In 1916, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “‘The
Smart Shop’ another show for Howard.”
A scene from the “Smart Shop” with scenery by Sosman & Landis, design by Thomas G. Moses. From the “Sioux City Journal,” 26 Nov 1916, page 12.
Earlier that year, Moses also
designed the scenery for another Rowland & Howard production, “Which One
Shall I Marry?”
“The Smart Shop” was a musical sketch
by Ed W. Rowland and Lorin J. Howard billed as a “Breezy Musical Comedy
Novelty” with ten characters. Bert Peters and Tom Lindsey were responsible for
the score and libretto, with Howard as the director.
From “The Tacoma Times,” April 7, 1917, page 8.
The “Detroit Free Press”
announced the production “combines a display of feminine apparel with sprightly
musical comedy” describing, “The scene is placed in a fashionable dressmaker’s
emporium and there s a brilliant display of stunning gowns and lingerie” (3
Dec. 1916, page 61). The “Salt Lake Telegram” reported, “There is a distinct
plot in ‘The Smart Shop.’” This review just made me giggle, as I pondered the
many other shows without a “distinct plot” from this time. “The Smart Shop” was
billed as a production with “girls, costumes, a fashionable indoor setting,
numerous songs and broad comedy” (Sioux City Journal, 26 Nov. 1916, page 12).
From the “Evansville Press,” Sept 29, 1917, page 4.
When the show played at the
Columbia Theatre in Davenport, newspapers reported, “There’s music and comedy –
oh, yes, and lots of shapely girls. It’s rapid fire entertainment, which they
give in which tuneful songs and hilarious mirth abound. The cast is unusually
capable” (Rock Island Argus, 16 Nov. 1917, page 16). Again, saying “unusually
capable” is really not high praise for the acting capabilities of the performers.
I also located only one mention of the scenery, and it was described as “good.”
From the “Quad City Times,” Nov 15, 1917, page 3.
Obviously, this was not an
extremely successful production with a strong public following. Well, you can’t
win them all.
Popular songs from the
production included “I Love Everybody,” “Just for Style,” “Love Dreams,”
“Lingerie,” and “The Girl of Now-a-days.”
In 1916, Thomas G. Moses wrote,
“Closed a contract for $1,200.00 with Howard for ‘Which One Shall I Marry.’ Rather enjoyed the show.” Moses was referring
to Lorin J. Howard, of Rowland & Howard, the theatrical producers. His
partner was Edward W. Rowland. Howard functioned as the artistic director for
the firm, filling the role of both stage director and lighting designer for
this production.
Advertising flyer of the production, from the Waszut-Barrett Theatre Collection. Note that the flyer states, “Not a moving picture show.”
“Which One Shall I Marry” was billed as a “new idea” in drama, a stage allegory
in four episodes. The production company included Marguerite Henry, Marie
Kinzie, Dollie Day, Ainsworth Arnold, E. H. Horner, Edgar Murray, Tommy
Shearer, and Charles Richards.
Advertising flyer of the production, from the Waszut-Barrett Theatre Collection. Advertising flyer of the production, from the Waszut-Barrett Theatre Collection.
The “Pittsburgh Post-Gazette” reported,
“It’s author, Ralph T. Ketterling, has done that which most playwrights have
sought to perform – created new and original idea. The story of the play begins
in allegorical form. The young girl about whom the story revolves is discovered
at the crossroads of life, where the mysterious character, “Good Advice,” comes
to her point a successful future. She is sought in marriage by a rich man and a
poor man. The former offers her everything that money can buy, while the other
can only offer love. It is then that she propounds the question, ‘Which One
Shall I Marry?’”27 Aug. 1916, page 34).
From the “York Dispatch,” 9 Feb 1916, page 8.
Starting at “Crossroads of Life,”
the girl journeys to “The Grey Forest of Doubt,” “The Land of Shams” and “The
Land of Reality.” The “Reading Times” described the action in detail on Feb. 4,
1916 (page 5):
“It begins with a prologue, in
which a lovely girl in a tennis costume and the first flush of womanhood
appears before the curtain and tells of two offers of matrimony. She is
followed by an elderly man of the millionaire type, loudly proclaiming his
wealth and the advantages he can give the girl if she becomes his bride. The
third character in the prologue is a young man in love with the girl, a
stalwart youth who has no wealth, but morals and integrity, good habits and
affection to bestow on his bride. It is ‘Hope vs. Riches,’ as the bride-elect
recites.
In the second episode, in a
cleverly arranged double-stage effect, the girl as the bride of the millionaire
is shown in her luxurious home neglected by her husband, He is too busy with
his plans to crush by the aid of the corrupt senate and a corrupt law the
already oppressed workmen in a huge steel plant, to pay much attention to her.
He has time to buy her royal gifts, but no time to make a home for her. The
scene closes with the unhappy wife’s suicide.
The third episode gives a
brighter picture of life in a happy workman’s home, with husband and wife of
the same age, without wealth but full of contentment and prospects of a rosy
future. The final scene sums up the story of the other three and brings round
after round of curtain calls for the whole capably-acting company.”
The “Pittsburgh Daily Post”
reported, “’Which One Shall I Marry?’ is described as full of heart throbs,
with much humor and a moral. Those interested in its production say that it
brings out an idea which is altogether new in play writing. This is not only in
the construction, but in the scenery used to introduce the girl whose fate is
the subject of the struggle of opposing interest. In parts of the story, the
dreams of the girl are pictured on stage. This is done by a means of a triple
scene, which fades away and dissolves, and then returns at the proper time by
lighting effects” (27 August 1916, page 30). The “Fort Wayne Weekly Sentinel”
added “There are eleven changes of scene and many wonderful lighting effects
which have been arranged by Mr. Lorin J. Howard, who is the artistic director
of the firm and is known as the Belasco of the west” (21 August 1916, page 6).
When the production toured
Wisconsin, the “Kenosha News” reported, “a stage full of scenery that is
unique, colorful and massive” (323 Dec. 1916, page 5).
From the “Pittsburgh Press,” 27 aug 1916, page 43.From the “York Dispatch,” 9 Feb 1916, page 8.
Sosman & Landis produced
scenery for a second production near the end of 1916. Later that year he wrote, “Another production
of ‘Which One Shall I Marry.’” The show remained a popular production, appearing
in theaters across the country until 1918.
From the “Pittsburgh Daily,” 24 aug 1916, page 4.From the “Pittsburgh Daily” 27 aug 1916, page 30.
In 1916, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “June 24th, Mama
and I left Chicago for the east on our summer vacation, stopping at Kingston,
Ont. And Montreal, then White Mountains and Kennebunkport, Me., Boston, New
York City and Trenton, quite a nice trip, all of which I have written in detail
elsewhere. With Stella and the three
girls we arrived home July 29th.
I was soon back in the harness at the studio.” I thought it would be fun to track down some
1916 postcards. Enjoy.
Kingston, Ontario, Canada, postcard from 1916.Kingston, Ontario, Canada, postcard from 1916.Kingston, Ontario, Canada, postcard from 1916.Kingston, Ontario, Canada, postcard from 1916.Montreal postcard from 1916.Montreal postcard from 1916.Montreal postcard from 1916.Montreal postcard from 1916.White Mountains postcard from 1916.White Mountains postcard from 1916.White Mountains postcard from 1916.Kennebunkport, Maine, postcard from 1916.New York postcard from 1916.New York postcard from 1916.Boston postcard from 1916.Trenton, New Jersey, postcard from 1916.
Yesterday’s post explored the
Oak Park Theater, a venue with entertainment managed by Jones, Linick &
Schaefer. This theatrical management firm was featured in Frederic Hatton’s article
“A Romance of Chicago Theatricals” for the “Chicago Daily Tribune” (30 Dec,
1916, page 22). This is a fascinating article that provides insight into not
only the theatre industry, but also many Chicago theaters:
The men who managed Jones, Linick, and Schaefer, names mentioned multiple times in the memoirs of Thomas G. Moses, final president of Sosman & Landis.
“The rise of Jones, Linick & Schaefer if
Chicago’s most recent commercial romance. The rapidity with which success has
waited upon them dims many a tale of fortune in Chicago’s earlier days, days
which were once considered to have been much more pregnant of opportunity than
the present.
One can hear J., L. & S. on
the loop street breeze now. The brief firm formula has a catchy ring. It drops
easily from the tongue and it is so much in Rialto speech that it comes out now
as if planted with a rubber stamp. Yet a few years ago no one except a few
vaudeville men could tell you anything about this firm. It was known to have
successfully planted a new brand of vaudeville in a few playing houses, but
with the acquisition of McVicker’s and the Colonial at the end of the season
these men leaped into the spotlight, as it were, fully made up as metropolitan
managers. Their entrance to the loop stage was sudden and dramatic. Now you can
hear the wildest sort of gossip as to how much money a day the form makes and
how sudden it is to gobble up the entire theatrical business.
Bent on the discovery of these
new phenomenons [sic.], we traced them down to their offices over the Orpheum
Theatre on State Street. On the third floor there you can find a very accurate
reproduction of scenes, which are supposed to be current in America only along
Broadway. There your will find actor waiting in abundance without the rail
which admits the privileged; there you will find non-resident managers in plenty
arranging for bills and acts. Within the gates there are further signs of
productive theaterdom – busy agents, stenographers, routing men. Booking
directors and skillful executives. Playing the vaudeville game on a big scale
is a bit like chess. It is all a matter of moves, and he who moves first has
the offensive and the advantage. Jones, Linick & Schaefer have shown
themselves masters of the quick, decisive move. They are not announcers of
plans; they believe in coming up to a condition and then acting instantly.
In the innermost office of all
the Orpheum you will find Messrs. Jones, Linick & Schaefer at triplet
desks, one in the window, and another at each side of the room. Mr. Jones, the
president of the firm, is short, dark, slender and very alert. He is a bundle
of nervous energy. Mr. Schaefer is rather his opposite, being of serene,
jovial, and easy-going presence, while Mr. Linick differs from both the others
in being tall, wiry and rather soldierly. All seem to be in thorough harmony,
which is perhaps the secret of their success.
All modestly disclaim being
theatrical magnates or any other sort of bugaboo, being anxious to convey the
impression that they had been lucky and their only credit lies in being
strictly business.”
The paper then listed the
theaters
First in amusement, in price, in the hearts of Chicago Playgoers.”
The article also went on to
describe each of the firm’s venues:
THE RIALTO- Chicago’s
handsomest theatre with perfect ventilation. The first month of the year 1917
will become the birth month of the Rialto Theatre, built at a cost exceeding
$600,000 by Jones, Linick & Schaefer. Within a few weeks it will open its
doors with high class, popular priced vaudeville, with a policy similar to
McVicker’s. Marshall & Fox are the architects and Fleishmann Construction
Company are the builders. Its location, on State Street, between Jackson and
Van Buren, in the heart of the loop.
The Rialto Theatre in Chicago, 1916.
MCVICKER’S THEATRE – located on
Madison Street near State, is the most popular continuous vaudeville house in Chicago.
It was built by James H. McVicker in 1854, burned to the ground twice and
remodeled recently at a cost of many thousands of dollars. Performances are
continuous from 11 A.M. to 11 P.M.
McVicker’s Theatre in Chicago, 1916.
LA SALLE THEATRE – The La Salle
Theatre, located in the very heart of the loop on Madison Street and Clark,
gained renown throughout America as the birthplace of musical comedy. For many
years the most popular of the lighter musical plays were originated and
produced at the La Salle, but at present the house is given over to the
exhibition of motion pictures. Mary Pickford in “The Pride of the Clan” now
occupies its screen, where performances are given continuously from 9 A.M. to
11 P. M.
The La Salle Theatre in Chicago, 1916.
ORPHEUM THEATRE – The Orpheum
Theatre, on State Street opposite the Palmer House, is really the nucleus of
the Jones, Linick & Schaefer string of houses. Here their first great
success was made and the Orpheum Theatre today stands alone as the only First
Run, Daily Change, motion picture house in Chicago. Its performances are
continuous from 8:30 A. M. to midnight.
The Orpheum Theatre in Chicago, 1916.
LYRIC THEATRE – The Lyric
Theatre is in a class by itself being the only twenty-four hour theatre in the
world. Several years ago the key was thrown away and since that time three
shifts of employes [sic.] have presented motion pictures every twenty-four
hours out of every day, and three hundred and sixty-five days every year motion
pictures are offered.
The Lyric Theatre in Chicago, 1916.
BIJOU DREAM – The Bijou Dream
stands directly next door to the Orpheum on State Street near Monroe and is
given over principally to long runs of feature pictures. Here the very best art
of the motion picture photographer is shown to tremendous crowds all the time.
It is a beautiful little play house.
The Lyric Theatre in Chicago, 1916
STUDEBAKER THEATRE – The
Studebaker Theatre on Michigan Boulevard near Van Buren has been on of the
foremost Chicago Theatres for the past decade. The attraction occupying this
theatre at present is Annette Kellermann in Wm. Fix’s film spectacle “The
Daughter of the Gods,” a marvelous motion picture of novelty and sensation.
Performances are given twice daily.
The Studebaker Theatre in Chicago, 1916.
COLONIAL THEATRE – The Colonial
Theatre on Randolph Street near State Street is probably Chicago’s greatest
play house and had one of the most beautiful lobbies of any play house in the
world, built in the Romantic period style. At present it is devoted to two
daily performances of “Intolerance,” D. W. Griffith’s marvelous spectacle
depicting Love’s struggle throughout the years.
The Colonial Theatre in Chicago, 1916.
THE BROADWAY THEATRE – The
Broadway Theatre will be the newest addition to the Jones, Linick & Schaefer
chain and is the only playhouse announced in the outlying district of Chicago
attached to this string. The Broadway will be complete by September 1st,
1917. High Class Vaudeville will be installed, with a policy similar to the
“Rialto” and “McVicker’s” Theatres.
In 1916, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “The Oak Park Theatre gave
me $825.00 contract for vaudeville scenery.”
The Oak Park Theatre opened on October 20, 1913 and was a
combination house, featuring both live vaudeville acts and silent films. Their
advertisements promised continuous high-class vaudeville and first run motion
pictures. Vaudeville acts for the venue were booked by Jones, Linick &
Schaefer, the same firm that handled entertainment for McVickers Theatre, the
Colonial Theatre, the Wilson Theatre and many others around Chicago.
Of the Oak Park Theatre, the “Historical American Building
Survey” suggested that there was architectural evidence that the building was
greatly enlarged in 1915. This coincides
with Sosman & Landis delivering new vaudeville scenery in 1916; new scenery
would have been ordered during the renovation. The original building structure
had a footprint of 67 feet by 112 feet; the enlarged size after 1915 was 67
feet by 168 feet.
The Oak Park Theatre was located on Wisconsin Street, but
the address later changed to 120 S. Marion Street. The venue was at the heart
of Oak Park’s entertainment district and near Moses’ home. Many scenic artists
and architects settled in Oak Park. The benefit to Oak Park residents was
living a short train ride away from downtown Chicago.
There were three theaters in close proximately to one
another– Oak Park’s Warrington Opera House (1902 stock theatre), the Oak Park
Playhouse (1913 combination house) and the Oak Park Theatre (1913 combination
house). The 800-seat Oak Park Theatre was adjacent to the Warrington Opera
House, and promised “perfect ventilation.” This meant that the auditorium air
was changed every ten minutes. In addition to many “fireproof” features, each
seat boasted a “perfect view of the stage.”
In 1917, the “Chicago Eagle” reported, “Lubliner & Trinz” owned and operated the following high class theaters all over the city: Artcraft Theatre at Devon and Clark Streets, Biograph Theatre at 2433 Lincoln Ave, Covent Garden Theatre at 2655 North Clark Street, Knickerbocker Theatre at 6225 Broadway, Michigan Theatre at 55th and Michigan Boulevard, Paramount Theatre at 2648 Milwaukee Ave., Vitagraph Theatre at 3133 Lincoln Ave, West End Theatre, at No. Cicero and West End Avenues, and the Oak Park Theatre in Oak, Park, Illinois (22 Dec. 1917, page 7). Lubliner & Trinz was operated by Harry M. Lubliner and Joseph Trinz, whose offices were at 510 Westminster Building.
In 1930, the Oak Park Theatre was remodeled and renamed the
Lamar Theater. The marquee was added in 1929, the lobby remodeled in 1930 and
the stairs relocated in 1936.The new name reflected its location on Lake Street
and South Marion Street. Now advertisements forcused on “truly perfect sound”
in this “new wonder talkie theatre.” Unfortunately, this Art Deco theater has
did not last and was razed in 1988.
The Oak Park Theatre was later named the Lamar Theatre.The Oak Park Theatre was later named the Lamar Theatre. Image posted at cinemareasures.org. Here is the link: http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/2641
In 1916 Sosman & Landis delivered a picture setting to
Indianapolis’ Strand Theatre. The studio took out an advertisement in the
“Indianapolis Star” when the theater opened, announcing, “Designed, built and
painted the elaborate picture setting for the new Strand Theatre listing their
contribution. In 1916, studio president Thomas G. Moses recorded projects for
picture sets in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, too. The
first picture set mentioned by Moses at all in his diaries was during 1915; a
$1500 picture set for Fred Ingersoll in Detroit, Michigan. Here is the link for
that post: https://drypigment.net2020/01/17/tales-from-a-scenic-artist-and-scholar-part-904-thomas-g-moses-and-frederick-ingersoll-1915/
The term “picture set,” or “picture setting,” had two
meanings at the time. The first identified the painted scenery (leg drops and
backdrop) that created a lovely setting with a center projection area. The
backdrops in these picture sets were also termed “picture sheets.”
Picture setting design by the Twin City Scenic Co.Picture setting design by the Twin City Scenic Co., see model picture below.Another example of a picture set for a theater.
Of Fort Wayne project, Moses wrote,
“Went to Fort Wayne to stage picture set at the Empress Theatre.” The $1300
project was for painted scenes that framed a projection screen placed within a
painted composition. The new scenery was needed for the reopening of the venue
as the Empress theater reopened as a combination house, featuring vaudeville
acts and the latest three-reel films and serials..The Empress Theatre reopened
under new management on June 16, 1916. The “Fort Wayne Sentinel” reported,
“EIGHT BIG ACTS OF SUPREME VAUDEVILLE…This theatre, now under the management of
large Eastern Circuit and will at all times give the public the best obtainable
in from eight to ten acts of Vaudeville and High Class Musical Comedy.”
From the “Fort Wayne Sentinel,” June 14, 1916, page 5.
In 1916 “Picture set” also
identified a setting for film production. Newspaper articles suggest that his
was a relatively new practice in 1916. These new types of “picture sets”
received a substantial amount of publicity. They were even referred to as a
“new stunt” in filming (“Hobart Republican,” Hobart, Oklahoma, 17 Feb, 1916,
page 7). The “Jackson Daily News” reported, “The use of a big theatre as a
motion picture set is a new scheme and proved to be a very effective one” (8
Feb 1916, page). Here is the context…the Republic Theatre was used as a film
set for a 1916 Florence Reed picture. Of the film, newspapers reported, “As soon as the curtain was rung down at 11
o’clock on ‘Common Clay,’ Producer Fitzmaurice with his star, Florence Reed and
many extras, came in and took possession of the theatre. Special lights were
installed and some twenty scenes taken in jig time….In order to carry out the
realism the floor of the theatre was crowded with extras, and friends of
various Pathe officials. Mr. Woods himself was present and gave many valuable
hints as to detail. The picture is New York,” an adaptation of the one of Mr.
Wild’s theatrical productions” (Jackson
Daily News. 8 Feb 1916, page).
In 1916, Moses mentioned another movie picture set, writing,
“In March we did a picture set for a suburban town near Pittsburg,” later
adding, “We sent two of our picture set models to the Art Institute with the Palette
and Chisel Club exhibit, and they received as much attention as some of the pictures.”
These were movie set models that were on display for the exhibit instead of
models that depicted a central projection screen.
Of the Palette & Chisel Club Exhibit, the “Chicago
Tribune” reported, “New Exhibit at Institute. A unique event in the life of the
Palette and Chisel Club in Chicago will take place on Tuesday evening, April
25, at the Art Institute. For twenty years the club has been holding its annual
exhibitions at its own clubrooms. Tuesday night all precedent and tradition
will be violated and its large and interesting collection of the last year’s
activities along art lines will be shown at the Art Institute of Chicago. It is
to be an extremely comprehensive exhibit, including in its scope not only
paintings and sculpture, but the work of some master craftsman as well, men who
apply their artistic talents to the usable things of life, incurring thereby
the lasting gratitude of the practical masses.”
For the exhibit Gustave Bauman showed his wood block prints
and book decorations, while Oswald Cooper, Fred Bersch and B. A. Kleboe
exhibited various booklets and interesting examples of fine printing designed
by them. John Carlsen showed special
wall paper designs and Watkins Williams exhibited some stage designs. Williams was noted as a Sosman & Landis
scenic artist. The newspaper article
noted Williams as the artist who “designed and painted the scenery for the
immortal Sarah Bernhardt on her last American tour.”
Williams worked at Sosman & Landis. Sosman & Landis
models for movie sets would have been an asset to this diverse group,
especially in light of Watkins.
One final picture set mentioned by Moses in 1916 was for the
Studebaker Theatre in Chicago. Of it, he wrote, “Our big picture set at the
Studebaker made a big hit, quiet and dignified.” This was likely another film
set, as “quiet and dignified” seems an unusual way to describe a picture sheet.
This movie played at the Studebaker, another theater with a picture setting by Sosman 7 Landis. From the “Chicago Tribune,” 21 May 1916. page 29.
In 1916, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “May 1st was my
first in six months at painting attempt in the studio. Models and sketches take up all my time.”
He was now the president of Sosman & Landis. A partnership had made the firm a success,
and now Moses was pretty much on his own. In the beginning, Landis was on the
road securing contracts followed by Sosman painting the projects. Moses was
their first hire in 1880, assisting Sosman on many of their early projects
before the staff grew, yet Sosman maintained artistic control while Landis
headed sales. When Landis left in 1902, Sosman appointed Moses vice-president two
years later. At this time it was David H. Hunt who focused on sales. By 1916,
however, Sosman was gone and Hunt had started his own studio. Moses was left to
pick up the pieces and please the shareholders, in addition to competing with
Hunt for the same clientele.
Moses was attempting to both secure and supervise projects
in the main studio and annexes. His statement, “Models and sketches take up all
of my time,” emphasized his workload for sales that year.
He later wrote, “October 10th I was re-elected
president of the company, Mrs. Sosman vice president and Lester Landis secretary
and treasurer…Sosman and Landis Company enjoyed a good year. We have all been very busy. I have not done as much as I would like to do
in the way of pictures, but I guess I did fairly well.” Moses then added a sentence that starts to
show the wear and tear of his artistic soul, “I live on year to year, hoping,
always hoping, for a little more time to gratify my ambition to paint if only
one picture that I could really fell was worth while and all the years I have
tried to do this were not spent in vain.”
At the beginning of 1916,
everything seemed possible. The firm delivered scenery for the Strand Theatre
in Indianapolis. Sosman & Landis took out an advertisement in the
“Indianapolis Star” in support, announcing, “Designed, built and painted the elaborate
picture setting for the new Strand Theatre listing their contribution.
“Producers of Quality Scenery” listed Thos. G. Moses as “President and
Designer” with P. L. Landis as “Secretary and Treasurer.” The advertisement
also noted that the firm was established in 1877. An article also announced
“Strand Scenery Excellent,” adding “Thomas G. Moses, president of the Sosman
& Landis Company, producers of theatrical scenery, superintended the
arrangement of the elaborate setting for the Strand Theatre. Mr. Moses has done
a great deal of scenery work in the different theaters of Indianapolis dating
back to the first production of Ben-Hur at English’s Theater. Mr. Moses has
designed and painted productions in nearly every city in the country. In the
Strand stage settings the possibilities for excellent lighting are obvious, and
are taken advantage of by the Strand’s electrician, Mr. Dalton” (Indianapolis
Star, January 15, 1916, page 9).
From the “Indianapolis Star,” 15 Jan 1916, page 9.
Moses started doing something
new in 1916; Moses now took credit for his own designs work when Sosman &
Landis manufactured it. In other words, programs and newspaper article now
differentiated “designed by Thomas Moses” and “built by Sosman &
Landis.” For example, on April 15,
1916, the “Rock Island Argus” reported “[Around the Town] was built in its
entirety by the Sosman & Landis scenic company from special designs made by
Thomas Moses” (15 April 1916, page 8). Another instance was for the Boston
English Opera’s production of “Martha.” Newspaper advertisements reported,
“Scenery Designed by Thomas Moses and Built by Sosman and Landis Studios” (The
McPherson Daily Republican, 21 Oct 1916, page 5). T was too little too late, as
the names of designers were no longer a driving that attracted attention.
All of Moses’ talents and experience
wouldn’t help him in the end. The studio
would soon begin to crumble. Times were changing; there was a new game with new
rules and a war overseas. So many things
began happen simultaneously and the supply for painted scenery began to outpace
the demand. A new movement was in the
making for the stage, and it concerned the rejection of painted scenery on the
stage in lieu of fabric setting and motion picture. Moses would become the
proverbial fish out of water, with Sosman & Landis floundering. The company
would not survive the next seven years.
In 1916, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “Our business relations with
the New York Studios are a bit strained, and we have notified them that
hereafter there would be no restricted district for us, and we did not care
what they did. Pennsylvania and New York
used to be our very best states, and we were going after them again.” To fully understand Moses’ sentiment, we need
to look at Moses relationship with the founder of New York Studios, David H.
Hunt. First of all, Moses never cared
for Hunt.
After establishing the unsuccessful theatrical management
firm of Sosman, Landis & Hunt in 1894, Hunt convinced Sosman to invest in
another scenic studio in 1910, New York Studios. The new company was promoted
as the eastern affiliate of Sosman & Landis, well… kind of. Since the
1880s, Sosman & Landis maintained regional offices across the country, but
these were mutually beneficial relationships. For example, in 1887 Sosman &
Landis established a branch in Kansas City, Missouri, under the direction of
Lemuel L. Graham; it was known as the Kansas City Scenic Co., but Lem also did
business under his own name too. In the late 1880s Sosman & Landis also
established a regional office in New York City.
Multiple locations were the key to success. Just like we hear “shop
local,” that sentiment held true in the late-nineteenth and early twentieth
century for theatrical projects. Visiting a studio in a nearby town was far
better than hiring the unknown firm from a distant studio.
The real issue was that Hunt’s business plans, first and
foremost, benefitted Hunt and not his investors or affiliates. In other words,
New York Studios gained a massive support network such as Sosman & Landis
staff, connections, materials and studio space. I have yet to figure out if
there was really any added benefit for Sosman & Landis, but for whatever
reason, Sosman had a soft spot for Hunt and went along with many of his
schemes. When Sosman passed away in 1915 and Moses was elected president of
Sosman & Landis, Hunt no longer had an advocate at the Chicago studio and
the gravy train abruptly halted. So, when Moses wrote, “Pennsylvania and New
York used to be our very best states, and we were going after them again,” he really
threw down the gauntlet at Hunt and a feud began, . The two studios would now wrestle
over territories. Moses previously played by an old set of rules, based on respect
and gentlemen’s agreements; he was unprepared for the next generation of studio
owners as the playing field changed. Hunt was ruled by a different set of motivators
– his own self-interest. In all
appearances, Hunt was a slick talker and salesman. So, here is the background
between Moses and Hunt…
Moses first met Hunt in 1893,
and the two soon paired off on quite a few projects by 1894. In 1897, however, Moses and Hunt began to disagree. That year
Moses recorded an event that concerned Edith Chapman’s production of “Charity
Ball.” This is the beginning of a truly unhappy relationship. Here is what
Moses wrote:
Mr. Hunt found fault with my
neutral coloring and said one day, “Why don’t you make some positive color
decoration like pink or green?”
I had the first act of “Held by
the Enemy” on the frame – a southern interior.
I said, “Alright, I will make
this a pink wall and cream colored woodwork.”
“Fine,” said he. I did so.
I did not consult Miss Chapman as usual. The scene was set. I was in front as usual during the
performance. Miss Chapman entered. I saw her look up the scene and almost fall
back. She had on a shell pink, deep
flounced and a very full hoop skirt.
I nearly fainted. I was sick.
I rushed back at the close of the act and found her in tears. As soon as she saw me, she said, “Oh, why did
you do it – didn’t you know I was going the limit on my dress?” She had forgotten that I did not consult her
as I usually did. I pointed to Mr. Hunt. “There is the one I tried to please.” Hunt then realized he was wrong, and I had
been right all season. I painted out the
wall color the next morning, for it simply killed Miss Chapman’s dress, as
there was so much of it.”
That same season Moses
continued, “The different newspapers gave our work splendid notice every week.
For one paper on which Mr. Montgomery Phister was the critic, and his son was
the artist, I made a heading for each week’s article on the play at the Pyke –
drawing in ink the principal scenes.
Hunt never knew that I did it – he flattered himself the paper was doing
it. Phister had been a scenic artist in
his young days and was in full sympathy with the artist.
One day he said to Hunt for a
joke – “I think Moses uses too much raw umber.”
Hunt repeated this to me as his
own idea. I was sure someone that knew
color had been at Hunt, so I said, “Raw Umber!
What kind of color is that? I
don’t use it at all.”
He was stumped and didn’t know
what to say. He went back to Phister,
who in turn told me. We had a hearty
laugh over it.”
I bet they did, and then the
battles increased in intensity. The war began in earnest during one of Sosman’s
absences from the studio in 1910, likely prompting the establishment of New
York Studios.
That year, Moses wrote, “Mr.
Sosman went to Europe on January 30th for an extended trip…He had a
good bookkeeper, and I depended on him a great deal. I did some hustling while he was away. Mr. Hunt was secretary and treasurer, and
expected to run the business, but I wouldn’t allow it. Mr. Hunt kept on the road most of the time… I
heard some reports as to what Hunt had reported to Sosman about my treatment
towards him. I got mad and wanted to
quit. Sosman wouldn’t listen to me…Hunt
remained away from the studio for some time, before going back home.” This is when Hunt establishes New York Studios,
partially funded by Sosman. I have to wonder if Sosman only invested in Hunt to
separate the two, attempting to keep peace. Of the company, Moses wrote, “Hunt
had started a New York studio in New York City, and he expected us to do a
great deal of work, as he had Sosman invest a small amount.” But there were
other contingencies, including the restricted districts that in 1916 Moses
chose to ignore. So when one reads Moses 1916 entry, “Our business relations
with the New York Studios are a bit strained, and we have notified them that hereafter
there would be no restricted district for us, and we did not care what they
did,” it takes on a whole new meaning.
In the end, Moses may have
picked the wrong man to do battle with that year.
This is the only photo that I have been able to locate of Nick Pausback – he is in the back row, second in from the left.
In 1916, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “Pausback went to the 20th
Street studio, part of which we rented for a couple of months. We put plenty of help with Pausback to rush
the work through, and I think he will be able to pull it out, as we are too
busy at Clinton street to take much of it.”
Sosman & Landis’ main studio was on Clinton Street. Over
the years, the firm would lease additional studio spaces that were referred to
as “annex studios.” The 20th
Street Studio was an annex studio. For
years, any annex studio was under the direct supervision of Moses, unless he
was called away – which was a lot. Since 1904, Moses was in charge of all
design, construction, painting and installation of projects at Sosman &
Landis. This was not a first-time that
Moses moved staff from one building to another. Since 1908, Pausback has
bounced back and forth between the main studio and various annexes, he was a
shop manager.
Nicholas “Nick” John Pausback Jr. was a scenic artist,
described as a tall, slender man with grey eyes and dark brown hair.
Pausback was born on May 5, 1881; this makes him twenty-five
years younger than Moses. The Registry of Births for the city of St. Louis,
Missouri, lists that Nick Pausback was born at Rappahannock St. and his parents were to Nicholas and Caroline
Pausback. He was one of seven children; his siblings were Maria (b. 1879),
Joseph (b. 1883), Eva (b. 1884), August (b. 1885), Stella (b. 1888), and Clara
(b. 1889).
The 1900 US Census lists the nineteen-year-old Pausback as living
with his family at 3113 Magnolia in St. Louis, Missouri. At the time, his
occupation was noted as “artist – painting.” He was the only one in the family
that entered theatre industry. His siblings worked as milliners, salesmen in
clock stores, clerks in a mill and saloon employees. Pausabck’s mother even worked
at a grocery store. Interestingly, his little brother became an boxer, making
headlines after ca collapse in the ring during a 1906 match at the Broadway
A.C. in St. Louis (“St. Louis Globe-Democrat,” 18 April 1906, page 13). Brother
Joe was in the 125-pound class and reported to be a “youngster with a record
for having the stiffest punch of any boy of his weight in the city” (St. Louis
Globe-Democrat, 16 April 1906, page 11). I have not tried to track down the
other siblings at this time.
In 1902, there was a newspaper announcement about Nick Pausback’s
twenty-first birthday party (St. Louis Republic, 11 May 1902, page 17). Quite a
few people attended, including fellow scenic artist Armbruster. Although no
first name was given, my best guess is Otto, as he was working for Moses at the
time.
By 1905, Pausback was credited with fully equipping the new
Grand Theatre in Owensboro, Kentucky. The “Messenger-Inquirer” reported, “Mr.
Nicholas Pausback of St. Louis is the artist employed. He has painted several
of the scenes and is now at work on the others. There will be twenty hanging scenes and about
seventy-five all told. The greater part of these will be in frames…When the
work is completed the Grand will have one of the very best equipped of stages.
The two ‘tormentors’ painted by Mr. Pausback have been placed and they are
receiving favorable criticism of all who see them.” The project also included a
heavy asbestos curtain with “beautiful Venetian scene” (Messenger-Inquirer, 18
July 1905, page 6). Other pieces mentioned included two drop curtains and a
fancy parlor scene painted in a Japanese pattern.
That same year, Pausback was also engaged to paint new
scenery for the new opera house in Central City (Messenger-Inquirer, 26 July
1905, page 8). The venue would become known as the Gish Opera House. By the
way, Central City is halfway between Louisville and Nashville; I had to look.
Only four years later, the opera house went up in flames; the fire started
during commencement exercises for the Central City School’s music class. The
music teacher and children ranging from ages 5-12 were the main victims,
perishing in a tragedy locals termed the “Opera House Holocaust” (Cincinnati
Enquirer, 26 May 1909, page 1).
Pausback did marry and start a family in St. Louis too. His
bride was Ottilia (also Otilia) Groebl (b. 1883), a German immigrant who
arrived in 1898. The couple celebrated the birth of six children, three girls and
three boys: Nicholas (B. 1905), Elvira (b. 1906), Raymond (b. 1908), Mary (b.
1912), Lawrence (b. 1922) and Therese (b. 1927). Only the first two children
were born in St. Louis.
It was in 1907 that Pausback and his family moved from St.
Louis to Chicago, and I wonder employment at Sosman & Landis prompted the
move. That year, he started to work for the firm as their paint shop foreman. Moses,
wrote, “I depended a great deal on Pausback to look after the work while I was
away.”
Pausback did not consistently work at Sosman & Landis, however,
as he also worked for a variety of other firms. Like many scenic artists of the
time, Pausback picked up work wherever he could find it. During the late-nineteenth
and early twentieth century, scenic artists accepted extra work even when
working full-time positions. Demand for scenic art outweighed the supply and a
great deal of money could be made in a relatively short period of time for any
ambitious artist. The phrase “make hay
while the sun shines” certainly comes to mind.
The 1910 US census listed Pausback as an advertiser in the
“Packing Co.” industry, still working as a scenic artist though. He would
provide this same information for the 1920 census too which makes me wonder
what the Packing Co. delivered. There are too many packing companies to even
hazard a guess at this time. In 1911, Moses again records that Pausback took
charge of the 20th Street studio.
By 1916, Pausback was back at the 20th Street
studio and also installed a few shows in New York. At the time he was working
with the stage carpenter Harry Nailer. Then everything changes. My guess is World War I and a redistribution
of labor. The next year Pausback was working in the advertising department at
Swift & Co., located in Chicago’s Union Stock Yards. Keep in mind that many
scenic artists were snatched up by the military; camouflage painting was in its
infancy and would draw heavily on the expertise of stage painters, those who
were skilled at painting for a distance. A decade later, Pausback established
his own studio.
In 1927, he founded Pausback studios and ran the firm for
twenty years, retiring only six years before his passing in 1953. His scenery
company was located at 3727 Cottage Grove Ave., Chicago (Chicago Tribune 2 Dec.
1928, page 2). In 1928 Pausback also wrote a book on stage craft (Dec. 17,
1928). He was in his late forties and seems to have been hitting his stride.
Things were continuing to look up, work was plentiful, and there was a new and
insatiable client – academic theater.
Educational and academic institutions became a primary client
for Pausback Studios, as well as many theatrical supply firms of the time. Public
schools were in a constant state of demand, with an ever-growing need for rigging,
draperies, and scenic options. Publications focused on how amateur productions
could forgo the need of any theatrical expert – “do it yourself” became a
popular approach; you just needed enthusiasm and an instructional manual to
produce a show. Part of me wonders if
this was the beginning of the end for the professional scene painter, hence the
mass migration to Hollywood where an advanced skill set was still required to
produce magic.
Of Pausback’s children, only his daughter Alvera (b. 1907) was
working for the company after the market crash in 1929. She remained a clerk, possibly
the result of labor reduction. Pausback Scenery Co. also provided properties
for “Wings of a Century,” a feature at the 1933 world fair in Chicago. In the
1930s, Pausback studio made a huge splash with oversized Christmas tree
ornaments. Towards the end of his career, Pausback worked with Arthur “Art” W. Oberbeck,
another former Sosman & Landis employee (“Blue Island Sun Standard,” 15
June 1944, Page 6). Oberbeck started as a paint boy at the Sosman & Landis studio
in 1904, just a few years before Pauysback joined the staff.
Interestingly, Pausback was also an amateur magician. As a
member of the International Brotherhood of Magicians and the American Society of
Magicians, he was known as “Nicodemus, the Magician” (Chicago
Tribune 14 May 1953, page 36).https://newspaperarchive.com/blue-island-sun-standard-jun-15-1944-p-6/
Overall, Pausback’s obituary listed that he was in the
theatrical scenery business for 45 years and did not retire until 1947. It
was a little longer than that, according to my calculations. Pausback passed
away at the age of 72 in 1953. He is buried in St. Mary Catholic Cemetery and
Mausoleum in Evergreen Park, Illinois (Section 1, lot 764). This is now on my
“to visit” list, as I track across country and pay homage to those who came
before me.
I end with this: His obituary remembers, “Nicholas J. Pausback,
72, of 1000 S. Rhodes av., retired theatrical scenery contractor, died
yesterday in his home. Mr. Pausback, who retired six years ago, supplied amateur
and professional theatrical scenery for 45 years, the last 20 years as owner of
Pausback Scenic studios. An amateur magician, he was a member of the
International Brotherhood of Magicians and the American Society of Magicians.
Surviving are his widow, Otilia, three daughters, Mrs. Elvira Pausback Howard,
Mrs. Mary Crescentia Welsh and Mrs. Therese Curtis, and three sons, the Very
Rev. Gabriel of the Carmelite Order, Raymond Joseph and Lawrence” (Chicago
Tribune, 14 May 1953, page 36).
Pausback’s obituary also credited him as a “scenic
artist de luxe”(Chicago Tribune 14
May 1953, page 36). Life goes by too fast, and we are too quick to summarize
another’s life in a few sentences. Kudos to the families that did more. I am
desperately trying to preserve our past and pay tribute to those unsung
theatrical geniuses.
In the end, Pausback Studios merged with Acme and Carsen in
1957 to form the Acme Carsen Pausback Studio. See past post 566 for more
information about Acme and Carsen of Chicago; it is quite a story.
In 1916, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “A new kitchen and dining
room at the camp adds a little more worry and expense to the financial
committee, but we are all very happy over the fact that the club really owns
the home in the woods.” Moses was referring to the Fox Lake Camp used by
members of the Palette & Chisel Club during the hot summer months. The
group had started out with large tent in 1906. Moses personally donated a small
structure for the land, effectively replacing the tent.
The camp tent at Fox Lake for Palette & Chisel Club members.The structure that replaced tent camping for Palette & Chisel Club artists at Fox Lake.
There is a point when “roughing it” loses a certain appeal;
much has to do with one’s comfort and ability to sleep on the ground. When my
husband and I were first married, we went on family canoeing trips to the
Boundary Waters in Minnesota. We portaged from lake to lake with our canoes and
gear, setting up camp in a designated spot and cooking the fish we caught over
a fire. During one trip, we joked that my dad had brought along a foam pad to
sleep on. As active twenty-something, we didn’t find any discomfort sleeping on
the ground, complete with all its branches and rocks. My dad was in his sixties
and I look back in amazement that he was willing to sleep on the ground at all,
even with a one-inch foam pad; heartier stock, I guess.
Moses had “roughed it” quite a bit in his youth, but in 1916
he was sixty years old, and camping in a tent was less appealing. It’s not that
he had never camped outdoors or “roughed it” in the wilderness; he had on
multiple sketching trips during his youth. In 1884, Moses and three other
scenic artists traveled to the Rocky Mountains with minimal supplies, finding
shelter wherever they could on their sketching trip. At the time he was twenty-eight
years old and had never seen the mountains; it was all a big adventure. His traveling companions were John H. Young (26
yrs.),
Edward A. Morange (19 yrs.), and Hardy C. Maratta (20 yrs.). The four artists travelled to
Breckenridge and Moses recalled, “On our return trip we looked like a bunch
of tramps, happy and ready for our old work.”
Of
the camping near Breckenridge, Moses wrote, “We had the tent pitched
very quickly, some pine boughs cut and laid for our spring bed, over which we
laid our four army blankets, two over and two under us. The delicate odor from
the pine was very refreshing. We must
have made a mistake in cutting the boughs and twigs, for they were more like
branches and trunks…
As I was the fat one in my party I had more grooves in my back and arms, from
the so-called pine twigs that composed our springs, than anyone in the party.”
Over
two decades later Moses participated in early camping adventures with the
Palette & Chisel club at Fox Lake. By 1906 “tent camping” was already
losing its appeal. Moses wrote, “June 1st, 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.” By 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.”
So by 1916, when Moses wrote, “A new kitchen and dining room
at the camp adds a little more worry and expense to the financial committee,
but we are all very happy over the fact that the club really owns the home in
the woods.” By this time, it was no longer camping; they were staying at a lake
home. Understandably so, as Moses was
now 60 years old, he had entered the same decade when my dad decided to use a
foam pad while camping. I know that at this point in my life I have no
intention of sleeping on the ground.
Maybe I have become a little soft, too used to the modern luxuries of
camping cots, air mattresses, and memory foam.
