Thomas G. Moses – Page 27

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 825 – Thomas G. Moses, “Uncle Tom” of the Palette & Chisel Club, 1912

In 1912, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “The Palette and Chisel Club honored me by giving me a big dinner and named me ‘Uncle Tom’ of the Club.” I have explored Moses’ Palette & Chisel Club activities in the past, but will recap today. The next few posts will examine club events and some members.

Founded in 1895, the Palette & Chisel Club was an association of artists and craftsmen for the purpose of work and study. The organization’s members were reported to be “all wage-workers, busy during the week with pencil, brush or chisel, doing work to please other people” (Inland Printer, 1896). But on Sunday mornings, they assembled for five hours to paint for themselves.

In 1906, Thomas G. Moses joined the Palette and Chisel Club in Chicago. Moses wrote, “I don’t know why, as I had so little time to give to pictures, but I live in hopes of doing something some day, that is what I have lived on for years, Hope, and how little we realize from our dreams of hope.” That same year, the Palette & Chisel Club sponsored “Bohemian Night” in honor of Alphonse Mucha, as Mucha was in town teaching at the Art Institute of Chicago that fall. The group was a tightknit community of strong personalities boasting incredible artistic talents.

In 1905, members of the Palette and Chisel Club established a primitive camp at Fox Lake, Illinois. The Palette and Chisel Club camp drew a variety of artists during the summer months, including Moses by 1906. This scenic retreat was formed along the shores of Fox Lake, providing a haven far away from the bustle of studio work in Chicago. There were many Sosman & Landis employees who also became members of the Palette & Chisel Club, strengthening the bonds of friendship during off hours.

In the beginning, the camp was quite rustic. Of the primitive camping experience, Moses wrote, “June 1^st, I made my first trip to the Palette and Chisel Club camp at Fox Lake, Ill. Helped to put up the tent. A new experience for me, but I enjoyed it. I slept well on a cot. Made a few sketches. A very interesting place. I don’t like the cooking in the tent and there should be a floor in the tent. I saw a great many improvements that could be made in the outfit and I started something very soon.” Moses soon fixed most of these issues, donating a “portable house” to the camp two years later. In 1908, Moses wrote, “I bought the portable house that we built years ago and at that time we received $300.00 for it. I finally got it for $50.00, some bargain. It cost $25.00 to remove it and we will put it up at Fox Lake in the spring. It has been used in Forest Park all summer to show ‘The Day in the Alps.’ The next year Moses wrote, “As we had put up the portable house in Fox Lake, I was better contented to go up. I gave the camp a portable kitchen and it was some class. I felt sure I would manage to get a camp outfit worth while and the boys all fell in line with me.”

His statement, “…and the boys all fell in line with me” is something to note. It was a common occurrence both in and out of the paint studio for Moses to lead the pack. His charisma, charm and personality facilitated not only business dealings, but also other social activities, Fox Lake being one of the instances where Moses took charge of an artistic group. In 1910, Moses wrote, “Fox Lake appealed to me all summer. I went up as much as possible and made good use of my time. How I wished in vain for time and money to spend all summer sketching. I know I could do something worthwhile.” Regardless of his own opinion, Moses continued to make progress in the eyes of Palette & Chisel Club members.

Although late to the game, he was their beloved leader. Therefore, I have to consider Moses’ earning the designation of “Uncle Tom” in the Palette & Chisel Club in 1912. Was it intended as a compliment or a slight? Was it simply an endearing term given by a bunch of white men who didn’t really understand what “Uncle Tom” signified? Were they simply thinking of Moses as the self-sacrificing figure who put others before himself? By 1913, Moses wrote, “The Palette and Chisel Club boys wanted me to give an exhibit at the club. I always refused, claiming that I am not in the picture game, and paint pictures for pleasure only. September 3^rd, a committee came to the house and insisted on going to the studio, I had over three hundred pictures in the studio; some very good but the other 275 were not as good, but the boys seemed to think I had at least 250 good ones, which was quite flattering.” He was in good company, with many members becoming nationally recognized artists over the years. These successful artists maintained close ties, suggesting that they admired and respected him.

Now in regard to the title of “Uncle Tom” for Moses…

“Uncle Tom’s Cabin” was still playing theaters throughout the United States in 1912. On April 26, 1912, there was such great interest in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s work and the subsequent theatrical interpretations that the “Quad City Times” included an article entitled, “The Writing of Uncle Tom,” going into depth about the author (page 4). On October 9, 1912, the “Muncie Evening Press” interviewed the “Educated Drug Clerk” about the play (page 8). This individual seems to have offered his view on various topics of the day. The article quoted the Educated Drug Clerk as saying, “It wouldn’t seem right for a theatrical season to go around without one or two ‘Uncle Tom’ shows visiting every town in the circuit…I suppose it is too early yet to say whether or not ‘Uncle Tom’ is to become a classic. The era of slavery has gone and seems far away to some of us. Yet there are thousands of people who remember the dark days. Another century, perhaps, will determine Uncle Tom’s real place in literature. Now I gather from critics that the true work is shown when it has the faculty of living and playing on emotions of men long after the period which produced it has passed. In other words, the classic does not owe its power to the thought of any particular epoch, but must be filled with teachings of real truth which will not change as the centuries roll on.” Of the novel’s characters, the article noted that Uncle Tom was “representative of down trodden humanity.” This again made me ponder the Palette & Chisel Club’s designation of Moses as their “Uncle Tom.”

I cannot read Moses’ entry about his new title without cringing. To look at the group of artists using the term makes it offensive. I cannot think of a single artist in the Palette & Chisel Club at the time that wasn’t white. I cannot think of a single scenic artist mentioned by Moses in his memoirs who wasn’t white, all of which causes me great unease; the same that I felt when I first saw an image of white people in black face makeup. My relatives arrived on the shores of America long after the Civil War ended, yet some of them were racist; some of them still are – and that is a horrifying truth to admit. It was a controversial topic that we discussed in my youth, one that was addressed after many family gatherings. I did not fully understand the extent of racism in my family until during and after the 2016 election. My parents had disagreed with many of the extended family’s views regarding people of color and fought back in various ways over the decades. I was taught that all people are equal. Period. No discussion. I greatly admire my parent s for that, especially my mother, the history teacher, who was very clear about America’s history with slavery and Jim Crowe laws.

Regardless, I am the product of white privilege in the United States and am horrified to witness the current, continued and blatant racial discrimination by our president and some leaders. I am ashamed to realize how many of my family, in-laws, friends, and colleagues continue to discriminate against others based on the color of their skin.

In regard to Harriet Beecher Stowe’s 1851 novel, which humanized the suffering of slavery, a cruel master beat Tom to death because he refused to betray the whereabouts of other escaped slaves. The novel and subsequent stage productions have been repeatedly analyzed over the decades, with varying nuances in each interpretation. However, I have to wonder how the title was intended when gifted to Thomas G. Moses in 1912. Today, Wikipedia notes, “the term ‘Uncle Tom’ was also used as a derogatory epithet for an exceedingly subservient person, particularly when that person is aware of their own lower-class status based on race. The use of the epithet is the result of later works derived from the original novel.”

Was the title “Uncle Tom” intended as a compliment or slight for Tom Moses in 1912? We will never know.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 824 – Thomas G. Moses and Minnie Palmer, 1912

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minnie Palmer’s Six American Beauties advertised in the “Daily Gate City,” 1 Aug 1912, page 8.

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

Minnie Palmer’s Golden Gate Girls advertised in the “Journal Times,” 9 Dec 1912, page 8.

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

Minnie Palmer’s 1912 Cabaret Review advertised in the San Francisco Call, Dec. 29, 1912, page 28

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

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

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 822 – Empress Theatre, Fort Wayne, 1912

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

Postcard with bird’s eye view of Fort Wayne, ca. 1912.

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

Postcard depicting Fort Wayne, Indiana, ca. 1912.

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

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

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

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

Scene from “Fun in a Boarding House,” from the “Fort Wayne Journal Gazette,” 2 March, page 25

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

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

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 821 – The Majestic Theatre, Milwaukee, 1912

The Majestic Theatre Building in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

The Interior of the Majestic Theatre in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Milwaukee Majestic Theatre was listed as part of the Orpheum circuit.

The Majestic Theatre in Milwaukee used a steel-faced fire curtain manufactured by the S. H. Harris Co. of Chicago, Illinois.

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

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 820 – Fire, 1912

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

Ringling Bros. Tent fire on July 6, 1944.

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

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

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

Image from the “The Great Chicago Theatre Disaster,” 1904.

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

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

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

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

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

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 819 – Scenic Art Sundries, 1912 to Now

Scenic art case with brushes. From the Waszut-Barrett Theatre Collection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 818: Kilroy and Britton, 1912

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

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

Advertisement from the “Marion Headlight” (Marion, Kansas), 1 Nov 1906, page 5

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

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

Advertisement for “The Aristocratic Tramp” at Crump’s Theatre in Columbus, Indiana, from “The Republic,” 23 Nov. 1903, page 5

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

Article published in “The Republic,” (Columbus, Indiana) 23 Nov. 1903, page 5

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

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

Advertisement in “The Times,” (Munster, Indiana) 27 Sept, 1912, page 2

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

Advertisement in the “Fort Wayne Daily,” 18 May 1912, page 4

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 811 – Father McCann of Elgin, 1912

In 1912, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “Went to Elgin to see Father McCann about a show for their Coliseum – a big street effect.”

Father McCann pictured in an article from the “Chicago Tribune,” 18 March 1918, 1-10.

Moses was referring to the Elgin Coliseum and Father John J. McCann of St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Church in Elgin, Illinois. The Elgin Coliseum had a seating capacity of 4,000 people, large enough to host a sizeable church event. It is likely that the big street effect was for the State Sunday School convention that summer.

St. Mary’
St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Church in Elgin, Illinois.

On May 24, 1912, the “Joliet Evening Herald-News” advertised the upcoming State Sunday School Convention at the Elgin Coliseum, drawing in thousands of church people over Memorial Day weekend (page 17). The three-day event included celebrity appearances and special programming pertaining to the instruction of children. The “Joliet Evening Herald-News” reported, “Special effort will be made to bring out features interesting to men and women both. The instruction of children of both sexes in matters that pertain to their future will be one feature of the convention.” The convention closed with a parade of Sunday School Workers on Memorial Day night. There were several bass bands and a chorus of several thousand children in attendance. For the parade, 5,000 Sunday school workers from all parts of the state took part in the march.

Father McCann was quite an interesting individual and somewhat of a controversial character by 1918. Much of the later drama surrounding Father McCann had to do with Bishop Muldoon.

In 1909 the “Joliet Evening – Herald News” included an article about Bishop Muldoon’s visit to Elgin, reporting, “Bishop Peter J. Muldoon of the Roman Catholic diocese of Rockford, was given an elaborate reception on his first official visit to the city. A parade of 1,000 persons, headed by a band, met the bishop at the station and escorted him to St. Joseph’s church where an informal reception was held, and then to St. Mary’s parish, where he was the guest of Father J. McCann until evening. At 8 p.m., the bishop addressed a public gathering at the Coliseum at which Mayor Fehrman, Representative Price, and others spoke” (9 May 1909, page 3). Quite the reception.

In 1918, however, Father McCann would make the news in regard to his defiance to the Bishop. It all started when newly appointed church trustees were refused access to the financial records. These same Trustees later called on Father McCann and demand that he relinquish all church records and property. They were driven off when shots were fired from the second story of his residence. Two days later, and injunction was announced, but Father McCann could not be found, as he and his brother were in Chicago. Bishop Muldoon then suspended Father McCann and announced that Rev. T. Gilbert Flynn would succeed him immediately, conducting the St. Patrick Day Service. A guard was even posted in the church on Saturday night to prevent Father McCann from conducting the service the next day. Father McCann’s response was to chase away the guard and barricade himself and his brother in the church.

The “Chicago Tribune” headline read. “Ram Door In, Seize Priest After Battle.” (Chicago Tribune, 18 March 1918, page 1 and 10).

The article about Father McCann in the “Chicago Tribune,” 18 March 1918, page 10.

The twenty-four hour siege of St. Mary’ Catholic Church ended when a dozen policemen and deputies forced the church doors open with a crowbar. Nine bullets, fired by the McCanns at the police, were later found embedded in the church door. When the police finally entered the church, Father McCann was in his vestments, kneeling in prayer while his brother stood guard. In the article, Father McCann claimed that he was a victim of personal spite on the part of a high church official, saying, ‘Muldoon will lose his purple before I lose my position” and he promised to sue for false arrest and trespass.

On March 19, 1918, the “Philadelphia Inquirer” reported:

“PRIEST DEFIES BISHOP

Elgin, Ill., Minister Refuses to Give Up Catholic Parish.

ELGIN, Ill., March 18 – “This Parish is worth $100,000 to me. It pays me $4,000 a year, or at a rate of 4 percent on $100,000. I won’t give that up without a fight. I am fighting for my life and shall defend myself to the finish.”

Defiance sparkled in Father John J. McCann, pastor of St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Church, as he announced his ultimatum to Bishop J. Muldoon, of the Rockford diocese today. The archbishop has been trying to oust Father McCann for some time as incompetent.

“I have been pastor at St. Mary’s for twenty years and up to two years ago was considered a friend to Bishop Muldoon,” continued Father McCann. “Envy is back of this.”

It is alleged that when officers appeared with a summons for Father McCann yesterday the former were driven away with shots. Father McCann said:
“I had no revolver and did not see one.”

The priest is to appear be in the police court here Wednesday on a warrant charging assaults and threats of bodily injury obtained by Rev. T. Gilbert Flynn, appointed as temporary pastor of the parish.”

The story and trial caused quite a sensation, with Chicago priests firmly on the side of McCann. Father McCann was charged with many things, from embezzlement to kidnapping and a secret marriage. One thing for sure, Father McCann was a poet who published under the pen name of Leo Gregory. In the volume, “The Kaiser and Other Poems,” issued in 1902, the following verses were from McCann’s “Not Hypocrite, but Human.”

“I have done wrong. Who has not?

But I have done some good;

And more of good than ill, I trust;

I did the best I could.

Was good I did the less sincere,

Because I failed in part?

Not hyprocrite, but human, friend,

Described the erring heart.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 805 – Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1912

In 1912, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “In May I went to Grand Rapids, Michigan, to paint an asbestos curtain from a scaffold – it was a bad job to do, but as usual, I got something out of it and it pleased the manager. I saw a number of old friends. One of the men that I knew in the orchestra thirty-five years ago, told me of one of my girl friends, Jennie Wilson, who was a clerk in a music store, selling sheet music when I knew her at the time. She was still there. I thought I would call on her. One evening I walked down to the store and was going in. I saw her back of the counter near the window, the same place, but what a change in her – stopped, almost white hair and wrinkled face, but the same black eyes. I didn’t have the nerve, so I turned and walked away. I felt afraid I might not be welcomed – what a ravisher of good looks is our old friend ‘Father Time.’ One that never deserts us – with us from start to finish.”

Some of Moses’ old stomping grounds were in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Although promised to Susan “Ella” Robbins in Sterling, Illinois, he certainly maintained a social life as he traveled about the country. At the age of 19 in 1875, Thomas G. Moses found himself “out of work and very little money on hand.” He managed to secure a job as a train boy, working the run from Grand Rapids, Michigan to St. Joseph. His work for the railroad left him well traveled and well fed, but yearning for artistic work and a better income. While waiting for his train to depart from Grand Rapids one day, Moses strolled about town and wandered into Powers Theatre. Of his visit to Powers Theatre, he wrote, “I went in and found an artist at work on the paint frame. I called up for permission to go up. I found that I knew the artist – he was from Chicago. He had an Odd Fellow Hall to decorate and needed help. I agreed to quit my job within a week and help him out. I did the thing I thought was best and Christmas found me very busy on all kinds of decoration.”

By the spring of 1876, Moses was known as a decorator of fine homes in Grand Rapids, completing one project after another. In July he had even received the contract to do the decoration on Pearl Street’s big arch. While completing this project, Moses met a Frenchman named Wardus who was decorating St. James Catholic Church. Wardus was in desperate need artist and contracted Moses. The project also called for a good figure painter, and the couple placed a newspaper advertisement. After receiving numerous responses, they selected Tom Brown, an Englishman from New York. They also hired an assistant, a young local by the name of John H. Young. Moses wrote, “We three, the same age, roomed and chummed together and we had a fine time. And, as I remember, we did some pretty good work.” Wardus began advertising Moses, Brown and Young as the “Three young Roman Artists,” with Moses recalling, “We didn’t look it – we were all quartered at a cheap hotel and we met a great many young people.” It is likely during this time that Moses met Jennie Wilson, the clerk at the music store who was still working there in 1912.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 804 – Thomas G. Moses and Al Ringling, 1912

In 1912 Thomas G. Moses wrote, “January 15^th the big furnace at the studio fell over and started a fine fire – a loss of about $2,000.00, a week’s delay in repairs and getting started. I went to Baraboo in the meantime to see Ringling Brothers and close for another big spectacle. Mr. Al Ringling took me through the winter quarters of the animals, which was also very interesting. Feeding time for the lions, tigers and all the cat family was a noisy time. Watching the training for the elephants was also very interesting. The immense chain and derricks they have to use to teach the elephants to stand on their heads was strong enough to lift a battleship. A great deal of care is given to all the animals, much more than is given to the men that attend the animals. The Ringlings have their own car shop and big paint shops, and everything is taken care of here except scenery and wardrobe. They are very busy getting ready for the next season; making contracts for all supplies at every town they visit, and they certainly have some system.”

The winter quarters for the Ringling Bros. Circus.

In winter, Baraboo, Wisconsin, was home to exotic and their caretakers. Both Ringling Bros. Circus equipment and animals were cared for during their off-season, from November until April of each year. When Moses visited Baraboo during January 1912, the town had increased to include approximately 117 Ringling Brothers’ Circus employees. From late fall to early spring, the Ringling brothers planned for the upcoming season, designing new shows and working out the logistics. Winter was a time for preparation, training and hard labor as the off season provided an opportunity to design new spectacles, assemble costumes, select new acts, and rehearse animals. A team of writers developed news stories for spectacles that would open each show.

Of the 1912 Ringling circus, the “Richmond Palladium and Sun Telegram” advertised, “This season, in addition to their promised array of aerial, acrobatic and arena marvels the Ringling Bros. have produced a gigantic spectacle, Joan of Arc, on a monstrous stage erected in the bog top. There will be twelve hundred people taking part in all, three hundred ballet girls and large chorus. This is said to be the most sumptuous pageant every presented in the country. It created an enormous sensation at The Coliseum in Chicago” (6 May 1912, Richmond, Indiana, page 3). Sosman & Landis provided the new scenery that premiered at the Chicago Coliseum.

The Ringling Bros. grand circus spectacle, “Joan of Arc.”

Later in 1912, Moses wrote, “Another trip to Baraboo to see the Ringling’s about next year’s show, which I secured.” From 1905 until Al Ringling’s passing in in 1916, Thomas G. Moses completed several designs for the Ringling Bros. grand circus spectacles, also known as “Specs.” Specs were visual spectacles involving hundreds of participants, a short dramatization that was added to the parade of animals and performers. Albeit the production time was relatively short, the scale was of epic proportions.

Another Ringling Bros. Circus spectacle with scenery by Sosman & Landis.

Moses worked directly for Al Ringling, the eldest of the brothers who was in charge of hiring and supervising the circus performers during his lifetime. He was also the one responsible for contracting scenery and other specialty items for the shows, the main visionary for the group. He would later plan and construct the Al Ringling Theatre in Baraboo, again hiring Moses of Sosman & Landis to provide the scenery.

Each year, the Ringling Brothers presented some new feature as the traveled from coast to coast. In 1905 Moses designed a setting for “The Field of the Cloth of Gold.” Advertisements reported, “The Vast Main Tent of the Ringling Brothers World’s Greatest Shows, wherein are presented the Superb Circuses and Hippodrome Displays, is converted into a huge, hundred-fold theatre for the presentation of the gorgeous, brilliant spectacle, the Field of the Cloth of Gold.” Of Moses’ scenic contributions, “The Washington Post” reported “The scenery is massive and brilliantly painted to show the crystal palaces, fairy structures, golden tents, and other flashing and picturesque features of this famous plain, ‘The Field of the Cloth of Gold’” (The Washington Post, 5 May 1905, page 8).

“The Field of the Cloth of Gold” also used scenery by Sosman & Landis Studio.

Ringling contracted Sosman & Landis to manufacture spectacle settings each year, but it was solely Moses who worked with Al during the design phase. By 1912, Moses was a well-known scenic artist and designer, eagerly sought after by many well-known personalities, including Al Ringling. Although times were changing and new studios continued to pop up across the nation, Sosman & Landis still dominated the theatre industry and were known as giants in their field at this time.

Al Ringling panel at the Circus World Museum in Baraboo, Wisconsin.

To be continued…