Drypigment.net

In 1894, Thomas G. Moses recorded getting the contract for the New Lyceum Theatre in Memphis, Tennessee. Located at the corner of Third and Union Streets, the old Lyceum Theatre had burned to the ground during November 1893. The theater was on the lower floor of an athletic society building and the total loss was $360,000. Only three years old at the time of the fire, construction immediately began to build another theater on the same site.

Opened by H.L. Brinkley, the New Lyceum Theatre cost $235,000 and had a seating capacity of 2,010. It included an oblong proscenium that was illuminated with exposed light bulbs, similar to the electric scenic theater on top of the Masonic Temple Roof Garden that same year. This was a feature was called a luxauleator, or “a curtain of light” invented by Steel MacKaye for the Spectatorium in Chicago (see past installment #265). The New Lyceum was credited as being the first theatre in Memphis to have electric lighting.

The auditorium included open metalwork railings for each of the three balconies and boxes. Ironically, it was this decorative aspect that would ultimately postpone the opening as there was a delay in the arrival of the iron work (Montgomery Advisor 7 Oct 1894, page 9). The final dedication occurred on Monday, December 3, 1894, with Otis Skinner opening the venue. His productions were “His Grace de Grammont” and “The King’s Jester.”

Moses wrote, “The firm wanted this badly, but the architect insisted on my work.” “The firm” was Sosman & Landis and the architect was fellow scenic artist Frank Cox. Tignal Franklin “Frank” Cox (1854–1940) was also the theatrical architect who was designing several other opera houses that same year.

His projects in Texas alone included remodeling the opera house in Sherman, a new ground-floor theater in Galveston, the Stanger Theater in Waco, the Peterson Theater in Paris, and the opera house in Gainesville (The Times-Picayune, 8 April 1894, page 27).

Newspaper articles would note Cox as the “well-known scenic artist and architect of theatres.” Cox worked as a scenic artist, architect, decorator, builder, and developer throughout the course of his career. During the time that he the theater in Memphis, he was still running Cox Bros. and working with his brothers and Clark (1861-1936) and Eugene (1869-1943). Their ages at the time were 40 (Frank), 33 (Clark) and 25 (Clark). The three men had five other siblings with a father who had started work as a Boston painter in 1871. Eugene Cox had a son named after him, Eugene Jr. (1889-1967), who was also a scenic artist, so it gets a bit confusing.

Here is a little background to place Frank Cox in context of nineteenth-century scenic art. Harry Miner’s American Drama Directory (1882-3) credited Frank Cox with the scenery for the Opera House in Batavia, New York and Smith’s Opera House in Tarrytown, New York. By 1890, Cox was working as a scenic artist, decorator and architect in the New Orleans area. He continued to work as a scenic artist throughout the decade, being credited with scenery for Temple Theatre in Alton, Illinois (1899) and Klein’s Opera House in Seguin, Texas (1903-1904). Like Moses, Cox also worked in oil and exhibited his fine art. In 1894, he participated in an art exhibition with his brother Clark. Both were members of the Artists’ Association in New Orleans (The Times-Picayune, 13 Dec. 1894, page 3). This was one of many art shows where the Cox brothers exhibited their work.

This brings us to another interesting aspect of the Cox family – the family feud. Frank, Eugene, and Clark operated a scenic and fresco business known as Cox Bros. in New Orleans. However, it was referred to as “Frank Cox’s Studio at New Orleans,” him being the eldest and most experienced. They had quite a large staff by 1891 that included the scenic artist Emile Nippert and stage machinist James A. Kee (Fort Worth Daily Gazette 11 August 1891, page 2). The Cox Bros. studio was located in the Grand Opera House of New Orleans. Frank withdrew from the partnership in 1896, but the partnership continued to operate under the same name of Cox Bros., despite Frank’s public declamation that the firm was dissolved. Eugene and Clark published a rebuttal, wanting to make it “thoroughly understood” that they would continue to operate the scenic and fresco business under the name Cox Bros. By the way, there appears to be no immediate familial ties to the Jesse Cox Scenic Studio of Estherville.

There is something interesting to ponder when thinking about the Cox family. Frank understood painted illusion for both the stage and auditorium. He would have been the perfect theater architect as he understood the aesthetic and mechanical demands of the venue. A variety of historical sources explain that architects would often hand over the stage design to a scenic studio. The studio would identify the layout and materials for the space, thus securing work from the architectural firm. I wonder if after guiding architects, Cox decided to work directly with the client and avoid working with a middle man -the architectural firm. Cox’s position as the architect would also secure work for his company Cox Bros., in the form of both scenic and decorative art. His position could have provided an endless stream of projects, as apparent in 1894. Maybe he was expecting too much of his younger brothers and swamping them with work, too much for them to handle without his help in the studio. Maybe that was why Cox reached out and specified other artists for his multiple projects – like Moses.

The big picture is that there was history and friendship between Cox and Moses, plus they were only two years apart in age. He was a friend of Moses and greatly respected his art. When you look at the front curtain for the Lyceum Theater, it is understandable why Cox wanted Moses in charge of the scenery for the New Lyceum . Moses and his crew painted a beautiful exterior landscape with his signature “babbling brook.” Decades later in 1931, Cox would again request that Moses paint some Fiesta floats in California, although Moses would decline.

Regardless of the reason, Cox’s selection of Moses over Sosman & Landis in 1894 had to have been quite a blow to the scenic studio as the project would not be supervised by their company as planned. That was their ultimate goal after opening the annex studio -controlling all of Moses’ subcontracted work and keeping him on a leash. By doing this they maintained a position of control and ultimately determined which contracts they would pass down to Moses, yet benefited by his name. The New Lyceum Theatre was one in a series of projects where architects and clients specified that the work solely go to Moses. This was the beginning of his second departure from the studio of Sosman & Landis.

To be continued…

Stage English

Every once in a while you stumble across an unexpected gem while doing research. In many cases for me, it has absolutely nothing to do with what I was looking for on my quest. It just magically appears on the same page, or somewhere nearby. That is why I always like looking for books in the library; three rows over there might be a book that I would have never otherwise encountered.

Today’s discovery looks at something that is evasive, even for theatre technicians – stage terminology. It changes from country to country and decade to decade. Unless there is an article that clearly explains the vernacular for the stage at a certain point in time, we can only hazard a guess or piece together bits of information from memoirs, trade journals and newspaper articles. The current words that we are familiar would seem foreign over a century ago to our predecessors. I discovered an article from 1895 that defines “meanings of some behind-the-scenes technical terms.”

It was in a January 6, 1895, article for the Detroit Free Press titled “Stage English” (page 15). I am posting the article in its entirety, as it is extremely valuable for deciphering our past and should be available for my colleagues. The attached photographs are of a model that I recently built for the Matthews Opera House in Spearfish Matthews when I was asked to depict what their original 1906 Twin City Scenic Co. collections would have looked like at the time of delivery.

“Stage English”

“The patrons of the theatre hear a great deal about “flies,” “borders,” “tormentors, braces, wings, traps and many other things belonging to the arcana of the stag, but comparatively few have anything like a definite idea of their meaning. Some industrious recorder of facts has taken pains to make a cursory collection of these for the general information.

The pieces of canvas running across the top of the stage, representing sky, ceiling, and so on, are “borders,” and the “flies” are the galleries on either side of the stage, made continuous by “the paint-bridge” at the back.

The back scene is generally in two pieces called “flats,” but when the scene descends from above or ascends from beneath the stage an is one piece, upon a roller or otherwise, it is called a “drop.”

The narrow side scenes are “wings,” and they run, top to bottom, in “grooves,” which are divided into “cuts.”

The inclined platforms are “runs” and used in mountain scenes, battle scenes and so on. The small painted frames used to hide from sight the audience the “runs” are known as “masking pieces.” A “box scene” is a room with solid walls and ceiling, and you cannot “box in” a forest scene. The pieces of canvas overhead are “sky borders,” and the space over these, sometimes stretching up to a great height, is known as the “rigging loft,” and the intricate webs of ropes up there are all worked from “the flies.”

“The “paint bridge” is the continuation and connecting part of the two galleries constituting the “flies,” which are stationary galleries and immovable. But the “paint bridge” is made to rise and lower as the pleasure of the scene painters and others, and immediately behind it is the “paint frame,” also to be raised and lowered so as to bring within easy reach all parts of the scenery the artists may be painting.

The holes on the stage are called “traps,” and underneath them are the trap cellars.” The “star” or “vampire” trap is a hole in the stage through which disappear r shoot upwards some of the principles in the pantomime and other spectacular pieces.

The noise resembling the breaking of timber and the falling of houses is made by means of a gigantic rattle, moved by a handle. Against the wall of the stage, generally at the exit to the street, is the “call box,” upon which, or rather within which, are posted the “calls,” or notices of rehearsals and other important events to occur. A “sea-cloth” is a piece of canvas, which is painted to represent water, and is shaken to produce an imitation of waves. The instructions from the author to the carpenter concerning the scenes in the play are called “scene plots.” The particular part of the stage where the stage carpenter stows his scenes is called “the dock.” This term is elastic, however, and applies to any place in or out of the theater where scenery is stowed.”

To be continued…

Back to 1894

During the summer of 1894, Thomas G. Moses painted a number of small shows. The work kept the annex studio open, despite the decline in projects after the close of the Columbian Exposition. He wrote that the annex staff was needed to “get the work out on time” and fall engagements included productions of “Athenia” and “School for Scandal.” Moses was working for the manager Leonard Wales and the actress Julia Marlowe.

“Athenia” was written by John O’Keefe and composed by Leonard Wales. It opened at McVicker’s Theater in Chicago on September 10, 1894, and played for three weeks. The Chicago Inter Ocean reported that for this production “splendid scenic equipment has been provided” (9 Sept. 1894, page 29). C. D. Marius was the stage director with Adolph Liesegang as the musical director. The show was managed by W. H. Fitzgerald and was well received by the Press. Interestingly, the Wales Opera Company of fifty-three people sang “Athenia” when it played at the Masonic Temple in Fort Wayne (Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette 20 Oct. 1894, page 3).

The story of “Athenia” depicted the adventures of Alchibiades Gunn, a representative from Uta-in-Macedonia. It was a satire on the United States Senate. Something we need now. The played opened with senators grouped in the Peristyle of the Athenian Senate.

Sidenote as I am contemplative today: Peristyle is a row of columns surrounding a space, such as a garden or court. It was also a familiar composition for the Sosman & Landis scenic artists when painting Masonic scenery. At the Columbian Exposition it was an architectural landmark – the Peristyle Gate.

I use “peristyle” quite frequently when writing scenery evaluations and condition reports that include a degree description. It is a word flagged by spellcheck on my computer every time as it is no longer a common term. “Epistyle” or “per style” is always recommended to replace the word “peristyle.” For the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry’s 18^th degree, it denoted a row of columns overlooking a picturesque landscape. This would be the INRI (Infifnity, Nature, Reason and Immortality) translucency at the top of a colonnade.

I am including a few pictures of the Peristyle Gate from the Columbian Exposition and the later “Peristyle” design designated by Sosman & Landis Studio. I just find it interesting, but I digress.

Another show that Moses was working on during the summer of 1894 was Richard Brinsley Sheridan’s “School for Scandal,” starring Julia Marlow (1866-1950). Marlowe was an English-born American actress known for her Shakespearean roles. However, she introduced to add a few contemporary pieces to her repertoire, soon performing on Broadway by 1895. In “The School for Scandal,” Marlowe played Lady Teazle in her revival of the production (Inter Ocean, 18 Nov. 1894, page 33).

The show opened at the Metropolitan Opera House during September 1894 (Star Tribune, 26 Sept. 1894, page 5). She was supported by Robert Taylor and under the management of Fred Stinson.

In Chicago, it played for three weeks at McVicker’s Theatre. As on tour, it played in rep with “Twelfth Night,” “As You Like It,” “Romeo and Juliet,” “Belle’s Stratagem,” “Chatterton” and “Ingomar” (Chicago Tribune 14 Nov. 1894, page 8). Not all of the productions were created by Moses or received rave reviews. The Chicago Tribune panned the scenery for “Twelfth Night,” stating, “Any person in the audience with the slightest taste and knowledge of stage propriety could get up a more artistic setting with three or four discarded dry goods boxes covered with half a dozen second-hand curtains” (Chicago Tribune , 15 Nov. 1894, page 8). Ouch. I have to wonder who was responsible for the construction of the “Twelfth Night” set.

Although little is recorded of the scenic elements produced by Moses for Marlowe or Wales, I once again ponder, “Who didn’t he know? Who didn’t he work for?” Joe Jefferson, John Cort, Helena Modjeska, William Haworth, Buffalo Bill Cody…the list of those who Moses knew goes on and on. I am astounded at the people he encountered throughout his career. Was he the best artist? No. But he kept a record, and sometimes, just sometimes, that leaves a much larger legacy than anyone can ever anticipate.

To be continued…

Start Spreading the News, I’m Leaving Today

Thomas G. Moses traveled to New York while working for David H. Hunt in 1894. The touring show was a production that replicated parts of the Midway Plaisance from the Columbian Exposition. In New York Moses met up with the actor and producer William Haworth (1860-1920). Haworth needed a scenic artist to design and paint the scenery for his new production “On the Mississippi.” Two years earlier, Moses, A. J. Rupert, Harry Vincent and Frank Peyraud had all worked together to create the settings for Haworth’s production “A Flag of Truce.” Moses was a well know commodity to Haworth. He closed the contract for $3,000, today’s equivalent of $83,000.

This was NOT a job secured through Sosman & Landis. Moses wrote that on his return to Chicago, he leased the frames at the Schiller Theatre where he immediately went to work on the project. The show later opened at the People’s Theatre on February 4, 1895, in New York and immediately went on tour across the country. “On the Mississippi” was advertised with ”a wonderful panorama of gorgeous spectacular effects” (Quad City Times, 27, Dec 1895, Page 1).

It was another perfect opportunity for Moses to paint what he did best – landscapes. The production was set in the Walden Mountains of Tennessee. The action took place during the “villainous Reconstruction” period after the Civil War. The plot involved the Ku-Klux Klan and their attempts to execute an innocent man. Haworth played the leading role.

During this same time, Moses made another contract with Thomas Prior in Chicago. Prior was now the manager of the Schiller theatre. He offered Moses the position of scenic artist at his theatre to paint the weekly opera sets for $50.00 per week, the equivalent of approximately $1400. This was in addition to working for Sosman & Landis and painting the Haworth scenery. Prior had worked for Dr. F. Ziegfeld as the assistant manager of the Trocadero, before the venue promoted vaudeville acts and Ziegfeld Jr. took over. Prior was familiar with Moses and his painting from when he created scenery for the Trocadero.

The Schiller Theatre was in a 17-story building that opened in 1892. It was originally funded by German investors to be used for German-language operas and cultural events. The building was designed by Louis Sullivan and Dankmar Adler of the firm Adler & Sullivan for the German Opera Company and had a 1,300 seat house.  It was briefly known as the Dearborn Theater from 1898 to 1903, until finally settling on the name Garrick Theater. The building was demolished in 1960 and replaced with a parking structure.

And this was the turning point for everything. Moses wrote “Sosman and Landis did not think I had given them a square deal. They thought that I had made so much money during the summer that I didn’t care to do any more contracts. To show me they were game, they gave me a contract for $1,500.00 to fit up the Masonic Temple Roof Garden. They didn’t want to let me go entirely. I pleased them on this work.”

So, Moses was drumming up enough business for himself that he was now competition for Sosman & Landis. He was an expensive employee, but they need to keep him close so they offered the two electric scenic theatres that would grace the top of the Masonic Temple on Randolph and State Streets (see past installment # 264).

Each electric scenic theater was designed with a seating capacity of 75. The first theatre replicated the Columbian Exposition’s “Court of Honor” as viewed from the agricultural building, looking northwest. The second theatre featured “A Day in the Alps” from the Columbian Exposition’s Midway Plaisance, presenting an alpine scene that transformed from dawn to dusk. Moses used the Academy of Music’s paint frames to create another “Day in the Alps” show (for more information on this production, see installments # 262-265).

Regardless of the Masonic roof top scenery offer, Moses was getting restless. Some of it was financially based, as he knew of potential profits just out of his reach. Until this point, he was working for Sosman & Landis, but also received much of their subcontracted work such as the Temple roof theaters. I think the creation of the west side studio, or Sosman & Landis annex studio, was to kill two birds with one stone.

The first was to ensure that Moses remained associated with Soman & Landis; having all work funnel through them. This prevented Moses from becoming even further competition. He worked only so many days on Sosman & Landis projects each week. The remainder of his time was spent on subcontracted projects in the annex studio or elsewhere. I believe that Moses began to realize this situation was much more beneficial to Sosman & Landis than himself. He would leave the studio by the end of 1894 and strike out on his own – again.

To be continued…

On a separate (and artistic) note:

The front curtain created for the Schiller Theatre used a unique design that I have only encountered for Scottish Rite theatre’s under Thomas G. Moses’ supervision as head of the paint studio.  It used decorative slits, such as those still hanging at the Tucson and Grand Forks Scottish Rite Theaters, as well as the one remaining at the City of Winona’s Masonic Theatre.

By 1901, David H. Hunt was listed as manager for the Pike Theater Company. It appears that theatrical management company of “Sosman, Landis, & Hunt” closed and other firms took over the management of their Cincinnati and Indianapolis venues. Hunt’s sole role became that of a stock company manager and his company toured the country, stopping in St. Paul, Minneapolis, Detroit, Washington, Baltimore, and New York.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune on July 1, 1901, reported that the company brought with it nearly “three carloads of scenery, specially designed and gotten up for the plays to be presented during the summer season in Minneapolis and St. Paul.”

In Minnesota, the “David H. Hunt’s Pike Theater company” was performing several plays, including Bronson Howard’s “The Banker’s Daughter” and “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” In a July 14, 1901 interview with Hunt and company members, his scenic artist explained the importance of scenery for their company:

“People are just commencing to realize that good plays are frequently as dependent upon good scenery as good actors,” said Scenic Artist Slipper, “and it is certainly true that a play without the advantage of scenery would be a burlesque upon the modern methods of management” (Star Tribune, page 14). “We are told that Shakespeare’s plays were first produced without scenery, but we are not informed they were great success except as lectures or monologues of rare literary merit.” He continued, “The success of the drama depends upon the illusion it creates; acting is an illusion – that, is, it excites the auditor to tears over a situation which does not exist, or moves to mirth with an incident that is purely imaginary. So, too, is scenery an illusion. We show you a landscape in a production at the Metropolitan which seems to the spectator in front to stretch away for miles, whereas it is but a few rods distance from the eye, and, perhaps, no more that three feet away from the house, or the shrubbery, or the forest which seems so near you. Thus, if the actor deceives your ear with a cry which seems to have it in tones all the attributes of heart-felt sorrow and tragedy, the artist deceives the eye by producing an impression simply by a few touches of the brush and the proper combination of colors something akin to that produced by the omnipotent hand of nature herself as revealed in the far stretching landscape, or as is shown in the more artificial work of the man as applied to the architecture and the furnishing of apartments.”

The following year, the Hunt’s stock company was performing Hall Caine’s “The Christian,” again touring across the country with the production. Newspapers reported that the his stock company had been in existence for nearly seven years, during which time it had played over 250 different plays and had appeared in almost 2,400 performances. This suggests that there was simply a name change from “Sosman, Landis & Hunt” to David H. Hunt for the same stock company.

The Evening Star reported, “Stock was a new thing when Mr. David H. Hunt decided that vaudeville was not a success at his Cincinnati theater, and installed the first stock company there since the famous old days when Davenport, McCullough and other old-time stars had appeared with the ante-bellum stock companies in the smoky city. Mr. Hunt was a young man, his company contained players who were themselves little known, and with the development that followed hard work and success the organization was brought to a standard of perfection. Mr. Hunt early decided that pecuniary success would only result from artistic success. He set about obtaining good plays and good players, with the result that people in Cincinnati accord the Pike Theater Company both consideration and affection. For several years the company played entirely in Cincinnati, then tried Minneapolis and St. Paul for spring engagements, next added Detroit to their list of cities and now adds Washington, New York and Baltimore” (Washington, D.C., 13 Sept. 1902, page 22).

The story for Hunt continues on a different trajectory and ends by 1911. In 1903, he marries stock company actress Angela Dolores (Detroit Free Press 21 May 1903, page 12). By 1906, Hunt was back in Chicago, managing a stock company for the Chicago Opera House. A newspaper article reported that “David H. Hunt who has considerable experience in this particular branch of amusement business, will assume active management, and he has made definite arrangements with important Eastern managers whereby he will offer their successes at popular prices” (Inter Ocean, 19 August 1906, page 26). Two years later, Hunt has returned to managing his wife’s touring production with William Duvre and Harry English(Cincinnati Enquirer 30 August 1908, page 26). This lasts for approximately five years. Newspapers report that her tour remained under the personal direction of Hunt and who promoted her as the “best known stock leading lady” (Fort Wayne Daily News, 16 Feb 1911, page 5).

But what happened to Sosman, Landis & Hunt? By 1902, Landis left the scenic studio due to health reasons. This left Sosman solely in charge of both artistic and administrative duties. He realized that he could not do it alone and repeatedly requested that Thomas G. Moses return to Chicago and work in the studio. Up until this point Moses had partnered with Will Hamilton, forming the studio of Moses & Hamilton. They were working in New York. The decade from 1894 to 1904 is one of the most interesting periods in the career of Moses.

We return to 1894 tomorrow, understanding one of the factors that caused Moses to depart the Sosman & Landis studio – for his second time – in 1894.

To be continued…

Part 305: After the Party’s Over

 Sosman, Landis & Hunt also managed the Grand Opera House in Indianapolis and the Grand Opera Stock Company there. This was at the same time that they ran the Pike Theater in Cincinnati. By 1900 the firm was contemplating a move to Detroit due to a noticeable reduction in patronage at their productions in Indianapolis. (Indianapolis News 21 Nov. 1900, page 8). The Indianapolis Journal commented on the characteristics of the Grand Stock Company (23 Nov. 1900, pg. 3) reporting that the Grand Opera House “had a fixed payroll of a very large aggregate amount, most of which is spent within the limits of Indianapolis.” In 1900 the Grand Opera Stock Company was getting ready to present a revival of “Trilby,” “Camille,” “The Social Highwayman,” and “The Girl With the Auburn Hair.”

The Grand Opera was initially under the management of “Dickson and Talbott.” George A. Dickson and Henry M. Talbott rented the playhouse to the new theatrical management company of Sosman, Landis & Hunt in 1896. This was two years after their theatrical management company began in Cincinnati. They would continue to manage the Grand Opera and stock company until 1901. From 1900-1902, weekly receipts began to plummet, forcing a new company to take over the venue. It became a vaudeville house under the next management team of Anderson and Ziegler in 1901. Anderson and Ziegler were credited with introducing vaudeville in Indianapolis during 1900, the same time that profits at the Grand Opera House started to diminish (Indianapolis Star 26 May 1916, page 11). The Grand Opera House would later be known as one of B. F. Keith’s venues too.

What I find interesting about the Sosman, Landis & Hunt business venture is the timing. Business slows after the World Fair of 1893 and they are left with two studios and a huge staff of artists. They take elements of the Midway and produce a touring show that they manage. In addition to managing the Masonic Temple Roof scenic electric theaters, they also start to invest in stock companies. This is on top of their involvement with the American Reflector Company, the manufacture of theatrical rigging and stage hardware, as well other investments. It appears that the significant profits made during the fair were invested in other business ventures. None of the wealth amassed during 1893 trickled down to their employees and this caused many of the artists to leave the following year, including Thomas G. Moses. I am sure that after all of their had work, they felt slighted when asked to take a pay cut after such a successful year.

At the beginning of 1893, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “The big Fair progressing nicely and a world of work for us in sight.” That was not the case after the close of the fair. By the end of 1893, Moses wrote about business after returning from a trip to New York, “On my return home, I found business very bad, as we all thought it would be at the close of the Fair.” Moses further wrote about his situation, commenting, “There were no more contracts and all I could see was a salary of $10.00 per day.” That is today’s equivalent of approximately $250 a day.

$10.00 a day was the same amount offered to Moses by David Hunt to replicate a few scenes from the Columbian Exposition’s Midway Plaisance, including the electric theatre. Hunt also wanted him to paint at the Pike Theater. In 1894, Thomas G. Moses went to work for David H. Hunt as scenes from the Columbian Exposition’s Midway toured the country. Highlights from the fair were appearing all over in the comfort of local venues.

Moses traveled to Philadelphia to install and open Hunt’s Midway show on February 15, 1894. The Buffalo Commercial (Buffalo, New York) reported “The Famous Midway” was in town. A “very realistic exhibition” was on display at the 74^th regiment armory. Hunt was also the manager of the Midway Plaisance Company in addition to starting his business venture with Sosman & Landis. The article continued that those who went to the Columbian Exposition and attended the Midway “were pleased to note that an excellent reproduction on a much larger scale than might have been expected had been made, and they were well pleased with what they saw” on February 8, 1894 (page 10). Scenes included the Chinese Theatre, Dahomey village, Indian village, German village, the Turkish Theatre Hagenbeck’s animal show, the Streets of Cairo, and Old Vienna. Other scenes, such as the Ferris Wheel” were included in the distance. The article commented that the scenery was painted “so faithfully that you believe for a moment that it is the real thing. In short you have a picture of the Midway as you might have seen it in Chicago by looking through an inverted opera glass.”

Moses next traveled with the show to install it at the Madison Square Garden in March of 1894. Moses wrote, “We got the whole show up in a day, including the Electric Theatre.” He continued that they “opened to big business.” Yet he saw none of the profits and continued to work for $10 a day, while traveling with large expenses.

Of his time spent away from Chicago with Hunt, Moses write, “Sosman and Landis didn’t like my being with Hunt as they felt I was slipping away again, which I did.” This was a turning point and we see things come full circle for Moses. Throughout his entire career he impressed people. He impressed them with his artistry, speed, and personality. Wherever he went, jobs magically appeared before him and whatever studio he was working for. It was as if Moses were one big magnet, constantly drawing future projects to his doorstep. Why not leave the studio and ensure himself a share of the profits?

To be continued…

The past few installments have concerned an article about the Pike Theater’s scenic artist, Fred McGreer (15 April 1900, page 12). He was interviewed just prior to his departure for New York while he was working on “Quo Vadis” in Cincinnati. McGreer was going heading to New York to paint scenery for another production of “Quo Vadis” with Gates & Morange. The artists for that production included Thomas G. Moses, Will Hamilton, John H. Young, Fred McGreer, and Gates & Morange. Of the 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.”

The New York Times reported that 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). Hunt was listed as the manager of the Pike Theater in Cincinnati where McGreer worked from 1898-1900. In New York, “Sosman, Landis & Hunt” would produce “Quo Vadis.”

Later, the New York Times article “Miss Gilder Goes to Law” reported a court case against Sosman, Landis & Hunt (Oct 19, 1902, page 1). The company failed to produce Gilder’s version of ” Quo Vadis ” for five weeks each in two years at their various theatres, including the Pike Theatre Opera House. This is about the same time when Sosman, Landis & Hunt disappears from print. The firm started in 1894. So what happened?

Hunt was also mentioned in the typed manuscript of Thomas G. Moses. Nothing in Moses’ records was ever complimentary about David Hunt. My impression from his writing is that Hunt was a “wheeler and dealer” who didn’t necessarily value his employees, or listen to them. Hunt was one of the reasons that good artists left Moses’ crew at the studio when he was working for Sosman & Landis. The tone of Moses’ writing about Hunt conveyed his distrust and dislike for the man.

Heretofor, I believed that Hunt worked in a marketing or management position as an employee of Sosman & Landis who moved to New York and founded New York Studios. His studio was the eastern affiliate of Sosman & Landis. Similarly, Sosman & Landis Studio was the western representative of New York Studios. I had always wondered where Hunt came from and why he was connected with Sosman & Landis.   What did he have to offer? The answer was theatre management. Hunt was a manger and theatrical producer who entered the picture in 1894. He was also part of a Cincinnati-based company called Sosman, Landis & Hunt.

Sosman, Landis & Hunt managed the Pike Opera House in Cincinnati, starting in 1894. 1894 was a time of transition for Soman & Landis; they were expanding and diversifying. As Chicago theatrical scenic outfitters, they were also the lessees of the Masonic Temple Roof Theater. This was their first management opportunity. It is possible that with the sharp decline in scenic contracts at the end of the Columbian Exposition, they decided to diversify to ensure their success. They not only were involved with the manufacture of painted scenery, stage machinery, and rigging at their scenic studio, Landis was also one of the three founders for the American Reflector & Lighting Company. Producing and managing the two electric scenic theatres on the rooftop of the Masonic Temple diversified their interests even further. Sosman, Landis & Hunt expanded their company to manage venues in other cities too.

By 1897, Hunt was in the process of remodeling and redecorating the Pike Theater in Cincinnati, hiring the Chicago theatrical architect Sidney R. Lovell. At this point the style of shows that Hunt managed primarily included the big vaudeville theaters. This would change to stock company management. Hunt was also looking after four summer theaters that they controlled in Atlantic City and Asbury Park. By 1899, the Chicago Inter Ocean reported “David H. Hunt of Cincinnati, a member of the firm of Sosman, Landis & Hunt, the well-known theatrical managers, says: ‘Chicago can’t compare with New York as a theatrical town” (16 July 1899, page 14).

An 1899 article in the Los Angeles Herald provided a little more insight into Hunt’s roll in the Sosman, Landis & Hunt theatrical management venture. It was an interview with Hunt titled “How the Stock System Pays” that made me think of all “get rich quick schemes.” Here is the article in its entirety:

“The growth of the stock company idea in the west would surprise you easterners,” said David H. Hunt, of Sosman, Landis & Hunt, the other day. “I have charge of the Pike opera house In Cincinnati, and we are making more money with a stock company than we did when the house was given over to vaudeville and variety was the society fad. A haphazard stock venture will not succeed, but properly managed the scheme is a huge success, and the companies are now so plentiful that it has become a matter of difficulty to obtain players who are not only willing but capable of doing leading stock work. The lesser people are not hard to get hold of, for there will always be an excess of players, but to get good names to head the company is constantly becoming more difficult because of the advance of the idea. We have a big company, and not only get good plays, but we try to give for seventy-five cents as good a production as is provided by a visiting company for double the money. We have two scene painters and two assistants always at work, and we never use a rag of scenery for more than one play. [The scenic artists in Cincinnati at the Pike Theater for Sosman, Landis & Hunt were Thomas G. Moses and Fred McGreer. McGreer is covered in installments #301-304.].”

Hunt continued, “We give the property man money enough to hire really good furniture and we have as good a stage manager as we can get, for we very early awoke to the fact that we could save money on this department of the work. A competent man will get all there is that is good in an actor, while an incompetent one will spoil a good player. Then we have found that we must spend a little money in royalties. It is a nice thing to have the old plays to fall back on, but a season which lists a succession of ‘East Lynne’ and ‘A Celebrated Case,’ with ‘Leah’ and similar plays to follow, will not be a remunerative one in the west, and we find that by laying out four or five hundred dollars for the use for one week of a play like ‘The Prisoner of Zenda,’ we cannot only get back the money we pay out, but enough more to make it worth our while to get the best. Of course, there is the constant study to be urged against the stock system, but to offset this, there is the avoidance of the discomforts of travel and to be able to settle down in a flat for a season instead of alternating between the one night stands and the sleeping cars, is a sufficient attraction to many to offset the fact that they will have to get up a new play each week instead of one or two for the season.”

Hunt will be the subject of the next few posts as he remains in the background for many of Thomas G. Moses’ activities during the late 1890s.

To be continued…

Here are a few images from “The Prisoner of Zenda” that Hunt refers to in the 1899 “How the Stock System Pays” article. Enjoy!

The book that I have been working on since 2014 is finally ready for preorder! It is to be released May 1, 2018.

Santa Fe’s Scottish Rite Temple, built in 1912, is a historic landmark and the home of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry in New Mexico. The building–including its jewel box theater with original scenery collection–and its artifacts, represent a time capsule of Masonic culture and theatrical history. Essays examine the emergence of Freemasonry, key Masonic figures during New Mexico’s territorial period through statehood, and the architectural significance of the iconic pink building and Freemasons’ use of it to the present. Illustrated with contemporary and historical images, the book reveals the theatrical production of Masonic degrees and the production of the magnificent scenic backdrops. Today, many of the country’s Masonic buildings are being repurposed and their collections are being liquidated. Through the heroic efforts of its members, the Santa Fe Scottish Rite Temple has been preserved, remaining under the continued stewardship of the Freemasons, who share their building with the community.

The photographs by Jo Whaley of the Masonic scenery and building are absolutely breathtaking.  During November 2016, Jo and I staged all of the degree productions with the 1912 scenery.  The painted drops were produced by Sosman & Landis Studio of Chicago, under the direction of Thomas G. Moses. Jo’s photographs provide a colorful glimpse into what Scottish Rite members would have experienced during the early twentieth century.

Here is the Amazon link:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0890136335/ref=s9_acsd_newrz_hd_bw_bZx_c_x_3_w?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=merchandised-search-6&pf_rd_r=PY85K0WD4MWTV7R68S33&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=7571211b-6c03-5664-ab77-5567dd65558d&pf_rd_i=2229

In 1900, Fred McGreer described his artistic process to the Cincinnati Enquirer (15 April 1900, page 12). Here is the second half of the article:

“I am able to outline the scenes after they have been coated with glue priming, for which a particular glue is used that will not crack. After the priming had dried I sketch the outlines with charcoal, and meanwhile the assistants are mixing their paints in buckets, and when I have concluded they set to work painting the scenery. In this process, first the broad colors are laid in and then comes the ornamentation, such as the figures on the walls of interiors, or colors for the moldings to get the lights and shadows. This is ended with the detail work of what we call bringing the scene together. It is like the finishing touches you see the rapid-fire artists put on their pictures in the vaudeville theaters when a form emerges out of what is apparently a chaos of conflicting colors. At this period I may discover too much red at the base of a scene, or not enough red beneath the cornice of an exterior, and these must be toned down.

With the scene painted it is again hustled off the paint frame to make room for another act. The painted set goes back to the carpenter to be cut out and attached to the lines running to the rigging loft, there being three lines to each drop. The columns and solid sections which will be noticeable in “Quo Vadis” are made of what we call profile board. It is a wooden veneer and is pre-hinged to a stand shipping. These columns also stand by themselves as though apparently part of the setting.

In the first scene for “Quo Vadis” the case is different. 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.

Mr. McGreer in conclusion estimates that he has painted over 30,000 feet of canvas for the big production this week and used about 2,000 pounds of paint in doing it, in addition to five barrels of whiting alone was used, while the paint was distributed among 20 or more colors. For ‘Quo Vadis’ everything had to be made new as nothing like it had been produced at the Pike.

Mr. McGreer during his two seasons at the local theater has mapped out and painted over 220 stage settings, and of these the ratio ran about three interiors to one exterior. The mere mechanical work of making the scenes is antedated by studies of the costumes as the ladies dresses and the scene colors must harmonize, and historical research as historical accuracy is demanded in these times. In all his stay, nothing has been used over much, excepting the solid doors that figure in Pike productions. These doors have been doing service for three seasons. They have been slammed by the impetuous Nigel or gently brought to by the careful Todman, but in all that time the same old doors groaned under the weight of added paint until now they are so heavy it takes a firm grasp and a long pull to draw them open.

But this is digressing from Mr. McGreer. Next week this popular artist will bid adieu for the summer, at least to his den back of the big white lady. He goes to New York, having been engaged by Gates and Morange, the scenic artist there. If long and varied experience will count for aught, Mr. McGreer is sure to make his mark there for few visiting attractions as the first class houses have exhibited scenery which compares to that which has been in evidence so frequently at the Pike.”

During the summer of 1900, McGreer left for New York to work for Gates & Morange. This was the same year that both Thomas G. Moses and Grace N. Wishaar were painting scenery in New York City too. It was the place to be that later led to many other projects across the country for inspiring young artists. By 1901 McGreer was listed as creating the scenery for Morosco’s Grand Opera House in San Francisco. It doesn’t appear that Fred McGreer ever returned to Cincinnati.

To be continued…