landis, “I fell in line with the old work rather quickly. It lacked the interest of production work, but after all, what is the difference? There is no glory to be had in the painting of a production – all the honor goes to the stage manager or director.” In some ways Moses’ return to Sosman & Landis broke his spirit; he was settling, possibly abandoning his dream of fine art. I believed that Moses recognized that his own artistic growth would become stagnant while employed at Sosman & Landis. This was why he yearned to be a fine artist; at the end of the day, you are in charge of the end product and how it will appear before the audience. Fine art is often treasured, whereas backdrops are often perceived as mere backings, regardless of how fine the painting.

Moses also commented on Landis’ failing health, writing, “We found Mr. Landis in bad shape. While he seemed to know Ella and myself, he couldn’t talk at all, yet appeared to be awfully glad to see us.” Moses might have painted side by side with Sosman over the years, but there was unique loyalty to Landis and his family.

To be continued…

Part 479: Bring Him Home

Thomas G. Moses excelled in New York from 1901 until 1904. He was succeeding in business with his partner Will Hamilton as they operated Moses & Hamilton. In fact, they had more work than they could handle, while even expanding into the amusement park business at Luna Park. Moses & Hamilton produced scenery for Broadway and amusement park attractions ranging from “A Trip to the Moon” to “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.” Moses was at the top of his game and soaring in the world of fine art, having finally been accepted into membership at New York’s famed Salmagundi Club. He hoped to someday leave the hard grind of the studio for receptions at a fine art gallery.

What Moses didn’t plan on was his wife’s desire to return to their home in Illinois. Tom and Ella Moses were raised in Sterling and moved to Chicago early in their marriage. Their family and network of support remained in the Chicago area. Regardless of artistic opportunities for Moses, he felt his wife’s “pull” to return to the Midwest. There were only a few things that could cause his return from a successful life in New York – family and loyalty. His former employer played the loyalty card in the high stakes game of studio poker while his wife asserted her hopes to return to their Midwest relatives.

During 1904, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “Previous to this spring, I had heard from Mr. Sosman several times, wanting me to return to Chicago. Finally he and Mr. Hunt called on me, and agreed to give me $5,000.00 per year and $5,000.00 in stock and to give me full charge of the studio work, painting, designing and the construction.” What is significant about this statement in Moses’ memoirs is that he would have “full charge of the studio work, painting, designing and the construction.” This means that the design, painting and construction of work produced by Sosman & Landis after 1904 is being guided by Moses. There may be other artists in charge of the actual painting, by Moses now takes responsibility for the work that leaves the studio destined for a variety of performance venues.

Moses continued, “I was really in hopes that [Sosman] would not accept my proposition as Hamilton and I had a good business established, and didn’t want to give that up. But Ella and the children were keen on going back, and after my terms were accepted, I got in the humor myself.” Be careful what you wish for. Moses had to talk himself into all of the positive aspects of his return to Chicago. It would be a step down, no matter how he sized up the future. In New York, he was in command, in Chicago, he would remain at the whims of the company; never having complete control again. He was settling for a secure income, and this greatly unsettled him; it was the beginning of the end for Moses. He would die a slow death until for the next three decades.

Masonic business was booming, but Landis was ill and Sosman needed his “ace painter” back in the shops. Moses was known for his tremendous speed and ability to crank out work, but could he continue to do this amount of work while supervising all aspects of construction?

To be continued…

Part 478: Thomas G. Moses and “The Red Café” and “Mazeppa”

In 1903 Moses & Hamilton produced the scenery for “The Red Café” and “Mazeppa.” Little is known of the specific shows with which they were associated, but they are worth mention as they are just two examples of over two-dozen projects that they worked on during that season The plots of each featured the trials and tribulations of foreign characters; one set in Russia and one set in Poland.

“The Red Café” was advertised as a melodramatic spectacle in five acts. The play was an adaptation of Matthew Brennan’s novel “Zetka,” telling the story of a soldier to the Czar and his efforts to marry the woman he loves. “The Boston Globe” reported, “The play, telling the story of Russian life, has many thrilling scenes which keep the audience at a high pitch. The scene in the czar’s palace at St. Petersburg, where the sentence of exile to Siberia is read, is excellently staged and very interesting. The uprising of the serfs and the quelling mob with the arrival of the czar in the second act is another highly picturesque scene” (The Boston Globe 29 Sept 1903, page 8). Little else is known of this production other than that it traveled with two carloads of special scenery and effects produced by Moses & Hamilton.

The same year, Moses & Hamilton produced scenery for another foreign story – “Mazeppa.” The well-known tale had been performed for decades by 1903 and is often cited the first equestrian dramatic spectacle. “Mazeppa; or, the Wild Horse of Tartary,” was a play adapted from Byron’s 1819 poem. It is based on a popular legend about the early life of Ivan Mazepa (1639–1709), who later became Hetman (military leader) of Ukraine.   In the poem Mazeppa has an affair with a young Polish Countess while serving as a page at the Court of King John II Casimir Vasa. The count punishes Mazeppa by tying him naked to a horse and letting the horse run wild. Much of the poem described the traumatic ride of the young man strapped to the horse.

“Mazeppa” was first adapted for the stage by H. H. Milner and performed at Astley’s during 1831. It remained a popular show for the next thirty years, but in 1863 Adah Isaacs Mencken (1835-1868) became the first woman to portray the Tartar Prince. Menken caused a sensation when she wore a nude-colored outfit on stage; it created the illusion of nudity as she rode the horse. In previous productions performers used a “dummy steed,” but Menken allowed herself to be bound to a real horse for the thrilling ride.

The production that Moses & Hamilton likely created settings for was the 1903 tableaux version. “The Philadelphia Inquirer” reported, “the Mazeppa Tableaux is being exhibited at one of the popular theaters,” after a local reader inquired about the history of Ivan Mazeppa (7 Oct. 1903, page 8). I have not been able to locate any information pertained to the painted settings for the tableaux.

When I think to the process to design and paint scenes for dozens of productions over the course of one year, my mind whirls a bot. Many of the settings that I have located depict elaborate compositions, such as a Russian Czar’s palace or the palatial home of a Polish Count. Moses & Hamilton were creating complex painted compositions that also needed to travel; it was a daunting task to be sure.

To be continued…

Part 477: Thomas G. Moses and “Scout’s Revenge”

In 1903 Moses & Hamilton created the scenery for “Scout’s Revenge,” a four-act melodrama written by Hal Reid. Reid also wrote “The Night Before Christmas,” another 1903 show with scenery by Moses & Hamilton. James Halleck “Hal” Reid (1863-1920) was a playwright and stage actor who eventually transitioned to film, becoming a screen actor, director and writer in Hollywood. He worked with his teenage son, Wallace Reid who was a screen actor and starred in many of Hollywood’s silent film era.

The story of “Scout’s Revenge” portrayed life on the western plains. A homeless boy is murdered and Buck Henshawe, the U. S. government marshal and scout, is notified to investigate the case. The scout sets out to find the guilty party and those responsible for the many robberies that have recently terrorized Sherman. During his investigation, Henshaw meets Olive Benton. Benton is the daughter of Col. Benton, a millionaire ranch owner. The two fall in love. The villain of this melodrama is Wilfred Castro who is also on love with Olive. Castro is related to the Benton family, but leads a double life, as he is also the leader of the outlaws – ‘Captain Wildfire.’ Castro to force Olive to marry him, but she knows he is a villain and repeatedly refuses his matrimonial offers. In the end, the villain is killed and the hero gets the girl.

The story was described in many local newspapers as an attempt to draw in a large audience, such as the Star-Gazette (Elmira, New York, 29 Dec. 1903, page 6). The article reported, “The Scout’s Revenge, which is not quite so full of blood and thunder as might be imagined from its name, is altogether better than the average run of western shows. There is, however, ample opportunity for lots of shooting, but possible objection to this offset in a measure by a good plot and a wealth of pretty scenery. Then, too, there are certain distinct parts of the piece which are characteristic of the quiet, wholesome home life of a Texas ranch. It is a pretty play, depicting life in Southern Texas with a strain of comedy and love running through it. The story of the play deals with the double life led by Wilfred Castro, who poses as a prospector, but in serious business is Captain Wildfire, leader of the band of outlaws. This band of renegades murder a little friend of Buck Hanshaw, a government scout, who has determined to bring Wildfire to justice. Hanshaw swears revenge. From that point to the end the story tells how he got it and the situations and climaxes are thrilling and full of excitement.”

“The Chicago Tribune” commented about the author’s formulaic approach in “Scout’s Revenge.” He wrote, “Villains always plot in the first act. They plot out loud so that the comic friend can hear them and tell the hero, thereby enabling him to get to the spot where the crime is to be committed at the right moment to be blowed up, or shot, or thrown in real water, or something like that just as the curtain goes down in the second act. Wilfred is plotting in the first act of ‘Scout’s Revenge.’ He is the confidential friend of Col Adial Benton, whose bewitching daughter, Olive, the villain is going to marry ‘Cu-urse her, she loves Buck Henshaw.’ Of course, Col. Benton, as the rich and fond parent, is determined to marry his daughter off to the villain, and insists that Buck Henshaw is a low down horsetheif. That’s the way fond parents always do in the first act. Some day some stage parent is going to turn on the villain in the first act and drive him from the house instead of his daughter” (20 Sept. 1903, page 52).

The article describes the scene of Olive’s departure when she says, “Nev-air; I shall not become the wife of yon villain.” Her father responds, “Well, me proud be-u-ty, where will you go?” At this point Buck Henshaw clasps the heroine in his arms and says, “She shall go with me as my wife,” and the act curtain falls. Although this may sound a little bit much, it harkens back to the wild tales of Thomas Moses running away to the big city and his secret correspondence with his future wife Ella, before “rescuing” her from Sterling, Illinois!

In the final act of “Scout’s Revenge,” the “Chicago Tribune” explains, “the villain, disguised as a Mexican, appears at the colonel’s house, for what purpose nobody seems to know except that it is the fourth and last act and the poor villain had to come around and get killed. The funeral is postponed, while the comic friend makes love to the soubrette. Then Buck appears and jerks off the villain’s false mustache and wig and the execution takes place. There is a small battle and as the smoke drifts away and the frantic gallery quiets down Wilfred rolls over two or three times and says that he is dying and that he deserved to be killed, as he was really a bad sort. He then rolls over and over again, and sticking his head in the footlights, dies, and the curtain comes down, just missing the villain, who is dragged back by the heels. Thus do virtue and true love again win their way over conspiracy and dark deeds”

“Scout’s Revenge” was still touring four years later in 1907 (The Morning Journal Courier, 16 Dec. 1907).

To be continued…

Part 476: Thomas G. Moses and “The Wayward Son”

After a brief exploration of Masonic activities during the first decade of the twentieth century, I return to the life and times of Thomas G. Moses in 1903. As Scottish Rite scenery production was on the rise in the Midwest, Moses continued designing and painting scenery in the East. In addition to providing the 1903 stage setting for “Old Sleuth,” “The Ramblers,” Lost in the Desert,” “Reaping the Whirlwind,” “As you like it,” “Lost in the Desert,” “That’s All,” Scout’s Revenge,” “Mazeppa,” “The Night Before Christmas,” “The Red Café,” and “Peg Woffington,” Moses & Hamilton designed and painted the scenery for “Wayward Son.”

The “Buffalo Evening Enquirer reported that there was a “wealth of scenic splendor” in “Wayward Son.” The article continued, “The play is presented with scenic accessories, rarely equaled in variety and magnificence. The great locomotive scene, is an especially fine example of stagecraft” (22 Dec. 1903, page 9). Another article commented, “while many organizations are provided with a full scenic equipment, few companies, even in these days of managerial extravagance, carry such an elaborate scenic outfit” (17 Dec. 1903, page 20).

Newspapers published that the show gained the indisputable right to use the subtitle “A Whirlwind Success” for its mechanical and electrical effects. The technical feature that made “Wayward Son” the “talk of the town” was the scenic illusion in the third act. There was a great locomotive rescue scene that took place in the midst of a driving snowstorm. “The Buffalo Courier” reported, “In this thrilling stage picture the highest art of the scenic artist, the stage mechanician and the electrical expert is represented, the cast of this one scene alone reaching a larger figure than that expended for the entire scenic equipment of many pretentious productions” (13 Dec 1903, page 46). Another article also commented, “Besides its dramatic value, this scene is acknowledged to be one of the most beautiful and lifelike ever presented on the stage” (17 Dec. 1903, page 20).

This comedy drama written by Neil Twomey told the “fascinating story of home life, in which the hero, Tom Hanford, suffers almost every hardship possible to conceive” Star-Gazette (Elmira, New York, 31 Dec. 1903, page 6). The locomotive scene was described in the Star-Gazette article as “the sensational rescue of the hero, Tom Hanford, who is imprisoned in a baggage car by his brother and a confederate, who is no less a person than the chief of police himself. At the moment when the conspirators feel that they have their victim at their mercy the heroine of the play, Martha Barnard, a young secret service detective, dashes onto the stage in a locomotive, which her faithful colored ally, ‘Sleepy Bill,’ quickly couples to the hero’s temporary prison, and, with throttle thrown wide open, the engine dashes forward, to the great discomfiture of the conspirators, bearing the helpless hero to a place of safety” (26 Dec. 1903, page 6).

The “happy-go-lucky” Tom Hanford was played by the author Neil Twomey and the show opened at the Grand Opera House on October 12, 1903. The production enjoyed a long run at the Grand Opera House before touring across the country during 1904 to 1905.

To be continued…