Drypigment.net

In 1912, Thomas G. Moses wrote that he designed scenery for two Minnie Palmer productions. However, there were two Minnie Palmers recognized for their theatrical contributions in 1912.

One Minnie Palmer (1857-1936) was an American actress who made her stage debut at the Park Theatre in Brooklyn, New York on June 8, 1874. Palmer was known for both her dramatic and singing abilities, and especially her starring role in “My Sweetheart” that toured both England and the United States. In 1912, “The Pittsburgh Press” included an article on two well-known actresses from the past, Minnie Palmer and Estelle Clayton. The article recalled their careers twenty-five years prior  (19 March 1912, page 18).

A second Minnie Palmer emerged after the first; this was actually Minnie Marx (nee Miene Schönberg), mother and manager of the Marx Brothers and sister of comedian and vaudeville star Al Shean. Minnie used the last name of Palmer as an alias as a manager to her sons and other shows. The Marx family resided in Chicago during this time, making the connection to Sosman & Landis studio even more probably, especially through mutual ties with McVickers Theater. There is a fascinating history about the Marx family and their life in the windy city written by Mikael Uhlin for his Marxology blog (https://www.marx-brothers.org/marxology/chicago.htm).

As an aside, Moses worked with the Marx Brothers on a project in 1926. Of them, Moses wrote, “Made several sketches for Marks Brothers.  I have no faith in them.  I think them very cheap.” He would have some perspective if he had worked for their mother on other shows.

Minnie Palmer managed the Marx Brothers and other well-known vaudeville attractions. In 1912, shows produced by Minnie Palmer included, “The Six American Beauties,” “Minnie Palmer’s Golden Gate Girls,” “Minnie Palmer’s 1912 Cabaret Review,” and “Running for Congress.”

“The Six American Beauties” was advertised as the “costliest act ever played” (The Daily Gate City, Keokuk, Iowa, 31 July 1912, page 3). “The San Francisco Call” reported “Music is their forte, reinforced by natural beauty and skill in acting. The violin, cello and harp are handled with remarkable effect and a novelty is introduced when a girl wanders through the house playing a violin solo” (3 Nov 1912, page 46).

In 1912, Palmer also organized a new act known as “Minnie Palmer’s Golden Gate Girls.” Palmer’s “Golden Gate Girls” employed 17 people for their touring show as it crisscrossed the country (Lansing State Journal, 12 Oct. 1912, page 6). The show was part of the “Big Laugh Show, Duke of Bull Durham.”  Advertised as “a musical comedy farce with a plot” and “gigantic hurricane of fun, “show posters promised a “carload of scenery and effects”

Palmer’s “Cabaret Review of 1912” was described in an article from the “San Francisco Call,” as another big scenic production (30 Dec. 1912, page 18). The article reported, “‘Cabaret Review of 1912,’ Minnie Palmer’s sparkling little musical comedietta, is the headliner of the new bill which opened at Pantages yesterday. The scene of the review is in a café on the gay ‘white way.’ The usual after midnight crowd assembles, giving Will Staton an excellent chance to impersonate a joyous reveler. Staton’s capers during the whirlwind revelry reveals him as a character actor of no mean merit.”

Palmer had a fourth show on tour on tour in 1912 too. “Running for Congress” was a political show managed by Palmer with a company of 20 people (The Times, Munster, Indiana, 30 Dec. 1912, page 2). It too traveled with a carload of scenery.

The confusion between the two Minnie Palmers intensified by 1918 when actress Palmer returned after being abroad in 1918, resuming her acting career, as well as producing theatrical shows. This caused confusion with Minnie Marx, aka. Minnie Palmer, who continued to work as a manager. However, Marx was dealing with several business issues and the onslaught of WWI. To avoid her sons being drafted, however, Minnie Marx bought a farm in La Grange, Illinois, as she understood that farmers could be exempted from the draft.

To be continued…

Yesterday, I mentioned the two reels of famous “Kinemacolor pictures” that were part of the new Empress Theatre’s vaudeville program in 1913. When movies were first introduced, they appeared as an act, one of many on the vaudeville stage. However, a shift occurs in the theatre industry, slowly nudging moving pictures to the forefront of popular entertainment on stage. This had a major affect on the construction of other entertainment venues, subsequently decreasing the demand for painted scenery. In a sense, the appearance of Kinemacolor Theaters albeit short lived signally the beginning to the end for Sosman & Landis and other firms founded on the production of painted illusion. I am going to explore the construction of Kinemacolor theaters today.   

Kinemacolor was advertised as “the perfection of animated photography.” It is noted as the most successful of the so called “natural color processes” in early cinema, using an additive process operated with alternating red and green filters that were applied to the shutter in front of the camera and in front of the projector. Popularized by George Albert Smith and Charles Urban. Kinemacolor flourished in theaters during the decade before WWI. The principle of recording color separations with revolving shutter filters was not invented by Urban. German Hermann Isensee is credited as one of the individuals who first experimented with the process during the 1890s.  By 1899, Frederick Marshall Lee and Edward Raymond Turner patented an early version of the system.

In short, the three-color records (wheels) used by Lee and Edward proved to be impractical, and yet the earlier two-color system failed to produce the entire color spectrum; blue to violet hues and whites had a yellowing tinge. It was Smith who proposed adding blue-violet filters to the projection light for a more satisfying result.  As I was reading about the various filters, it was hard not to think of the red/green/white border lights that were installed in some Scottish Rite theaters during this same time period (see past posts, as I have addressed the lighting approach).

The popularity of the short films resulted in the construction of Kinemacolor theaters. On Oct. 9, 1911, the “Courier-News” reported the Historic Mendelssohn Hall was leased to the Kinemacolor Company of America as a permanent home for the colored motion pictures in New York and renamed the Kinemacolor Theatre (Bridgewater, NJ, page 3). The article noted, “Kinemacolor Theatre will be unique, and to New York what the Scala Theatre, with a similar exhibition, is to London. Abroad Kinemacolor has become the rage of Royalty, and on average of once a fortnight their majesties King George and Queen Mary visit the Scala, and as well have a private exhibition set for the children of the Royal family. For the first time in New York the complete series of Coronation pictures will be present for a limited engagement at the Kinemacolor Theatre, which opens its doors on Saturday evening.”

That same year, a Kinemacolor theater also on the west coast of the United States. Tally’s Broadway was in Los Angeles soon featured the new color films and was briefly renamed the Kinemacolor Theatre.

The Island Amusement Company in 1913 constructed another Kinemacolor Theatre in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. On February 20, 1912, the “Vancouver Sun” reported “As its name implies the Kinemacolor theatre will feature the famous colored motion pictures prepared under the Kinemacolor system, but it will also present a musical programme including an orchestra of nine pieces under the direction of Mr. Joseph Kos and noted soloists brought here at considerable expense and changed twice weekly. Each day’s performance will be continuous from 12 noon to 11 o’clock at night. There will be seven numbers in the night bill occupying upwards of an hour and a quarter for consecutive presentation. The night charges will be 25 cents to the lower floor and 15 cents to the balcony, while for the benefit of children and their parents the charge of all parts of the house form noon to 6 p.m. will be only 10 cents”  (page 7).  

By the summer of 1913, newspaper headlines boasted, “Kinemacolor Breaks Film Speed Record.” The “News-Herald” of Franklin, Pennsylvania, reported “The Kinemacolor broke all records for quick motion picture reporting the day the Impersonator docked by exhibiting the pictures a little over six hours after arrival. It is the first time that natural color photographs have been taken, developed, printed and exhibited with such speed and satisfactory results” (28 June 1913, page 7). Film footage taken at noon was shown in the Kinemacolor exhibition theatre by 6 p.m. that evening. All seemed to be on the upswing, but the demand for new films outpaced those who produced and processed them. At the time, the model was unsustainable to deliver new subjects to the Kinemacolor Theaters. The novelty wore off.

On October 21, 1913, the “Victoria Daily Times” reported “Kinemacolor Closed Up. Victoria’s Newest Theatre Proved Unprofitable Venture and Policy Will Be Changed” (21 Oct, 1913, page 17). The article continued, “The colored pictures never proved a great attraction in any part of Canada and the company behind the films has been reported in difficulties in some months past.” By 1915, the venue reopened at the Colonial Theatre.

Widescreenmuseum.com explains one of the flaws to Kinemacolor (http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/kinemaco.htm), “Like all sequential color processes, Kinemacolor suffered from color fringing when objects moved, since the two color records were not recorded at the same time. In projection, a filter wheel, similar to that in the camera, added the red and green tints to the successive frames. Many color processes used this approach and all suffered from fringing on moving objects, dark images, and untold grief if the film was not loaded in the projector in appropriate sync with the color wheel. None of the two-color processes could reproduce blue or pure white, but various tricks were used to fool the eye into thinking it was seeing a neutral white…Kinemacolor was quite successful in Europe and promised to grow and improve. However, two events ultimately killed the company. First, William Friese-Greene sued for patent violation. Friese-Greene claimed to have invented virtually everything relating to motion pictures but he lost his suit through all the lower courts in England. He finally did win when he appealed the lower court decisions to the House of Lords. This didn’t get Friese-Greene anything but it did open up the Kinemacolor technology so that anyone could take advantage of it. The second event was World War I, which nearly destroyed all the European film companies. By the time Europe started to make a comeback Kinemacolor was nearly defunct and Technicolor in Boston, Massachusetts had taken the lead in producing a workable color process.”

To be continued…

In 1912, Thomas mentioned three projects at Sosman & Landis, writing, “A nice little order from Charlotte, N. Car., Minnie Palmer, two shows, full stock for the Empress Theatre, Fort Wayne.”

The Empress Theatre was located at the intersection of Wayne and Clinton streets in Fort Wayne. In addition to an auditorium and stage, the building included gentlemen smoking rooms, ladies rest rooms, and a nursery. Of the Sosman & Landis installation, local newspapers described fire prevention measures.

On March 8, 1913, the “Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette” reported, “The stage is fitted with the finest scenery that has ever been brought to Fort Wayne. The curtain arrangement is also something new to Fort Wayne. Two asbestos curtains will be used with a water curtain in the center, which makes the matter of a fire upon the stage the next thing to an impossibility. The curtain will be raised and lowered automatically, sliding through a metal groove which also makes it an impossibility for fire, if there should be one to get through the curtain and out into the auditorium.” (page 7).

Previously, “Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette” reported, “In matter of exits, the Empress will boast pf being one of the safest theaters in the middle west. Constructed almost entirely of concrete and steel, it is practically fireproof and being equipped with sixteen exits, open on all four sides, the place can be emptied in less than three minutes” (February 23, 1913page 15). The industry was still reeling from the Iroquois Theatre fire, with new theaters now citing how quickly an auditorium could be evacuated. Fort Wayne residents had also witnessed the Aveline Hotel Fire of 1908, a devastating tragedy for the town. The Empress Theater’s opening drew many men prominent in vaudeville to be in attendance.

Although Sosman & Landis completed the scenery in 1912, the official opening of the Empress Theatre was on March 9, 1913. With a seating capacity of almost 1300, advertisements promised, “every modern convenience known to theatre building.” The theater’s policy was three performances every day, with five hundred “choice seats” being available for ten cents. Matinees started at 2:30 and were followed by two evening shows at 7:30 and 9:00 P.M. Girls were used as ushers for the evening performances and on Sunday. For matinees, patrons were expected to seat themselves.

The opening billing included Lew Field’s “Fun in a Boarding House” as the headliner. The stage setting for the show included the section of a house, six rooms in all. Fields, of the firm Weber & Fields, was engaged to produce “fun” acts exclusively for the Sullivan & Considine theaters nationwide.

In addition to the headliner, there were four other acts and two reels of famous “Kinemacolor pictures” as part of the new vaudeville theater’s program. The Kinemacolor pictures were changed twice weekly – on Sunday when the entire bill was changed – and on Thursday (Fort Wayne Daily News, 10 March 1913, page 8).The May 8, 1913, “Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette” article reported, “Kinemacolor pictures will also be shown, which is something new in the motion picture art in Fort Wayne. The Empress controls the sole right to these pictures in the city, therefore they will be shown at no other place in Fort Wayne. The pictures are educational in a way and also amusing.”

An advertisement in the “Fort-Wayne Journal-Gazette” stated, “The Empress theatre has instituted the new and marvelous Kinemacolor moving picture machine, which reproduces on the screen the same colors and shades that are present when the picture is taken. The colors are true to nature in every respect, and, although the system of mechanism is carried out in a very complicated manner, yet the color scheme is most simple, entirely like the doctored and painted films of the black and white machines. A filter wheel, divided in four parts, two of which are filled with a red filter and the other two parts with green filter, forms the foundation and basis of the new system, The great, yet simple, law of nature , that all colors of the rainbow can be made from three colors – red, yellow, and blue- is taken advantage of, and two colors, yellow and blue are so blended in the filter as to produce the shade of green desired. The film is sensitized so that the darker colors are shows through the green filter and then lighter shades are projected through the red filter, thus making a segregation of colors that are true to nature. The method of producing such a high degree sensitiveness on the film is the same as the other methods of film making ways, only a picture for the Kinemacolor machine must be taken out in pure sunlight, whose rays alone are strong enough to produce the desired sensitiveness on the negative. The red and green filter wheel is placed in front of the negative when the picture is taken and the rays passing through the filter form a color value on the film. Then when the film is put into the machine, a high-powered Arclight throws its strong rays through the filter onto the film and out through the lens, forming a segregation of colors that exactly reproduce the picture. The machine utilizes three times as much candle power as the black and white machines, and, being run by a one-horsepower electric motor shows forty pictures in a second, while the other machines, most of which are run by hand, project and average of sixteen pictures per second.  The inventor of the machine is an American, Charles Urban who has resided in England for the past fifteen years. The machine has been in England for the last six years, but only in America for three years. It has been largely accepted by all the large theatres of the east, and its success is due to its value. The machine is merely leased to the companies, and the Empress is the only one in the city at present that will use it “(8 March 1913, page 7).

More on the Kinemacolor theaters.

To be continued…

In 1912, Thomas G. Moses, wrote, “A good contract for Milwaukee Majestic.”

Milwaukee’s Majestic Theatre was located at 219 W. Wisconsin Ave, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; the Majestic Theatre was dedicated on April 22, 1908. The theater was housed in a fourteen-story building, managed by theater lessees Hermann Fehr of Milwaukee and C. E. Kohl of Chicago.

In 1908, the Majestic Theatre was one of eight theaters in Milwaukee listed in Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guide. Milwaukee’s population at the time numbered 325,000.  The other venues included the Davidson Theatre, the Bijou Opera House, the Alhambra, the Pabst Theatre, the Schubert Theatre, the Star Theatre and the Gayety Theatre.

On March 1, 2002, Jim Rankin provided insightful information regarding Milwaukee’s Majestic Theatre at cinematreasures.org. I am passing this along so the information will not get lost. Rankin wrote,

“The MAJESTIC Theater was a 1908 vaudeville house with its auditorium at right angle behind its 14-story MAJESTIC office building. The box office and lobby occupied the center bay of the office building and one proceeded through it to the white marble foyer of the auditorium behind, unless one went to the gallery in which case he had to use the déclassé [?] gallery box office and staircase off the alley. The center of the gallery rail was occupied by a half circle projection on which was placed the incandescent follow spotlight with its six-color revolving light filters. In the auditorium one found 1900 some seats in a wide house with six boxes on each side of the stage with curving fronts enriched with gilded fruit festoon moldings. Bentwood chairs with padded seats filled each box, each of which was draped in a simple rectangle of a fringed lambrequin. Three levels of leather seats faced a spacious stage the arch of which was adorned with molded festoons and Greek key designs. The switchboard backstage was the old marble-faced type, but the double row of footlights and other abundant lighting was adequately served, and the fully rigged wood-covered concrete stage saw use for much Vaudeville until 1930.The 20 dressing rooms served by a back stage elevator were complemented by the cellar under the alley for keeping the animal acts.

Orpheum vaudeville made frequent use of this theatre until they commissioned the architects who designed it, Kirchoff & Rose of Milwaukee, to create a much larger and fancier venue just a block eastward in 1928: the RIVERSIDE theatre. The MAJESTIC may have been glamorous 20 years earlier, but the movie palaces coming upon the scene with their elaborate decors and stages suitable also for vaudeville, made the MAJESTIC look like an unadorned old dowager. It struggled with hastily installed movies for two more years before it was demolished to become a parking lot for the very office building in front of it! That office building still stands as part of the Grand Avenue mall, but the theatre is long forgotten but for an old timer I met on the street one day who had a tear in his eye as he recalled the many years of his youth when he had enjoyed shows in the once MAJESTIC.”

The construction of the fire curtain at the Majestic Theatre in Milwaukee was credited to the S. H. Harris Co of Chicago and listed in and advertisement for the “Manual of Inspections: A Reference Book for the Use of Fire Underwriters in General (William Dennis Matthews, Jan. 1, 1908, Insurance Field Co.). In light of yesterday’s post about fires, S. H. Harris Co. manufactured steel faced fireproof curtains that complied with the Fire Insurance Underwriter’s requirement. Moses frequently mentioned the difficulty of painting on these steel curtains at various theaters. Other theaters that used S. H. Harris curtains in 1908 included the Academy of Music (Brooklyn, NY), Lyric Theatre (Philadelphia), Majestic Theatre (Chicago), Star & Garter Theatre (Chicago), Star Theatre (Chicago), American Theatre (St. Louis), Day’s Theatre (New York City), Forest Theatre (Philadelphia), College Theatre (Chicago), Empire Theatre (Chicago), and the Majestic Theatre (Des Moines). Many if these venues used stock scenery manufactured by Sosman & Landis.

To be continued…

From 1905 until Al Ringling’s passing in in 1916, Thomas G. Moses completed several designs for the Ringling Bros. grand circus spectacles.  In 1912, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “Went to Sterling to catch Ringling to collect $1,200.00.  As I went to the tent to find Al Ringling, I discovered everyone watching a fire – a stable at least four blocks away.  A spark was blown towards the tent, the top of which is prepared with paraffin to make it waterproof.  It soon ignited from the sparks and in less than thirty minutes the big tent was destroyed.  The rest of the tents were saved.  It was mighty fortunate there were no people in the tent.  Some of the animals in another tent started some noise when the smelled the smoke, but they were soon quieted.  I sneaked away without making myself known.  There was no money for me, that I guessed.” This would not be the first or last fire for the Ringling Bros. On July 6, 1944, a huge fire engulfed the Ringling Bros. Circus tent in Hartford, Connecticut. The tragedy killed 167 people and injured hundreds more.

Fire was a constant threat for not only circuses but also theaters. Theatre practitioners still site the horror of Chicago’s Iroquois Theatre tragedy as an impetus for many of today’s fire codes. It is not that we were unaware of how to prevent theatre fires. As an industry, there were fire curtains and other preventative measures in place at many nineteenth and twentieth century theaters. The architectural firm of McElfatrick & Sons placed most of their theaters on the ground floor and increased fire exits. By 1876, Dion Boucicault was testing various methods to fireproof scenery.

The problem was a lack of regulation and safety enforcement. I always think back to the Triangle Shirt Factory and all of the women leaping to their deaths to escape the flames; profits remained a priority over people for many companies, even after court-appointed safety measures were demanded of business owners. This is when the reinforcement of state and government regulations to ensure public safety is a necessity, as some companies refuse to spend money on safety. For the theatre industry, it took the seeing piles of dead women and children on the streets of Chicago after fire broke out during a matinee performance.

I have several books about the Iroquois Theatre Fire, one being “The Great Chicago Theatre Disaster” by Marshall Everette published in 1904.  The publication included “the complete story told by the survivors” and was “profusely illustrated with views of the scene of death before, during and after the fire.” The Publisher’s Preface noted, “While the embers are still all but glowing of one of the most heartrending fires of modern times, its history has been caught from the lips of the survivors and embalmed in book form. The deep and far-reaching effects of the Iroquois casualty will not be eradicated, if much softened, for another generation. That this is true must be realized, when it is remembered how large a majority of the victims were in the early dawn or flush of life, and their friends and closer kindred can the less readily be reconciled to the sad reality than the loss had fallen among the mature, whose end, in order of nature, would not be far away.” Everett added, “While this book is intended to be a fitting memorial in commemoration of that tragic and historic event, I am in firm in the conviction that its wide circulation will be instrumental in accomplishing much good. It calls special attention to the defective and dangerous construction of theaters, public halls, opera houses and other public buildings all over the land; bold evasions and reckless disregard of life-saving ordinances by managers and owners whereby thousands of precious lives are constantly in imperiled. It will thus arouse public sentiment and emphasize the supreme importance of safeguarding people who congregate in such buildings and prevent the possible loss of thousands of lives in the future. What has happened in Chicago is liable to occur in other cities and towns unless precautionary measures are adopted.”

Mrs. Emma Schweitzler described the first appearance of the fire, stating, “As soon as the drop curtain came down it caught fire. A hole appeared at the left-hand side. Then the blaze spread rapidly, and instantly a great blast of hot air came from the stage through the hole of the curtain and into the audience. Big pieces of the curtain were loosened by the terrific rush of air and were blown into people’s faces. Scores of women and children must have been burned to death by these fragments of burning grease and paint. I was in the theater until the curtain entirely burned. It went up in the flames as if it had been paper and did more damage than good.”

When Moses visited Ringling in 1912, he had already witnessed his share of burned stages. Sosman & Landis frequently provided replacement scenery for venues that replaced previously burned theaters. It was not until I began researching the life and times of Moses that I began to understand how frequently fires cured in the United States. We all know of their existence, yet many of us cannot comprehend the frequency of the events. And yet, people kept walking through the doors of early twentieth century theaters, hoping that all precautions to prevent fire had been implemented for their safety.

By 1908, the “Manual of Inspections, A Reference Book for the Use of Fire Underwriters” by William Dennis Matthews included a section on theaters:

“THEATERS. Heating? Footlights, border-lights and overhead stage lights – open? How guarded? Scenery – painted with watercolors or oils? Arrangement of switchboard, dimmers, etc.? Spot Lights? Sciopticons? Stereopticons? Smoking on stage? Dressing rooms – candles? Swinging gas jets? Heaters? (Fires are caused frequently by electrical apparatus carried by traveling companies, which is generally poorly constructed and installed). Carpenter and paint shops – care of oils, paints, refuse, etc.? Space under auditorium used as a catch-all of old papers, etc.? Posters- where stored (subject to spontaneous combustion when stored in piles, owing to the oxidation of printer’s ink)? General care and cleanliness?

Note: The spread of fires in theatres is usually very rapid, owing to the height of ceilings and the arrangement and nature of scenery and flies in stage end. Fires occurring during performances nearly always cause panics in which more or less people are injured or killed. It should, therefore, be plain to all concerned that devices which might cause fires should be eliminated as far as possible and that those which are necessary should be safeguarded in every practical way. The question of protection is a most important one – some cities require the stage end to be of fireproof construction, all scenery to be fire-proofed, the opening in proscenium wall to have a fireproof curtain, and the dressing rooms, property rooms and paint and carpenter shops equipped with automatic sprinklers. There should be a good supply of chemical extinguishers on the stage and working galleries, in dressing rooms, paint and carpenter shops and property rooms, and throughout the basement; large stationary chemicals with piping to these various rooms and hose attached would, of course, be preferable.”

To be continued…

In 1912, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “June 1^st, Sosman agreed to pay me what I wanted, $5,200.00 per year besides my dividends, which will make my income not less than $6,500.00 – not quite as good as the New York venture, but I will be satisfied.” $6500 in 1912 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $171,920.31 in 2019. Of that number, $137,526.25 was Moses’ salary without his dividends.

Now, consider his statement. “not quite as good as the New York Venture.” Moses was referring to his four-year partnership with Will F. Hamilton in New York City – Moses & Hamilton Studio. He left a successful business venture to return to Chicago in 1904. When Moses returned to Sosman & Landis he assumed the role of vice-president, shareholder, and controlled all design, construction, painting and installation. In a sense, Joseph S. Sosman handed all artistic control of the firm over to Moses. In 1904, Moses had been working as a scenic artist for three decades and was not only well-known, but also in high demand across the country.  He brought credibility, as well as past clients, when he returned to Chicago. 

By 1912, Moses was responsible for the successful delivery of at least two dozen Masonic scenery installations, hundreds of stock settings, all of Ringling Bros. grand circus spectacles, Frederick C. Thompson’s most successful amusement park attractions, and scenery for many premiere productions by Joe Jefferson, Edwin Booth, Helena Modjeska, Sarah Bernhardt, John McCoullough, Julia Marlowe, Katherine Clemmons, Buffalo Bill, and many others. He had closely worked with dozens of theatrical producers, such as Wm. A. Brady. John J. Murdock, Joseph Litt, Gus Hill, Kohl & Castle, H. H. Frazee, Thos. W. Prior, and the list goes on.  Moses was a very valuable asset to Sosman & Landis, but his primary obstacle would remain Sosman & Landis stockholders. While Sosman was alive, he acted as a buffer for Moses, being one of the company’s founders.  After Sosman’s  passing in 1915, Moses faced continued challenges presented by not only stockholders, but also one-time company treasurer and secretary, David H. Hunt. Hunt ran the eastern affiliate of Sosman & Landis – New York Studios,

There are a few factors to consider about Moses’ salary in 1912.  First of all, the theatre industry was booming and Sosman & Landis Studio was at the top of their game. They really reigned supreme in regard to painted settings for theatre, opera, music academies, social halls, fraternal stages, public pageants, grand circus spectacles, amusement park attractions, and more. Everywhere you turned, it seemed as if there was a need for scenic art, whether on the stage or at a world’s fair. My exploration of the period from 1890 to 1920 suggests that there was a greater demand than supply.  Competition between scenic studios was almost jovial, as there was always another job just around the corner. This dynamic seems to shift during the 1920s when the number of suppliers dramatically increases and the demand for painted scenes begins to wane.

There are many factors that contribute to this decrease, too many to mention in one post.  However, it is important to note that there is an increased demand for fabric curtains in lieu of painted stage settings. There is also the emergence of the lighting designer; atmospheric effects once created by paint are now created with light on three-dimensional objects. Whether you want to site realism and naturalism on stage or the Bauhaus movement in theater, the demand for painted illusion diminishes. Scenic art remains, but there is a shift from art to craft in many cases, There is also the increased popularity of film, transitioning the artistic medium as a snippet for vaudeville to a full-length silent film at a movie house.  The rise of film shifts many live performance theaters to cinemas, also decreasing the need of stock scenery in some venues.  In short, there are too many factors to identify any one thing that directly decreased the demand for scenic art, yet it starts.

Just as two schools of scenic art developed in American during the nineteenth century (English and European traditions), two new schools become associated with live theatre and film during the twentieth century. This is similar to the 19^th century shift when scenic art for the stage was painted in either the English tradition of glazing or the European tradition of opaque washes. By the 1920s, scenic art on stage adopts a much more colorful palette, although the two schools of scenic art continue. Shadows are saturated with ultramarine blue and spatter covers painted compositions for the stage, all to interact with light. At this same time, scenic artists who paint for film develop a tighter style as movie cameras improve, branching off in a very different direction of increased realism that transitions into the dimensional. Scenic art for Hollywood and scenic art for grand opera are two completely separate schools, necessitating different techniques.

There is also a shift in the perception of scenic art labor and subsequent wages, more specifically how scenic art is regarded by the various industries.  For historical context, many 19^th century scenic artists did more than simply paint. They controlled scenic illusion on stage; designing both stage machinery and painted elements, also lighting their creations. Many scenic artists also belonged to the Theatrical Mechanics Association (est. 1866). Similarly, stage carpenters and stage mechanics were also accomplished scenic artists; the titles were not solely based on skill or any one trade. Even in a 1910 interview, Broadway scenic artist and designer John H. Young explained that he always needed to set the lights, being the sole individual who truly understood how his set should be lit, explaining that light can destroy a painted composition in an instant.

There is also the rise of both the modern scenic designer, reducing the role of many mid-twentieth century scenic artists to painters. This trend continues throughout the twentieth century, with more obstacles for scenic artists including the rise of digital technology.  This is not meant to say that scenic art declined, the skills evaporated, or the trade died. The perception of scenic art simply began to change. If an industry’s perception of a trade shifts, so will the wages.  What the United States experienced by the late twentieth century was a dip in scenic art wages, especially in non-union towns. This has trend has continued into the twenty-first century.

There is one other factor that must be included, and that is the shift of gender within the scenic art industry going from predominantly men to predominantly women. The rise of women in the field of scenic art parallels the decline of salaries in the field of scenic art. There is no disputing that many women, whether they are teaching at a university or in a professional industry, still make less than their male counterparts. The Equal Rights Amendment did not pass in the United States, therefore women are not legally entitled to equal pay; and, yes, this does matter in a lawsuit.

To be continued…

In 1912, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “Kilroy and Britton have been stocked up with a lot of drops for two shows similar to ‘Cow-Boy Girl.’”

That year, Sosman & Landis delivered scenery for “The Candy Kid” and “The Millionaire,” each produced by Will Kilroy and Mae Britton.  Kilroy and Britton were well known for their melodramatic musical plays, such as the “Cow-Boy Girl.”

In 1898 “The Daily Item” described Kilroy and Britton as “refined sketch artists with their catchy and entertaining illustrated songs” (Sunbury, Penn. 15 March 1899, page 4). The couple performed with the Forrister & Floyd Combination Co., marketing themselves as original illustrators of humorous songs, with early burlesque performances including “Getthemoneygraph.” Kilroy and Britton were also featured with the touring production “Heart of Chicago.”  By 1903, the comedy duo transitioned from burlesque acts to a full-scale musical production. They starred in the successful comedy drama by Lem B. Parker, “An Aristocratic Tramp.” Their partnership with Parker became the key to their success as theatrical producers. At the time, Parker was the well-known author of “For Home and Honor,” “A Quaker Wedding,” and “The Sinking City.”

 “An Aristocratic Tramp” was billed as a “marvelous comedy success,” with an “exciting automobile race and explosion” and “the most realistic rail-road scene ever produced” (The Republic, Columbus, Indiana, 24 Nov. 1903, page 6). The show was also noted as a distinct departure from many other plays at the time. (Belvidere Daily Republican, 14 Aug. 1903, page 6).

Their second hit was “The Cow-Boy Girl,” advertised as a melodramatic musical play. In 1906, the “Marion Headlight” reported, “When Kilroy and Britton consulted Dr. Lem B. Parker, (the prominent playwright) to ascertain and diagnose the public’s needs in the way of theatricals, he immediately came to the conclusion that something new, original, worthy, and worth the price of admission, was the proper thing, so he prescribed ‘The Cowboy Girl,’ a play with music, comedy and a melodramatic atmosphere, that sent the audience home glad they went and feeling ‘The Cowboy Girl” is worth going miles to see again” (Marion Headlight, 1 Nov. 1906, page 5). A 1912 article in “The Gazette” explained, “‘The Cow-Boy Girl’” is not exactly a melo-drama; yet it embraces all the vigorous realism, absorbing interest and sentimental beauty of one. It is not a musical comedy, though it possesses the rollicking dash and swing of one.” (The Gazette, York, Pennsylvania, 20 Jan. 1912, page 5). Advertisements promised, “10 Big Song Hits – Breezy Music – A Bevy of Pretty Girls – 20 People – 20,” as well as bucking broncos on the stage (“Daily Times, Davenport, Iowa, 27 March 1912, page 17).

Newspaper articles attributed Kilroy and Britton’s success to Parker’s understanding of theatergoers, commenting, “The theatre is first, last and nearly always a place of amusement. Nine-tenths of all theatergoers of today go to the theatre to be entertained and for no other purpose. A part of the tenth go to be instructed, but their number is so small it has no bearing” (The Gazette, York, Pennsylvania, 20 Jan. 1912, page 5). Theatergoers who sought amusement yielded the largest profits to theatre manufacturers, greatly benefitting those ranging from suppliers to booking agents. Kilroy and Britton had stumbled across a magical formula that resulted in their success over a decade, with many of their stage plays becoming popular films.

When Sosman & Landis delivered scenery for “The Candy Kid,” the “Daily Tribune” reported that the show was “a musical attraction of known merit” (Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin, 25 Sept. 1912, page 1). Premiering at the Yorkville Theatre in New York during the fall of 1907, “The Candy Kid” was still on tour in 1912, visiting Daly’s Theatre on Sept. 26. The show’s plot involved a feud between rival candy store owners. The touring production of the “The Candy Kid” starred Jack Rollens and was advertised as having “10 song hits that make you whistle” (The Times, Munster, Indiana, 27 Sept. 1912, page 2).  Musical numbers included, “The Past, the Present and Future,” “Bye, Bye, Dreamy Eyes,” “Hark the Scream of Eagles,” and “Parodies.” The show successfully played to audiences across the country for five consecutive years, and this constant demand necessitated new scenery as older sets began to deteriorate.

The second Kilroy and Britton show that used Sosman & Landis scenery in 1912 was “The Millionaire Kid,” featuring Ray Raymond. After a successful first run, the producers created a vaudeville version for tour.  On January 20, 1912, “The Daily Times” announced “Kilroy and Britton have put a condensed version of ‘The Millionaire Kid’ into vaudeville”  (Davenport, Iowa, 20 Jan 1912, page 11). Advertisements promised, “Pretty Girls – Catchy Songs – a Thousand Laughs – Carload of Special Scenery – Dazzling Electrical Effects” (Fort Wayne Daily News, 18 May 1912, page 4). Moses was responsible for designing the “special scenery” and “dazzling electrical effects.”

To be continued…

Both origins and people are forgotten over time and histories take on a life of their own. What was once important to Scottish Rite Masons a century ago may not be important to the current generation of stewards.  As I examined the history of Scottish Rite theatre in Portland, Maine, one particular article caught my attention. It concerned the artist who painted the auditorium murals, making headlines in 2017. This was only two years after Sarah Bouchard was appointed artistic director of the building. Here is a link the 2015 article: https://thebollard.com/2015/04/01/welcome-to-the-masonic-temple/. The article included a picture of the  Scottish Rite auditorium during a degree production with the headline “Welcome to the Masonic Temple, Freemasons open their sacred space to the arts.” The 1911 building was described in detail, including the first floor Scottish Rite Reading Room, the second floor Corinthian Hall, the third/fourth floor auditorium and fifth floor Eastern Star Hall.  As with other Masonic buildings, a host of small meeting areas and lodge rooms were also mentioned. In 2015, there was an interest to preserve not only the architectural ornamentation in the Scottish Rite, but also many artworks, especially the auditorium murals.

Early in 2017, the Portland’s Scottish Rite Masons decided to restore and preserve the murals for future generations, recognizing that the images had darkened under 77 years of accumulated dirt and varnish. The Maine Project for Fine Art Conservation was brought into work on the paintings. Every Thursday during the summer  of 2017, MEAC conservators worked on the paintings high above the auditorium floor.

Let’s look at the big picture. The murals were installed almost three decades after the stage scenery was designed, painted and delivered to the Portland Scottish Rite. Since the building opened, the main feature of the auditorium was the stage work.  The addition of murals was similar to a makeover.  This was common. For many Scottish Rite theaters between 1940-1960 members tried to update their spaces.  New scenery, new costumes, improved lighting systems, new seating, or a fresh coat of paint became a priority. Just like those who introduced the stage elements to Scottish Rite ceremonies, a new generation again attempted to improve the ritual experience. The problem remains that Scottish Rite stage settings are seldom considered large-scale artworks by nationally recognized artists.  Too often, the membership perceives a scenery collection as mere backings for degree work. Just imagine if the artists who painted Scottish Rite settings received the same attention as those artists who decorated the auditorium.

The Portland Scottish Rite auditorium murals were credited to fresco artist Harry Cochrane. A Maine artist, Cochrane was 80 years old when he completed the 17-foot murals in his Monmouth studio during 1940.  Cochrane’s artistic contribution made headlines in 2015 when conservation work commenced, prompting renewed interest in his work. Linda Johnston, who specializes in Cochrane, described the life of this “untrained” artist in a BDN Portland blog article on August 18, 2017. Cochrane was born in 1860, Johnston explained, “He taught himself to draw and paint,” covering his father’s ledger books with drawings of horses and human faces as a boy. As he matured to adulthood, he became a decorator, focusing on religious edifices, schools, municipal offices and other buildings, such as Masonic Temples. Cochrane also designed fancy plaster moldings, stained glass and furniture.­ Here is a link to read more about Cochrane: http://portland.bangordailynews.com/2017/08/18/history/painters-final-works-kept-hidden-in-downtown-portland-for-77-years/

Scottish Rite buildings contain a wealth of significant artifacts ranging from rare books and documents to decorative painting and fine art works. But the scenery is especially significant and often created by nationally  recognized fine artists. When examining color, composition, technique and the artistic provenance for many stage settings in Masonic edifices, they should not be discounted as “old drops” or mere stage backings; they are large-scale artworks. Furthermore, they often have more artistic provenance than many other artifacts in the building. However, as time slips by, the historical significance of Scottish Rite scenery is forgotten, even in Portland. Portland’s Scottish Rite Masons decided to restore and preserve the Cochrane murals for future generations; a fantastic choice as they look toward the future. Will their scenery for degree productions receive the same consideration?

To be continued…

In 1912, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “More Masonic work for Portland, Maine.” There are two Portland Scottish Rites – one in Oregon and one in Maine. In 1902, Sosman & Landis delivered scenery and stage machinery to Portland, Oregon.  A decade later, they delivered scenery and stage machinery to Portland, Maine.

The Scottish Rite auditorium in Portland, Maine, is located on the corner of Congress and Chestnut Streets. The theater, located on the third and fourth floors of the building, has a seating capacity of approximately 400.

As with other Scottish Rite Valleys, Portland suffered from declining membership and increased building expenses by the end of the twentieth century.  When faced with difficult choices, they tried something unique in 1989, selling the front half of the building; the portion containing retail and office space.  This proved to be an unwise move, as the stream of revenue generated from the front half of the building needed to operate the back half of the building was lost. The money received from the sales was not a long-term solution.  Without the much-needed monthly revenue, it became a struggle to address deferred maintenance and repair the building’s infrastructure. The Portland Scottish Rite then put the back half of the building on the market, but no one was interested in purchasing their portion of the historic venue. They decided to contract with Saco-based catering company Blue Elephant, allowing the firm to book events in the Temple’s first floor rooms.

About this same time, the Portland Scottish Rite Masons allowed Sarah Bouchard to assume the role of  “artist in residence,” giving her space on the fifth floor. Previously, the fifth-floor space housed the Order of the Eastern Star Hall and a ladies’ sitting room. Bouchard became the Temple’s first-ever artistic director, working in tandem with the Masonic Temple Foundation – a separated non-profit formed to raise funds for the building’s restoration. Although no longer with the organization, she had the right vision to save the building for future generations. Bouchard was quoted in a 2015 article posted at the Bollard, saying, “I’ve done my research. The Masonic temples that fail are the ones that don’t engage the public.”  Bingo.

Where there is a will there is a way, and Bouchard advocated to open the temple up for artistic and cultural programming. Bouchard noted that this move was “in alignment with the phenomenal grandeur and integrity of the space. She stated, “I wanted to establish a dialogue between contemporary visual and performing arts and the ideals of Freemasonry and the history of the space.” What a great idea; this is really a model for struggling Masonic buildings.  Embracing the public and hosting events is nothing new to Scottish Rite Masons, and now it is their only way to survive. Even when the Masons don’t figure this out, the new owners of a Masonic building often do.

Bouchard’s vision took hold, and the space is now advertised as “The Portland Masonic, Event and Wedding Venue.” Portlandmasonic.com is a pretty remarkable web site, linking the Fraternity with the community, but it took hiring a person with vision.

Here is one paragraph from Portlandmasonic.com:

“Built in 1911 and listed on the National Register of Historic Places, The Portland Masonic has been reimagined and reborn as one of the premiere event spaces in New England. Featuring some of the most visually alluring and exquisite spaces on the East Coast, and located in the heart of historic downtown Portland, you’ll find The Portland Masonic to appeal to the most discerning of guests. The Portland Masonic is still home to several active Masonic organizations, dating back to the 18th Century, and some of Maine’s famous Masons include Governors, Naval Commanders, Attorney Generals, Supreme Court Justices, and International Diplomats. Built with the purpose of community involvement, we’ve reinvented our space as one filled with every kind of event – corporate, social, weddings, theatre, nonprofit and so much more –  with our community at the heart of what we do. We invite you to step into one of the most distinctive and architecturally interesting spaces, and feast your eyes on the years of craftsmanship, details and texture that surround you inside our magnificent building.”

To be continued…

J. C. Becker & Bro. scenic studio became a major competitor to Sosman & Landis in the twentieth century. John Carl Becker was born on April 4, 1881, Boonville, Indiana. He and his younger brother Raymond were two of seven children born to German immigrants August Becker (1850-1931) and Louisa Elizabeth Holtworth (also Holewarth). The couple was married on March 17, 1875, in Warrick, Indiana and celebrated the birth of their seven children from 1876 to 1891:  Amelia (b. 1876), Gussie (b. 1877), August Jr. (b. 1878), Otto L. (b. 1879), John C. (1881), Frieda E. (b. 1885), William S. (b. 1887) and Raymond H. (b. 1891).

August Becker Sr. was born in Idar-Oberstein and moved to the United states in 1857 at the age of seven. The 1880 census lists August as a Marble dealer, but over the years, he held many positions, including a driver and common laborer. His wife, Louisa Hawtin, was also of Germany descent. Her parents Alma and Mary Hawtin were from the area of Baden Germany.

After the marriage of August and Louisa Becker in 1875, all of the Becker children were born in Indiana. The family later moved to St. Louis, Missouri, were many of the siblings grew to adulthood, some discovering careers in the field of popular entertainment. It was in St. Louis that both John and Raymond first became scenic artists. On April 4, 1902, “The Times” noted that John C. Becker was working as an assistant to scenic artist Mr. Charles E. Boss for Mr. R. L. Griffith’s stock company­­­ in Richmond, Virginia (page 2). He was twenty-one years old at the time.

John soon established his scenic art firm. In later years, company letterheads would credit J. C. Becker and R. H. Becker as the two founders in 1903, but Raymond was only 11 yrs. old at the time. The highest level of education completed by John was 7^th grade; he stopped school at the age of thirteen in 1894. Raymond remained in school until 8^th grade, lasting a year longer than his older brother.

As adults, both of the Becker brothers were similarly described in their WWI draft cards – tall, with medium build, blue eyes and brown hair. Each was listed as a scenic artist, but held different roles in the running of the company. In later years, John was in the studio and Ray was on the road, leading the installation teams.

By 1907, John was becoming well-known as a Chicago scenic artist. There was no mention of J. C. Becker & Bro. yet.  “The Joliet News” noted that Becker was providing the scenery for the Grand Vaudeville Theatre in Joliet, Illinois” (Joliet, Illinois, 10 Aug. 1907, page 9). Manager Goldberg was having the entire scenery of the theatre repainted by “outside talent.” The article reported, “John C. Becker, a professional scene painter of Chicago, is doing the work. When it is completed it is safe to say that there will be no flies on the flies at the Grand, nor the drops…Mr. Becker is a scenic artist of ability and is in much demand. He has done work for all the big theaters in Chicago. This is the artist who painted all the scenery for the Umpire, at the La Salle, and for ‘The Time, the Place and the Girl”; for “The Prince of India,” “The District Leader,” and large numbers of others.”

It appears that marriage and children drew Becker briefly back to St. Louis by 1910 and this is likely when J. C. Becker & Bro. first began as his younger brother was now 19 yrs. old.  John, his wife Maud (nee Hawtin, b. 1881), and their two small children were living at his in-laws. Other residents at Granville Place, included Maud’s sister and brother-in-law, Isabella and Alfred Reeves. Raymond Becker was still living at home with his parents.

By 1912, John and Maud had three small children, Ormonde (age 7), Ellsworth (age 3) and Ardith M. (newborn). Interestingly, when John and Maud moved to Illinois by, the grandchildren stayed with their grandparents in St. Louis. At the time, the children were 15, 11, and 8 yrs. old. The 1920 Census lists the couple as living alone at 819 Eighth Ave in Proviso, Illinois, near Chicago. Ten years later, two of their three adult children were once again living at home.  By this time, Ellsworth was 20 yrs. old and Ardeth M. was 18 yrs. old. The occupation for each child in the 1930 census was listed as “student;” they continued their secondary education in Illinois. 

The 1920s were a busy time for the Becker brothers as they secured numerous painting contracts, competing with at least eleven other scenic studios in Chicago by 1927. Some of their Chicago competitors at the time included Acme Scenic Studios (2919 W. Van Buren St.), Eugene Cox Studio (1734 Ogden Ave), Robt. P. Carsen Studios (1507 N. Clark Street), Charles L. Hoyland Co. (2919 W. Van Buren Street), King Studio (2215 W. Van Buren St.), Sosman & Landis (416 Kedzie Ave.), McVicker Curtain Co. (2436 Sheffield Ave.), Emil Neiglick Studio (4557 Woodlawn Ave), Chicago Civic Opera (2559 S. Dearborn St.) Pausback Studio (3727 Cottage Grove. Ave). and William Lemle, Inc. (417 S. Clinton). 

During the 1920s and 1930s, John’s focus remained on design and painting, while Raymond’s focus was painting and installation.  One partner in the shop and one partner on the road was a magical combination, spelling success to many firms including Sosma & Landis in the beginning. It often took two people to successfully run a business, juggling all of the balls. In 1929 their business letterhead advertised “John C. Becker & Bro. Artists. Scenery for the Stage.” During this time, John was living in Proviso, Illinois, where he will remain for the next twenty-six years (819 S. Eighth St.). Raymond was living at 815 19^th Avenue in Maywood, Illinois with his wife Ruth 9 (nee Magenheimer) and their three sons, Burton (age 17), Russell (age 11) and F. Raymond, (age 6).  Raymond’s family later moved to 7237 Jackson Boulevard in Forest Park, Illinois, Interestingly, it was only Raymond’s children who entered the family business; Burton, Russell and Ray Jr.; they were all listed on company payrolls between 1932-1934. It must have been a great help during the Great Depression.

In 1934, John had achieved Masonic fame and was advertised as a “Scottish Rite scenic artist”  (The Pantagraph, 10 April, 1934, page 5). He not only belonged to the Scottish Rite in Chicago, but also in Valley in Bloomington, Illinois. Other fraternities included the Ancient Accepted Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine and the White Shrine of Jerusalem. By 1940, John Becker changed the title of his occupation to that of “scenographic engineer, “ with Raymond remaining a scenic artist for the remainder of his days.

John C. Becker started living in Sarasota, Florida, by 1956, passing away at the Sarasota Memorial Hospital on May 3, 1963. He was 81 years old with his last residence was 2539 Trinidad St. Brother Raymond passed away in 1976 at the age of 85 yrs. old.

Although much more could be written about both of the Becker brothers and their company, I am going to pause here. This was only intended as a brief introduction to Becker Bros. as their firm enters the life and times of Thomas G. Moses in 1912.

To be continued…