novelist—dramatist—scene-painter—an amateur scenic artist—weedon grossmith to the rescue—mrs. tree’s children—mr. grossmith’s start on the stage—a romantic marriage—how a scene is built up—english and american theatres compared—choosing a play—theatrical syndicate—three hundred and fifteen plays at the haymarket.

a novelist describes the surroundings of his story. he paints in words, houses, gardens, dresses, anything and everything to heighten the picture and show up his characters in a suitable frame.

the dramatist cannot do this verbally; but he does it in fact. he definitely decides the style of scene necessary for each act, and draws out elaborate plans to achieve that end. it is the author who interviews the scene-painter, talks matters over with the costume-artist, the dressmaker, and the upholsterer. it is the author who generally chooses the cretonnes and the wall-papers—that is to say, the more important authors invariably do. mr. pinero, mr. w. s. gilbert, and captain robert marshall design their own scenes to the minutest detail, but then all three of them are capable artists and draughtsmen themselves.

scene-painting seems easy until one knows something[pg 264] about its difficulties. to speak of a small personal experience—when we got up those theatricals in harley street, mentioned in a previous chapter, my father told me i must paint the scenery, to which i gaily agreed. having an oil painting on exhibition at the women artists’, i felt i could paint scenery without any difficulty.

first of all i bought yards and yards of thick canvas, a sort of sacking. it refused to be joined together by machine, and broke endless needles when the seams were sewn by hand. it appeared to me at the time as if oakum-picking could not blister fingers more severely. after all my trouble, when finished and stretched along a wall in the store-room in the basement, with the sky part doubled over the ceiling (as the little room was not high enough to manage it otherwise), the surface was so rough that paint refused to lie upon it.

i had purchased endless packets of blue and chrome, vermilion and sienna, umber and sap-green; but somehow the result was awful, and the only promising thing was the design in black chalk made from a sketch taken on hampstead heath. sticks of charcoal broke and refused to draw; but common black chalk at last succeeded. i struggled bravely, but the paint resolutely refused to adhere to the canvas, and stuck instead to every part of my person.

photo by hall, new york.

mr. weedon grossmith.

at last some wiseacre suggested whitewashing the canvas, and, after sundry boilings of smelly size, the coachman and i made pails of whitewash and proceeded to get a groundwork. alas! the brushes when full [pg 265]of the mixture proved too heavy for me to lift, and the unfortunate coachman had to do most of that monotonous field of white.

so far so good. now came “the part,” as the gallant jehu was pleased to call it.

it took a long time to get into the way of painting it at all. the window had to be shut, the solitary gas-jet lighted, endless lamps unearthed to give more illumination while i struggled with smelling pots.

oh, the mess! the floor was bespattered, and the paint being mixed with size, those spots remain as indelible as rizzio’s blood at holyrood. then the paint-smeared sky—my sky—left marks on the ceiling—my father’s ceiling—and my own dress was spoilt. then up rose mother in indignation, and promptly produced an old white garment—which shall be nameless, although it was decorated with little frills—and this i donned as a sort of overall. with arms aching from heavy brushes, and feet tired from standing on a ladder, with a nose well daubed with yellow paint, on, on i worked.

in the midst of my labours “mr. grossmith” was suddenly announced, and there below me stood weedon grossmith convulsed with laughter. at that time he was an artist and had pictures “on the line” at the royal academy. his studio was a few doors from us in harley street.

“don’t laugh, you horrid man,” i exclaimed; “just come and help.”

he took a little gentle persuading, but finally gave in, and being provided with another white garment[pg 266] he began to assist, and he and i finally finished that wondrous scene-painting together.

after a long vista of years mrs. beerbohm tree—who, it will be remembered, also acted with us in harley street—and weedon grossmith—who helped me paint the scenery for our little performance—were playing the two leading parts together at drury lane in cecil raleigh’s flood tide.

the two little daughters of the trees, aged six and eight respectively, were taken by their father one afternoon to see their mother play at the lane. they sat with him in a box, and enjoyed the performance immensely.

“well, do you like it better than richard ii.?” asked tree.

there was a pause. each small maiden looked at the other, ere replying:

“it isn’t quite the same, but we like it just as much.”

when they reached home they were asked by a friend which of the two plays they really liked best.

“oh, mother’s,” for naturally the melodrama had appealed to their juvenile minds, “but we did not like to tell father so, because we thought it might hurt his feelings.”

the part that delighted them most at drury lane was the descent of the rain, that wonderful rain which had caused so much excitement, and which was composed of four tons of rice and spangles thrown from above, and verily gave the effect of a shower of water.

[pg 267]

but to return to weedon grossmith. whether he found art didn’t pay at the studio in harley street, or whether he was asked to paint more ugly old ladies than pretty young ones, i do not know; but he gave up the house, and went off to america for a trip. so he said at the time, but the trip meant that he had accepted an engagement on the stage. he made an instantaneous hit. when he returned to england, sure of his position, as he thought, he found instead that he had a very rough time of it, and it was not until he played with sir henry irving in robert macaire that he made a london success. later he “struck oil” in arthur law’s play, the new boy under his own management.

round the the new boy circled a romance. miss may palfrey, who had been at school with me, was the daughter of an eminent physician who formerly lived in brook street. she had gone upon the stage after her father’s death, and was engaged to play the girl’s part. the “engagement” begun in the theatre ended, as in the case of forbes robertson, in matrimony, and the day after the new boy went out, the new girl entered weedon grossmith’s home as his wife.

success has followed success, and they now live in a delightful house in bedford square, surrounded by quaint old furniture, adams’ mantelpieces, overmantels, and all the artistic things the actor appreciates. a dear little girl adds brightness to the home life of mr. and mrs. weedon grossmith.

artist, author, actor, manager, are all terms that may[pg 268] be applied to weedon grossmith, but might not scene-painter be added after his invaluable aid in the harley street store-room with paints and size?

so much for the amateur side of the business: now for the real.

the first thing a scenic artist does is to make a complete sketch of a scene. this, when approved, he has “built up” as a little model, a miniature theatre, in fact, such as children love to play with. it is usually about three feet square, exactly like a box, and every part is designed to scale with a perfection of detail rarely observed outside an architect’s office.

one of the most historic painting-rooms was that of sir henry irving at the lyceum, for there some of the most elaborate stage settings ever produced were constructed, inspired by the able hand of mr. hawes craven.

a scene-painter’s workshop is a large affair. it is very high, and below the floor is another chamber equally lofty, for the “flats,” or large canvases, have to be screwed up or down for the artist to be able to get at his work. they cannot be rolled wet, so the entire “flat” has to ascend or descend at will.

to make the matter clear, a scene on the stage, such as a house or a bridge, is known as a “carpenter’s scene.” the large canvases at the back are called “flats,” or “painters’ cloths.” “wings” are unknown to most people, but really mean the side-pieces of the scene which protrude on the stage. the “borders” are the bits of sky or ceiling which hang[pg 269] suspended from above, and a “valarium” is a whole roof as used in classical productions.

a scene-painter’s palette is a strange affair; it is like a large wooden tray fixed to a table, and that table is on wheels; along one side of the tray are divisions like stalls in a stable, each division containing the different coloured paints, while in front is a flat piece on which the powders can be mixed. the thing that strikes one most is the amount of exercise the scenic artist takes. he is constantly stepping back to look at what he has done, for he copies on a large scale the minute sketch he has previously worked out in detail. assistants generally begin the work and lay the paint on; but all the finishing touches are done by the master, who superintends the whole thing being properly worked out from his model.

the most elaborate scenery in the world is to be found in london, and sir henry irving, as mentioned before, was the first to study detail and effect so closely. even in america, where many things are so extravagant, the stage settings are quite poor compared with those of london.

theatres in england and america differ in many ways. the only thing i found cheaper in the united states than at home was a theatre stall, which in new york cost eight shillings instead of ten and sixpence. they are also ahead of us inasmuch as they book their cheaper seats, which must be an enormous advantage to those unfortunate people who can always be seen—especially on first nights—wet or fine, hot or cold, standing in rows outside a london pit door.

[pg 270]

there is no comparison between the gaiety of the scene of a london theatre and that of new york. long may our present style last. in london every man wears evening dress in the boxes, stalls, and generally in the dress circle, and practically every woman is in evening costume, at all events without her hat. those who do not care to dress, wisely go to the cheaper seats. this is not so across the atlantic. it is quite the exception for the male sex to wear dress clothes; they even accompany ladies to the stalls in tweeds, probably the same tweeds they have worn all day at their office “down town,” and it is not the fashion for women to wear evening dress either. what we should call a garden-party gown is de rigueur, although a lace neck and sleeves are gradually creeping into fashion. little toques are much worn, but if the hat be big, it is at once taken off and disposed of in the owner’s lap. being an american she is accustomed to nursing her hat by the hour, and does not seem to mind the extra discomfort, in spite of fan, opera-glass, and other etceteras.

the result of all this is that the auditorium is in no way so smart as that of a london theatre. the origin of the simplicity of costume in the states of course lies in the fact that fewer people in proportion have private carriages, cabs are a prohibitive price, and every one travels in a five cents (2?d.) car. the car system is wonderful, if a little agitating at first to a stranger, as the numbers of the streets—for they rarely have names in new york—are not always so distinctly marked as they[pg 271] might be. it is far more comfortable, however, to get into one’s carriage, a hansom, or even a dear old ramshackle shilling “growler” at one’s own door, than to have to walk to the nearest car “stop” and find a succession of electric trams full when you arrive there, especially if the night happens to be wet. the journey is cheap enough when one does get inside, but payment of five cents does not necessarily ensure a seat, so the greater part of one’s life in new york is spent hanging on to the strap of a street car.

“look lively,” shouts the conductor, almost before one has time to look at all, and either life has to be risked, or the traveller gets left behind altogether.

not only travelling in cars, but many things in the states cost twopence halfpenny. it seems a sort of tariff, that five cents, or nickle, as it is called. one has to pay five cents for a morning or evening paper, five cents to get one’s boots blacked, and even in the hotels they only allow a darkie to perform that operation as a sort of favour.

it is a universal custom in the states to eat candies during a performance at the theatre, but when do americans refrain from eating candies—one dare not say “chewing-gum,” for we are told that no self-respecting american ever chews gum nowadays!

the theatres i visited in new york, chicago, philadelphia, new orleans, and even in far-away san antonio, texas, were all comfortable, well warmed, well ventilated, and excellently managed, but the audience were certainly not so smart as our own,[pg 272] not even at the opera house at new york, where the performers are the same as in london, and the whole thing excellently done, and where it is the fashion to wear evening dress in the boxes. even there one misses the beauty of our aristocracy, and the glitter of their tiaras.

choosing a play is no easy matter. hundreds of things have to be considered. will it please the public? will it suit the company? if miss so-and-so be on a yearly engagement and there is no part for her, can the theatre afford out of the weekly profits of the house to pay her a large salary merely as an understudy? what will the piece cost to mount? what will the dramatist expect to be paid? this latter amount varies as greatly as the royalties paid to authors on books.

as nearly every manager has a literary adviser behind his back, so almost every actor-manager has a syndicate in the background. theatrical syndicates are strange institutions. they have only come into vogue since 1880, and are taken up by commercial gentlemen as a speculation. when gambling ceases to attract on the stock exchange, the theatre is an exciting outlet.

the actor-manager consequently is not the “sole lessee” in the sense of being the only responsible person. he generally has two or three backers, men possessed of large incomes who are glad to risk a few thousand pounds for the pleasure of a stall on a first night, or an occasional theatrical supper. sometimes the syndicate does extremely well: at others[pg 273] ill; but that does not matter—the rich man has had his fun, the actor his work, the critic his sneer, and so the matter ends.

the actor-manager draws his salary like any other member of the company; but should the play prove a success his profits vary according to arrangement.

if, on the other hand, the venture turn out a failure, in the case of the few legitimate actor-managers—if one may use the term—he loses all the outgoing expenses. few men can stand that. ten thousand pounds have been lost through a bad first night, for although some condemned plays have worked their way to success, or, at least, paid their expenses, that is the exception and by no means the rule.

many affirm there should be no actor-managers: the responsibility is too great; but then no man is sure of getting the part he likes unless he manages to secure it for himself.

every well-known manager receives two or three hundred plays per annum. cyril maude told me that three hundred and fifteen dramas were left at the haymarket theatre in 1903, and that he and frederick harrison had actually read, or anyway looked through, every one of them. they enter each in a book, and put comments against them.

“the good writing is harrison’s,” he remarked, “and the bad scribble mine”; but that was so like mr. maude’s modesty.

after that it can hardly be said there is any lack of ambition in england to write for the stage. the extraordinary thing is that only about three per cent.[pg 274] of these comedies, tragedies, burlesques, or farces are worth even a second thought. many are written without the smallest conception of the requirements of the theatre, while some are indescribably bad, not worth the paper and ink wasted on their production.

it may readily be understood that every manager cannot himself read all the mss. sent him for consideration, neither is the actor-manager able to see himself neatly fitted by the parts written “especially for him.” under these circumstances it has become necessary of late years at some theatres to employ a literary adviser, as mentioned on the former page. all publishing-houses have their literary advisers, and woe betide the man who condemns a book which afterwards achieves a great success, or accepts one that proves a dismal failure! so likewise the play reader.

baskets full of dramatic efforts are emptied by degrees, and the few promising productions they contain are duly handed over to the manager for his final opinion.

in spite of the enormous number of plays submitted yearly, every manager complains of the dearth of suitable ones.