The Mormons and the Theatre Part 14

8. Piano Solo--Trovatore ..................... Gottschalk

Mrs. Helen Wells.

9. Song--"My Own Dearest Child" ..................... Abt

Mrs. George Careless.

10. Selection ...........................................

Croxall's Silver Band.

Conductor ......................... Prof. George Careless

Thursday, June 8th--For Three Nights. Louis Aldrich Company in his very successful play, "MY PARTNER." Superb Star Company.

In the spring of '82, when the Walker was approaching completion, Dr.

McKenzie hied him to New York to secure attractions for the new theatre, for the erstwhile temperance lecturer had developed into the sole lessee and manager of a $100,000 theatre. He had already chosen me to attend to the local management, for which I was to have 5 per cent of the gross proceeds of everything we played there, with the privilege of getting up local performances in the interims. I had worked eleven months, superintending the construction of the building and was quite in favor. "Doc" was very successful in securing attractions, his somewhat extravagant and florid descriptions of the Walker Grand, as they chose to christen it, and its superiority to the old theatre, caught the agents and managers, and he secured so many of the attractions going to the coast the ensuing season that he virtually had the Salt Lake Theatre out of business.

The first dramatic performance given in the Walker was the Louis Aldrich Company in "My Partner." The house was well filled but not crowded; there was a very strong prejudice against the Walker among the Mormon part of the community, and a malicious report to the effect that the galleries were not safe was put in circulation with a view to injure the new theatre. Such mischievous whisperings, however, only had a temporary effect.

One of the earliest attractions at "The Walker" was Haverly's minstrels, and the house was crowded to its utmost capacity; as the galleries did not give way on that occasion, the reports which had been so industriously circulated were seen to be "a weak invention of the enemy."

The new house continued to get the attractions to such an extent, that the Salt Lake Theatre was virtually out of the swim. This was accomplished by Dr. McKenzie putting The Walker under the direction of Jack Haverly. Haverly at the time was one of the foremost managers of the country. He controlled more companies and theatres than any one in the field of amus.e.m.e.nt; so he booked everything in his control at The Walker, and the house during his _regime_ was called Haverly's Walker Grand Opera House. "What's in a name?" In theatrical business much; it is everything. So serious indeed was the situation for the Salt Lake theatre that Mr. David McKenzie, who was at this time the acting manager of the house, found it necessary to go to San Francisco and have a business interview with Mr. Fred Bert, who was Haverly's San Francisco manager.

The result of his visit was an agreement on the part of Haverly to play his attractions alternately between the two theatres, thus giving the Salt Lake theatre one-half of their Salt Lake bookings. In the agreement it was stipulated that the Salt Lake Theatre must also float the Haverly flag, and while this contract lasted the old house was called "Haverly's Salt Lake Theatre." Here was an interesting situation; both theatres flying the Haverly flag. Haverly's name at the head of every bill and program. It was not at all pleasing to the Mormon people to have their theatre, in which they took so much pride, pa.s.s under the direction and management of a Gentile manager. Many of them didn't know but what Haverly had bought it. The Walker Brothers did not relish the idea either of their house being called Haverly's; but such were the exigencies of the theatrical business. To the Walker it was a great advantage, as without Haverly's prestige the new house would have had a hard time in getting first-cla.s.s attractions.

These circ.u.mstances go to show what an immense influence Jack Haverly wielded in the theatrical business of this country at that time. He was almost as potent then as Klaw & Erlanger of the syndicate are today. These conditions did not last very long, as the managers and agents came to learn that the Salt Lake Theatre was the only one that the Mormon people would patronize, and they being so largely in a majority of the theatre-goers, the older theatre gradually won back the great bulk of the traveling combinations, and the Haverly agreement having expired, his flag was hauled down, much to the relief of a great many, to whom it had always seemed a reproach to have _Brigham Young's_ Theatre called Haverly's. Jack Haverly had too many irons in the fire; his numerous theatrical enterprises were managed by a corps of lieutenants, too numerous for Mr. Haverly to keep in line.

Some of them proved shrewder, more adroit, and less principled than their general. He trusted them too implicitly, and this was his undoing. Some of them managed his enterprises into their own hands, while he was giving his personal attention very largely to his mining interests. These, too, turned out disastrously, and Haverly's star, which had been so prominent and bright in the theatrical firmament, began to wane and in a very few years was totally eclipsed. After all his great enterprises, he became a bankrupt in 1898, and he died poor in 1901 in a Salt Lake Hospital. He was reduced in health and circ.u.mstances to such a degree as to be unable during the last year of his life to manage even a minstrel company, and others paid him for the use of his name.

CHAPTER XXIV.

Retrospectively considered, the building of the Walker Opera House was premature. There was one good theatre here, and not half enough of business for that one; but it served to enliven things for a little while, and did its share toward liberalizing and metropolitanizing Salt Lake City. The Walker had a brief and rather checkered career; it was destroyed by fire on July 4th, 1891, after a performance of "Held by the Enemy." The audience were all home and the company had left the theatre; the stage hands were lowering a drop, when a gust of wind blew open the front door and sent the drop sailing against a gas jet; in a moment it was all ablaze. The stage hands lost their heads and made for the exit, when a little presence of mind would have saved the building. The house, especially the stage, was well provided with water plugs and hose, and it seems incredible that any effort was made to extinguish the fire.

Mr. Will Burgess was manager at the time it burned down. It is a remarkable fact that two other fine theatres burned under this same gentleman's management within a few years afterward. The Farnham Street Theatre of Omaha, where a number of lives were lost, and The Auditorium of Kansas City. Notwithstanding these very serious drawbacks, Mr. Burgess is one of the wealthy managers of the West today.

After the burning of "The Walker," Malloy's Livery Stable, directly opposite the Walker, was converted into a theatre, when it was decided to build an office block on the ruins of the Walker. For some time it was known as "Wonderland," and was a two storied show; the upper story being a sort of curiosity shop--or Wonderland with specialties and the lower story having a small stage was devoted to vaudeville, and short plays. Afterwards the two stories were thrown into one room, and converted into a theatre with capacity for about six hundred people.

It was called the Lyceum. Here a stock company was run for about a year with varying fortune. Some actors who have since won high places in their professions were members of this stock, notably Charles Richman, Ed Hayes, Victory Bateman.

The Lyceum soon went into a decline struggled along for a few years against adverse fortune and finally yielded up the ghost. It was transformed into a handsome saloon and wholesale liquor house, from which a greater revenue is derived than it yielded as a theatre.

Before the Lyceum went out of commission as a theatre another theatrical venture was launched. This was the Grand. This theatre was built (or partly so) by Mr. Frank Maltese and Mr. "Brig" Pyper. The story of how they projected, planned and built this theatre is told as follows: "Brig" and "Frank" made a winning in a "policy drawing." They held between them a one-fourth interest in a fifty-dollar policy ticket. In a sporty manner they bantered each other as to what they should do with their big winning of $12.50. One was in favor of reinvesting it in the next policy drawing, the other for trying their luck at the "faro-bank." Finally, in a lurid flash of imagination one (which one we don't remember, but we believe it was Frank), exclaimed: "Let's build an Opera House with it." The idea was so absurd, they had a good laugh over it; but the thought took hold of them, and one of them suggested, "Let's figure up and see _how much more_ it will take." So on the back of the policy ticket they figured up roughly what it would take in addition to their winnings to build "The Grand."

The result was no doubt staggering; but undismayed they went about to see how they could accomplish such a herculean task. They owned some property, or their folks did, and this they decided to put in jeopardy in order to carry out their designs. They secured the building site, and got the walls up and the roof on--and then they were stuck. They had reached the end of their financial tether, and were forced to stop until they could make some new deal by which to complete the building.

Mr. Alec Rogers was the party who now came to the front and put up some $16,000 to complete the building. We don't know just how much interest the boys Maltese and Pyper had remaining in it when the theatre was completed, but we opine it was little if any. The Grand opened with the house in the possession of Alex. Rogers and sons, and John Rogers was installed as the manager. He secured a very good company for the opening, announcing a season of stock performances.

The house was opened on Christmas Eve, December 24th, 1894. The personnel of the company was as follows: Jane Kennark, Blanche Bates, Madge Carr Cook, Jean Coy, Howard Kyle, Tim Frawley, Charles King, Harry Corson Clarke, H. D. Blackmore, Fred Fjaders, Mr. Mannery. The opening play was "Moths." It was a good performance, and the company made a very favorable impression. The axiom that "A new broom sweeps well" had a number of exemplifications in this theatre. It was so with this first company, notwithstanding it was a talented and capable one.

After it had been seen in a few plays, and the _novelty_ of the new house, miscalled "The Grand," was over, business began to drop off and it was more than the manager could do to keep ahead with the expensive company he had.

Why this theatre was called "The Grand" we were never able to divine, as it was at the opening positively severe in its plainness. There is a great tendency in our country to buncombe, aside from the genuine patriotism that exists in it; this tendency leads many of our fellow citizens into silly extravagances, especially is this noticeable in the naming of theatres, hotels and restaurants; more particularly is this the case in the small towns. A man opens a little restaurant scarcely big enough to accommodate a dozen persons, and everything in it of the plainest and commonest kind, and he dubs it the "Palace"

restaurant. "Opera House" is a much abused appellation. Nearly every insignificant, dingy, dismal, inconvenient, and homely theatre and hall throughout the land is dubbed Opera House. It is a dreadful misnomer--inconsistent and absurd in three-fourths of the houses to which it is applied. "The Theatre" is dignified enough and much more consistent and suitable. "The Grand" during the ten years of its existence has had a checkered career. We doubt if any of its half dozen different managers have made it pay. The first company, as already stated, was found to be too expensive, the business would not sustain the heavy salary list, not only was the salary list large, but Mr. Frawley made a demand for a percentage of the receipts in addition. This sprung a disagreement, and the company was after about four or five weeks superseded by another less expensive. The Rogers management was able, liberal and intent on giving the public satisfaction. After a fair trial of the business, lasting three years, they disposed of the house on a lease to Mr. Garvey of pageantry fame, who spent a few hundred he had made on the "Pioneer Carnival" on the house in the way of improvements, and then called it "The New Grand."

_Ad captandiun vulgas_.

Garvey's reign was brief and unprofitable. Then Mr. Martin Mulvey took a swing at it, and made things lively for two seasons, but the supposition is that he did not make money with it or he would not have given up the lease. The last management, Messrs. Jones and Hammer, have seemingly had the most prosperous time with the house; they have profited by the experience of their predecessors, and yet it appears they have not realized their expectations, and so have re-leased the house to Denver parties.

Having brought the history of the Salt Lake Theatre through the first twenty years of its existence up to the time when the stock company was altogether disbanded, owing to the fact that the combination system had come so fully into vogue as to displace the stock system all over the country, I shall not attempt to give its history after this time, as my connection with it had altogether ceased. I shall only add that for the past twenty-three years it has kept the even tenor of its way, under able managers (notably Mr. Charles R. Burton and later George Pyper), playing the leading attractions of the country to a splendid patronage, keeping up the reputation of Salt Lake as "the best show town of its population in the world."

More than twenty years ago several attempts were made to establish a vaudeville theatre in this city; two houses were built at different times for the purpose, but they were short-lived, dying out for lack of patronage. Within the last three years, however, the city's population having greatly increased, no less than four have been started here, two of which survive and seem to be doing well.

During the early years of the drama in Utah, several of the towns besides Salt Lake had very talented companies. Provo, Springville, Ogden, Brigham City, and St. George each had fairly good theatres and many very capable players. It is somewhat remarkable, however, that out of the hundreds of persons who have "gone on the stage" in Utah, so few have drifted into the profession and left their homes to follow it; the percentage is very small. Miss Sarah Alexander was the first to drift off, and although she has not made much stir on the stage herself, she has chaperoned her niece Miss Lisle Leigh to fine success. Mr. James M. Hardie was the next to break away; then Miss Anne Adams, Mr. Logan Paul and the writer complete the list so far as the Salt Lake Stock Company is concerned. Later Miss Ada Dwyer and Mr.

DeWitt Jennings. This is accounted for by the fact that, much as the Mormons love the theatre, they love their homes and their religion better. The theatre is a pleasant pastime with them, but the staying at home and building up of their kingdom is a religious duty, and unless they are "called on a mission," they prefer to stay with home and Church.

CHAPTER XXV.

CONCLUSION.

A few reflections on the theatre and its work in concluding this little history may not be out of place.

The cultivation and progress of the drama in connection with its kindred arts, poesy and painting, marks the progress of civilization, culture and refinement at any given period in any country. Without the aid of the theatre and the actors' art, the great majority of mankind would remain in ignorance as to the works of the most gifted writers; without those great reflectors of human thought, how many thousands there have been and are who never would have heard or read the plays of Shakespeare and other writers of genius, but who, by the a.s.sistance of the actor's delineations, have become familiar with the most sublime and beautiful thoughts and sentiments that adorn our language.

I make mention particularly of Shakespeare's plays, as they are beyond all question the greatest and grandest compositions ever written.

Among the thousands of plays that have been written during and since the great dramatic renaissance of Elizabeth's reign, they still stand out incomparable as models _par excellence_ of dramatic composition, challenging compet.i.tion, and as yet unrivaled after a lapse of more than three centuries.

That the stage is a great factor in our modern civilization, for the education of the people, no reading, reflecting person would attempt to deny. It is true that some pernicious things occasionally creep in that would be better suppressed, but they are rare and exceptional.

The great bulk of dramatic entertainment is uplifting in its tendencies. The infinite variety of plays presented, showing human life in all conditions, and under every variety of circ.u.mstances, can not be otherwise than educational in effect upon those who witness them. However crude or devoid of literary merit a play may be, there seldom is one, however bald in plot or uninteresting in sentiment, but what "points a moral and adorns a tale."

In Shakespeare's day the theatre was even more or an educational inst.i.tution than it is today. Books were scarce in that age, and the newspapers were an undiscovered medium of information, so that plays (especially historical plays) possessed a wonderful interest for the ma.s.ses, who had little chance for schooling or the acquirement of knowledge from books.

The old chronicles and legends were freely used by the dramatists of the Elizabethan era, and the incidents of history were made so familiar to the habitues of the theatre that the common people acquired a good knowledge of history by witnessing the representation of those plays. To ill.u.s.trate how much this was the case, Ben Jonson tells the story of a fellow who, having been taken to task on some question of history and the accuracy of his position being a.s.sailed and the authenticity of his a.s.sertions being called in question, replied by way of defense: "No, I confess I had it not from the histories but from the play books, and consider them the more authentic."

Many dramas have been written (and more especially by the poets) without perhaps having in view their exploitation on the stage, but like their other poetry, to be read, suitable only for the library, more poetical than dramatic.

Such are the plays of Byron, Sh.e.l.ley, Keats, Moore, and others. A still greater number have been written solely for acting purposes; and the majority of these may not lay claim to any permanent abiding place in literature. Others still are admirably adapted to both the library and the stage. Such are the plays of Sheridan, Knowles, Bulwer, Schiller, Kotzebue, and later of Heinrick Ibsen. Of such a character also are the plays of our gifted Salt Lake dramatist, the late Edward W. Tullidge. The present-day theatre-goers have little time to indulge in the reading of plays. The overwhelming ma.s.s of reading matter thrown from the press, keeps the general reader busy to keep abreast of the current literature of our times. So that plays form no part of the world's reading matter; here and there is one, some stagestruck soul who loves to get hold of and read a play, but the vast majority are content to let the actors read the plays for them, preferring to witness the acting of them. It is a fact and a very gratifying one that Shakespeare's plays are about the only ones that are read nowadays, and these are by no means so universally read as they should be. The ma.s.ses have not time for reading Shakespeare, or other dramatists, so it is a fortunate thing for them that the theatres are so popular and accessible; here, they can hear the thoughts and sentiments, and see in literal action the characters of both ancient and modern times, and gather from the mimic scene suggestions of the tremendous throes and struggles through which the human race has pa.s.sed.

During the forty-three years that the Salt Lake Theatre has been in existence, an almost infinite variety of plays have been presented and thousands of actors (as infinite in variety as the plays) have "strutted and fretted their brief hour upon its stage" and now are heard no more. It is a solemn reflection that in all probability more than three-fourths of all who have trod the stage of this theatre, both local and transient actors, in less than half a century of existence are "heard no more." The voices that have thrilled us, the animated and beautified forms that have called forth our admiration and praise, are stilled forever by the chilling touch of death; genius, mediocrity, incompetency, all alike go down, and the greatest names in a few brief years are forgotten; so transitory is the actor's fame. Yet it is not more so perhaps than that of other professions, and certainly not quite so much of a "will o' the wisp" as "seeking the bubble reputation in the cannon's mouth."

Out of the mult.i.tudinous dramatic pictures that have been presented on the stage of this theatre during its forty-three years of existence, it is interesting to know which stand out in bold relief. We need not hesitate to reply, the plays of Shakespeare, and those that are nearest akin to them, such as Bulwer's "Richelieu," Knowles'

"Virginius," Banim's "Damon and Pythias." The Irish plays of Dion Boucicault, "Colleen Bawn," "Arrah Na Pogue," "Shaugraun," "Kerry,"

and even his "London a.s.surance," made very strong impressions, were very popular, and made money both for actors and managers. So with many other plays we might cite; but compared with Shakespeare's plays they have proven to be short-lived and their fame but transitory. They have never found a permanent abiding place in the world of literature.

There is a strange, a marvelous thing in connection with the plays of Shakespeare. In his day the theatre was not popular, as it is in our times. The religionists held it in reprobation; actors were looked upon by the good church people as little better than vagabonds, and the occupation of play writing was scarcely reputable. The Globe Theatre, the best there was in London at that time, was little better than a barn. The art of scene painting was unknown. Candles were the best artificial light they had, all the accessories of the stage were of the most primitive description. The art of costuming plays was crude in the extreme, and woefully inadequate and incorrect. In short, the facilities for staging plays were poor, extremely poor, as compared with those of our own time. The greatest drawback of all however was this. They had no women on the stage; all those beautiful female characters of Shakespeare's were impersonated by men. Woman had not yet a.s.serted her independence and equality with man in this domain of art; and yet under these most adverse conditions, _the greatest plays the world has ever seen were written_. Three centuries have winged their flight into the past, and in all that time no other dramatist has arisen that can rival Shakespeare. The popularity of the theatre and the actor's art have steadily grown since his time until in our own day we have the most costly and elaborate theatres. In every city, and almost every town of the civilized world, there is some sort of a theatre; many of them are truly _temples_ of the Thespian art; invention has racked its brains to supply original and costly adjuncts to the drama in the way of scenery and mechanical devices; realism has run mad in its efforts to produce novel illusions and startling stage effects. Woman has long since demonstrated her equality with man in the arena of dramatic art, and for more than two centuries she has adorned the stage with her beauty, grace and talents. There is an eager and expectant world of theatregoers waiting for some new genius to come forth and give to the stage another halo, to shed a radiance over its flickering lights, and fill the world with wonder and delight; but alas! no other Shakespeare has arisen; with the models he gave before them, in three centuries no dramatist has arisen that could write a "Hamlet," a "Macbeth," or a "Lear;" nothing in all that time to equal "Romeo and Juliet," "As You Like It," or "The Merchant of Venice."

There have been hundreds of playwrights since Shakespeare's time, thousands of plays have been written, the greater portion of them worthless to the stage, but a great number of excellent playwrights have flourished since then, and their plays have had a greater or less degree of success. We will just instance a few of the most successful ones. Otway wrote "Venice Preserved;" Ma.s.singer, "A New Way to Pay Old Debts;" Addison his "Cato," Goethe his "Faust;" Schiller "The Robbers;" Kotzebue, "The Stranger;" Bellinghousen, "Ingomar;"

Sheridan, "The School of Scandal," "Pizarro" and "The Rivals;"

Knowles, "The Hunchback," "Virginius" and "William Tell;" John Howard Payne, "Brutus;" Bulwer, "The Lady of Lyons," "Richelieu" and "Money;"

Dr. Bird, "The Gladiator;" Judge Conrad, "Jack Cade;" George F. Boker, "Francisca de Rimini." I might instance many others, but these will suffice tor my purpose. Now these are all n.o.ble productions, and have won fame and money for both authors and actors; but it is questionable if any of them will live indefinitely. Already many of the plays I have named are waning in the dramatic firmament; some of them have already set. Why is it, let us ask. What is there in Shakespeare's plays that lifts them so far above the average of merit and sets them on a plane so distinctively their own? Other authors have certainly equaled Shakespeare in erudition, have even excelled him in the description of the sublime and terrible, surpa.s.sed him in glowing pictures of supernatural imagery. Why, then, does the world attach so much importance to the work of Shakespeare? Why are they so highly prized? It is because Shakespeare was the grand High Priest of Nature!