The Footlights Fore and Aft.
by Channing Pollock.
AN INTRODUCTION
Wherein, at union rates, the author performs the common but popular musical feat known as "blowing one"s own horn."
"Good wine", according to the poet, "needs no bush." With the same logic, one may argue that a good book needs no introduction.... But then--how be sure that it _is_ a good book?
Hallowed custom provides that every volume of essays--especially of essays on the theater--shall begin with a preface in which some celebrated critic dilates upon the cleverness of the author. However, celebrated critics are expensive, and, moreover, no one else seems to know as much about the cleverness of this author as does the author himself. In consequence of which two facts, I mean to write my own introduction.
One obstacle appears to be well-nigh insurmountable. It will be easy to inform you as to my merits and my qualifications, but I don"t quite see how a man can speak patronizingly of himself. And, of course, the patronizing tone is absolutely essential to an introduction. n.o.body ever wrote an introduction without it. I shall do my best, but I hope you will be lenient with me in the event of failure.
"Of the making of books there is no end."
And, even to the most enthusiastic student of the stage, it must seem that a sufficiently large number of these books deal with the theater.
At least, they deal with the drama--which is slightly different. It is in this difference that one finds some excuse for the appearance of "The Footlights--Fore and Aft." Here are a collection of papers in which the reader finds no keen a.n.a.lysis of plays and players; no learned review of the past of the playhouse, no superior criticism of its present, no hyperbolean prophecy for its future. The book, in fact, is unique.
One might wish, indeed, that there were more substance to these essays, which reveal the impressions of a reporter rather than the excogitations of a thinker or a philosopher. Mr. Pollock severely lets alone the drama of Greece and Rome. His field is the drama of Forty-second Street and Broadway. He has rendered unto Brander Matthews the things that are Brander Matthews", and unto William Winter the things that are William Winter"s.
"The Footlights--Fore and Aft" contains nothing that might not have been set down by anyone with a sense of humor and the author"s opportunities of observation. It is true that, in his case, these opportunities have been exceptional. Born in 1880, Mr. Pollock"s contact with the theater began as early as 1896, when he became dramatic critic of the The Washington Post. Subsequently, he served in the same capacity with various newspapers and magazines, was reporter for a "trade journal" of "the profession", and acted, for a considerable period, as press agent and business manager. The practical side of play-making and play-producing he has learned in eight years" experience as a dramatist, during which time he has written ten dramatic pieces, among them "The Pit", "Clothes", "The Secret Orchard", "The Little Gray Lady", "In the Bishop"s Carriage", and "Such a Little Queen."
Considering the narrow confines of the world he describes, its comparatively small population and its rather meager language, Mr.
Pollock should not be blamed too much for a certain sameness throughout "The Footlights--Fore and Aft." There are not more than a dozen prominent managers and a score of well known playwrights in America; whoever elects to write a hundred thousand words about the theater must choose between mentioning these names repeatedly and inventing new ones. Nor is it possible to avoid the recurrence of explanations and instances. You will find something about stage lighting in "The Theater at a Glance", because it belongs there, and something more about it in "What Happens at Rehearsals", because much that follows in this account would not be clear without it. The author did not flatter himself that you would carry his first description with you through a hundred pages, and, perhaps, he didn"t want you to spoil a nice book by thumbing back.
In articles written at various times for various readers, there is no reason to suppose that he devised two phrases where one would serve or searched for two examples where one would do the work. Undoubtedly, many of these reiterations were weeded out in the course of compilation, and, as undoubtedly, many of them remain. All collections of stories by the same author--especially when they treat of one subject--are marred by similarity. The remedy for this rests with the reader, who is recommended to take such books in small doses--say, one essay every night at bedtime.
Generally speaking, the matter that follows will not be found unpalatable. At least, the author gives us no reason to suspect that he is displeased with it or with himself. "The capital I"s", as someone has said of another series of articles, "flash past like telegraph poles seen from a car window." Mr. Pollock scolds considerably, too, though, for the most part, in perfect good humor.
Indeed, whatever their faults, it must be said that these essays display some wit, and a rather delightful lightness of touch and brightness of manner. They penetrate the recesses of the topic, giving an agreeable impression of confidence, of familiarity, and of authority.
Books and plays are judged by their price and pretence. With the price of this book neither the author nor the prefacer has anything to do.
It pretends to very little, and, judged by that standard, it may be acquitted.
CHANNING POLLOCK.
The Parsonage, Sh.o.r.eham, L. I., August 25, 1911.
THE FOOTLIGHTS FORE AND AFT
I
THE THEATER AT A GLANCE
Being a correspondence school education in the business of the playhouse that should enable the veriest tyro to become a Charles Frohman or a David Belasco.
A man who pa.s.sed as the possessor of reasonable intelligence--he "traveled for" a concern that manufactured canning machinery, and his knowledge of tins was something beautiful--once said to me: "Are plays written before they"re produced?"
"No," I replied, indulging myself in a little sarcasm; "they"re put up in packages and sold at the delicatessen shops. Comedies cost twenty cents a box and dramas from twenty-five cents to half a dollar. It would be a great field for you, old chap, if you could induce a fellow like Augustus Thomas to pack his plays in cans."
Even my friend the "drummer" saw through that. I"m afraid my wit lacks subtlety. Still, two or three other people of my acquaintance would have been a bit uncertain whether to take me seriously or not. Most laymen, though they wouldn"t believe in the package explanation, cherish a vague idea that theatrical presentations are miracles brought into being by the tap of the orchestra conductor"s wand.
Managers are quite willing to foster this opinion, agreeing with the late f.a.n.n.y Davenport, who felt that the charm of the playhouse lay in its mystery, and that to elucidate would result in loss of patronage.
In this verdict it is impossible for me to concur. I learn something new about the theater every day, and the more I learn the more I love it. You can"t interest me in a thing of which I am ignorant--at least, not unless you start to clear up my ignorance.
Henry Arthur Jones, writing about "The Renascence of the English Drama," observes: "I wish every playgoer could know all the tricks and illusions of the stage from beginning to end. I wish that he could be as learned in all the devices and scenic effects of the stage as the master carpenter.... Compare the noisy, ill-judged, misplaced applause of provincial audiences with the eager, unerring enthusiasm and appreciation of the audience at a professional matinee, where, so far as the acting goes, everyone knows the precise means by which an effect is produced, and, therefore, knows the precise reward it should receive." That"s warrant enough for me.
The theater is an extremely curious blending of art and business. Its art is lodged back of the curtain line and its business in front of the footlights. Between these two boundaries the manager stands when he is directing rehearsals, and, since his work is a mixture of both things, that four feet of cement const.i.tutes a sort of intellectual no-man"s-land. The people of the stage and the people in "the front of the house" have little in common, that little being chiefly a mutual feeling of contempt for each other.
You know the recipe for cooking a rabbit--"first catch your rabbit."
The same recommendation applies in the matter of producing a play.
Good plays are the one thing in the world, except money, the demand for which exceeds the supply. Consequently, dramatic works cost a trifle more than "twenty cents a box." Most managers think they cost altogether too much, but there never has been advanced a completely satisfactory reason why an illiterate little comedian should be paid more for appearing in a piece that makes him a success than the author should be paid for providing a piece that all the illiterate little comedians on earth couldn"t make a success if the vehicle itself weren"t attractive.... Kyrle Bellew in "The Thief" drew $10,000 a week; Kyrle Bellew in "The Scandal" didn"t draw $4,000; that"s the answer.
If you were a manager and wanted a play by a well-known author you would go to his agent--Elisabeth Marbury or Alice Kauser--and ask if he had time to write it. Should his reply be in the affirmative, you probably would pay him $250 for attaching his name to a contract stipulating that the ma.n.u.script must be delivered on such and such a date. Before that time, he would send you a scenario, or brief synopsis, of his story. If you accepted that, you would give the author another $250; if you rejected it, all would be over between you. The acceptance of the completed ""script" would be likely to cost you an additional $500, and the whole $1,000 would be placed to your credit and deducted from the first royalties accruing to the dramatist.
[Ill.u.s.tration: "_First catch your play_"]
Authors" royalties usually are on "a sliding scale." Such a one as we have in mind might get 5 per cent. of the first $4,000 that came into the box office; 7 per cent. of the next $3,000, and 10 per cent. of all in excess of that total. Thus, the playwright"s income from a production that "did $8,000" a week would be $510. The agent would take 10 per cent. of this sum. Some dramatists receive better terms than these and some get worse; I have given the average. It is possible for an author to profit by such a property as "The Lion and the Mouse," which has been acted pretty constantly by two or more companies, to the extent of a quarter of a million dollars.
Occasionally, a shrewd manager and an author without experience or self-confidence make a deal by which a play is sold outright. This is an unpleasant subject.
"How does the dramatist know the receipts of his play?" you ask. From a copy of the statement by which the manager knows. Did you ever hear of the operation called "counting up?" About an hour after the performance begins, the affable young man who takes your money through the box office window counts the tickets he has left, and subtracts the number of each kind from that which he had originally. The result is the number sold. That number is written on a report handed to the manager of the company appearing in the theater by which the young man is employed. He and the young man then count the sold tickets taken from the boxes into which you see them slipped when you give them to the official at the door. That result should be precisely the figure on the report. If it is greater the young man pays for the difference; if it is less nothing is said, since some people who bought tickets may have remained away. The statement of what has been disposed of, at what price, and with what total, is then signed jointly by the representative of the house and the representative of the company.
Each keeps a copy of this statement and an additional copy is sent to the agent of the author. The transaction seems simple, but, if you will think the matter over, you will see that it is a nearly perfect method of preventing dishonesty.
The contract made between manager and author ordinarily provides that a play must be performed before a given date and so many times a year thereafter, in default of which all rights revert to the dramatist.
One of the first requisites of a production now-a-days is scenery.
Consequently, supposing still that you are the manager, you turn over your ma.n.u.script, act by act, to a scene painter, or to a number of scene painters, expressing your ideas on the subject, if you have any.
The scene painter reads the play, formulates some ideas of his own, familiarizes himself with the time and place treated, and makes a model of each setting. The model is a miniature, usually on the scale of an inch to a foot, and it incorporates the necessaries described by the author with the luxuries imagined by the manager. Moreover, it is as accurate and beautiful as skill can make it. If the producer approves of the model a bargain is struck, a builder constructs the frame work which is to hold the scenery, the painter covers the canvas, and, for a while, at least, the matter of settings is off your mind. The setting of an act may cost $500 and it may cost $5,000.
Generally, it comes to about $1,000.
In a play of modern life the actors are supposed to furnish their own costumes. Sometimes, when the dresses are to be exceptionally elaborate, this rule is varied. Should your property be a romantic drama or a comic opera, however, you have a conference with a costumer. The great producers, like the Shuberts and Klaw and Erlanger, maintain their own establishments, but this hardly will apply in your case. Now you will see costume plates instead of scene models--little paintings on card-board that frequently are exhibited in front of the theater in which the piece is running. These once pa.s.sed upon, the contract for making the clothes will be let.
Naturally, the cost is governed by the number of persons to be clad and by the nature of their garb. The gowns worn by one woman in the production of a Clyde Fitch society comedy came to $3,100. The costumes for a comic opera may foot up $20,000, irrespective of tights, stockings, slippers and gloves, which princ.i.p.als and chorus girls are obliged to find.
Engaging a company is a simple matter in comparison to what it used to be. A few years ago you would have been compelled to choose from thousands of applicants and to make personal visits to an actors"
agency--say, Mrs. Packard"s or Mrs. Fernandez". Now metropolitan casts are composed chiefly of well known people. You have seen these people often, you know what they can do, you select them with an eye to round pegs and square holes, and you write to them or their representatives. In a week your cast is ready. Salaries range from $400 a week, paid to a popular leading man or woman, to $20 a week, the stipend of a player of bits. Chorus girls usually get $18, though especially handsome "show girls" are worth as much as $60. Your star probably insists on having from $300 to $500, and a percentage of the profits.
A stage manager is the man who does the thinking for actors. He directs rehearsals, devises "business" and effects, and often has a great deal more to do with the play than the author himself. Any author will tell you that this was true in the case of a failure; any stage manager will tell you it was true in the case of a success. In all seriousness, a stage manager is a mighty important individual. If actors roamed about at will in a play, as most laymen suppose they do, you couldn"t tell a first night performance from a foot-ball game.
Every actor in a piece knows just where he must stand when a certain line is spoken, and when, how, where and in what manner he must move to get in position for the next line. Smooth premieres are not accidents; they are designs. Sometimes, as in the case of David Belasco, producers are their own stage managers. Frequently, as with Charles Klein, authors stage their own plays. Almost always they have something to do with it.
[Ill.u.s.tration: "_If actors roamed about at will you couldn"t tell a first night performance from a football game_"]
The chorus of a musical comedy or a comic opera rehea.r.s.es apart from the princ.i.p.als, and begins earlier. Putting on a piece like this is more difficult than putting on a legitimate comedy or a drama, and such a director as Julian Mitch.e.l.l or R. H. Burnside may be paid $15,000 a year. The production of a "straight play" often is piece work, bringing about $500 for each piece. Costumes, scenery and properties are unknown until the last rehearsal. Two chairs represent a door or a sofa or a balcony in the minds of everyone concerned.