Drops are not Props
On May 5, 2017, an online article was posted on the Minnesota Masonic Heritage Center website looking in depth at their Fort Scott scenery acquisition and their “restoration” team. Here is the article in it’s entirety: http://www.masonicheritagecenter.org/…/05/behind-the-scenes/
This article appears as a counterpoint to some of the information that I have presented in regard to the Fort Scott scenery collection and its condition since February. Because of my involvement, there is just too much incorrect information posted about the collection for me to ignore it.
One would hope that the writer of the article would check the facts prior to publication. This would be quite easy as there are still multiple copies of the original Fort Scott books that I created during December 2015 for the staff to understand the scope and significance of the collection. They were also created in preparation to discuss the order of priority for restoration, the process, and the necessary alteration for a new venue. There is much about what is stipulated in the article that suggests the books I wrote and provided to the MMC CEO, MMHC general director and MMC Director of Communications remain unread.
I had to chuckle as I read the May 5 article, wondering if this was the same MMC staff member who once erroneously identified a Masonic apron as a “canvas bag” on the Minnesota Masonic Historical Society and Museum brochure. As always, it is crucial to double-check your facts before you publish, especially if you are writing about theatre heritage in a town of theatre practitioners and scholars.
I will start with statements that are simply incorrect, providing a basic fact-checking service. At least this will be more entertaining than fact-checking political statements.
Beginning with the statement from the article about the use of Masonic scenery. The author writes, “Drops were intended to be used as props, not artifacts.” This is incorrect.
Drops are scenery and not props. The answer is easily located online when you type in “What is a prop in a play?”
The answer: “A prop, formally known as (theatrical) property, is an object used on stage or on screen by actors during a performance or screen production. In practical terms, a prop is considered to be anything movable or portable on a stage or a set, distinct from the actors, scenery, costumes, and electrical equipment.”
Backdrops, cut drops and leg drops are the painted scenery for Scottish Rite degree work.
They establish the environment. Ironically, this is detailed in my doctoral dissertation that I also made available to the MMC staff while working at the Minnesota Masonic Heritage Center. For example, the INRI Peristyle scene for the eighteenth degree would have a setting created with painted scenes – a backdrop, cut drop, and leg drop. If the Pelican piercing its breast were painted on a profile piece and placed within that scene, it would be a set prop. If an actor walked into this scene, carrying something in his hand (like a box that would unfold into a cross) that would be a hand prop. Drops are not props.
The writer also identifies the wooden sandwich battens as “old growth cedar.” This is incorrect too as all battens installed by Sosman & Landis were pine – lightweight and cheap. Theater professionals would never have selected cedar, an expensive lumber with incredible longevity. Remember that theatre scenery was intended as ephemeral and not like cedar shingles or a cedar chest. Lumber companies specialized in “theatrical lumber” that was shipped in bundles by the linear foot. These pine boards were even shipped to Masonic lumber barons who were in charge of Scottish Rite Valleys, as was the case in Winona, Minnesota. Theatre suppliers were particular about their battens and very consistent in their selection of pine. The lumber was specially shaped so that it would not catch on neighboring drops.
The writer notes that the wooden sandwich battens could not be used because they were “crooked.” I think that the writer meant they were slightly warped – a common occurrence in collections over time that is easily remedied. The batten order is swapped to straighten out the warp – done. Plus the solution is free other than labor. No need for special materials, new innovation, or pipe pockets that will fail.
The article also mentions that many of the boards were “broken.” This was not the case when the battens were removed and placed into the Bloomington storage facility. For this statement, I have included pictures from onsite, in transport, and at the storage facility, depicting the remarkable condition of the aged wood. I will address the condition of the pine battens in detail and speaking from extensive experience. I have removed battens to restore drops and re-attached those same battens after a completed restoration numerous times. All told, I have handled approximately 900 individual top and bottom sandwich battens for more than two decades.
The battens from Fort Scott were in excellent condition, better than almost all others that I have encountered. They also contained Thomas Moses’ notes and drawings for the installation order, counterweight rigging system, and other entertaining cartoons. I have included a few for your examination as this was the only aspect about the wooden battens that was extraordinary. I have seen a few notes on scenes, but never this substantial amount with crucial information pertaining to the installation of a scenery collection.
Even if a split, or crack occurred, the boards were going to have to be shortened to fit the space which brings us to the next point: the apparent surprise at the mismatch in drop size relative the Ives Auditorium. This was always the case. The theater design was finalized and the construction of the space already underway before any scenery collection was identified and purchased. It is preposterous to think that we would locate any Scottish Rite Valley scenery collection sharing the same specifications to perfectly fit the Ives theater without alteration. As with the practice of purchasing and installing any used scenery into any new venue, it would have to be altered.
The proscenium in Fort Scott was slightly wider than that at the Minnesota Masonic Heritage Center. All of the backdrops and most of the cut drops would be a perfect fit. The foremost leg drops are often wider as they were intended to mask the side stages. It is difficult to increase historical scenery as one needs to not only attach new fabric, but also to paint the extensions with dry pigment. That is why we went bigger and planned on reduction.
The process is really quite simple, especially with leg drops. Two panels are removed from the center if it is a foliage, or sky scene. In some cases it even works beautifully with architecture too. In compositions where the center cannot be cut due to painted perspective, panels are removed from either an onstage side or offstage side. This is not rocket science if you know what you are doing. Having done this numerous times, I had it all planned out when the drops were purchased and shipped to Minnesota. This procedure was discussed in detail with the CEO during the spring of 2016.
The problem is that the CEO decided to swap horses midstream and go with a crew who had never completed any historical scenery restoration project before this one. They would be working with the scenery “blind” – unless they read my book, and even then it would be difficult.
To be continued…
