Theatre Managers – Page 4

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 586 – Women employed at the Olympic Music Hall in 1908

Part 586: Women employed at the Olympic Music Hall in 1908

Thomas G. Moses worked on scenery for the Olympic Music Hall in Chicago during 1908. An interesting article was published that year about the women who managed the venue (Inter Ocean, 15 Nov. 1908, page 32). Considering the continued struggles of women in the United States and recent legislative setbacks nationwide, this article was a breath of fresh air for me. Lottie B. Akass, Nellie Revell, Minnie Sleeper were credited for their knowledge and skill 110 years ago; this still at a time when women could note vote. Here is a little background on the individuals mentioned in the article below.

Article about the women managing the Olympic Music Hall in 1908, from the” Inter Ocean,” 8 Nov 1908, page 30

John J. Murdock, was listed as the general manager of the Olympic Music Hall in 1908. L. B. Akass was listed as the assistant manager. Murdock was previously the theatrical manager of the Masonic Temple Theatre in Chicago, married performer Grace Akass, a singer from Indianapolis. Murdock was head of the Western Vaudeville Manager’s Association, and later a large stockholder in the organization headed by Keith, Fox, Warner, Metro-Goldwyn.

Grace Akass was from Indianapolis and entered into vaudeville with a unique singing act.

By 1903, she was performing the “The Girl With the Auburn Hair” (Indianapolis Journal, 16 March 1903, page 3). Akass began her professional career in approximately 1899. Her sister, Lottie Akass, also toured with the production. Lottie performed as the onstage organist, playing a portable organ that accompanied all of the sacred scenes sung in the production’s church scene. Lottie was also a distinguished singer and performer.

Minnie Akaas (left) and Lottie Akaas (right)

While the two sisters were on tour, they made snapshots of the people and places they visited, creating pictorial travelogues. They had several cameras and a trunk that held all of the necessary supplies to create a dark room for developing the results of their “daily work abroad” (The Indianapolis News, 18 March 1903, page 5). At the time, newspapers noted that the sisters possessed one of the finest collection of Kodak photographs in the country. Grace and Lottie were also known for their extensive study of music and literature. The two also drove automobiles, contributing to their independence.

Another Akaas sister, Minnie Belle, was quite talented and well-known for her artistic skills. Of the three, Minnie Belle was the artist, a member of the Chicago Academy. She also moved from Indianapolis to Chicago were she exhibited her paintings, winning many awards. Her painting of Grace, “Girl in the Red Kimono” took first prize in Indianapolis. The same painting also received second prize at a Chicago Academy exhibit. Minnie married William Bancroft Sleeper in 1904 (Inter Ocean, 3 Jan. 1904, page 44). Sleeper was a Wyoming ranchman and member of the legislature (Indianapolis Journal, 17 July 1903, page 12). He also managed a number of mining and oil enterprises along the way. Among Sleeper’s personal friends were President Roosevelt and William F. Cody. Minnie and William had a daughter who became the film star, Martha Sleeper.

Article about Minnie Akaas and William B. Sleeper, from the Tennessean 23 Aug 1903, page 8

Back to the article about the Olympic Music Hall being managed by three women in 1908. John J. Murdock renovated the Olympic theatre to really showcase the women in his life; Grace was on stage, Lottie managed the venue, and Minnie did much of the painted décor throughout the building.

Here is the article from the “Inter Ocean” that highlighted the women who worked at the Olympic Music Hall (15 Nov. 1908, page 32):

“Here you have the marvel of the place. The new music hall is the only place of the sort in the world managed by women. There is only one place of importance on the staff of employees and managers that is not filled by a woman. He is in the box office. The only reason there is a “he” there instead of a “she” is that Mr. Murdock who financed the scheme, and who is one of the most experienced vaudeville managers, feared that certain people who are as yet unable to realize the full value of women’s actual services, might misconstrue the presence in the box office of a woman and fancy that it was not a nice place to take his wife or his sweetheart or his sister, which, of course, would be exactly contrary to the real purpose. To give the public confidence he put his own name on the program as manager, but just under it in big type is the name of a woman, “Miss Lottie Marie Akass.”

And Miss Akass is the manager. She is his sister-in-law, and he briefly states his reason for building a theatre for her.

“I wanted to give her a chance to attain something,” he said, “She is and ambitious girl, and there is a small outlet for the ambitions of a clever woman. So I fixed this theatre for her.” He looked out over the rows of flowers that were in baskets and vases and wreaths and embankments. “Not to boast,” he said. “Do you know there are almost $3,000 worth of flowers there? [the 2018 equivalent is over $82,000] They came from everywhere in the United States. See that basket of red roses? The Hengler sisters sent it from San Francisco. And that immense bunch of American beauty roses? That is from George Cohan. There is the Heath and McIntrye offering. There are hundreds of them. I tell you they mean a lot to me, for with every one is a card of good wishes. And the telegrams – there were over 1,400.

Then he smiled. Too, with his sweet faced sister-in-law, who stood beside him. He is delicate of frame and fine featured as to face, but worn looking from the tension of preparation.

“For two weeks before the opening I could not sleep,” he said. “You see, I want the girls to succeed. Miss Akass isn’t the only one. There is Miss Nellie Revell [1873-1958], who is the press agent and serves us valiantly.”

Nellie Revell, Press Agent for the Olympic Music Hall in 1908

The music of the orchestra drifted out through the doorways faintly and sweetly. The big divan was very, very comfortable. I wanted to see the next turn on the stage, but I lingered among the flowers and talked with the woman press agent. An oddly straightforward creature she is too, with honest hazel eyes and many direct qualities in her speech.

“Come over to the ladies’ room,” she said. “Let me tell you a secret – you may wash your face here, or your hands. You may powder your nose and polish your nails. If you are ill the matron will take care of you, and you may lie down on this beautiful couch. You wash your hands with a bit of soap that is all your own. You powder your face with a cloth that you throw away.” She held the box of white celluloid with a perforated top toward my nose. “Isn’t is fragrant?” she asked. It was-and woefully expensive, I am sure. We strolled back to the foyer. Another dark-eyed, soft voiced woman stood beside Manager Miss Akass.

“Look” said Press Agent Miss Revell. “Did you ever see so beautiful a rose tint on a wall?” I confessed that I had not.

“Mr. Murdock and Mrs. Sleeper showed the painters how to mix it,” she said. “They were days and days getting the right tint. After it was on, Mrs. Sleeper painted every one of those roses in the decorative design.”

My incredulity must have been plain.

“Ceilings and all?” I asked.

Press agent Miss Revell nodded her head. “Ceilings and all,” she said. “She is sister to Miss Akass and she is an artist. It was hard work, but she could do it better than anybody who was just hired. She loved it, you see.”

Mr. Murdock had the last word. “I believe in women,” he said. “I have a secretary who receives $100 a week [2018 equivalent of approximately $2750.00]. Over in the Majestic theater offices, we have a woman who has eighteen stenographers under her. I pay very little attention to my correspondence because my secretary knows the business details of forty or fifty theaters as well as I do. The moment we feel that it will not be misunderstood by the public, we shall probably have a woman in the box office.

The three women who control the destinies of the rose tinted theater stood there – Manager Miss L. M. Akass, Press Agent Miss Revell, and Decorator Mrs. Minnie Akass Sleeeper…They were three women, and in theirs are the fortunes of the house. Sometimes fortune is a trustworthy lady – most trustworthy.

The orchestra music still drifted through the flowers, as I came away. It was sweet and faint, but the time was a rollicking lilt of promise.”

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 585 – John J. Murdock and the Olympic Music Hall

Part 585: John J. Murdock and the Olympic Music Hall

In 1908, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “We did a show for Murdock at the Olympic – a failure, scenery and play.” He was referring to the newly opened Olympic Music Hall in Chicago. The venue was previously known as the Olympic Theatre before the purchase and renovation by J. J. Murdock in 1908. The Olympic Music Hall opened on November 2, 1908.

John J. Murdock and his Olympic Music Hall, from the “Inter Ocean,” 8 Nov 1908, page 30

An article in the “Inter Ocean” reported, “The work of converting this famous landmark of amusement into a music hall is being carried on day and night, the men working in shifts of eight hours each. The playhouse is now under the control of J. J. Murdock, who successfully operated the Masonic Temple roof garden, and who had been at the head of the Western Vaudeville Managers’ Association. Mr. Murdock will adopt a policy along the lines of the Palace, or Tivoli, London, England, on a more elaborate scale” (Chicago, 25 Oct 1908, page 41). The mention of the Masonic Temple Roof Garden caught my eye.

The Masonic Temple roof garden and observatory was transformed into two electric theatres by Sosman & Landis in 1894. Advertised as Chicago’s first roof garn theatre, it included two electric scenic theatres that were design, constructed and operated by Sosman & Landis. An images of the Masonic Temple roof garden theatre was even pictured on an 1894 catalogue for Sosman & Moses. Although their control of this venue was short-lived, it provides an earlier connection between Murdock and Moses at Sosman & Landis. Murdock’s association with unique and innovative performance venues such as the roof top garden and music hall provides additional context.

High class vaudeville was to be the dominant feature at the Olympic. The “Inter Ocean” published an article on the new Olympic Music Hall (8 Nov 1908, page 30). In it, the question was asked, “When is a vaudeville theatre not a vaudeville theatre?” The response was “When smoking is permitted, then it is a music hall.” In Chicago, Murdock afforded patrons that privilege. The article continued, “Mr. Murdock is a connoisseur of everything pertaining to the entertainment of the public, and realizing that the great majority of men are addicted to the smoking habit, he conceived the happy idea of permitting the patrons of the Olympic Music hall to indulge in that pleasure.” The article noted, “The new Olympic will be different from other Chicago playhouses, in that smoking will be permitted. This innovation, new to Chicago, is familiar to London and Paris theater-goers, and Manager Murdock is convinced that this feature is destined to be as popular in Chicago as it is abroad.” Another “Inter Ocean” article described the smoked-filled music hall: “Blue smoke curled upward from full 500 cigars. Maybe 1,000 men lounged back comfortably in their theatre chairs. Beside almost blessed man of them sat his wife, or his sweetheart, or his dearest friend, or maybe only his sister. Toward a rose tinted ceiling smoke drifted cloudlike and then mysteriously, as an enchantment, suddenly disappeared.”

According to Julius Cahn’s Official theatrical guides, the original Olympic Theatre in Chicago had a seating capacity of 2,127, and new music hall had a seating capacity of 1584. The “inter Ocean” provided a further description of the Olympic Music Hall’s auditorium and stage:

“Immediately above the entrance to the auditorium a series of Swiss chalet windows, with stained glass and heavy stucco ornamentation, attract the eye. The theater proper also has undergone a thorough renovation. The color scheme is of gray damask, blending harmoniously with rose and old Roman gold. The ceiling and mural decorations consist of panels of exquisite design, bordered by stucco ornaments, tipped with gold and ivory. A massive new chandelier bearing hundreds of glistening prisms and scores of electric globes hangs just above the orchestra, while at the side of the boxes on both sides two tremendous light clusters have been placed. The balcony and gallery rails have been provided with strings of lights, so that the house is capable of illumination equal to the noonday sun.

The boxes, which formerly were most artistic, have come out of the hands of the decorators as veritable bowers of rich yet tasty beauty. They have been decorated with stucco ornaments, painted in consonance with the general color scheme and provided with heavy plush maroon curtains swinging on brass rods. The entrance to the boxes, above and below, are adorned with rich curtains, that insure at once privacy and real comfort. The proscenium has been decorated in Roman gold, the façade, doing away with the curtain drop, being especially tasty…the steel curtain has been repainted and a new olio drop provided.” The article continued, “The seating capacity of the theater has undergone no change, the safety of the patrons being Manager Murdock’s first consideration when this matter was taken up. The seats above and below have been provided with cushion seats and the framework of the chairs tinted in ivory and gold…More than $30,000 was spent by Manager Murdock in the beautification of the theater, and that the money has been expended to some purpose the admirable result are ample indication” (8 Nov 1908, page 30).

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 558 -Thomas G. Moses and Bert C. Whitney

Part 558:Thomas G. Moses and Bert C. Whitney

In 1906, Thomas G. Moses wrote that he worked on “Knight for a Day at the Whitney.” Moses was referring to the new musical comedy produced by B. C. Whitney. The Act I setting depicted Fairview Villa at Mme. Woodbury’s Seminary for Ladies in Evanston, Illinois. The Act II depicted an old estate upon the Isle of Corsica. Robt. R. Smith wrote this two-act show with music by Raymond Hubbel.

Advertisement for “A Knight for a Day” from the “Elkhart Daily Review,” 26 Feb 1909, page 2

Programs for “A Knight for a Day” from 1906

Bert Cecil Whitney was a well-known producer in New York and Detroit. Known to his friends as “B.C.” He was a second-generation theatre producer, following in his father’s footsteps. It was the elder Whitney, a longtime leader in the merchandising of musical instruments, who erected the Whitney building in Detroit, Michigan. Bert’s childhood was spent around the Whitney Grand Opera House where his father Clark J. Whitney (1832-1903) was the proprietor, ushering, selling tickets, and learning the rudiments of the business.

B. C. Whitney. Image published in the “Detroit Free Press,” 27 Oct 1929, page 1

In 1898, Bert took charge of his father’s affairs, becoming manager of the Detroit Opera House. Whitney operated theatres in Detroit, Chicago, Toronto, Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Owosso and Battle Creek. He also produced musical comedies for the road. His 1929 obituary in the “Detroit Free Press” remembered that Whitney sent forth, “some of the most pretentious organizations of that time. Among them were ‘A Knight for a Day,’ ‘The Isle of Spice,’ ‘The Isle of Bong Bong,’ ‘Piff, Paff, Pouff,’ The Show Girl,’ ‘The Broken Idol,’ The Loved a Lassie,’ ‘Captain Careless,’ ‘The Head Waiters,’ and ‘The Convict’s Stripes,’”(27 Oct. 1929, page 2). The article continues and adds in some interesting side information, “Bert St. John, now manager of the Detroit Consistory [Scottish Rite], was manager for the Whitney during the most active years as a producer, and recalls that in “The Convict’s Stripes” there were four girls destined to win fame in the movies. They were Mary and Lottie Pickford and Lillian and Dorothy Gish. The play, under the title of ‘The Little Rd Schoolhouse,” had been produced in stock in Toronto, where Fred C. Whitney saw it, and purchased the road rights. Later he assigned these to his brother in Detroit. The Pickfords (they went under their true name of Smith at the time) and the Gish sisters had appeared in stock production. Instead of training new children for the parts, Whitney persuaded Mrs. Smith to take the four on tour. St. John was manager of the company, and relates that Jack Pickford, then a baby, slept in bureau drawers over most of the United States during the next two years.”

May Vokes and George Mack in “A Knight for a Day,”from the “Elkhart Daily Review,” 26 Feb 1909, page 2

After a successful run at Wallack’s theatre in 1908,”A Knight for a Day “toured to Shaftsbury Theatre in London, the venue managed by his brother. Whitney’s little brother, Fred C. Whitney (1861-1930), was also a producer. In 1908, Fred became a lessee of the Shaftbury theatre. (Anaconda, Standard, Anaconda, Montana, 13 Jan. 1908).

In 1907, Moses again worked for Whitney in B. C. Detroit, writing, “A big five act show of “Captain Careless” for Bert Whitney. Was produced in Detroit. The first act was laid at the base of the great Rock of Gibraltar and made a very effective scene.”

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 442: -James E. Fennessy and the Empire Circuit

Part 442: James E. Fennessy and the Empire Circuit

James E. Fennessy (1856-1925) was introduced yesterday as a theatrical manager who hired Thomas G. Moses in 1902 to paint the setting for “The Charity Nurse.” Fennessy partnered with George E. Heuck, to form the theatrical management firm of Fennessy & Heuck; they were also major players in the Empire Circuit Company – the Western Wheel of the burlesque circuit, also known as the Empire Association.

Picture of Col.James E. Fennessy reading “The Book of the Law” at his winter home in St. Petersburg, Florida. Published in “The Cincinnati Enquirer,” 6 April 1924, page 127.

At the turn of the twentieth century, a successful burlesque producer had forty possible weeks of engagements during a season on the combined circuit, or “wheel” as they were called in burlesque. The agenda for individual circuits was to provide a booking system, establish territorial limits, minimize unprofitable gaps between engagements, and stand in unity against contract violators. That being said, the Eastern, or Columbia Wheel regarded itself as an association of “clean” burlesque, meaning slightly less offensive than what appeared in many western venues.

The Empire Circuit was a group of western burlesque theatrical managers and producers, formed on 18 October 1897. The Empire Circuit operated theatres in Baltimore, Birmingham, Buffalo, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago, Detroit, Memphis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, St. Louis, St. Paul, Toledo, and Washington, D.C. Their business offices were located in Cincinnati, Ohio, but they also had offices in New York as some of the influential leader resided there.

Since 1900, the officers of the Empire Circuit company consisted of James J. Butler, president; Hubert Heuck, vice-president; James E. Fennessy, secretary; John H. Whalen, treasurer; and board members consisting of James L. Kernan, Harry W. Williams, W. T. Campbell, and George W. Rife. Butler was also a member of Congress at the time, residing in St. Louis, Missouri.

In 1905, the Billboard included an article titled “The Burlesque Situation,” reporting, “There seems to be no concessions to be made on either side in the burlesque war which originated in that little Boston affair some time since.” The article continued, “The managers of the Eastern Circuit met in Cincinnati in the offices of Messrs. Heuck & Fennessy at the People’s Theatre. It was their regular annual business meeting at which time they met for the discussion of matters relating to the circuit; however, it was the most important gathering of that body in years. It is said that if the Empire managers are worried they did nothing that would in any manner show their anxiety either before, at, or after the meeting. One of the managers who attended the meeting gave the expression to the assertion that as far as the Empire Circuit’s houses are concerned they are prepared to take care of all shows that are entitled to bookings in their various theatres. Harmony prevailed throughout the entire meeting. Important parts of the program for the coming season were considered, also the relations of the association to the Eastern Circuit” (May 13, 1905). The article reported that at the meeting James A. Butler was elected president of the Eastern Circuit Association, with Hubert Heuck as first vice-president and James E. Fennessy as secretary. The Eastern Circuit was not to be confused with the Columbia Circuit, only the Empire Circuit expanding east.

In 1905, “The Scranton Truth” reported, “This year will witness a big change in the burlesque business as there are now two ‘wheels,’ the Empire Circuit and the Columbia Amusement Company fighting each other in the east. Previously these two organizations divided territory of the east and west, but they split and the battle royal is on. The Star Theatre still admits its allegiance to the Columbia Amusement Company. Where heretofore there have been forty burlesque companies, there will be seventy this season. The will play week instead of three day stands in this city” (27 July 1905, page 3).

The Empire Circuit was expanding its territory, planning to construct the “largest and most important circuit of theatres ever combined for this department of the theatrical business.” In 1905, their holdings were thirty-two theaters that covered the best paying burlesque fields in the country. Their acquisitions included the Trocadero of Philadelphia, Monumental of Baltimore, Lyceum of Washington, Academy of Music of Pittsburgh, People’s of Cincinnati, Buckingham of Louisville, Empire of Indianapolis, Standard of St. Louis, New Century of Kansas City, Folly of Chicago, Trocadero of Chicago, Star of Milwaukee, Dewey of Minneapolis, Star of St. Paul, Smith’s Opera House of Grand Rapids, Avenue of Detroit, Star of Cleveland, LaFayette Square of Buffalo, Majestic of Toronto, Theatre Francaise of Montreal, Columbia Music Hall of Boston, Miner’s Eighth Avenue of New York, Miner’s Bowery of New York, London of New York and the Bon Ton of New Jersey. They were negotiating the inclusion of theatres in New Orleans, Memphis and Nashville that were dependent on railroad facilities and several other theatres in the eastern fields. The Billboard summed up the situation in 1905, commenting, “To use a wall street phrase, it would appear that the fight has resulted in one faction being long on theaters and short on attractions, and the other the reverse. Developments will be watched with interest, and we hope in the near future to be able to publish an agreement between the two factions. This country may be large enough for two wheels, but one big wheel with a solid hub, long spokes and tight rim surrounded by a strong tire of superiority and quality will be greatly desired by the burlesque loving contingent” (13 May 1905, page 10). By 1911, the Empire Circuit controlled 37 theaters nationwide.

In 1912, the report of the Interstate Commerce Commission listed a court case: the United States v. Harry J. Rhein, James E. Fennessy, the Heuck Opera House Co., the Empire Circuit, and the Big Four Railroad Co. (district court, northern Illinois). The aforementioned were charged with “indictment for conspiracy to refund portion of the legal transportation charges paid by various burlesque companies for transportation over New York Central Lines, the refunds being paid under the guise of compensation for advertising earned in certain theatrical programs (5 counts).”

By 1913, the Empire Circuit was absorbed by the Columbia Amusement Company and by 1914 nearly 80 shows were touring in 81 theaters that stretched from New York to Omaha, entertaining 700,000 customers annually (Vaudeville Old & New: an Encyclopedia of Variety Performances in America, page 164)

This occurred only a few years after Fennessy retired from all theatrical business. In 1910 Fennessy suffered from a severe injury exercising at the Cincinnati Gymnasium; he fell over a ladder in the swimming area (Cincinnati Enquirer, 20 July 1925, page 3). In 1925 while undergoing a minor operation to repair damage from the 1910 accident, Fennessy died unexpectedly while recovering at home.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 425 – Thomas G. Moses’ design for “In Dahomey”

Part 425: Thomas G. Moses’ design for “In Dahomey”

In 1901, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “We started with Hurtig and Seamons, which proved to be good in quantity and quality.” He was referring to the theatrical management team who was made up of Benjamin F. Hurtig, Jules Hurtig and Harry J. Seamon. Benjamin and Jules were brothers. Their offices located at 1435 Broadway.

In 1901, Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guide advertised that the firm ran the Harlem Music Theatre (a variety venue in New York), the Bowery Burlesquers Co. and The Social Maid’s Burlesque Co.; they were well-known as “New York amusement caters.” By 1909 when Benjamin Hurtig passed away, the firm controlled five playhouses in New York, two in Brooklyn, two in Chicago, one in Syracuse, one in Rochester, and the Lyric in Dayton, Ohio. They also owned and controlled nine companies on the road. Hurtig & Seamon were members of the Columbia Amusement Company, which controlled the operation of forty-five burlesque houses; of which Jules Hurtig was vice-president.

Moses & Hamilton painted the scenery for a few of Hurtig & Seamon shows, including “The Sons of Ham,” a show that featured the African American performers Egbert Austin “Bert” Williams and George Walker. This production rejected the stereotypical black roles, with Williams portraying a man who was simply down and out. The production boasted a company of fifty people with “special scenery and electrical effects” (Davenport Morning Star 15 February 1901, page 5).

The Harlem Opera House was used by Hurtig and Seamon while their new theaters were under construction.

The same year that Moses & Hamilton began working for Hurtig & Seamon, the theatrical managers were in the midst of planning the construction of two new theatres in New York, both on 125^th Street (The Evening World, NY, NY, 28 June 1901, page 9). One was to be erected on 125^th Street between 7^th and 8^th Avenues, while the other was to be erected near Lexington Avenue. The first structure would contain a music hall, theatre and big roof garden. During the planning and construction, Hurtig & Seamon primarily occupied the old Harlem Opera House (est. in 1889 by Oscar Hammerstein) that was just down the block at 211 West 125^th Street.

Program for “In Dahomey” at the New York Theatre

“In Dahomey” with painted scenery by Moses & Hamilton, 1902

In 1902, Moses recorded that he designed “In Dahomey” for Hurtig & Seamon. He wrote, “Williams and Walker were starred, and the show was taken to England, where they were commanded to appear before King Edward VII.” The show starred Bert Williams (as Shylock Homestead) and George Walker (as Rareback Pinkerton). The cast was invited to give a command performance in the garden of Buckingham Palace on June 23rd for the young Prince of Wales’ birthday celebrations (the future King Edward VIII). In England a cakewalk scene was added to the finale of the show.

Advertisement from “In Dahomey” while on tour in the United Kingdom

Program for “In Dahomey” at the Shaftesbury Theatre

“In Dahomey” was advertised as “a negro musical comedy,” based on the book by Jesse A. Shipp, with music by Will Marion Cook and lyrics by poet Paul Laurence Dunbar. It was the first full-length musical written and performed by all African Americans that opened at a major Broadway house. The three-act musical production opened at the New York Theatre on February 18, 1903, and closed after 53 performances on April 4. The show with almost fifty performers, was then transported to England where it opened on April 28, 1903, at the Shaftesbury Theatre and completed a provincial tour throughout the United Kingdom. In 1904, the musical returned to Broadway and ran from August 27 until September 10, at the Grand Opera House. This seventeen-show run was followed by a major 40-week tour across the United States.

While on tour in the United Kingdom, Williams and Walker were both initiated into Waverly Lodge No. 597 of Edinburgh, Scotland, along with nine others from the Williams and Walker Colored Minstrels troupe. In 1922, when Williams died, the Edinburgh Lodge requested that he be buried with Masonic honors, a courtesy performed by St. Cecile Lodge No. 568 of New York City (William L. Fox, “Lodge of the Double-headed Eagle,” page 225).

Song hits of “In Dahomey” sung by Bert Williams and George Walker

Here is the Story of “In Dahomey,” as it was printed in the original program:

“An old Southern negro, ‘Lightfoot’ by name, president of the Dahomey Colonization Society, loses a silver casket, which, to use his language, has a cat scratched on the back. He sends to Boston for detectives to search for the missing treasure. Shylock Homestead and Rareback Pinkerton (Williams and Walker), the detectives on the case, failing to find the casket in Gatorville, Fla., ‘Lightfoot’s’ home, accompany the colonists to Dahomey. Previous to leaving Boston on their perilous mission, the detectives join a syndicate. In Dahomey, rum of any kind, when given as a present, is a sign of appreciation. Shylock and Rareback, having free access to the syndicate’s stock of whiskey, present the King of Dahomey with three barrels of appreciation and in return are made Caboceers (Governors of a Province). In the meantime the colonists having had a misunderstanding with the King and are made prisoners. Prisoners and criminals are executed on festival days, known in Dahomey as Customs Day. The new Caboceers, after supplying the King with his third barrel of appreciation (whiskey), secure his consent to liberate the colonists after which an honor is conferred on Rareback and Shylock, which causes them to decide ‘There’s No Place Like Home.’”

The settings for “In Dahomey” included:

Act I – scene 1 – Public square in Boston

Picture of the Public Square for “In Dahomey,” scenery by Moses & Hamilton, 1901.

Act II – scene 1 – Exterior of Lightfoot’s home, Gatorville, Florida; scene 2 – Road, one-and-a-half miles from Gatorville; scene 3 – Interior of the Lightfoot home

Act III – scene 1 – Swamp in Dahomey; scene 2 – Garden of the Caboceer (Governor of the Providence). Execution tower in the distance.

Although Bejamin Hurtig would pass away in 1909, his brother Jules Hurtig & Seamon would obtain a thirty-year lease on the newly constructed neo-classical theatre in Harlem, New York, during 1914. This theater opened as “Hurtig and Seamon’s New Burlesque Theatre,” but the venue would be renamed in 1934 as the Apollo Theatre.

Hurtig & Seamons New Burlesque Theatre, 1914

A punch card for Hurtig & Seamon’s New Burlesque Theatre

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 341 – Green Room Gossip From 1895, the Scenic Artist

Part 341: Green Room Gossip From 1895, the Scenic Artist

Thomas G. Moses worked as the scenic artist at Chicago’s Schiller Theatre during 1895. He painted the settings for all of the productions on their paint frames. He also rented the old Waverly Theatre space as he had more work than could be completed at the Schiller.

I understand that it is hard to appreciate the complexity and demands of the painting process at the time that Moses was working, especially as I discuss the many projects that Moses’ was simultaneously completely during the late-nineteenth century.

Below is an informative article about the artistic process and the role of the scenic artist, published in the Times-Picayune (New Orleans, Louisiana) on February 10, 1895 (page 22). Here is a portion of the article from the “Green Room Gossip” section of the Times-Picayune. It provides additional context for Moses’ story as we move forward:

Heading from the Times-Picayune (New Orleans, Louisiana, February 10, 1895, page 22) that details activities related to the theatre.

“When a manager has finally decided to produce a new play, his troubles have just begun. One of the first things to demand is the proper pictorial equipment. Just as the editors of illustrated periodicals of to-day send their accepted articles to the artist for illustration, so the theatrical manager puts his play in the hands of the scenic artist. Sometimes periodical illustrations cause the reader to wonder whether the illustrator read the story before he made the drawing or whether the cuts got mixed in the composing-room. The play illustrator is too important a factor in the box-office success to admit of similar mistakes.

[The manager] sometimes employs a scenic artist by contract, but usually the necessary assistant rents the space he needs in the theatre and charges the manager for work done for him, just as he charges outside managers for work done for them. The scenic artist, then, receives the manuscript from the manager, reads it carefully, notes from the authors description of scenes whether the locality is special or general, and where the scenery must be “practical” – with real doors to open, trees which may be climbed, fences that may be jumped- and where it is possible to make it purely representative.

The locality is the first point, naturally. Even if none be mentioned, in these days of photography, it is far more satisfactory to find a real locality which would fit the play, and which would, therefore, be more likely to differ from a thousand and one other scenes which have already been used as backgrounds for other general plays. From photographs or sketches of real bits of scenery, the artist most often draws his ground plans for what he considers a good stage picture suited to the action of the play.

These models are then placed convenient to the eye and hand in his studio, the main feature of which is really the back wall of the theatre, with a great paint bridge running about 25 feet above the stage floor. There is a space about a foot wide between the bridge and the wall, and in the space hangs the paint frame. When the stage carpenter has built the scenes according to the artist’s model, the paint frame is lowered to the stage floor, a piece of scenery is attached to it by means of a narrow ledge at the bottom, drops are tacked on and set pieces fastened at convenient points, then the frame is raised until it is where the artist wants it as he stands upon the bridge. The frame can, or course, be moved up and down, at the painter’s need.

The prime coating of the canvas is made of a mixture composed of whiting, glue and water. The artist has several assistants, many of whom are virtually learning the trade, but in exterior scenes the scenic artist himself usually does all of the painting; in the interiors he makes the finishing touches. Of course the work is done by daylight, and it takes a very skillful worker in colors to know just what the effects the various kinds and degrees of artificial light will have upon the painted scenery.

And yet the scenic artist is not too highly valued from a financial point of view. It takes, usually, six or eight years to attain the necessary skill and an average income of $80 a week is considered very good. From the manager’s point of view there is a difference. The necessary scenery for a play will frequently cost $1500 for the carpenter work and twenty-five hundred dollars for the coloring, without taking into account the sums paid for costumes, properties and the innumerable other accessories to proper play-producing.

Until applause greets him on the momentous “first night” and large audiences greet him for many nights thereafter, the manager, be ever hardened, endures endless anxiety from the minute the new play is chosen. If one proves a failure, he will be out a considerable sum at the best, for critics will know if he attempts to use the same costumes and special properties later on, or if he saves the scenery until it can be worked in other plays, a piece at a time; and critics seldom keep anything to themselves. He may have a new scene painted on the back of the old and save a part of the carpenter’s bill, but this is frequently the best that can be done. With all his risks and frequent failures, the theatrical manager is usually the last one to complain. When a play does not go, he simply pays the piper and tries again.”

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 336 – The Broad Ripple Auditorium in Indianapolis, Indiana

Part 336: The Broad Ripple Auditorium in Indianapolis, Indiana

Thomas G. Moses painted scenery for the Broad Ripple Auditorium in 1895. He also made a brief appearance as part of a theatrical management team– Moses & McDonald. This was shortly after Joseph S. Sosman, Perry Landis, and David Hunt started the theatrical management firm of Sosman, Landis & Hunt. A combination of touring vaudeville acts and creating a stock company eliminated the need to feature expensive touring stars. It appeared to be a winning proposition.

When the Broad Ripple Auditorium opened during August 1895, it was at an odd time. The Indianapolis News announced, “This cozy summer theater, although opened late in the season, is doing good business. The attendance is increasing nightly, which is the surest indication of success” (11 August 1895, page 10). It was marketed as being “complete with all the modern equipment” and a seating capacity of 1,200 (4 Aug. 1895, page 13). The newspaper article added that Moses & McDonald were not only the managers, but also the organizers of the the Auditorium Stock Company. The company presented standard dramas, supplemented with vaudeville acts. It was the Auditorium Stock Company that purchased the theater, funded by members that included R.C. Light, George J. Marott, Charles Kirschner, and a Mr. Eldridge.

Review of the new Broad Ripple Auditorium, managed by Moses & McDonald. Indianapolis Journal (4 Aug 1895 page 13).

Moses was also credited with the stock scenery collection and the Indianapolis New commented, “The scenery is by Thomas G. Moses, of the Schiller Theatre, Chicago, and the stage is 40×40 feet, with three sets of border and footlights” (4 Aug. 1895, page 13).

The opening play was “Fanchon, the Cricket,” a charming five-act play made famous by Maggie Mitchell. This show was followed by “The Smugglers,” “Mystic Mountain,” “Ten Nights in a Barroom,” “The Factory Girl,” and “Kathleen Mavourneen,” each attracting large crowds. Then something happened.

Just eleven days after opening, the Indianapolis News reported, “The Broad Ripple Auditorium will remain closed until next Saturday night, when ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’ will be presented. Preparations are making for an elaborate production” (13 August 1895, page 7). There is no other mention of the show. It appears as if the production never took place at the Broad Ripple Auditorium. The next production for the venue was “Mabel Heath, or the Shadows of Home.” That was their last advertised performance. After that, the venue under the management of Moses & McDonald disappeared from the local papers.

Small advertisement for the Broad Ripple Auditorium squeezed between a soap and baseball. Indianapolis Journal (18 Aug 1895, page 6).

Unfortunately, the Broad Ripple Auditorium productions were poorly advertised; they appeared few in number, small in scale, and uninspiring in content. This would be understandable if the majority of Moses time was spent creating scenery for other venues. Little is known of “Moses & McDonald” beyond their brief partnership to manage the Broad Ripple Auditorium.

I had to wonder what had happened. Did this have anything to do with an inexperienced management team? There are only a couple mentions of them in newspaper articles, but all suggest that Thomas G. Moses was the “Moses” of Moses & McDonald.

Who was McDonald? I believe that he was another scenic artist that Moses was working with in Chicago during 1895?. This was a perfect combination as McDonald was not only a scenic artist, but also a talented stage carpenter. Where was McDonald painting during the spring of 1895? He was painting at McVicker’s Theatre with Homer Emons and Edward Peck. They were all working on the production of “Linsey Woolsey” (Chicago Tribune, 7 April 1895, page 35).

1896 advertisement for P. J. McDonald in Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guide.

In 1896, P. J. McDonald was back to working as the stage carpenter for the Grand Opera House in New York. That would explain the end of Moses & McDonald. He would later partner with Claude L. Hagen, another stage carpenter, in 1899. McDonald & Hagen advertised as “contractors and builders of scenery,” providing scenery for “scenic productions, scenery for Theatres, Balls and Private Theatricals, Pageants and Celebrations, Tricks and Illusions, Masonic and Mystic Shrine Paraphernalia, Mechanical Effects, and Scrim Profile and all Supplies for the Trade” (Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guide, 1899). The two separated by 1902 and McDonald again advertised independently as “P. J. McDonald, Scenery and Stage Construction, Mechanical Effects and Intricate Devices.” His shop was located at the stage of the Grand Opera House – 320 West 24^th Street, New York.

1899 advertisement for McDonald & Hagen in Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guide.

There is much that can be written on Hagen, and I cover him in a later post. For now, here is an announcement from “The Salt Lake Tribune” in 1910 (20 Feb, page 39). It gives a brief summary of Hagen’s importance.

1896 advertisement for Claude L. Hagen, featuring his Patent Shoe Toggle, in Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guide.

“For eight years Mr. Hagen was associated with Klaw & Erlanger. Later he was superintendent of Luna park. He invented the racing scenes in “Ben-Hur,” “The Ninety and Nine,” “The Vanderbilt Cup,” and “Bedford’s Hope.” He designed and built many of the illusions used by Herrmann. He also invented the “Loop-the-Loop” and designed the first hippodrome building in this country in which the racecourse or stage revolved entirely around the audience. The latter device was first used at Luna park in the naval show “War is Hell.” In 1908, he was appointed the technical director of the New Theatre, submitting his resignation on May 1, 1910. At the New Theatre “he set up the most complete theatrical stage in existence, and all the machinery of it was invented by him. His revolving stage and system of counterweights for the raising and lowering of scenery are said to be the most effective devices of the kind known.”

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 304 – Sosman, Landis & Hunt

The past few installments have concerned an article about the Pike Theater’s scenic artist, Fred McGreer (15 April 1900, page 12). He was interviewed just prior to his departure for New York while he was working on “Quo Vadis” in Cincinnati. McGreer was going heading to New York to paint scenery for another production of “Quo Vadis” with Gates & Morange. The artists for that production included Thomas G. Moses, Will Hamilton, John H. Young, Fred McGreer, and Gates & Morange. Of the production, Moses wrote, “It was not a success, as another company with the same play got in a week ahead of this production at a better theatre, which naturally killed the Herald Square Show.”

An image from one of the many “Quo Vadis” productions, 1901.

The New York Times reported that Manager David H. Hunt was one of the gentlemen interested in the production of the Jeanette Gilder’s version of “Quo Vadis” (6 April 1900, page 2). Hunt was listed as the manager of the Pike Theater in Cincinnati where McGreer worked from 1898-1900. In New York, “Sosman, Landis & Hunt” would produce “Quo Vadis.”

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

Sosman, Landis & Hunt also managed the Grand Stock Company and produced “Sapho.”

Sosman, Landis & Hunt also managed the Grand Stock Company and produced “Sapho.” Here is an image of the scenery and company from the production.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be continued…

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