Drypigment.net

Part 329: Traveling through the country is so thrilling…

“…standing out in front on opening nights. Smiling as you watch the theater filling, and there’s your billing out there in lights”

Thomas G. Moses painted numerous productions during 1895 that included “Ben-Hur,” Alexander Salvini’s “Hamlet,” John Griffith’s “Richard III” and “Faust,” the world premier of “Mystery of Agnes Page” with Mary Wainwright, some scenery for Joe Jefferson to pad out his “Rip Van Winkle” production, a road show of “Said Pasha” for Jules Murray, and several good scenes for Mme. Modjeska for a play called “Mistress Betty.” Moses wrote that in addition to these productions, he also completed a “dozen smaller shows.” Keep in mind that these were just shows that he highlighted in his typed manuscript and in addition to those already mentioned in earlier installments, such as the outdoor spectacle of “The Storming of Vicksburg.” In addition to touring shows and Chicago projects, Moses and his crew also painted several stock scenery collections for theaters across the country.

Here are just a few snippets concerning some of the productions listed above as it hints at the personalities Moses was directly working with as he created the scenery. Of “Ben-Hur,” Moses wrote, that it “kept the crew busy at the old Waverly Theatre.” This likely was the pantomime version created for his hometown of Sterling, Illinois, that year.

His scenery for “Hamlet” would be some of the last that the well-known Italian actor Alexander Salvini would perform in front of in America. Alexander was the son of Tomas Salvini, another famed Italian actor. But the end of 1896, Alexander Salvini died from “consumption of the bowels” in Florence, Italy.

John Griffith performed in Collie Cibber’s version of “Richard III.” Moses wrote that the production was “quite elaborate.” The Nebraska State Journal reported, “It will be staged complete, even to the minutest detail, the scenery having been painted by that eminent artesian, Mr. Thomas Moses, of Chicago from historical drawings” (17 August 1896, page 8). Other newspapers advertised “Richard III” as “the grandest scenic production ever given of the play” (Scranton Tribune. 13 November 1896, page 7).

Moses also painted the scenery for another Griffith production -Henry Irving’s version of “Faust.” Griffith played the role of Mephisto. The Butte Daily Post reported, “It takes a 60 foot car to carry the scenery, calcium and electric effects. The scenery is painted by Mr. Thomas Moses of Chicago, from a photograph of the original scenery painted for the Lyceum theatre of London, by Mr. Carven” (18 May 1895, page 8). In Washington, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer confirmed the replication of the an entire set, publishing, “The scenery of the production is especially fine. It was painted by Tom Moses from photographs of the original scenery in the Lyceum theater, London” (The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 4 May 1895, page 6).

Moses painted the settings for another touring show managed by Jules Murray -“Said Pasha.” This show toured with “Amorita,” and featured the Calhoun Opera Company. The two productions traveled with “forty-five people and a carload of scenery” painted by Moses and his crew (Weekly Journal Miner, 20 March 1895, page 3).

Moses also designed and painted the scenery for the production of “Mistress Betty; or the Career of Betty Singleton.” This was a play by Clyde Fitch starring the Polish actress Helena Modjeska (Helene Modrzejewski) that was never really successful on tour. It retold the tragic tale of an eighteenth-century London actress who married and alcoholic and is driven mad by his preference for another woman. It opened on October 15 at the Garrick Theatre in New York before going out on tour. Over the years, Moses created the scenery for many of Mojeska’s productions as she took quite a liking to him.

In addition to all of the touring shows and everything else going on at the Waverly during 1895, Moses designed and painted the settings for the world premiere of “The Mystery of Agnes Page” at the Schiller. It was an incredibly busy year for Moses. Miss Wainwright played the title role in this four-act production by A. E. Lancaster and Nathaniel Hartwig.

The Chicago Tribune advertised, “Special Scenery by Thos. G. Moses” for “The Mystery of Agnes Page” (5 April 1896, page 43). The painted settings depicted locations in both Virginia and New Orleans, La., “just prior to the rebellion.” The story hinges on the discovery that the heroine, Agnes Page, is of Ethiopian descent. She struggles with the decision of whether or not to reveal this secret to her lover as she is currently perceived as white. There are lots of surprises and twists in the plot as Agnes realizes her true parentage. The Inter Ocean reported, “The well-known scenic artist Thomas G. Moses has been employed during the past three weeks on the play” (5 April 1896, page 45). Another article noted, “The management is to be heartily praised for the admirable manner in which this new play was staged, the scenery being quite true to the South” (8 April 1896, page 7).

All of the above-mentioned productions advertised that Thomas Moses created the scenery. By 1895, his work was well known and included in advertisements to promote the productions.

To be continued…

Part 328: Thomas G. Moses and “The Witch,” 1895

Gustave Frohman married Marie Hubert, an actress best known for her performance in “The Witch.” In 1895, Moses designed and painted the scenery for “The Witch” at the Schiller Theatre. Of the production he wrote, “I certainly injected plenty of local color, for it created some talk. One newspaper critic said, ‘Even the scene was imbued with witchcraft.’ It was during the days of witchcraft at Salem, Mass.”

The Chicago Tribune announced that “The Witch” was a picturesque American play by Philip G. Hubert and Marie Madison (17 Nov 1895, page 42). It was a companion piece to the dramatization of the “Scarlet Letter,” performed in Chicago several years earlier by Richard Mansfield. The article continued, “it presents a series of striking pictures of the puritan, psalm-singing, preaching, praying, witch-burning life of Salem town in the early days.”

Here is the plot of ‘The Witch,” as published in the Chicago Tribune ” (19 Nov. 1895, page 5):

Walter Endicott, a Salem youth, while hunting in the forest stumbles upon a Roman Catholic chapel attended by a venerable priest; his gentle ward, Leontine, an abandoned child, fruit of an unblest union, whom he has destined for a nursery; and an Indian, Amooka, who loves Leontine. Walter falls in love with Leontine and the priest reluctantly unites them. Six months afterward Walter resolves upon a journey to Salem and on his way is secretly attacked by Amooka, who leaves him for dead, and when he is rescued and revived by strolling citizens of Salem he is arrested as a spy. In the role of the heroine, and to release the hero, Miss D’Arville dons the uniform of an American officer and enters the enemy’s camps as a deserter. Having grown considerably stouter Miss D’Arville’s uniform has its own difficulties in adjustment. The British General’s wife, Mrs. Grumm, overlooks and accepts the new arrival as a man. Being impressionable she falls victim to the supposed gallant’s fascinations. Accepted into the British forces, the General’s wife proceeds to get the recruit a uniform. Instead of donning it the heroine assumes the dress of a maid, and comes forward with the announcement: “How good it does feel to get back into women’s clothes and to be able to breathe without being afraid something will break?” Viewing her as a maid, the General himself becomes enamored, a proceeding which greatly amuses Mrs. Grumm. To further the joke she furnishes an evening gown to the supposed young man in which to attend the ball. In décolleté costume, which f course strengthens the verity of the situation, the fortunes of the heroine reach the close of the second act. In the third happiness is attained, the lover having been aided to escape, and Washington forwarded important papers to the heroine. In the maid’s dress and in her ball gown Miss D’Arville appeared in all her accustomed attractiveness, and proved herself in excellent voice.”

The review also noted, “Thomas G. Moses has painted five sets of scenery for ‘The Witch,” which together with special costumes and other accessories, will be taken direct to New York after the initial three weeks run at the Schiller.” The scenes of the five acts were: Father Ambrose’s mission; the commons in old Salem; the old Salem Prison; the old Salem Court House; and daybreak on Gallows Hill.

While on tour, the Philadelphia Enquirer reported, “The beauty of the scenes of Gustave Frohman’s production of ‘The Witch,” its fidelity to historical data, while preserving every dramatic possibility, and the good acting of Marie Hubert and the company surrounding her, have made the production an artistic success, which it is a pleasure to chronicle” (1 Dec, 1895, page 18).

To be continued…

For larger picture files, join the FB group, Dry Pigment

Part 327: Modern Theatrical Managers

The Inter Ocean published an article on “Modern Theatrical Managers” (4 Aug. 1895, page 33). I am posting the article in its entirety, as it really gives wonderful insight into a shift that occurred in the American theatrical industry during the 1890s:

“The fact that the Schiller Theater, the newest house in Chicago, has again changed hands may give reason to pause and consider the drift of the day in theatrical management. There was a time not very remote when the manager of the theater was not a mere figurehead, or landlord, but an important factor in molding the drama as an artistic ideal. But this is the age in which money is playing a leading role, and the businessman is forging to the front in no uncertain fashion and dominating the destinies of the drama. The demands of a nervous and exhausting public idolizing the genius of change is primarily responsible for the new departure, which calls for business shrewdness rather than artistic acumen or studied experience in the old school, which led the manager to rely upon his own resources and his accurate knowledge of plays and stage-craft.

Theatrical management has simply developed on new lines to meet current conditions. The fact that there are perhaps not three managers in this city who understand the technic of the stage from “the vampire trap” to “grid-iron clamps,” from “ground rows” and “set raking pieces” to “cut borders, or can nominate the distinguishing features of the dramas from Moliere to Sundermann, does not argue any particular discredit, for he is engaged in speculative and not creative capacity. With one theater paying an annual ground rental of $25,000, another $35,000 (including heat), and the so-called “out-lying theaters” paying $10,000 to $15,000 per annum on long leases, the manager has other things to consider than technical details. The stock company that is his most solicitous care is one that erected the theater; in other words, his chief aim, according to the nature of the case, is to secure paying attractions, rather than to make artistic productions. With this end in view he becomes a spirited bidder in the market of amusement attractions, where the highest percentage knocks the choicest popular “persimmon.” Of course shrewdness and sagacity enter the competition, and this is why one of our younger managers has succeeded in sustaining the inherited prestige of his house in retaining attractions that have been claimed in the prospectus of new theaters as the basis for calculating prospective profits on stock.”

Why Chicago needs more new theaters is problematical in the practical sense, but it continues to be popular dissipation on paper. All managers will admit it is difficult to secure a clientele with the number now in the field. The multiplication of the so-called continuous theaters has a significance in the direction that appears to have passed comment. While their aim might appear to be merely to gratify transient trade, their stronghold is really the regular clientele. Their evident intent is to keep an even grade of entertainment, which is popular in the public eye. Many of our more pretentious theaters are apparently unable to do this owning to a lack of high-grade attractions. One week may see their stages occupied by the highest stars of the theatrical firmament, the next the most blatant display of farcical mediocrity, and there is no change in price indicative of the distinction as far as the theater is concerned. Of course there will some day be disastrous reaction in this drift in the clearing-house of popularity, and a fixed policy will necessarily prevail, all of which appears to indicate that Chicago must renew her prestige as a producing center is her theaters are to remain independent factors in the field of art.

New York claims five stock companies of the first rank. An insight into the workings of one of these organizations may be interesting in t his connection, and that of Augustin Daly may be cited as the first having “the traditions” and experiences of nearly thirty years incorporated in its warp. A New York exchange says: “He has a Broadway theater in a central location at a moderate rental. First of all, he must lay by for the landlord; then the insurance, whose rates are higher on theatrical than other property. These expenses provided for, the manager plunges into deep water. His productions are costly. On certain of his Shakesperean revivals, Mr. Daly has spent $10,000. It cost at least that amount to put on ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’ and ‘The Merry Wives’ and Tennyson’s ‘The Foresters,” and almost as much to stage ‘As You Like It.’ Then the salary list. Mr. Daly does not pay high salaries. With the exception of Miss Rehan the organization contains no high-priced member. Yet the Daly company is composed of many actors, and the aggregate sum paid for their services is heavy. It is rather below than above the exact figures to state the Daly’s Theater must take into its treasury $3,000 every week throughout the year in order to meet expenses. That means summer as well as winter. The season ends in May, and this year it will begin in September, much earlier than usual. The doors are closed, the investment is absolutely non-productive for four months; yet the rent must be paid, the insurance and repairs kept up. During the summer season the Daly company goes on the road, and a considerable part of the profits of the tour is used to defray expenses of idle property in New York. Of course Chicago is paying its share of these expenses, and will continue to do so willingly so ling as Mr. Daly continues to sustain the standard he has established.

Now Mr. Daly avoids an item of large expense that many of his brother managers incur in the payment of royalties, for he produces his own plays or revives classical comedies, the rights of which are not restricted. He prefers direct art investment rather than the hazard of spectacular fortune, sustaining ethics of tradition. But it is not the payment of direct royalties that the manger loses, for, generally speaking, the more he gives the author the more he earns for himself. The questions of advance payments to the authors of repute constitutes quite a serious question with speculative management. For he may advance $5,000 or double that amount with absolutely no guarantee of its return. Some statistician has computed 30,000 plays are written in this country every years. We take this to be a very theatrical estimate; at any rate, out of a vast number “Trilby” has been the only great moneymaker this season. Mr. Palmer, who has spent thirty years of studying the managerial business, pays 10 per cent royalties on this profitable property and is glad of it. Daniel Frohman annually pays out a great deal on royalties, and Charles Frohman is the most dashing and daring manager in the business in advancing on unwritten plays or buying them outright.

To return briefly to the Schiller Theatre. This house was created for a distinct art purpose as the home of the German drama is concerned. This may be a matter of keen regret for the projectors, but the property may possibly be advantageously developed in another direction. Gustave Frohman, who comes into possession of the beautiful house, is a manger of experience, and his business alliance with his brothers, the largest factors in the productive field, may succeed in building up the falling fortunes of this theater and make it conspicuous in another sense than merely being topped by the highest tower of any other theater in America. The nature of existing contracts will necessarily not permit of any immediate new departure, but the Schiller Theater may in time come to fill the higher sphere of dramatic production for which it was erected.                                    C.E.N.

To be continued…

Part 326: Thomas G. Moses, Gustave Frohman, and the Schiller Theater

In 1895, Thomas G. Moses was the scenic artist for the Schiller Theater. He painted several productions for the German Opera House, and used the paint frames to create scenery for outside projects.

In 1895, Thomas G. Moses was the scenic artist for the Schiller Theater. He painted several productions for the German Opera House, and used the paint frames to create scenery for outside projects. In 1895, Thomas G. Moses was the scenic artist for the Schiller Theater. He painted several productions for the German Opera House, and used the paint frames to create scenery for outside projects.

This was a common practice for many scenic artists at the time, as the theater where they worked became their studio. On March 24, the Chicago Tribune reported, “Thomas G. Moses, the scenic artist of the Schiller Theater, has recently finished a new drop curtain for the Schiller Theatre. In his judgment a subject embracing foliage and water is restful to the eye in the act intervals and a relief from the high colors and action of dramatic scenes, so he selected a forest scene upon the Bronx River, New York, with a rustic bridge in the foreground and a perspective showing the windings of the river stream. It will be placed in position tomorrow evening” (Chicago Tribune, 24 March 1895, page 36). The Inter Ocean added that the drop was “painted from a sketch taken on the Bronx River in New York. The locality is a lovely one and is a favorite sketching point for New York artists, and the scene represented has been made the subject of three drop curtains in the country” (23 March 1895, page 3). Rivers were his signature pieces and he would even write a poem called, “The Brook.”

Here is a brief description of the Schiller Theater to provide context as I continue to discuss his work there. It was in a 7-story building designed by Louis Sullivan and Dankmar Adler, of the firm Adler & Sullivan, for the German Opera Company. With a 1,400 seat house, it was originally funded by German investors, including Anton C. Hesting, a former “Illinois Staats-Zeitung” publisher. It was intended for German-language operas and social gatherings, but ceased emphasizing German cultural events after some of the original investors backed out. The second story arcade also boasted a series of terra cotta busts depicting prominent German figures.

The venue would later be known as the Dearborn Theater from 1898 to 1903, and finally the Garrick Theater.  “Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guide for 1885-1886” listed that the Schiller’s proscenium opening measured 28’-10” wide by 29’-8” high.

Distance from the footlights to the back wall was 37’-7.” The measurement from the stage to the rigging loft was 76’-0” and there were nine bridges: the first was 15’-2” from the curtain line with the full length being 31’-9.” The depth under the stage was 16’-4.” There were 4 traps: two traps each 9’0” ft. on off center; one trap 6’-0” from the curtain line and a final trap 9’-0” ft. from the curtain line. The staff included G. E. Stephenson (electrician) and W. H. Bairstow (misspelled as “Bairston,”stage carpenter), Thomas G. Moses (scenic artist), Michael Coyne (prop man) and Ira La Motte (manager).

The Inter Ocean reported, “Gustave Frohman, through Ira J. La Motte, who will be resident manager of the Schiller Theatre after Aug 24, has expressed himself with respect to the policy which will govern that house in the future. The Schiller is to be made a purely dramatic house, playing the best combinations to be had, and probably at no very distant day supporting a stock company. It is Gustave Frohman’s intention, during the coming season, to make one or two productions by way of experiment, demonstrating at the same time his theory that actors should be engaged with respect to their personal fitness for certain parts, no less than in consideration of their reputation in a given line. The policy of the house will be opposed to Sunday night performances, and it is probable that the result will be a revival of the custom of presenting German plays by a local company on that night. During the six or seven months of his stay here last year, Gustave Frohman spent a large part of his time at the theaters and expresses great confidence in the future of the Schiller as a home of drama pure and simple” (15 August 1895, page 6).

Frohman and Moses were only two years apart in age and both entered the theatre business at the age of seventeen. Moses had a sibling who also found employment in the theatre – his sister, Illinois “Illlie” Moses. Frohman had two brothers who also led theatrical lives and formed the Frohman trio (Gustave, Charles and Daniel). In 1895 Gustave’s business alliance with his brothers was considered “the largest factors in the productive field” (Inter Ocean, 4 Aug. 1895, page 33).

All three rose to prominence in the industry as theatrical managers of numerous touring productions. Julius Cahn, of Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guides, was the Manager of the Charles Froman’s Booking Department at the Empire Theatre.

In the foreword to his theatrical guide, Cahn stated the “need of a complete and official Theatrical Guide that would give the managers of theaters throughout the country, the managers of traveling attractions and others closely interested in their affairs, a complete and exhaustive volume pertaining to the various braches of business, arranged in a concise and clear manner, so as to make it both valuable and available as a book reference” (Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guide, 1896, page VII).

Sadly, Charles was lost when the RMS Lusitania sank, but Daniel was still in working in the theatre at the time of Gustave’s death in 1930. Gustave retired from the profession in 1918.

The Frohmans are often credited with the originating the “road business” for complete theatre companies. Prior to this time, stock companies permanently resided in a city and supplemented hosted visiting theatrical stars. In other words, the “star” worked with local stock companies while touring from theater to theater. Managers discovered that taking an entire theatre company on tour was more economical that hiring a continuous line of costly “stars,” so the “star system” was gradually replaced with the “combination system.” Touring companies began their tour after spending the summer season in their home city. In 1895, Frohman had several touring productions that included “The Fatal Card,” “Mexico,” “The Wife,” “The New Boy,” “The New Dominion,” “Jane,” “The Lost Paradise,” “Sowing the Wind,” “The Girl I left Behind Me,” “The Colonel’s Wives,” and “The Witch.”

This was the secondary type of business venture entered into by Sosman & Landis with Hunt when they established their theatrical management firm Sosman, Landis & Hunt in the 1890s (see installment #304). The logistics were complex, but the endeavor could be very profitable.

To be continued…

Part 325: Scenery for Edwin Milton Royle’s “Mexico”

In 1895, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “We also did a fine production of ‘Mexico.” He painted the scenery on the frames of the Schiller Theatre and commented that a few years later it was re-named “Captain Impudence.”

Edwin Milton Royle was both the playwright and the leading role for the production. Gustave Frohman inaugurated his management of the Schiller Theare presenting this new romantic drama (Inter Ocean, 1 September 1895, page 37). One review commented that “Mexico” was “a melodrama of the Walter Sanford School mounted like a London Lyceum production” (Chicago Tribune, 3 September 1895, page 12).

The production previewed in Cleveland, Ohio during August 1895. This provided time for the company to make the necessary changes to the staging and scenery before officially opening at the Schiller Theatre in Chicago. The Akron Beacon Journal reported “Thomas Moses, the famous scene painter of the Schiller Theater, Chicago, is working a large force of assistants day and night in order to deliver the scenery on time” (28 February 1895, page 4). Cleveland newspapers praised Moses’ settings for the production, reporting “Special and very beautiful scenery by Thomas G. Moses, of Chicago, was painted for the production” The scenes of the play were all set in Mexico, at Montery, Buena Vista, Saltillo, and Chapultepec, during the Mexican-American War (The Pittsburgh Press, 27 August 1895, page 5).

The plot took place during the occupation by the American army from 1846-1848. It featured Royale and his wife Selena Fetter Royle in a convoluted loved story between Captain Willard Shield and Jovita Talamanca. The dramatic intrigue was accentuated with spectacular scenic effects in exciting war scenes. In almost every review, however, the scenery was highlighted as an incentive to see the production. The Chicago Tribune’s review reported, “The scenery is the best part of the production at present. The first act is laid in the plaza at Montery, just before daybreak; the second and third in the courtyard of the Mission Dolores – a really beautiful scene; and the last in the Mexican fortifications at Chapultepec. Thomas G. Moses deserves credit for this very excellent work.”

Moses’ scenic art was praised for he beautiful compositions and historical accuracy. The St. Paul Globe reported, “Thomas G. Moses, the Chicago artist, prepared the scenery for the production, and his models were drawn from special photographs and sketches secured in the City of Mexico and forwarded to him by Hon. Thomas T. Crittenden, consul general of the United States, who is a personal friend of Mr. Royle, and who took great interest in the production of his play. The valley of Mexico is said by travelers to be one of the most beautiful in the world, and with its vista of towering mountain peaks, naturally forms a rare setting for a story of love and war” (St. Paul Globe, 29 Sept. 1895, page 4).

After Chicago, the production toured to the Metropolitan Opera House in St. Paul, Minnesota. The St. Paul Daily Globe commended Royle “for selecting such a fertile field and prolific period for his story…The period of the Mexican war is just far enough removed to obliterate all prejudices, while its deeds of bravery and brilliancy still illuminate the records of our martial achievements.” (St. Paul Daily Globe, 29 Sept. 1895, page 8). Royle played the hero, an American officer who falls in love with the heroine, a Mexican girl who has been detained as a prisoner within the American lines. Bannerman’s Military Museum in New York furnished a numberous artifacts from the Mexican-American War for use on the stage, such as swords, pistols and battle flags. That meant they were using real guns.

The St. Paul Globe article reported “The scenery for the production is especially magnificent, and was painted by Thomas G. Moses, the well-known Chicago artist, from accurate sketches taken in Mexico for the purpose. There is a storm scene in the play, introducing some startling and novel effects that arouse the enthusiasm of the audience” (2 September 1895, page 4).

By 1897, “Metropolitan Magazine” would comment on the name change, “Edwin Milton Royle’s play, formerly known under the title “Mexico,” but rechristened “Captain Impudence,” has been produced in New York with good results, at the American Theatre. The scene is laid in ‘Mexico’ and the incidents are military as well as highly dramatic” (March 1897, Vol. V, No. 2, page 170).

As I was looking for images from the production, I stumbled across another pyro-spectacle produced by Pain – The Mexican War’s “Siege of Vera Cruz” on Manhattan Beach. How appropriate to follow yesterday’s post. It really was all about the visual spectacle!

To be continued…

Part 324: “Pain’s Storming of Vicksburg” Pyro-Spectacle and the Jackson Park Amphitheater

In 1895 Thomas G. Moses wrote, “The year opened good. So much so that I was obliged to get more room so I rented the old “Waverly” and put new frames back where the old ones were. They had all been torn out when Sosman & Landis gave up the lease, as it was only month to month, and that was the best I could get, as the building was owned by a Cincinnati man, and it was in the courts and had been for several years.” Moses was already using the paint frames at the Schiller theatre, so this was his second painting space. The Waverly space was the same one that Sosman & Landis rented for Moses and his crew in 1892 for all of their subcontracted work. It measured 93 feet wide by 210 feet long and 40 feet high with four paint frames and plenty of floor space (for more information about the Waverly, see installment #244).

Moses’ recorded that the first project in the Waverly studio was scenery for an outdoor show called the “Siege of Vicksburg.” He wrote, “it proved to be an artistic success only.” I believe that the show Moses referred to was actually Pain’s “Storming of Vicksburg” that was performed in the amphitheater at Jackson Park.

The Inter Ocean reported that the “Grand Historical Spectacle Arranged by Pain,” was selected to mark the Pain’s return to Chicago (Inter Ocean 23 June 1895, page 9). His company was the Pain Pyro-Spectacle Company of London and New York.

The Jackson Park amphitheater was massive and sat 12,000 people; reserved chairs were seventy-five cents and box seats a dollar for the “Storming of Vicksburg.” 100 arc lights illuminated the space every evening for the show that started at 8PM. Advertisements promised “Gigantic, thrilling, and beautifully pyro-spectacular military production.” The show was listed in the Chicago Tribune as a “Grand Revival of the Glorious World’s Fair Midsummer Night Fete” and included “600 people on the monster stage” with “12 acres of massive scenery” (23 June 1895, page 36). Other newspapers reported that 800 people were involved in the production.

The spectacle depicted the siege and final surrender of the Southern stronghold on the Mississippi. It opened with “a presentation of Southern life in slavery days” that included the performance of songs and dances by a “colored chorus of 100 jubilee singers” (Inter Ocean, 23 June 1895, page 9). After this musical opening, the battle began along the banks of a constructed river, measuring 350 feet long and 100 feet wide. A gun was fired, followed by the capture and execution of a Union spy. Then there is the arrival of war vessel, that include Farragut’s gunboats, Porter’s fleet of mortars, and the rebel ram “Arkansas.” Grant’s land forces enter the scene and the batteries open up for fire. After twenty minutes of intense battle, Vicksburg bursts into flames and Pemberton surrenders.

At the close of every performance, there was a display of fireworks. This was common a common finale by every spectacle created by Pain Pyro-Spectacle Company. Newspapers reported that $1,000 was spent on the fireworks display nightly.

On July 4, 1895, an Inter Ocean article provided a little more information about the fireworks display, commenting that the day marked the thirty-second anniversary of the fall of Vicksburg (page 6).

Below is a section of the article that described the fireworks display in great detail. I was astounded at the numerous descriptions and names.

“The pyrotechnical programme arranged for this performance will rival many of the grand displays seen by Chicagoans at the World’s Fair, some of the features of which are as follows: Salute of maroon or aerial cannons, fired from iron mortars and exploding at a great altitude with a tremendous report. Magical prismatic illumination with lights of intense brilliancy, which change color repeatedly and finally blend with pleasing effect. Flight of monster balloons, carrying the most powerful magnesium lights and tri-colored fires, discharging, when at a great height, batteries of Roman candles, showers of golden rain, and superb jewel showers. Sunflower wheel, thirty feet in circumference. Flight of rayonet tourbillions, revolving oriental wheels. Flight of large shells, forming jeweled clouds, studded with gems of every hue. Celestial stars – rayonet fires marooned. The aerial acre of variegated gems. Nests of writhing silver snakes. Flight of twenty-three-ball concrete rockets, exhibiting the rarest tints, peacock plumes, silver streamers, triple parachutes, etc., etc. Twin fiery dragons, flying to and fro and performing most amusing evolutions. Salvos of gigantic bombs, forming a golden cloud, studded with jewels. Great silver fire wheels, with intersecting centers, forming a chromothrope. Display of mammoth shells, twenty-four inches in circumference, displaying at an immense altitude showers of rubies, sapphires, laburnum blossoms. Flight of rockets with peacock plumes. Aladdin’s jeweled tree, with blossoms of every hue, terminating in a fairy fountain. Swarms of wild snakes. Fireworks portrait of George Washington. Flight of infant parachutes. The monkey gymnast, an amusing piece of pyrotechnic mechanism. Aerial bouquet, produced by the flight of asteroid rockets. Salvo of aerial saucissions, filling a space in the air with wonderfully brilliant fires of grotesque form. The Kalediescope, with intersecting centers, cutting a silver spray with colored fires, the whole concluding with a revolving sun, 150 feet in circumference. Discharge of monster aerial wagglers. Parisian novelties – rockets with silver threads. Salvo of thirty-inch bombs – prismatic torrent and silver clouds. Groves of jeweled palms. Finale, grand flight of 1,000 larger colored rockets fired simultaneously, producing a grand and magnificent aerial bouquet.”

For the July 4, 1895, performance, the Jackson Park amphitheater was packed with 12,000 people. An additional 5,000 people were turned away from the packed venue. Wow! I could not get over the fireworks descriptions and marveled at the complexity of the pyrotechnics program. Who could afford to fund this endeavor?

“The Storming of Vicksburg” was produced by the Coliseum Gardens Amusement Company, in conjunction with the Pain Pyro-Spectacle Company, or London and New York. The local company was composed of the principal stockholders in the Chicago Exhibition Company, which built the big coliseum on the old Buffalo Bill “Wild West” lot on Sixty-Third Street. Past productions by Pain included “Last Days of Pompeii,” “A Night in Pekin,” “The Siege of Sebastopol,” “Capture of Vera Cruz,” “Carnival of Venice,” “Paris from Empire to Republic,” and “Japan and China.”

To be continued…

Part 323: Thomas G. Moses and “Little Robinson Crusoe” at the Schiller Theatre

In April of 1895 Thomas G. Moses designed and painted scenery for “Little Robinson Crusoe” at the Schiller Theatre in Chicago. The musical burlesque was for Thomas W. Prior and intended as their summer attraction. Moses wrote, “We had a great opportunity and I am pleased that we took advantage of it… We introduced some very good effects.”  The “we” was Moses and Walter Burridge. The Indianapolis Journal reported “The scenic environment of the play is all from the brushes of two natives of the United States, and well-known scenic artists, Thomas G. Moses and Walter Burridge” (1 Sept. 1895, page 10).

A review of the production was published in the “Amusements” section of the “Inter Ocean” (2 June 1895, page 37). It noted that Prior had obtained the libretto from Harry B. Smith, a Chicago writer.

For the show, W. H. Batchelor wrote much of the music. The review noted that he had “furnished some clever compositions for local productions during the past few years.” Gustave Luders, the musical director at the Schiller, was also contributed a musical piece – the “cannibal chorus, with accompaniment of native instruments.” Costumes for the production were designed “Mr. Denslow,” who was reported to be a “newspaper artist.” The review also included a detailed description of the scenery and that it had been “painted upon the frame of the Schiller by Thomas Moses, the artist of the house.” Moses had left Sosman & Landis and was striking out on his own again, with much success.

Here is a portion of the Inter Ocean review, as I found it absolutely fascinating:

“The action of “Little Robinson Crusoe” arises in the English seaport town of Hull, arranged very much up to date, the scene including a fashionable summer hotel, a view of the beach and ocean, and groups of summer boarders about, among them girls in fancy costumes, a la ‘Daily Hints from Paris;” dudes in white flannel suits, and the girls, of course, in stunning gowns, splendidly and beautifully arrayed. An odd idea of Smith’s has been to introduce in this ultra-fashionable scene, in the full beauty of a glorious summer day, a pawnbroker’s shop and auction-room, kept by one Hockstein, over whose door is painted “Philanthropist,” with the sign of the three golden balls. Precisely why Hockstein’s pawn shop should be so close to the fashionable summer boarding house is explained in the story by the suggestion that the mammas, the girls, and the dudes are all so likely to get flat broke, and they need Hockstein’s kindly services not only to pay their board bills to the landlady of the Anti-Fat Hotel, but to get home again.

The second act opens on the deck of a modern war vessel of the first-class battleship, with its polished cannon and general nautical equipment. This action of the third act is laid in Robinson Island, with its strong contrast to the fashionable dresses of the summer watering place of today, created by native costumes, tropical foliage, etc. The piece concludes with an elaborate and entirely original transformation scene, designed by Thomas G. Moses, the artist of the house, and his assistants, which represents a vision under the sea in transition effects, from the bed of the ocean up through the homes of the funny tribes, culminating in a brilliant and opalescent picture of beauty.”

The article also reported “the scenic features which will be made specially attractive, are the sea beach scene in the first act, the deck of the ship ‘Adventure.’ With tableau of the wreck, Robinson’s home in the Valley of Palms upon the South Sea Island, a rocky coast and the raft scene, and the Grand transformation, a vision ‘neath the ocean..” The Chicago Tribune reported that Manager Thomas W. Prior “has given Thomas G. Moses carte blanch for the scenery” (9 June 1895, page 38)

Moses recalled that Eddie Foy, Marie Dressler, and Adele Farrington were in the cast. Foy played Dare-Devil William, an amateur pirate. Marie Dressler played Ophelia Crusoe, Robinson’s aunt who had romantic admiration for pirates. Adele Farrington played Robinson Crusoe, Captain of the H. M. Marines. One thing that I have noticed over the years is that Moses typically did not include the names of many performers, and I was surprised to see the names of three actors attached to one production. I was curious to learn about Foy, Dressler and Farrington, the three who warranted comment in Moses’ typed manuscript.

Eddie Foy was born Edwin Fitzgerald in New York City in 1856. Foy’s father joined the Union Army in 1862, where he soon died of syphilis. By 1863 his mother moved their family to Chicago where Foy found work as both a newsboy and bootblack to help support the family. The Foy home was destroyed during the great fire of 1871 and Eddie sought work as an entertainer, working with a variety of partners and touring the country. In addition to acting, Foy incorporated singing, dancing, clogging, blackface, acrobatics, and impressions into his acts. By the 1890s, Foy starred in a series of large-scale musical spectacles for the Chicago-based producer David Henderson based on popular tales, such as Bluebeard Jr. (1889), Sinbad,(1891), and Ali Baba (1892). The 1896 show Little Robinson Crusoe. It was in Little Robinson Crusoe where he paired with Marie Dressler.

Dressler was born Leile Koerber in Cobourg, Canada in 1869.  When she was 14, she joined a traveling stock company, bringing along her sister to not only function as her chaperone, but also play a few small roles. She later joined the chorus of an opera company. In an unbelievable turn of events, she ended up playing the role of Katisha in “The Mikado” after the lead actress sprained her ankle and the understudy was unprepared. Her success led to a series of other roles, and soon she was supporting her family with the proceeds from her career. Interestingly, the title of Dressler’s autobiography is Confessions of an Ugly Duckling. Despite her success as a singer and actress, she gravitated toward character roles for comedy.

Adele Farrington (1867-1936) was born in Brooklyn and started her career in musical comedy, touring the vaudeville circuit with Dressler. Later she was featured in stock companies. At the age of 47, she became a film actress and appeared in seventy-four films between 1914 and 1926. Her husband was Hobart Bosworth, actor and film director. Unfortunately, the marriage didn’t last as he left her for a younger woman and started a family in 1920.

Moses also wrote about one scene in the production, “Our big storm at sea was so realistic the audience was terrified and after the first show we had to modify it.” Two months later, the “Inter Ocean” confirmed this change in an article from the Amusements section. It reported, “The ship-sinking scene, in which Eddie Foy (Daredevil Willie) and Marie Dressler (Ophelia Crusoe), both clinging to the highest bulwarks of the old-fashioned three-decker ship, the Adventure, are submerged beneath the waves. This is quite a vivid stage picture, and so admirably executed that it really partakes of the sensational and surprises the audience” (4 Aug. 1895, page 33).

To be continued…

Part 322: Charles E. Porter, African-American Scenic Artist

Before I was distracted by Daguerre’s chemical paintings, I was getting ready to complete my section on African-American scenic artists when another was brought to my attention. Gene Meier contacted me when I first mentioned Solomon E. White about an African-American panorama painter – C. E. Porter.

Charles E. Porter (1847-1923) worked on the cyclorama Niagara Falls for the Columbian Exposition. Meier shared information from a newspaper article, April 9, 1892 – the Freeman (Indianapolis, Indiana). It reported that C. E. Porter, an artist if Meridian, Conn., was working on the cyclorama of Niagara Falls that would be presented at the World’s Fair. Porter was also noted as the first “colored man” admitted to the Art Academy of New York and had studied two years in Paris. That was all he knew about C. E. Porter, so I decided to do a little digging.

Midway into my search, I encountered an article in the Hartford Courant, “Charles E. Porter Paintings to be Auctioned” (9 Sept. 2012, page G1-G2). It was an ideal story for “Antiques Roadshow”; a woman is urged by her mother to purchase some paintings at an estate sale by an unknown artist who turns out to be remarkable. Thirty years later, the paintings are positively identified as the work of C. E. Porter. Luckily for me, his life was briefly summarized to generate interest in the upcoming auction. Someone had really done their research, and the story helped me locate additional information. This article also reported that Porter was one of the first African-American artists to exhibit at the National Academy of Design.

Here is what I discovered about C. E. Porter:

Porter was born in Hartford, Connecticut, and raised in the Rockville section of Vernon. The family was well connected to the New England abolitionist community, but exceedingly poor. Before reaching adulthood, he lost eight siblings due to childhood illnesses and war. Eight, I cannot imagine. Porter’s artistic talent was recognized by the local community at a young age, and he soon established a studio in Hartford. Porter gained the respect and admiration of many other, and much more well known, artists who lent their support over the years. One of his sponsors was Frederic Edwin Church. I was intrigued as Church has always been one of my personal favorite landscape artists. Then a second famous personality popped up in the story!

Mark Twain wrote a letter of recommendation for Porter to continue his studies at the Académie Julian in Paris. Wow. After studying abroad, Porter returned to the Hartford area where he established his residence at 23 Spruce St in Rockville. Near the top of Fox Hill, he had a studio at the summit.

As many artists, his fortunes slipped later in life and he ended up selling his paintings door-to-door in the town of Vernon. As many Vernon residents were hesitant to buy art from a minority, his friend Gustave A. Hoffman, a Bavarian artist, helped Porter sell his work. Hoffman (1869-1945) was a portrait painter, etcher, and lecturer. Born in Cottbus, Brandenburg, Germany, he studied at the Royal Academy in Munich before moving to America.

Sadly, Porter’s artwork was not always purchased, and on some occasions, he was forced to barter his artwork for food or clothes. Some historians have purported that when the community tired of trading goods for paintings, Porter was reduced to menial labor and had to cease painting for periods of time. Hildegard Cummings in “Charles Ethan Porter: African American Master of Still Life” (2007 exhibition at the New Britain Museum of American Art) wrote that “[Porter] was referred to as respectfully as Professor Porter and a disparagingly as Charles the Nigger.”

His tail continues as so many artists who never see fame in their lifetime. He sadly and slowly sank into obscurity until his death in 1923. Gradually losing his faculties, Porter continued to paint throughout his final years. I immediately got that mixed feeling of anger and helplessness. It never fails; extremely talented artists die penniless, only to have patrons crawl out of the woodwork and sell their art for exorbitant prices when they no longer need any care or financial support. Porter’s paintings now sell for the thousands and are included in collections at the Whitney in New York and the Smithsonian in Washington, D.C. In Connecticut, his work is part of the collections at the Wadsworth Museum of Art in Hartford, Florence Griswold Museum in Old Lyme, Lyman Allyn in New London, Connecticut Historical Society and the New Britain Museum of American Art.

Well, there is more to the story that came to light as I scanned newspaper databases. The Hartford Courant reported, “D. W. Tryon, the artist, has been sketching in the neighborhood of Rocky Hill for a couple of weeks, and C. E. Porter has been working with him.” (1 Aug 1881, page 2).

This was Dwight W. Tryon (1849-1925) who was born in Hartford and raised on his grandparent’s farm in East Hartford. Tryon first sold his art in 1870, exhibiting at the National Academy of Design by 1873. Quick rise to fame, but he was also a white male. In 1876, Tryon auctioned all of his paintings to partially fund a trip to France with his wife where he enrolled at the atelier of Jacquesson de la Chevreuse and took classes at the École des Beaux-Arts. In addition to painting, Tryon was an art instructor at Smith College from 1886-1923. His personal papers are currently held at the Freer Gallery of Art and the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery in Washington, D.C. Charles Land Freer, founder of the Freer Art Gallery. Freer was a primary patron of Tryon.

In 1881 Porter prepared for his trip abroad and also auctioned off all of his studio collection (Hartford Courant, 25 April 1881, page 2). The article titled “Porter’s Paintings” reported, “The pictures, nearly one hundred in number, were painted with the strictest regard to artistic worth, from time to time during the past two or three years, and it is to satisfy a desire to acquire a finishing touch to his art education in Europe that Mr. Porter has decided to put them on sale at auction. The collection is quite varied in subjects and incudes some of his best efforts at fruit, flower, game, fish, interior and landscape painting. All the pictures have been elegantly framed by D. Vorce & Co. The sale will be held at the large studio in the Chesney building…”

Upon his return two years later, there was an art exhibition in Hartford of watercolors and oil paintings. The exhibition included not only Porter but also some very successful artists from the region (Hartford Courant, 16 Nov. 1883, page 2). The hope of this exhibit was to revive the Connecticut School of Design. I quickly scanned the names and found both Charles E. Porter and Dwight W. Tryon. Then I encountered a surprise – Mrs. Porter. It appears as though his wife was an artist too. I was unsuccessful with tracking down any of Mrs. C. E. Porter’s story or artwork. I finally managed to locate her married name in 1903 beyond a simple “Mrs.”

On January 13, 1903, the Pittsburgh Press posted the legal notification of the divorce between Charles E. Porter and Sallie G. Porter (page 15). I had to wonder if that was the beginning to his end.

To be continued…