Theatre Building Innovations

Travels of A Scenic Artist and Scholar: James Edgar Lamphere and the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado

When the Tabor Opera House opened in 1879, the “Leadville Weekly Herald” included an article about the new structure entitled, “The Opera House. Description of Leadville’s New Place of Amusement” (November 15, 1879, page 3 ). In addition to an extensive description of the building and stage area, the article reported, “Mr. Lamphere, one of the finest scenic artists in the west, has charge of the scenes, their preparation and management, and he promises to produce as fine an effect as can be had in any of the largest theatres of the east, even including New York and Philadelphia, in both of which places he has at times been engaged. Mr. Barber is the stage carpenter and has always been considered first class in his line, and second to none in New York city, from which he has recently arrived…The drop curtain is a masterpiece from the brush of Mr. Lamphere, and represents a glorious mountain scene, at the base of which is a fine old castle, with a stream running at the foot; alongside of the water is a rugged road, which ends in the winding of canyon.” Two years later the building and stage were renovated. The scenery and stage machinery delivered by Lamphere and Barber was less than ideal.

*The Tabor Opera House, c. 1879-1882. From the Denver Public Library digital archives.*

*Note the ceiling fabric above the proscenium arch. This indicates that this picture was likely taken after the original plaster was removed and replaced with canvas duck tacked to the ceiling in 1882.*

Some recounts suggest that Lamphere was a well-known artist; very successful and from the east. Well, east is relative and can mean Denver or Omaha, as both are still geographically east. Lamphere moved from Omaha to Denver by 1872 and was still working as a decorative artist in 1879. He later marketed himself as a scenic artist, but was primarily a fresco painter when the Tabor Opera House was built.

James “Edgar” Lamphere was the son of Orrin Lamphere and Malinda Post. Born in 1839, J. E. Lamphere was the second of five sons born to the couple. His brothers were Milan “Milton” (b. 1840) George (b. 1842), William (b. 1864) and Alonzo Horace (b. 1848).The young boys moved with their parents from New York to Tompkins, Illinois, during the mid 1840s. Tragedy struck, and their mother passed away shortly thereafter, in 1850. Their father immediately remarried a woman called Harriet, and the couple celebrated the birth of a daughter in 1851. Harriet was almost twenty years his junior, and the couple added three daughters to the expanding family: Melissa (b. 1851), Alma (B. 1853) and Ida May (b. 1857). One by one, the sons from the first family moved out of the household, including James who soon married and began painting.

Although I have yet to discover a definitive marriage date, by 1860, James was married and had a daughter. By 1868, James was working as a house and sign painter, listed in the Omaha directory. He had his own establishment, working with his younger brother Alonzo Horatio Lamphere. The two were listed in the Omaha directory, each living at 515 12^th. The 1870 U. S. Federal Census still listed J. E. Lamphere as a painter in Omaha. His wife Delia was 28 years old, with his children Clara and George, ten yrs. old and two years old respectively. The family also had a live-in servant. His younger brother, listed as “A. H. Lamphere” was still working in Omaha, but now living with another painter at a boarding house – A. N. Dobbins. Both James and Alonzo remained in Omaha until 1872, when they headed west to Denver. It remains unclear if Lamphere left his family, or if they chose to stay. However, he did remarry by 1879.

As far as Alonzo, he occasionally worked as a scenic artist as he continued west, eventually settling in California by 1880. Interestingly, their brother George also became a house painter in Chicago.

In 1872 J. E. Lamphere was working in Colorado as an artist. He remained in the west for at least a decade before fading from historical records. The Digital Collections at the Denver Public library have three mentions of J. E. Lamphere, as recorded in the Western History Subject Index. The index only lists the name, profession, date and newspaper. So, there is no way of knowing the context, and Lamphere may have simply been listed in the business cards section of the paper. In 1872, 1879 and 1881, Lamphere was mentioned in the “Rocky Mountain News.” In 1872, he was listed as an artist (March 27, page 1, column 4). In 1879, he was noted as a fresco painter ( Feb 25, 1879, page 4, column 5). Finally, in 1881, Lamphere was listed as a scenic artist (Sept. 4, page 8, column 3).

In 1879, the Denver Directory lists James E. Lamphere as a fresco painter and grainer, not a scenic artist or connected to any theatre, instead working for C. A. Trea. Charles A. Treat ran a wallpaper and sign works company located at 306 15th St. in Denver (Western Magazine, Vol. 4, 1880, page 5). Treat had been a fixture in Denver’s decorative artist scene for some time, placing advertisements as early as 1872 in the ”Denver Daily Times” (9 Aug. 1872). By the time Lamphere was working for Treat in 1879, Lamphere was living at the West Lindell Hotel. By 1880, Lamphere had moved to Leadville, living with his second wife.

On January 1, 1881, the “Leadville Daily Herald” included James E. Lamphere and Mary S. Faxson (nee Ainsworth) as one of the couples married in Leadville during 1880 (page 5). Mrs. M. S. Faxon was listed in the 1880 Leadville City Directory as living at 314 W 8^th. The couple’s marriage did not last long, as a notice of their divorce was published in the “Leadville Weekly Democrat” on Feb. 1, 1881: “Mary S. Lamphere vs Lamphere; judgement and decree of divorce for plaintiff at her costs.” Mary remained in Leadville, and remarried on June 5, 1881. Her next husband was Thomas J. Lanchan; they were also married in Leadville. I have yet to uncover any mention of Lamphere after that date.

In past writings, I proposed that James E. Lamphere solely functioned as the interior decorator for the Tabor Opera House; someone else painted the scenic art. My rationale was that there were plenty of well-known scenic artists working at theaters in Leadville by 1879; why hire a fresco painter from Denver who did not specialize in scenery? Furthermore, I suggested that as Tabor was ordering the best of everything, why skimp on the painted scenery. Well, I think that I found my reason: a lack of understanding pertaining to theatre production and the architectural construction of the Tabor Opera House auditorium and stage may have been the reason.

Significant funds were spent on the direct patron experience, such as the façade of the building, the entrance and theatre seats. The stage mechanism as a whole, or the necessary accommodations for productions would have taken a back seat to the opera boxes, fancy opera chairs and auditorium lighting on the main level. The balcony, scenic appointments, other areas vacated less by Tabor or affluent patrons may have been considered trivial. A lack of attention to detail in other areas beyond those that Tabor would have had direct contact may have taken a backseat, even the basic engineering of the building.

On November 15, 1879, the “Leadville Weekly Herald” described the new Tabor Opera House in detail, reporting “One of the greatest attractions on Harrison avenue is the newly erected Tabor Opera House next door to the Clarendon hotel. It is a three-story brick structure trimmed with Portland cement, and has a frontage on the avenue of sixty feet and extends back one hundred and twenty feet.” The article then described each area of the structure in detail, noting that 450 individuals could be comfortably accommodated on the first floor,

Less than a month later, a much larger venue opened in Leadville – the Grand Central Opera House. It was one particular article about this opera house that made me reevaluate my previous notions about the the Tabor.

The Grand Central Theatre opened on Dec. 12, 1879, located on the same spot as the previous the Theatre Comique and boasting 1,500 seats. The large size and shady location were a problem from the beginning, but the stage accommodations were much more complete than the small stage and ten settings at the Tabor. The proscenium opening measured 26’ w x 27’h and there were fifty-five sets of scenes. Tabor’s second theatre, the Tabor Grand, would also boast fifty settings in 1881.

An 1880 article in “The Leadville Daily Herald” made an interesting comment about the Tabor Opera House in relation to the Grand Central Theatre. On Dec. 9, 1880, the article reported “As the Tabor Opera House has no company, all stars and combinations are obliged to contract with the Grand Central, and [Billy] Nuttall is using his utmost endeavors to secure the best talent which is available. Having a stage possessing accommodation far superior to any other, and with a company which embraces all the dramatic talent in the state, together with the liberality of expenditure for which he has always been noted, even from his earliest connection with the camp, there is no reason why this theatre should not become a recognized resort for the most respectable people.” This really places the Tabor Opera House in perspective, especially when considering the scenic appointments for each stage.

Furthermore, money was spent on the exterior façade and not the structural integrity of the Tabor Opera House. Keep in mind that the Tabor Opera House was built in 102 days, with groundbreaking occurring Aug. 1, 1879. Of the Tabor Opera House’s construction article placed in the “Leadville Weekly Herald” reported Messrs. Roberts took the contract for erecting the building for $30,000. Some three weeks ago Mr. J. T. Roberts sold out his interest in the business, and Mr. L. E. Roberts continued, and has finished the building to the satisfaction of the gentlemen interested (15 Nov. 1879). It appears that corners were cut and details overlooked in the process. Furthermore, without a theatre company or extensive scenery collection, possibilities for booking productions were limited. Recognizing the deficiencies, the Tabor Opera House underwent a massive renovation to fix several problems by August 1882. The building was less than two years old at the time and there were significant areas of concern.

The improvements were described in detail under the heading “Improving the Tabor” (Leadville Daily Herald, August 23, 1882, page 4). On August 22, 1882, work commenced on the auditorium ceiling. The article reported, “All plastering and ceiling of the hall will be removed, and then eighty-six jack-screws will be put in and the building roof raised three inches. New iron plates and screws will be put into the roof, and instead of plastering there will be put the best quality of ducking canvas on the ceiling, which will be thoroughly calcimined. New and substantial columns of support will be placed throughout the building. The interior arrangements of the hall will be left at present as they are, with the exception of the gallery, which will be materially improved. Its ventilation, which has heretofore not been what it ought to be will be made as perfect as possible, and the seats arranged in such a manner that they will no longer be a source of trouble and annoyance. The guttering of the whole building throughout will be put in new, and much larger than heretofore, and the sewage of the lower floor will be materially improved.” Big changes for big problems.

This renovation extended to fixing other problems associated with the Tabor Opera House in the stage area. The “Leadville Daily Herald” reported, “Of the stage there will be a change for the better in regard to scenery, scene shifting and drop curtains. Those ridiculous hitches in scene shifting that have heretofore occurred on one or two occasions will no longer take place. An experienced stage man has been secured in the person of Mr. H. C. Sprague, who has had extensive experience in the east, and was in Leadville before, in the early days. All these improvements will take until about the first of September to execute. As soon as the house is in perfect order, say about the fourth of September, J. Rial’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin troupe will commence an engagement of three nights” (August 23, 1882).

Havens & Beman were contracted for the improvements, and the firm appointed J. T. Roberts as their superintendent. Remember that this is the half of the Roberts construction team that walked away mid-construction progress, leaving the project to L. E. Roberts.

By September 1, the “Leadville Daily Herald” described, “The ceiling has been elevated six inches in the center, thus giving it a slight arch. The plaster has all been removed there from and canvas will be substituted, both of which improvements will greatly improve the acoustic properties of the theatre. The roof has been raised three feet in the centre and materially strengthened with Howe trusses, while heavy timber braces and supports have been introduced in the stage which will make the house so secure that there can be no possibility of its ever taking a tumble unless it drops through the ground. The canvas ceiling is now being put in place and will be taken down and a few seats that remain on the stage will be put intact. Three new ventilators have been inserted in the ceiling and will aide very materially in keeping a large supply of air in the house at all times. While the work has been pushed in every particular and Mr. Roberts is to be thanked for the punctuality and correctness which he has displayed in the repairs. Had not Messrs. Havens & Beman known his ability and trustworthiness they would have never left such a responsible piece of work to his solo charge.”

The completed opera house improvements attracted a new class of production. The Abbott English Company performed “Chimes of Normandy” and “King for a Day” that fall. The September 26, the “Amusements” section announced. “For the first time in the history of the carbonate camp, there was presented at the Tabor opera house last evening, a perfect representation of grand opera, not only in so far as the mis en scene was concerned, but also in regard to the caliber of the artists appearing on the stage (Leadville Daily Herald, page 1). But Tabor’s troubled did not end with the repairs and eventually extended to the Tabor Grand Opera House in Denver. This was before long before Tabor fell on hard times financially.

On September 28, 1882, the “Fairplay Flume” reported, “Governor Tabor, while inspecting the improvements in the Tabor opera house, accidentally stepped through a trap on the stage, falling a distance of several feet. Happily, he was uninjured beyond a few slight bruises” (page 2). This is yet another indication of Tabor’s ignorance concerning the stage. It is understandable, as Tabor had no understanding of theatre beyond that of an audience member; he would not think to look down for open traps.

Structural issues carried over to his Denver venue. On February 24, 1883, newspapers reported “A rumor comes from Denver, Col., that the Tabor [Grand] Opera House is falling in. The bricks made in Denver are so porous that a nail can be readily driven into them. Hence, they are not suitable for buildings of the Tabor Opera House magnitude” (Lima Democrat, Lima, Ohio, 24 Feb 1883, page 5). To be continued…

Travels of A Scenic Artist and Scholar. Interior Settings for the Tabor Opera House by Henry E. Burcky, 1890

The Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado, opened in 1879. Over the next two decades, wing and shutter scenery for the stage was repeatedly purchased, refurbished and repainted. The venue was later renamed the Elks Opera House when the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks (B.P.O.E.) purchased the building in 1901. Immediately after the purchase, the building was renovated, and a new stock scenery collection purchased. Part of the stage renovation included adding a fly loft, so that new scenery could be raised out of sight. Previously, the Tabor Opera House used wings, shutters, roll drops and borders. This scenery was tucked away in storage after the renovation where it waited for over a century.

I lead a group of local volunteers to document both the scenery on the stage floor and that stored in the attic. On the back of one cut wing, was written: “W. J. Moon stage carpenter and H. E. Burpey [sic.] scenic artist, October 6, 1890. This penciled note identifying the creators places the eight cut wigs within the timeframe of Tabor Opera House history.

*W. J. Moon listed as carpenter and Henry E. Burpey [sic] on the back of a cut wing at the Tabor Opera House*

William J. Moon was a local resident, associated with the opera house for decades. Henry E. Burky was an itinerant scenic artist who began his career in Chicago and was working in Denver by 1884. “Harry Miner’s Dramatic Directory” for the 1884-1885 season listed “Burckey, Tabor Opera, Denver” as the scenic artist for the Tabor Opera House in Leadville; he was working for both of Tabor’s theaters. Burcky was still associated with the Tabor Opera House five years later.

On August 24, 1890, the “Herald Democrat” included an article on the new scenery painted by Henry E. Burcky for the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado (age 5). The article reported, “Mr. Burkey, the efficient scenic artist from the Tabor Grand, Denver, is at present in Leadville, and at work on some new scenery for the Tabor in this city. There will be several new sets, particularly some much needed interior scenery. One set has been completed already and is very handsome” (page 5).

On September 3, 1890, the “Herald Democrat” included an article on the new scenery painted by Henry E. Burcky for the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado (page 5): “Mr. Berkey, the scenic artist from the Tabor Grand, Denver, is getting along very well with the new scenery he is painting at the local theater. He has already completed three interiors, which are a decided improvement to the scenic portion of the theater. Mr. Berkey is a first-class scenic artist and does some decidedly commendable work.”

*Baronial Hall interior side of double-painted shutter at the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado*

*New England interior side of double-painted shutter at the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado*

After completing the scenery project in Leadville, the “Herald Democrat” reported his departure for Denver on October 16, 1890, noting “Mr. H. E. Burcky left last evening for Denver.” In addition to the tropical-themed cut wings, I suspect one of Burcky’s double-painted interior settings remain. When he painted the three new settings noted in the newspaper, he likely repainted existing composition. When nineteenth-century scenery was repainted, it was simply scrubbed down with water and then repainted. In the case of the Burcky’s double-painted wings, the underlaying composition became a template. There was no need to scrub down and redraw and interior setting for each piece. Keep in mind that this would have been tricky, as the underlying colors would immediately lift. Scenery painted with dry pigment and diluted hide glue reactivates when it comes in contact with liquid.

*Four double-painted wings painted by Henry E. Burcky for the Tabor Opera House in 1890*

*Painted detail from double-painted wing painted by Henry E. Burcky for the Tabor Opera House in 1890*

*A detail showing the underpainting* *from a previous composition.*

Burcky’s interior set consists of wings that slide in grooves, as well as two shutters that formed a back wall. The back wall had an opening for double door in the center. What is interesting, however, is that only the shutters use flat sheaves (wheels). A pair of flat sheaves was secured to the bottom of each shutter for easy movement. Unfortunately, one of the shutters was so badly damaged that it was not lowered to the stage floor and thoroughly documented. This piece and its companion remain in the Tabor attic, until they can be repaired and safely lowered to the stage floor.

*One of two shutters that formed the opening for a double door.*

*The two shutters still wait in the attic of the Tabor Opera House for repair*

*A flat sheave on the bottom of the interior shutter*

The double-painted wings do not have flat sheaves on the bottom. They were shifted during scene changes without the benefit of wheels, indicating that the wings slid in wooden floor grooves. Sets of grooves were placed above and below the unit to stabilize each unit for the interior setting.Not all of the interior setting remains, as part was disassembled to create a massive barn setting during the late nineteenth-century. Painted remnants littered the attic, a testament to the original scope of Burcky’s project. I am in the process of slowly fitting these pieces back together.

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 405 – “Scenery and Scene-Painters” 1871, fourth section

Part 405: “Scenery and Scene-Painters” 1871, fourth section

E. L. Blanchard wrote the article “Scenery and Scene-Painters” in 1871 for “The Era Almanack.” Here is the fourth of five sections.

“John Richards, the old Secretary of the Royal Academy, painted many years for the stage. His rural scenery for The Maid of the Mill is perpetuated in two line engravings, which are in the portfolios of all our old-fashioned collectors of English prints.

The first scene of “The Maid of the Mill,” designed by John Inigo Richards. Painting by John Inigo Richards (1731-1810)

Image: The first scene of “The Maid of the Mill,” designed by John Inigo Richards. Richards was a noted scenic artist, machinist and theatre designer. Engraving by William Woollett (1735-1785) after the painting by John Inigo Richards (1731-1810). 1768. Here is the link to the image: https://www.lubranomusic.com/pages/books/29668/samuel-arnold/the-first-scene-of-the-maid-of-the-mill-as-designed-by-mr-richards-fine-large-engraving-by-william

De Loutherbourg, who for some time delighted and astonished the town by his interesting dioramic exhibition, which he called “The Eidophusikon,” was the first to increase the effect of scenery by lighting from above the proscenium, and using colored glasses for the lamps.

De Loutherbourg’s “Eidophusikon.” Image from http://picturegoing.com/?p=4354

The key to De Loutherbourg’s “Eidophusikon, or Moving Diorama of Venice” from https://www.rc.umd.edu/gallery/key-eidophusikon-or-moving-diorama-venice

Philip-Jacques de Loutherbourg, R.A. (1740 – 1812), became known for his large naval works, scenic designs, and mechanical theatre called the “Eidophusikon.”

“An Avalanche in the Alps,” 1803, Philip James De Loutherbourg (1740-1812). Presented by the Friends of the Tate Gallery, 1965. Image at http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/philip-james-de-loutherbourg-145

Many ingenious devices, now familiar, in their effects at least, to a playgoing public, owe their adoption to the dashing, vigorous Flemish battle-painter, whose appearance was as martial as his pictures, and who Jack Bannister nicknamed “Field-Marshal Leatherbags.”

Another distinguished artist of the period was Mr. Greenwood, the grandfather of Mr. T. L. Greenwood, so long associated with the management of Sadler’s Wells Theatre. For many years the scenery of the Royal Circus (now the Surrey Theatre) was painted by Mr. Greenwood, who invested the ballets and serious musical spectacles brought out there by Mr. J. C. Cross with remarkable scenic attractions, and, when the artist was transferred to Drury Lane, he became even more prominent. Byron, in his “English Bards and Scottish Reviewers,” speaks of “Greenwood’s gay designs” as being then the chief support of the Drama of that period.

When John Kemble became Manager of Covent Garden Theatre, the accuracy of scenery and costume became more studied. One of the most eminent scene-painters of this period was William Capon, who died in September, 1827. He was born in 1757, and studied under Novosielski, the architect of the Italian Opera House, during which time he designed the Theatre and other buildings at Ranelagh Gardens, and painted several scenes for the Opera.

On the completion of New Drury, in 1794, Kemble engaged Capon for the scenic department, by which means the Manager was greatly assisted in his reformation of the stage. The artist had a private painting room, to which Kemble used to invite his friends to witness the progress of this scenic reform. Among these specimens were a Chapel of the pointed style of architecture, which occupied the whole stage, and was used for the performance of oratorios; six chamber wings of the same order, for general use on our old English plays, and very elaborately studio from actual remains; a View of New Palace Yard, Westminster, as it was in 1793, forty-one feet wide, with corresponding wings; the Ancient Palace of Westminster, as it was three hundred years back, carefully painted from authorities, and forty-two feet wide and thirty-four feet to the top of the scene; six wings representing ancient English streets; the Tower of London, restored to its earlier state for the play of Richard the Third; and for Jane Shore was painted the Council Chamber of Crosby House. All these scenes were spoken as the time as historical curiosities. Capon painted for John Kemble two magnificent interior views of Drury Lane and Covent Garden, for which he received about two hundred guineas. Unfortunately all his scenes were destroyed by the fire at Drury Lane in 1809, but he afterwards painted many scenes for Covent Garden which for several years must have completely satisfied the more critical eye of even a later generation, for several needed only a little re-touching to serve the Managements which preceded that of Mr. Macready.

In Elliston’s time Marinari and Stanton painted a beautiful drop scene for Drury Lane which was substituted for the green curtain. It was a fine composition of Grecian ruins, and figures within a splendidly-wrought frame, heightened with gold ornamentation. The figures were by Stanton, and the cost of the scene was nearly 700L.

In 1828 the principal scene-painters of Drury Lane were Stanfield, Andrews, and Marinari. Stanfield’s panoramas, at this period introduced into each successive pantomime, were triumphs of pictoral art. The two drop scenes then used between the acts were much admired. One, including the Coliseum, with other remains of classic architecture, was painted by Stanton; the other, from a picture by Claude, was from Stanfield’s pencil. The weight of each of these drops, with the roller and necessary adjuncts, was about 800lbs. In marine scenery Clarkston Stanfield had never been surpassed. Born at Sunderland in 1798, he had commenced life as a sailor, and he had well profited by his early experience of the lights and shadows of the seas. For many years Stanfield taught the pit and gallery to admire landscape art, and the occupants of the boxes to become connoisseurs. He decorated Drury Lane Theatre with works so beautiful that the public annually regretted the frail material of which they were composed, and the necessity for “new and gorgeous effects,” which caused this fine artist’s work to be successively obliterated. He create, and afterwards painted out with his own brush, more scenic masterpieces than any man, and in his time Clown and Pantaloon tumbled over and belabored one another in front of the most beautifully dazzling pictures which were ever presented to the eye of the playgoer.”

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 333 – J. B. McElfatrick & Sons, Theatre Architects

Part 333: J. B. McElfatrick & Sons, Theatre Architects

The architectural firm of J. B. McElfatrick & Sons was chiefly known for its theater designs. By 1896, the company advertised that they were responsible for the design and construction of seventy-one theaters in New York, Washington, D.C., Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Nebraska, Washington and Texas. They also designed theaters in Canada. Started by John Bailey McElfatrick, his two sons soon joined the business. John Morgan McElfatrick (1853-1891) and William H. McElfatrick (1854-1922) became architects to establish J. B. McElfatrick & Sons. John passed away in 1891, but his brother William continued as an architect throughout the remainder of his life, continuing the family business after his father passed away.

Advertisement for J. B. McElfatrick & Son, Architects, from Julius Cahn’s Official Theatre Guide, 1896.

J. B. McElfatrick (1826-1906) is credited with designing over one hundred theaters throughout the course of his career, changing the audience expectations of the physical structures. Born in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, he studied architecture and engineering with his own father Edward McElfatrick. By 1851, J. B. soon started his own architecture business in Harrisburg, and then established his business in Philadelphia. From there, he continued to journey west, opening offices wherever he moved – Cincinnati, Cleveland, Chicago, and St. Louis. He finally returned to New York where he ran the main firm.

He focus on theater design began in approximately 1855. It was a subject that would remain his specialty throughout his career. Architectural historians cite his innovations concerning auditorium seating and the implementation of ground-floor performance venues. In the 1917 publication, “Modern Theatre Construction,” Edward B. Kinsila wrote, “The greatest individual strides in American theatre construction have been effected through the personal endeavors of a single architect, Mr. J. B. McElfatrick of New York City, who should be revered as the Father of American theatres.”

Kinsila’s publication describes that in the 1880s American theaters were designed and constructed in a similar manner to their English prototypes; specifically, they shared a comparable subdivision of main floor seating. The American use of “parquet” and “parquet circles” were the equivalent to the English use of “pit” and “stalls.” He notes that they both shared the “same lyre-shaped balcony, the same stage projection or apron, and the same extravagant and distracting ornamentation.” McElfatrick, is also credited with improving the sight lines by arranging continuous front-to-back seating on the main floor, without aisles. He also designed balconies that were flatter and deeper. I am fascinated with his front-of-house innovations, but curious about how his designs affected the backstage areas. We only catch a glimpse of his alteration to the front of the stage.

He greatly reduced the “projecting apron,” a common nineteenth-century stage feature. The projecting apron was at the forefront of the stage, and from a time when much of the scenery remained primarily decorative, placed behind the actors to suggest locale. This was part of the wing and shutter system that also incorporated roll drops. Once the painted shutters were opened to reveal a scene, the actors moved forward (downstage) to play the scene, allowing the background to change behind them while they continued the performance. For me, this is interesting timing. That I would get to this point in my blog as the wing/shutter/roll drop system has been part of my weekly, and sometimes daily, discussions with Rick Boychuk since last November after we examined the 1906 Matthews Opera House. 1906 was also the same year that J. B. McElfatrick passed away in New York.

The projecting apron was at the forefront of the stage, and from a time when much of the scenery remained primarily decorative, placed behind the actors to suggest locale. This was part of the wing and shutter system that also incorporated roll drops. Once the painted shutters were opened to reveal a scene, the actors moved forward (downstage) to play the scene, allowing the background to change behind them while they continued the performance. For me, this is interesting timing. That I would get to this point in my blog as the wing/shutter/roll drop system has been part of my weekly, and sometimes daily, discussions with Rick Boychuk since last November after we examined the 1906 Matthews Opera House. 1906 was also the same year that J. B. McElfatrick passed away in New York.

In terms of another significant characteristic of McElfatrick’s theater designs was the placement of the theatre on the first floor. Often his renovated or newly constructed theaters were the first in an area to place the entertainment venue on the ground level. He also included multiple exits, sprinkler systems, and improved dressing rooms. As I surveyed newspaper reviews of his buildings, I noticed that many of his theatre designs lowered the stage floor and constructed a raked floor for the auditorium seating. Furthermore, a secondary floor to place over stationary auditorium seating was also another feature that McElfatrick used. This transformed the space into one long banquet hall that extended the entire length of the room that continued onto the stage.

William H. McElfatrick, of the architectural firm J. B. McElfatrick & Son

William McElfatrick initially studied architecture in his father’s office, but moved to Chicago after the 1871 fire. There he joined the firm of W. W. Boyington, as work was so plentiful and presented great opportunities for a young architect to make his mark. He returned to New York in the 1880s and began working with his father again. From the mid-1880s until his father’s passing in 1906, the firm was incredibly productive. In Canada, William H. McElfatrick and his father designed theatre buildings in Ottawa, Montreal, and Quebec.

What I found fascinating in looking at various articles during the mid-1890s, is that many of the new theaters credited to the firm were remodels. For example, the Lowell Opera House, the Avenue Theatre in Pittsburg, and the Howard Auditorium in Baltimore were three examples; all remodeled during 1894-1895. In each case the stage was enlarged, necessitating the purchase of a new drop curtain and scenery. Thomas G. Moses was there to create the stock scenery. Just as Moses had travelled throughout the west in the 1880s, painting scenery for new theaters that replaced burned predecessors, he was now following the theatre renovation parade.

And there was also a fraternal connection for both J. B. and his son William. William was a member of the Benevolent Protective Order of Elks (B.P.O.E.). He was a member in the Brooklyn Lodge at Atlantic City (The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 11 July 1895, page 1). I have not been able to find a Masonic connection, but his father was a Freemason and it was unlikely that William would not follow in his footsteps. J. B. McElfatrick’s obituary published, “He was a Mason, was widely known to theatrical people all over the country, and was in active charge of his business to the last” (New York Times, 7 June 1906, page 7).

So here is where my two worlds intersect; McElfatrick was an architect who renovated dozens of existing buildings to include a stage and was also an active Freemason. His work was well known in Indianapolis, Columbus and Cincinnati, all cities that implemented some of the earliest stages for Scottish Rite degree productions in renovated buildings. What are the possibilities that McElfatrick was involved in the transformation of degree work that shifted the historical reenactments from the lodger room floor to the elevated stage?

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 287 – Grace Wishaar and Harry W. Bishop

Grace N. Wishaar painted scenery for a variety of venues along the west coast after leaving New York 1902. In Seattle, she was photographed painting with Sheridan Jenkins, the scenic artist for the Third Street Theatre. The following year, she began working in California. Even though she married for a third time in 1906, she continued to paint under her maiden name. Her first two husbands were Whitney Irving Eisler (1897) and Oscar Graham Peeke (1902).

On August 14, 1906, Wishaar married her third husband, John Bruce Adams. However, the marriage was short lived and in 1907 the Oakland Tribune reported, “Mrs. Grace Wishaar Adams is in Matrimonial Trouble” (July 17, 1907). Adams deserted Wishaar and left a lot of debts in her name. At the time her marriage with Adams ended, she was painting all of the scenery at Ye Liberty Playhouse and Idora Park.

In California, she also worked at San Francisco’s Majestic Theatre and few other performance venues in San José. One of her greatest supporters was Harry W. Bishop (1872-1928), considered to be one of “the pioneers of California theatredom” (Oakland Tribune, 15 June 1928, page 33).

Harry W. Bishop’s obituary photo from 1928. Bishop employed Grace N. Wishaar as his scenic artist at Ye Liberty Playhouse in 1904.

Bishop was the adopted son of Walter M “Bishop” (1849-1901), otherwise known as Walter Morosco, the proprietor of Morosco’s Royal Russian Circus.

Harry W. Bishop’s obituary reported that he “began his career as a showman in San Francisco and ended it brokenhearted and poor as a sometime real estate operator.” But the story couldn’t be that simple. Oliver Morosco adopted Walter and Leslie Mitchell, orphaned sons of Sir John Mitchell and Dora Esmea Montrose of Utah. Some sources reported that Walter ran away from home at the age of 17 to join the circus as an acrobat.

After Walter left his circus career, he took over the Howard Street Theatre in San Francisco and started his new venture as a producer and manager. He later took over the Burbank Theatre in Oakland, as well as the Union Hall and the Grand Opera House in San Francisco. It was at the opera house that Harry W. Bishop began his career and Oliver Morosco was the treasurer. Fire destroyed the historic opera house in 1906, two years after he constructed another theatre – Ye Liberty Playhouse.

Harry W. Bishop’s Ye Liberty Playhouse (Oakland, California) where Grace N. Wishaar was the scenic artist (1904-1909).

Harry W. Bishop opened Ye Liberty Playhouse in 1904, boasting the first revolving stage in the western United States. By 1905, Bishop managed the San Francisco’s Majestic Theatre, Central Theatre, the American Theatre and Bell Theatre. In Oakland, he managed Ye Liberty Playhouse, where Wishaar began as his scenic artist. Bishop would later build what became known as the Fulton Theatre too. His obituary reported that “he won a reputation as a star-maker and while his productions, both dramatic and stock, concert and musical were famous, he was not in the commercial way. Throughout his career he remained a dreamer and his sole use for money was to return it to the theatre in the way of more lavish productions and finer casts until the profit was reduced to a minimum.”

Bishop was ahead of his time, not only offering Wishaar the opportunity to paint at his theaters, but also offering other women positions as ushers and ticket takers. There was another aspect to Bishop that I find fascinating as it would have greatly affected the venue where Wishaar worked. Bishop was an inventor, filing for patents relating to theatre design and stage construction.

In 1908 Bishop filed for a patent. His invention was “to provide a theater structurally arranged to permit the elevating or lowering of the main stage; to provide a vertically movable stage, horizontally ‘revoluble,’ and means for accomplishing this action; to afford a stage adapted to be bodily raised or lowered and simultaneously revolved if so desired, or lowered, and have a portion of its area revolving in one direction while another portion is rotating reversely.” Bishop stated that it was also “desirable to raise or lower certain scenes, suspended from or secured to the rigging-loft.” It goes onto describe that the principal advantages of his invention was in “the possibility of setting up all the scenes each completely, on the surface of the stage, the area of which may be divided into scenes as desired, and of suspending all the drops, hanging pieces, ceiling borders, ceiling pieces and border and other overhead lights that may be used, for all the scenes each completely, from the gridiron or rigging-loft, and of then revolving the stage and the rigging loft in a horizontal plane so that each scene is, in its proper sequence, aligned proximate to the proscenium.” He proposed that there was incentive “to devise a theatrical structure that will admit of building or setting scenes of as nearly normal and natural effect as is possible to attain, by elevating or lowering all of the visible matter within the proscenium.

Here is the link: https://www.google.com/patents/US1136860?dq=ininventor:%22Harry+W+Bishop%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1772s46fYAhWM5YMKHXT_Du8Q6wEIMTAB

In 1914, Bishop also engineered a new and improved proscenium opening and structure. The ultimate purpose of his invention was “to produce upon the mind an impression of the picturesque, unmechanical production and to eliminate the rigidness given by architectural ornamentation common to arch work and prosceniums.” This was enhanced by “providing a curtain movable just behind the rear edge of the frame and which may be decorated with a scene harmonious and introductory to the arrangement of property on the stage so that when the curtain rises the transition is a continuation of the introductory scene on the curtain.” Lights were placed in a concavo-convex contour at such a depth that it projects somewhat in front and behind the wall.”

Here is the link: https://www.google.com/patents/US1008886?dq=ininventor:%22Harry+W+Bishop%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwievLW83afYAhWe8oMKHYRTC0gQ6wEIODAC

In 1918, Harry W. Bishop lost the majority of his fortune including his home in the exclusive Piedmont residential district. Wishaar had also lived in Piedmont with her family. A decade later Bishop passed away, leaving his widow Florence and five children: Mrs. George Stimmel, Lester K., Walter K., Dalton, and Beverly Bishop. By 1928, Wishaar was still in Europe and continuing on with her own adventure that had begun in 1914. California remained far behind her.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 239 – Thomas G. Moses in York, Pennsylvania

Thomas G. Moses returned to the Sosman & Landis Studio during June 1891. This was after working on the Lyceum Theater scenery in Duluth, Minnesota, during March, April, and May. He enjoyed some work at the studio for only a few days before going on the road again. As usual, Ed Loitz was sent ahead to set up the on site shop and prepare the space for painting. Sosman & Landis had a painting project in York, Penn, but Moses’ typed manuscript fails to mention the venue.

Postcard view of railroad depot in York, Pennsylvania. Thomas G. Moses traveled to York by rail to paint the opera house scenery.

I discovered that Moses was in York to paint the scenery for opera house on N. Beaver Street. Built, originally in 1881 at a cost of $38,000. By 1891, the York Opera House was an extremely popular attraction ready for an upgrade. In 1891, Moses was in York to paint scenery after a massive renovation. The venue was being reconfigured to include a fly tower! The York Opera House was replacing their current collection of roll drops with fly drops.

A view of the original 1881 York Opera House before renovation in 1891.

The June 10 issue of the York Daily (Vol 65. No 6405, page 1, second column) included an article titled, “The Opera House Improvements.” The article noted, “The curtain will not be raised by rolling as is the usual custom, but will be lifted bodily. This will prevent the cracking off of the paint and also make it impossible for any creases to appear. To make the proposed change, the roof of the house will be cut out and an addition built on the same which will allow the curtain to be lifted in the manner adopted.” Sosman & Landis were promoting a superior product; unlike roll drops, painted scenes on fly drops would not crack or crease. This identifies an problematic issue with roll drops and an opportunity for scenic studios to make the sale of a “new and improved” product.

Another view of the renovated York Opera House.

Playbill from the York Opera House, 1897.

The article continues to describe the scenery contracted by Sosman & Moses:

“In addition to this there are seventeen complete sets of scenery of one hundred and thirty five pieces. These sets will be painted here by the artist who, with his assistant when they leave here, will paint all of the scenery of the new “Alpha” theatre at Pittsburgh, PA. To give an idea of what is to be done here, we enumerate the sets. They are a “kitchen,” a “plain chamber,” an “oak chamber,” a “center door fancy,” a “two door fancy, “ a “prison,” a “palace,” a “modern street,” an “ancient street,” a “garden,” a “dark wood,” a “cut wood,” a “horizon” (ocean view), a “rocky pass,” a “landscape,” “cottages,” and “castles.” Not only will all the above be procured, but as complete a set of new drops, “set” pieces and stage properties to be obtainable will be added. All of the stage carpets will be entirely new. These improvements will cost with the new addition over $2500, and will be finished about the middle of August, n time for the opening of the next season. On account of the large expenditure necessitated by these improvements, and the short time at the disposal of the management, the proposed changes of the seats, and other changes will not be undertaken until early next spring. The season will be closed early for this purpose. The management should be congratulated on the extensive first steps towards the complete remodeling of our beautiful opera house.”

The newspaper noted that Mr. Perry Landis of the firm Sosman & Landis, scenic artists of Chicago, Illinois, was in the city to meet with directors about the “proposed changes in stage appointments.” The article explained that Mr. Landis attended the board of directors meeting. The Sosman & Landis model was received “with most gratifying success.” After the board examined the designs, they unanimously agreed to give Sosman & Landis the contract to furnish an entire new set of scenery and new drop curtain for the York Opera House. The article noted, “The new drop curtain will be painted in their Chicago studio, who execute no other kind of work. It will be in imitation of white satin with plush drapery. The design on it is entitled the “Witch’s Daughter,” after a celebrated painting and is a beautiful conception.”

The following month, Moses’ family left Chicago to join him on location in York. Moses wrote, “Ella got the children ready and we left for York on the 7^th of July. Arrived on the 8^th. After some trouble we found very good accommodations at the Central Hotel – a new addition to the hotel had just been completed and we were given two brand-new outfits.”

Postcard depicting scenes from York, Pennsylvania.

While working in York, Moses also “found plenty of good sketching.” The countryside was beautiful and Moses was always trying to improve his artistic skills with plein air painting and sketching. Moses wrote, “One week we went to Gettysburg and over the famous battlefield. The whole country is very picturesque and we more than enjoyed our stay.”

A livery stable owner next door to the theatre became interested in Moses’ work. Everyday he would drop on by to watch the scenic artists at work. That first Sunday in York, Moses hired a rig from him so that Ella could take the children out during the week. They stayed for about three weeks and the livery bill was only $10.00. The Central hotel was $21.00 per week, three adults and four children. Moses wrote, “Pretty cheap. I don’t see how they could do it.” I do. Moses captivated people with both his personality and talent. This was one more way to display appreciation for a new found friend and his contribution to the community. The job was completed by July 31, 1891 and soon, Moses and his family were on their way to Meridan, Conn. for another painting project.

Of their journey, Moses wrote, “We had to change cars for times – Harrisburg, Philadelphia, New York City and New Haven. I don’t know why, but we did. We were all tired out. We found a good hotel, but it was $36.00 per week. Same as we had in York for $21.00. There was no paint frame or bridge in the theatre, but we found a high platform ready for us. The following day we were at work painting.” While in Meridan, the Moses family enjoyed the many carriage rides out in the country and trips to the seashore. Savin Rock near New Haven was a particularly memorable adventure.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 230 – Thomas G. Moses and Spokane’s Auditorium

In Spokane Falls, Thomas G. Moses, Howard Tuttle and Ed Loitz likely painted for the newly constructed Auditorium Theatre. Construction of the building began in 1889, just prior to the great fire that left the downtown area in ruins. It was left relatively unscathed. The theatre was designed by Herman Preusse, a German immigrant who had settled in Spokane just the year before. Preusse’s extensive work incorporated a number of styles from medieval to Romanesque and Renaissance Revival.

Spokane’s Auditorium Theatre that opened in September of 1890.

John Browne and Anthony Cannon funded the construction of the seven-story red brick building with seating for 1,750 people. The Theatre boasted an impressive exterior, oversized stage, three balconies and deluxe loge seating. Located on the ground floor of the building, the theatre’s proscenium opening was 34 ft. wide by 33 ft. high. The depth from the footlights to the back wall was 40 ft., with the distance between the footlights and front curtain at 3 ft. The stage to rigging loft was 68 ft. and there were four grooves. The height from grooves to the stage was 20 ft., but they could be taken up if necessary. The depth under the stage was 11 ft. with three traps (located prompt, center and off prompt). There were also two bridge and a scene room. Electric lights illuminated the auditorium and stage. (Information taken from Julius Cahn’s Theatrical Guide, 1897).

Businessmen Browne and Cannon initially arrived in Spokane during 1878. They were looking for possible investment opportunities. The two opened banks and developed land. They focused on the creation of new offices for the various businesses that continued to appear in the small town. Browne and Cannon quickly became two of the area’s first millionaires. Then they set their sites on an impressive performance venue that would surpass all other theatres in the country. Prior to their theater’s construction, Browne and Cannon visited Chicago’s auditorium and instructed their builders to go “one foot wider and one foot higher” (http://spokanehistorical.org/items/show/625).

From 1890 until 1914, Spokane’s Auditorium was the largest theatre in America until the Hippodrome was built in New York. I was surprised that with this title, there is nothing available online or in newspapers that depicts the theater’s interior, stage or auditorium. There are only a few exterior pictures too. This was perplexing as I am often able to locate interior images of small venues in unknown town. Here was a large venue that rivaled Chicago’s Auditorium and the interior remains unknown. I wonder if there are any remaining plans that Rick Boychuk could examine as he is now extremely familiar Chicago’s Auditorium and its innovative rigging system.

An article by Tara Justine, “The World’s Largest Stage,” examines the planning and construction of this massive endeavor in Spokane. Justine wrote, “No expense was spared in the construction. Granite was taken from the base of Mt. Spokane to complete the foundation. Inside, were 17 dressing rooms and a “box office vestibule (lit) by stained glass windows.” Atop the building stood a large gold-plated statue of Thalia, Goddess of Music.

The Salt Lake Tribune published that the Carleton Opera Company staged the first production at to the Auditorium’s grand opening on Tuesday, September 16 (September 21, 1890 (page 6). Moses, Tuttle and Loitz had worked in Spokane Falls until April 16, 1890

Justine wrote, “The Auditorium drew acts from all over the world. Sarah Bernhardt, Alma Gluck, Anna Held and Al Jolson, performed on the stage. Jolson appeared in 1917 while a young Bing Crosby watched from his seat” (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/may/14/then-and-now-auditorium/#/0). In fact, Bing had landed a part-time job in the props department at Spokane’s Auditorium Theatre in his early teens. An article from Oct. 16, 1977, in the “Democrat and Chronicle (Rochester, NY, page 3) published that Spokane’s Auditorium Theatre was “a grease paint Mecca on the great American vaudeville circuit which brought to town such giants of the day as Gallagher and Shean, Eddie Cantor and Al Jolson, as well as traveling shows from Broadway such as George White’s Scandals.” Sadly, the theater was demolished in 1934.

When Moses left Portland to secure the contract for the Auditorium, he would have had a leg up on the competition. He was from Chicago and working for the largest scenic studio in the city. A studio with ties to Chicago’s Auditorium. Moses’ nationwide reputation and following would have been a notable asset to the two businessmen; they were looking for the best.

After this theater job was completed, the three scenic artists disbanded once more. Tuttle and Moses went East while Loitz offered to stay in Spokane and finish one more painting project for the theatre. Loitz agreed to paint the asbestos curtain that had not been part of the original contract. Moses noted that Loitz was happy to take on the additional work.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 134 – “The Finest Theatre in America” by Albert, Grover & Burridge

The Beckwith Memorial Theatre of Dowagiac, Michigan, was built in 1892 for the cost of one hundred thousand dollars. Today’s equivalent would be $2,588,925.36! Albert, Grover & Burridge directed the plan and installation of all stage fittings, the wall decorations of the auditorium and painted décor throughout the entire building. This was a major extravagance for a small town that numbered less than seven thousand people.

Beckwith Memorial Theatre, architectural drawings.

Roger E. Greeley’s “Best of Robert Ingersoll, Immortal Infidel: Selections of His Writings and Speeches” (1977), includes a tribute delivered by Ingersoll to the beloved memory of Philo D. Beckwith. Greeley became intrigued with the history of Beckwith and his theater, a structure advertised as “the finest theatre in America.” I can see why as I am now fascinated with the story and the building too.

Beckwith Memorial Theatre, proscenium boxes and edge of drop curtain created by Oliver Grover.

Beckwith Memoial Theatre was a sizable house that had a capacity to seat 700. There were 499 overstuffed mohair chairs with 170 in the balcony. For the grand opening, thirty-six hanging drops could be combined in various combinations for seventy-six set possibilities. These settings were all painted by Albert, Grover & Burridge. The size made me think of early installations for Southern Jurisdiction degree productions.

Beckwith Memorial Theatre. Note fly gallery and paint bridge.

Beckwith Memorial Theatre, sectional drawing of proscenium.

Beckwith was an interesting character, beginning his career as a manufacturer of an agricultural implement that improved the round seed drill. He then focused on the mass-production of cast iron wood-burning stoves and furnaces, founding the company Round Oak Stove. His business prospered and so did the town. Beckwith desired to construct a grand theatre for his bustling town. Unfortunately, he never lived to complete his dream and died unexpectedly in 1889. His family decided to complete his vision and build a fine theatre for his memorial, sparing no expense. Greely stumbled across a front-page story in the Dowagiac “Republican” from January 18, 1893. The article’s heading proclaimed: “The Beckwith memorial Theatre Building. The finest theater in America.” As I read the article, I thought of that Rick Boychuk emailed to me concerning the Crump Theatre. This article was intended to make its way to you, Rick.

Let’s start with an excerpt from the “Republican” article:

“It is the fitting and arrangement of the stage in the Beckwith Memorial Theatre, that the greatest care has been exercised to obtain the best possible results, and a great degree of success has been obtained. To go into technicalities and the use of stage terms would not be perhaps intelligible to our readers generally, so we will note only the main points. The stage is fifty by thirty-eight feet. Up to the gridiron, from which is suspended by an elaborate system of lines and pulleys all of the stage settings it is possible to use in the form of drop curtains, is fifty feet, allowing ample room for hoisting out of sight a whole screen in a few seconds, and allowing rapid changing of scenes so necessary to the continuing of the action of a play and effects are made possible that were unknown in the old days of sliding flats. To those acquainted with and interested in things theatrical and matters pertaining to proper stage fitting we think it is sufficient guarantee of the success of the stage to say that Albert, Grover & Burridge, of Chicago, had the direction of the stage fittings and the wall decorations of the auditorium and the entire building. Ernest Albert, of A., G., & B., under whose direction the art glass, colorings, the selection of draperies, and the furnishings of the theater were made, had succeeded admirably in producing the most beautiful and harmonious whole.”

The author credits all of the original designs used in the decoration to J. Frederick Scott and the drop-curtain to Oliver Dennet Grover, both of Albert, Grover & Burridge. Does this mean that Scott designed the building murals or the actual scenery? It remained unclear to me. Grover’s drop curtain was described as “a dream of loveliness. It was monumental in character with male and female figures and cupids representing the different elements of drama, in a Grecian landscape, where splendid temples set amid cypress and acacia backed up by the faint lines of distant hills from the background.” The image was published in volume fifteen of “Building Age” (Jan. 1893, page 267-271).

Beckwith Memorial Theatre drop curtain by Oliver Grover.

I also stumbled across another interesting statement about the Beckwith Memorial Theatre scenery in “W.A. Norton’s Directory of Dowagiac, Cassopolis and La Grange, Pokagon, Silver Creek and Wayne Townships” (1899). On page 159, the author writes, “The scenery is designed for the cyclorama effect which has been found so effective, and which was first used in the Auditorium in Chicago. By this arrangement a scene can be set as a street or garden by simply moving the scenes which are profiled on both sides and top, anywhere desired. Every set of scenery is a finished piece of art. It is, after the latest fashion, lashed together with ropes and is capable of being made into seventy-five distinct stage dressings.”

Beckwith Memorial Theatre. Painted setting created by Albert, Grover & Burridge.

Scenes that are “profiled on both sides and tops” would be the leg drops. The cut opening would designate the street or garden scene with information painted on the leg drops. The various combinations of leg and backdrops would create incredible variety for potential stage compositions, all easily lowered to the stage floor for instant configurations. This was just like the new scenery for Scottish Rite theatres. There was no longer the complicated and noisy transitions of flats sliding in their respective grooves.

Norton’s Directory discusses the electric lighting for the stag, writing, “The problem of electric lighting of theatres has been solved in this house, by the use of a large switch-board, I which there are twenty-five levers, and nine powerful resistence coils. The lighting of the stage itself is exceptionally complete, four hundred electric lamps in three colors being utilized for this purpose.” Wow. Beckwith may be a significant “missing link” in the evolution of stage design, counterweight systems and lighting. This places Albert, Grover, & Burridge on the cutting edge of innovation and I couldn’t help thinking of the Electric Theatre spectacle title “A Day in the Alps” at the Columbian Exposition. This scenic spectacle utilized 250 electric incandescent lamps that were operated in full view of the audience with thirty-six switches controlling red, white, and blue lamps.

Albert, Grover, and Burridge were all close friends to Thomas Gibbs Moses. Numerous sketching trips were planned to capture lovely landscapes and improve their skills. In 1890, Albert and Burridge called on Moses as they were all in Pueblo, Colorado, at the same time. Moses was there for work and Albert and Burridge were on a sketching trip. Could they have discussed the Chicago Auditorium’s new scenery, the creation of an innovative painting studio, or any of potential technology waiting to be marketed to a variety of clients? There were so many ideas waiting to be explored and implemented across the country

The Beckwith Memorial Theatre stopped featuring staged entertainment in 1928. The building was demolished in 1966.

To be continued…