Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett
Times were changing for many professional scenic artists in 1919. In addition to the rejection of painted illusion for the stage and traditional scenic art, there was an increase in amateur dramatic organizations. The Little Theatre movement was gaining ground across the country. It caused a divide between theatre practitioners, with some seeing it as an obstacle to professionals. Other declared the movement an opportunity, allowing the doors of the industry to swing wider for “courageous young producers.” Beginning around 1912, the Little Theatre Movement provided a unique outlet. I am actually going to quote two lines from Wikipedia as says it all: “The Little Theatre Movement provided experimental centers for the dramatic arts, free from the standard production mechanisms used in prominent commercial theatres. In several large cities, beginning with Chicago, Boston, Seattle and Detroit, companies formed to produce more intimate, non-commercial, non-profit-centered, and reform-minded entertainments.” Here is a link for more information about the movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Theatre_Movement and the Encyclopedia Britannica entry https://www.britannica.com/art/little-theatre-American-theatrical-movement.
An interesting article about Little Theatres appeared in the April 1917 issue of “The Theatre” (Vol. 25, page 292, 314). “Mr. Belasco has recently declared, in the New York Herald that we must “protect our drama” from “amateur dramatic organizations”….The so-called “Little Theatres” which are springing up all over the country, not only in New York, but in Detroit, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Chicago, Philadelphia, and other places, are amateur theatres, with their faults and weaknesses, their failures, their fads. Their audiences, numerically, are but a drop in the bucket. Yet they are a sign, a portent, which cannot be ignored. They are a protest against the easy, safe professionalism which has divorced our drama from all serious contact with problems of actual life, which has reopened the gap which Herne, Fitch, Moody, Eugene Walter, George Ade and other seemed a few years ago on the point of bridging; which has left the public without any control over its esthetic expression in the playhouse. Just as soon as these amateur efforts result in any considerable popularity and financial stability, they will visibly and definitely begin to effect our theatre for good, and the doors will swing wider open to the courageous young producers like John Williams and Walker Wanger. In New York this winter we have seen “The Yellow Jacket” established on Broadway, we have seen Stuart Walker’s amateurs playing for a month, we have seen Gertrude Kingston come up from the East Side, we have seen the Washington Square Players move from beyond Third Avenue into the Comedy Theatre, and there remain. In every case something was added to our stage which it sorely lacked, and the contribution was welcomed by a substantial public. The way has been made easier for further experiments, for future dramatists with something fresh to say. If Mr. Belasco honestly believes this to be a bad thing for our theatre, if he honestly fears this sort of competition, he has delivered the most scathing self-criticism ever written. At any rate, the drama of to-morrow in America must be reborn out of the amateur spirit, and the increasing number of amateurs who are giving themselves gladly to task to-day is the most hopeful sign in our theatre.”
Little Theatres also weathered the 1919 actors’ strike. This was mentioned at the end of an article by Uarda McCarty in 1919. On Sept 14, 1919, McCarty wrote an article entitled “Melodrama Again is Coming Into Own As Style Wheel of Stage Makes Circle.”
“Drama, it appears, like all things else, must needs feel the influence of change. Style waves in the dramatic world, sweep with as sure and effect as waves of reform, politics or any other trend in life.
And the era for change is apparently at hand. The movement in the drama, this season, as evidenced by the late summer attractions, and early fall openings, seems to be more in the nature of a reverting back to old forms than the introduction of anything new. And the particular child of the past, which American drama has decided to resurrect and endow as the heiress of this season’s accomplishment, is melodrama.
‘Not any sophisticated, full-grown child of new ideas and forms, but the good old-fashioned, ‘dyed-in-the-wool, blood-and-thunder melodrama. The kind with the old types villain, the wronged girl, the old-fashioned trusting parents and other regalia of melodrama of half a century or so back.’ So says Maude May Babcock, director of the Little theatre, who has recently returned from a month in the east studying the theatrical situation.
One of the noteworthy examples of this type is ‘John Ferguson,’ a severe tragedy set in the north country of Ireland. It is a play with the religious element strongly predominating – for it opens with the old father, the principle character, sitting with an open Bible on his knees and closes with the same picture. But withal, the play is a melodrama, for in it appears the wronged maiden, the villainous villain and the virtuous hero.
Its popularity is attested by the fact that it ran all during the summer months and is still booked for Gotham presentation, at the Fulton theatre on Forty-fifth street.
Another play, forecasting the same trend, is ‘The Challenge’ at the Selwyn theatre. Both theatres weathered the actor’s strike, ‘John Ferguson’ the entire time and ‘The Challenge’ for a goodly portion. ‘The Challenge’ was forced to close by a walkout on August 16.
The reason for ‘John Ferguson’ continuing was because the actors playing are members of the Little Theatre guild, and organization growing out of the old Washington Square Players and the Producing Managers’ Association, against whom the strike was called, had no connection with the production.
One of the leading characters of ‘John Ferguson’ is portrayed by Rollo Peters, a leading man new to Broadway – that is, new in the art acting.”
Rollo Peters was not only an actor and director, but also a scenic artist who embraced the new stage art. He was also one of the individuals who benefited as the doors of the theatre industry began to open for a younger generation of theatre artists.
I have noticed that few people enthusiastically embrace change, especially when if they already benefit from the status quo. Amateur theatrics in the United States was nothing new, but it gained momentum during the second and third decades of the twentieth century. Scenic studios had to adapt, with many firms targeting the manufacture of stock scenery for academic institutions and other non-profit venues. Our industry was teetering on the pinnacle of change. It was the convergence of Little Theatre movement, the increased construction of cinemas, and the rise of the modern stage designer that all contributed to massive aesthetic shift in scenic art. In the past, I have said that this is when scenic painting shifts from an art to a craft, and I still stand by the statement. The necessary scenic art skill set was dramatically shifting, ushering in a new era of painting. What I consider as the golden age of the American scenic artist was nearing an end.
To be continued…
