Stock Company – Drypigment.net

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 807 – David H. Hunt, 1912

As David Hunt continues to be part of Thomas G. Moses story, it is time to recap the life of this interesting character. David H. Hunt was born during September 1869 in Detroit, Michigan. His parents were Patrick (b. 1851) and Anna (b. 1849), both Irish immigrants. Hunt was one of three children born to the couple in America, with his brothers being James (b. 1871) and Frances (b. 1886). To date, I have found no indication of how Hunt became involved in the theatre business, but by the age of 24 yrs. old he was both working for Sosman & Landis and working independently as a stage manager.

In 1893, Hunt was working in both Chicago and Detroit. On June 4, 1893, the “Detroit Free Press,” reported that Hunt was managing the benefit performance, “Caste, “for the St. Boniface and Jesuit churches new auditorium (page 15). The new Jesuit hall boasted a seating capacity of 650 with new stock scenery (“Detroit Free Press, June 20, 1893, page 5). The production featured Harry C. Barton of the Warde-James combination, Una Abel of the Rhea Company, Henry Wilkinson, Mrs. T Kennedy and W. H. Powers Jr. of the Nora Machree Company, and both Adelaide Cushman and John P. Barrett of the Glen-da-Lough Company. The article reported, “Manager David H. Hunt has returned from Chicago where he made arrangements for special scenery to be used throughout, and promises excellent staging.”

Hunt also worked for Sosman & Landis at this time. In 1894 Hunt convinced both Sosman & Landis to establish the theatrical management company of Sosman, Landis & Hunt in 1894. It is obvious that Hunt had been with the company for a while, but I have yet to discover when he actually started with the firm.

The mid 1890s were a time of transition for Sosman & Landis; they were expanding and diversifying their interests. As Chicago theatrical scenic outfitters, they took the next step in securing a few opera houses and establishing a stock company. Sosman & Landis first tried their hand at theatrical management in Chicago, producing and managing the two electric scenic theatres on the rooftop of the Masonic Temple. In addition to Sosman, Landis & Hunt, they invested in the American Reflector & Lighting Company, with Landis being one of the company founders. Previously they had founded a panorama company.

Sosman, Landis & Hunt’s first theatrical out-of-state management opportunity was in Cincinnati at the Pike Theatre. By 1897, Hunt was in the process of remodeling and redecorating the Pike Theater hiring the Chicago theatrical architect Sidney R. Lovell. In 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.” Hunt was interviewed and explained the stock company:

“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.”

Unfortunately, a series of lawsuits were filed against Sosman, Landis & Hunt around this time. They didn’t quite follow the rules laid out in various contracts. Both actors and authors contended that the firm violated agreements and took their cases to court. Sosman, Landis, & Hunt slowly loses steam around this time and Hunt began to flail around, starting to manage his own shows again. The 1900 census still listed Hunt as a stage manager and living with his parents in Detroit, at 151 Eighteen St in Detroit Ward 10, Michigan. Yet Hunt continued to work as a stock manager for the next decade before founding New York Studios, the eastern affiliate of Sosman & Landis.

In 1901, the “Detroit Free Press” made an interesting observation about Hunt on 15 April 1901 (page 4). An article about the Pike Theatre Company’s production of “Charity Ball” at the Lyceum reported, “The organizer and manager of this enterprise is David H. Hunt, a young man whose ideals are high and whose mental attitude toward the theater is not merely sordid. By this it is not meant that his work is entirely altruistic. There is a necessary commercial side of art, and Mr. Hunt knows that in order to continue along the lines he has followed since the beginning of his managerial career the support that comes only through the box office is essential. But he also knows that while he is a frankly confessed merchant of theatrical wares, it behooves him to offer the best, and to present them in an attractive manner. The public is well enough acquainted with his way of doing business to feel justified in expecting another season of honorable achievement on his part. It is quite within the limits of conservatism to say that the re-advent of his company is a distinct public gain, for it may fairly be assured that what is known as the popular-price theater can boast no better balanced combination of players than the cast that Mr. Hunt gave us last evening.”

In 1902, 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).

David H. Hunt pictured in 1903 when he was married to Angela Dolores.

By 1903, Hunt married Angela Delores, an actress with the Pike Theatre Company. Their romance sprung up while she was under his management, with her forte being dramatic roles. The groom was described in the newspaper as “a Detroit man and widely known for his theatrical profession of the middle west as a hustling manager” (“Detroit Free Press,” 21 May 1903, page 12). In 1905, the couple celebrated the birth of their daughter, Anna.

Stock actress Angela Dolores when she married David H. Hunt in 1903.

By 1906, Hunt is managing the stock company for the Chicago Opera House. Of this endeavor, a newspaper article reported, “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). However, in 1908 Hunt has returned to solely managing his wife’s touring production with William Duvre and Harry English (Cincinnati Enquirer 30 August 1908, page 26). This 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). Between 1908 and 1910, Hunt transitions from management to founder of a scenic studio. His major investors for New York Studios include scenic artists and Adelaide A. Hunt, who becomes president of the firm. I have uncovered precious little about Adelaide as there were quite a few Adelaide A. Hunts at the turn of the century. At first I thought that Adelaide may have been a matronly relative with money.

However, 1925 US census records list David H. Hunt is living with his wife Adelaide A. Hunt and their daughter Patricia (age 4) in New York. Hmmm. Adelaide A. Hunt was still the President of New York Studios in 1919. Interestingly, the 1920 census listed Hunt as a commercial salesman for the scenic studio industry, still married to Angela, living at 1920 Oakwood Blvd. in Chicago, Illinois. His daughter with Angela was 15 years old by this time.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 522 – J. Francis Murphy

Part 522: J. Francis Murphy

Yesterday, I concluded an article written by Thomas G. Moses that was published in the Palette & Chisel Club newsletter during 1927.

Moses wrote, “Some of the leading American artists were scenic artists. J. Francis Murphy was an assistant to Mr. Strauss, who was the artist at Hooley’s Theatre in 1874. The well-known illustrator and water colorist, Charles Graham, was also an assistant to Mr. Strauss at this same time.” Moses mentioned Murphy and Graham early in his career when he was working as a decorator for P. M. Almini.

In 1874, Moses wrote: “In June I was sent to Hooleys Theatre to work. On the scenery was employed J. Francis Murphy and Chas. Graham. I was put in charge of the proscenium boxes, mostly gilding. I could see the work being done on the paint frame. I was more convinced that scenery was what I wanted to do; more opportunity to do landscapes.”

Hooley’s Opera House, the Parlor of Home Comedy, was dedicated on 21 October 1872. It was later referred to as simply “Hooley’s Theater.” Located at 124 West Randolph Street, the cut stone and iron building occupied twenty-three feet of street frontage until 1924. A 1500-seat theatre, the stage measured 50 feet wide and 65 feet deep. Mr. Hooley and his stock company first appeared at the venue on the evening, 31 August 1874. This upcoming performance and the renovation of the theatre was why the eighteen-year-old Moses was working on the opera boxes that June. Over the next three installments, I will explore Murphy and Graham, two scenic artists who Moses considered at he top of their profession.

John Francis Murphy (Dec. 11, 1853 – Jan. 30, 1921) was renowned for his small and intimate views of nature. He was one of the leading Tonalists of the American Barbizon school, even referred to as the “American Corot.” The Tonalists were known for their dawn or dusk scenes; intimate compositions depicting toned atmospheric views. Their artworks were intended to express mood and insights into the human spirit.

Painting by J. Francis Murphy. The Sprout Lot, 1915

Born at Oswego, New York, Murphy moved to Chicago at the age of seventeen, just a few years before Moses. Later in life, the “Chicago Tribune” reported that Mr. J. Francis Murphy went to Chicago as a boy, “beginning as a type-setter, advancing to a scene-painter’s and then to a wood-engraver’s position” (25 April 1880, page 18). At the age of 21 years old, Murphy was painting the scenery for Hooley’s Theater with Charles Graham. Graham was also 21 years old at the time.

Sketch by J. Francis Murphy, 1874. Image from the Adirondak Experience. Here is the link: https://adirondack.pastperfectonline.com/bycreator?keyword=Murphy%2C+John+Francis

Murphy studied very briefly at the Chicago Academy of Design in 1875 and then moved to New York where he opened a studio. The “Brooklyn Daily Eagle” reported that Murphy’s studio was located at the corner of Tenth Street and Broadway in New York (26 Jan. 1880, page 9). He also studied in Paris before 1880. During this same time, he worked as a painting teacher in the Orange County region of New Jersey. By 1876, Murphy was exhibiting at the National Academy of Design. He became an associate of the National Academy of Design by 1885 and a full academician in 1887. In 1887 he also built a studio in the Catskills at Arkville, New York; there he spent the summer and fall with his wife who was also an artist. In winter, they worked at their respective studios in the Chelsea district of New York.

Small painting by J. Francis Murphy, 1874. Image from the Adirondak Experience. Here is the link: https://adirondack.pastperfectonline.com/bycreator?keyword=Murphy%2C+John+Francis

J. Francis Murphy, Path to the Village, 1882

J. Francis Murphy. Afternoon Light, from the online Smithsonian Collection

Murphy was a member of the Society of American Artists, the American Watercolor Society, and the Salmagundi Club. He exhibited at the National Academy of Design (1876-1921), the Brooklyn Art Association (1878-1885), the Boston Art Club (1881-1909), the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Art (1884-1885, 1898-1901, 1908-1911, 1916, 1921), the Society of American Artists (1887,1902), the Columbian Exposition (1893), the American Water Color Society (1894), the Art Club of Philadelphia (1899), the Paris Exposition (1900), the Pan-American Exposition (1901), the Charleston Exposition (1902), the St. Louis Exposition (1904), the Corcoran Gallery (1907), the Salmagundi Club (1911), and the Pan-Pacific Exposition (1915).

He received numerous awards throughout his life, including two Hallgarten Prizes at the National Academy, a medal at the World’s Columbian Exposition (1893); the Evans Prize at the American Water Color Society (1894); a silver medal at the Pan-American Exposition (1901); a gold medal at the Charleston Exposition (1902); the Inness medal in (1910); and a silver medal at the Panama-Pacific International Exposition (1915). Art historians have described Murphy as an affable, even-tempered man who made friends easily.

John Francis Murphy in his memorial program, printed by the Salamagundi Club.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 418 – Thomas G. Moses’ Design for “Around the World in Eighty Days” – 1901

Part 418: Thomas G. Moses’ Design for “Around the World in Eighty Days” – 1901

In 1900, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “Moses and Hamilton’s business kept increasing. Prices were good; also our collections.”

In addition to “Floradora,” Moses & Hamilton secured the contract for Henry Greenwall’s Stock Company productions. Of this work, he wrote, “We had some heavy shows, ‘Around the World in Eighty Days,’ ‘Romeo and Juliet,’ ‘Hazel Kirke,’ ‘Prodigal Daughter,’ forty shows in all. I had to make ground plans and models. I found I had my hands full.” “The Prodigal Daughter” opened the Greenwall Stock Company’s season on September 16, 1901.

Henry Greenwall (1832-1913) was a theatrical manager who fought the Theatre Syndicate at the end of the nineteenth century. A German immigrant, Greenwall grew to adulthood in New Orleans. He started out in a New Orleans brokerage firm, and soon moved to Galveston, Texas where he organized his own brokerage firm with his brother Morris. When a successful actress became financially indebted to the Greenwall brothers, they took over her management and began a new business venture in theatrical management.

Henry Greewall developed a circuit of theaters throughout Texas, in Galveston, Houston, Fort Worth, and Waco.

The Greenwall Theatre in New Orleans, from the “Picayune” (December 22, 1903, page 3).

He then expanded his holdings to include theatres in New Orleans, Atlanta, Memphis, Nashville, Savannah and even New York. Greenwall established the American Theatrical Exchange in New York, in opposition to the Theatrical Syndicate; the Syndicate was attempting to monopolize theatre in America. It was during Greenwall’s time in New York that he hired Moses.

By 1900, Greenwall spent most of the summer in New York forming stock companies to perform at his independent theatres (“Daily Picayune, 29 July 1900). By mid-August, the New York Clipper reported, “The Greenwall Theatrical Circuit Company, the new managers of the American Theatre, have taken possession of the house, and artists are now at work redecorating the lobbies and offices, and when the theatre is reopened on Saturday, September 1, it will present a decidedly attractive appearance” (11 August 1900).

An advertisement for Greenwall’s Stock Company, from the “Picayune” (6 Nov 1898, Page 7).

The Greenwall Stock Company at the American Theatre in New York was under the management of J. J. Coleman. This venture was so successful that Henry Greenwall soon expanded his holdings to add the Columbia Theatre in Brooklyn for the 1901-1902 season. Greenwall hired Moses & Hamilton to produce scenery for his touring stock shows, including “Around the World in Eighty Days.”

The New York Times reported, “The Christmas attraction at the American Theatre will be the revival of “Around the World in Eighty Days.” This spectacle was last seen in new York at the Bowery Theatre – now the Thalia – some six or eight years ago, and was produced a number of years ago at Niblo’s Garden” (22 Dec. 1901, page 28). The article was referencing the 1877 spectacle by the Kiralfy Bros at Niblo’s.

The 1877 production of “Around the World in 80 Days” by the Kiralfy Bros. at Niblo’s Garden.

The article continued, “Many improvements in stage devices, and especially in electrical effects, have been made since then, and these, it is said, will be taken advantage of in adding brilliancy to the present production” (“The New York Times” 24 Dec 1901, page 7).

The show toured to the Columbia Theatre next where the it did not receive rave reviews. The Brooklyn Eagle reported, “The large audience last night was inclined to show displeasure at the unexpected departure from the recent presentation of successful plays to Jules Verne’s well known and oft repeated spectacle, but it was soon won over by the clever acting of John Daly Murpy as Passe Partout, Frank E. Camp as Phineas Fogg, Asa Willard as John Archibald, E. L. Snader as John Fix and Valerie Bergere and Lillian Kemble as Ouda and Ayesha. They saved the presentation from failure, as one of two of the lesser lights had to be prompted, and several of the realistic features worked badly. The good ship Henrietta in the sixth act refused to explode as scheduled, the passenger coach in the famous trip over the Rockies in the fifth act tried hard to get ahead of the engine and partially succeeded, and one or two other similar incidents marred the performance. The redeeming features, however, outnumbered these partial mishaps, for the scenery at times was really splendid and the indications are that the play will run more smoothly as the week progresses” (The Brooklyn Eagle, 31 Dec 1901, page 6).

Henry Greenwall’s initial success in New York, however, was not meant to last. When the 1903-1904 season opened, the New York Clipper reported that the American Theatre was under new management – “Klaw and Erlanger and Weis” (15 September 1902). Similarly, Greenwall’s Columbia Theatre in Brooklyn was said to have transferred to the management of Albert Weis and Company and Jake Weeks (New York Clipper, 5 September 1903). By this time, Greenwall was 72 years old, and his focus was narrowing down to his first holdings in the Texas Circuit.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 327- The Frohman Brothers as Modern Theatrical Managers

Part 327: Modern Theatrical Managers

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

Illustration of Gustave Frohman from the New York Times (9 Aug 1908 page 37). Frohman took over the direction of the Schiller Theatre in 1895. Ira La Motte was the manager for the venue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illustration of Gustave Frohman’s office published in the New York Times (9 Aug 1908 page 37).

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 306 – David H. Hunt and The Pike Theater Company

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.”

“The Banker’s Daughter” was one of the shows performed by the David H. Hunt Pike Theater Company in 1901.

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.”

Advertisement in the Star Tribune for the production of “The Banker’s Daughter” in 1901.

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…