Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett
In 1916, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “Our business relations with the New York Studios are a bit strained, and we have notified them that hereafter there would be no restricted district for us, and we did not care what they did. Pennsylvania and New York used to be our very best states, and we were going after them again.” To fully understand Moses’ sentiment, we need to look at Moses relationship with the founder of New York Studios, David H. Hunt. First of all, Moses never cared for Hunt.
After establishing the unsuccessful theatrical management firm of Sosman, Landis & Hunt in 1894, Hunt convinced Sosman to invest in another scenic studio in 1910, New York Studios. The new company was promoted as the eastern affiliate of Sosman & Landis, well… kind of. Since the 1880s, Sosman & Landis maintained regional offices across the country, but these were mutually beneficial relationships. For example, in 1887 Sosman & Landis established a branch in Kansas City, Missouri, under the direction of Lemuel L. Graham; it was known as the Kansas City Scenic Co., but Lem also did business under his own name too. In the late 1880s Sosman & Landis also established a regional office in New York City. Multiple locations were the key to success. Just like we hear “shop local,” that sentiment held true in the late-nineteenth and early twentieth century for theatrical projects. Visiting a studio in a nearby town was far better than hiring the unknown firm from a distant studio.
The real issue was that Hunt’s business plans, first and foremost, benefitted Hunt and not his investors or affiliates. In other words, New York Studios gained a massive support network such as Sosman & Landis staff, connections, materials and studio space. I have yet to figure out if there was really any added benefit for Sosman & Landis, but for whatever reason, Sosman had a soft spot for Hunt and went along with many of his schemes. When Sosman passed away in 1915 and Moses was elected president of Sosman & Landis, Hunt no longer had an advocate at the Chicago studio and the gravy train abruptly halted. So, when Moses wrote, “Pennsylvania and New York used to be our very best states, and we were going after them again,” he really threw down the gauntlet at Hunt and a feud began, . The two studios would now wrestle over territories. Moses previously played by an old set of rules, based on respect and gentlemen’s agreements; he was unprepared for the next generation of studio owners as the playing field changed. Hunt was ruled by a different set of motivators – his own self-interest. In all appearances, Hunt was a slick talker and salesman. So, here is the background between Moses and Hunt…
Moses first met Hunt in 1893, and the two soon paired off on quite a few projects by 1894. In 1897, however, Moses and Hunt began to disagree. That year Moses recorded an event that concerned Edith Chapman’s production of “Charity Ball.” This is the beginning of a truly unhappy relationship. Here is what Moses wrote:
Mr. Hunt found fault with my neutral coloring and said one day, “Why don’t you make some positive color decoration like pink or green?”
I had the first act of “Held by the Enemy” on the frame – a southern interior.
I said, “Alright, I will make this a pink wall and cream colored woodwork.”
“Fine,” said he. I did so. I did not consult Miss Chapman as usual. The scene was set. I was in front as usual during the performance. Miss Chapman entered. I saw her look up the scene and almost fall back. She had on a shell pink, deep flounced and a very full hoop skirt.
I nearly fainted. I was sick. I rushed back at the close of the act and found her in tears. As soon as she saw me, she said, “Oh, why did you do it – didn’t you know I was going the limit on my dress?” She had forgotten that I did not consult her as I usually did. I pointed to Mr. Hunt. “There is the one I tried to please.” Hunt then realized he was wrong, and I had been right all season. I painted out the wall color the next morning, for it simply killed Miss Chapman’s dress, as there was so much of it.”
That same season Moses continued, “The different newspapers gave our work splendid notice every week. For one paper on which Mr. Montgomery Phister was the critic, and his son was the artist, I made a heading for each week’s article on the play at the Pyke – drawing in ink the principal scenes. Hunt never knew that I did it – he flattered himself the paper was doing it. Phister had been a scenic artist in his young days and was in full sympathy with the artist.
One day he said to Hunt for a joke – “I think Moses uses too much raw umber.”
Hunt repeated this to me as his own idea. I was sure someone that knew color had been at Hunt, so I said, “Raw Umber! What kind of color is that? I don’t use it at all.”
He was stumped and didn’t know what to say. He went back to Phister, who in turn told me. We had a hearty laugh over it.”
I bet they did, and then the battles increased in intensity. The war began in earnest during one of Sosman’s absences from the studio in 1910, likely prompting the establishment of New York Studios.
That year, Moses wrote, “Mr. Sosman went to Europe on January 30th for an extended trip…He had a good bookkeeper, and I depended on him a great deal. I did some hustling while he was away. Mr. Hunt was secretary and treasurer, and expected to run the business, but I wouldn’t allow it. Mr. Hunt kept on the road most of the time… I heard some reports as to what Hunt had reported to Sosman about my treatment towards him. I got mad and wanted to quit. Sosman wouldn’t listen to me…Hunt remained away from the studio for some time, before going back home.” This is when Hunt establishes New York Studios, partially funded by Sosman. I have to wonder if Sosman only invested in Hunt to separate the two, attempting to keep peace. Of the company, Moses wrote, “Hunt had started a New York studio in New York City, and he expected us to do a great deal of work, as he had Sosman invest a small amount.” But there were other contingencies, including the restricted districts that in 1916 Moses chose to ignore. So when one reads Moses 1916 entry, “Our business relations with the New York Studios are a bit strained, and we have notified them that hereafter there would be no restricted district for us, and we did not care what they did,” it takes on a whole new meaning.
In the end, Moses may have picked the wrong man to do battle with that year.
To be continued…
