month we talked over Sothern’s play without a single idea. At this time
[1887-’88] pistol cigarette-holders came into fashion. I bought one in
the village [near Echo Lake] to amuse the De Mille children, but forgot
to take it out of my hip pocket. The next day as De Mille and I were out
walking in the snow I leaned against a tree, drew the toy pistol from my
pocket, and called out: ’Stand and deliver,’ and in a flash the foolish
situation gave us the first idea for what was afterward called
’Chumley.’ We used this serio-comic situation in our Second Act, where
_Chumley_ holds a real thief at bay with his cigarette-case.” That, no
doubt, is a correct account of the “first idea”; others came from
Belasco’s ample store of recollections. _Chumley_, as a character, is a
remote variant of the elder Sothern’s _Dundreary_, superimposed on H. J.
Byron’s _Sir Simon Simple_, in “Not Such a Fool as He Looks,”--which
was written for Charles Mathews. In the development of the plot in
which he is implicated and the treatment of the character there is much
reminiscence--touches of _John Mildmay_, in his scene with _Captain
Hawksley_, in “Still Waters Run Deep”; of _Harry Jasper_, in “A Bachelor
of Arts”; of _Sir Bashful Constant_, _Arthur Chilton_, _Mr. Toots_, and,
in particular, _Eliott Gray_, in his scene with _Myles McKenna_, in
“Rosedale.” All the situations indicated have long been used as common
property. The merit of the play consists in the effectiveness with which
those situations are employed and in the bright, fluent, and generally
telling dialogue with which they are interfused. _Chumley_ is an
extremely long part. Sothern’s performance was exceptionally good, and
it was received by public and press with copious approbation. The
success of the play was unequivocal: it held the stage till November 11.
On November 13 Pinero’s “Sweet Lavender” succeeded it, but with the
production of that excellent drama at the Lyceum Belasco had,
practically, nothing to do: “Sweet Lavender” was sent to New York from
London and was “put on” in exact accordance with the prompt-copy as
prepared by the author when making Edward Terry’s presentment of it.
This was the original cast of “Lord Chumley,” at the Lyceum:
_Adam Butterworth_ C. B. Bishop.
_Lieut. Hugh Butterworth_ Frank Carlyle.
_Gasper Le Sage_ Herbert Archer.
_Tommy Tucker_ Rowland Buckstone.
_Blink Bank_ George Backus.
_Winterbottom_ A. W. Gregory.
_Eleanor_ Belle Archer.
_Jessie Deane_ Dora Leslie.
_Lady Alexander Barker_ Fannie Addison.
_Meg_ Etta Hawkins.
_Miranda_ Rosa Stark.
_Lord George Cholmondeley_ (_known as “Chumley”_) E. H. Sothern.
“THE KAFFIR DIAMOND.”
In the period from August 21, 1888, to November 19, 1889, Belasco’s
labors were many and various. As soon as “Lord Chumley” had been
produced, and while yet he was engaged, as customary with him, in
smoothing and improving that new venture, he began work, for Louis
Aldrich, on revision of a play by Edward J. Swartz, called “The Kaffir
Diamond,” which had been written for Aldrich, as a starring vehicle.
That play is a wild and whirling kaleidoscopic melodrama, devised for
the pleasure of those theatre-goers who seek entertainment in
extravagant situations and violent, tumultuous actions,--a play of the
class typified by “The Gambler’s Fate; or, The Doomed House,” “The
Lonely Man of the Ocean,” “The King of the Opium Ring,” etc.,--and
Belasco’s work on it must have caused him to remember, perhaps with
amusement, his fabrication of many similar “shockers,” in his early San
Francisco and Virginia City days. The central character of “The Kaffir
Diamond,” a person named _Shoulders_, is a misanthropical drunkard, made
so by suffering, who inhabits a miasmatic swamp, in Africa, subsisting
largely on liquor and the hope of revenge. This person believes himself
to have been robbed, in days of prosperity, of wife and daughter, by a
_Colonel_ in the British Army, and, in seeking for revenge, he nearly
effects the ruin of a woman who proves to be his long-lost daughter, and
he succeeds in confining the detested _Colonel_ in the poisonous swamp,
where he intends that he shall miserably perish, only to discover that,
instead of being his wronger, that gallant soldier is his best friend.
Blended with this plot, or, rather, tangled into it, is a
double-barrelled love story, the theft of a diamond of priceless worth,
and a medley of incidents incorporative of brawling, lynching, and
miscellaneous riot. Aldrich, as _Shoulders_, personated in a
surprisingly simple manner the wretched victim of weak character, strong
drink, misfortune, and mistaken enmity, giving a performance which,
while devoid of imaginative quality, was nevertheless effective, because
of the innate sturdy manliness of the actor and of his artistically
rough evincement of strong emotion blended with human weakness. This was
the cast:
_Shoulders_ Louis Aldrich.
_Robert Douglas_ M. J. Jordan.
_Downey Dick_ Joseph A. Wilkes.
_Bye-Bye_ Johnny Booker.
_Col. Richard Grantley_ Fraser Coulter.
_Walter Douglas_ Charles Mackay.
_Sergt. Tim Meehan_ Charles Bowser.
_Millicent Douglas_ Dora Goldthwaite.
_Alice Rodney_ Isabelle Evesson.
_Sanderson_ J. H. Hutchinson.
_Orderly_ William McCloy.
_Courier_ M. C. Williams.
_Mme. Biff_ Adele Palma.
Belasco participated in the work of placing “The Kaffir Diamond” on the
stage, receiving a payment of $300, and on September 11, 1888, it was
acted, in a handsome setting, at the Broadway Theatre, New York, but it
was unsuccessful and it lasted only till October 13.
LOUIS ALDRICH.
Louis Aldrich (1843-1901) was a good actor. He was a Hebrew, a native of
Ohio, and his true name was Lyon. In childhood he was known on the
stage as Master Moses, and also as Master McCarthy. His first appearance
was made, September, 1855, at Cleveland, Ohio, as _Glo’ster_, in scenes
from “King Richard III.” He performed with the Marsh Juvenile Comedians,
beginning in 1858, for about five years. His last professional
appearance occurred, March 25, 1899, at the New York Academy of Music,
as _Colonel Swift_, in Anson Pond’s play of “Her Atonement.” His most
striking performance was that of _Joe Saunders_, in Bartley Campbell’s
“My Partner,” first produced at the Union Square Theatre, New York,
September 16, 1879. Belasco, long afterward (1900-’01), arranged to have
Aldrich star in that play, under his management, but the ill-health of
the actor compelled abandonment of the plan. The death of Aldrich,
caused by apoplexy, occurred at Kennebunkport, Maine, June 17, 1901.
THE SCHOOL OF ACTING.
During most of the time of his association with the Lyceum Theatre
(1886-1890) Belasco incidentally labored as an instructor in the School
of Acting, founded by Steele Mackaye, and conducted in connection with
that theatre, and he achieved some excellent results. Being a teacher,
his view of the importance of the school is, I believe, somewhat
exaggerated, and also he mistakenly supposes, or seems to suppose, that
all instructors can be as successful in their histrionic tuition as he
has frequently been. His recollections of this part of his activity,
when associated with the Lyceum Theatre School, have been interestingly
written by himself, as follows:
“During the early days of my association with Mr. Frohman at the
Lyceum Theatre much of my time was occupied with my duties in
connection with Franklin Sargent’s Dramatic School. Mr. Sargent had
leased the classroom, hall and stage, which Steele Mackaye had
designed when the Lyceum Theatre was built. I am very proud to give
the names of some of the pupils who made up my classes: Alice
Fischer, Blanche Walsh, Charles Bellows, Maude Banks, George
Fawcett, Harriet Ford, Emma Sheridan, Dorothy Dorr, Wilfred
Buckland, George Foster Platt, Jennie Eustace, Grace Kimball, Cora
Maynard, William Ordway Partridge, Robert Taber, Lincoln Wagnalls,
E. Wales Winter, White Whittlesey, and Edith Chapman. _This list
stands as a refutation of the statement that the school of acting
is not of benefit in preparing for the stage_....
“A graphic picture of Robert Taber’s successful and almost
superhuman effort to overcome his physical disadvantages will
remain with me always. One day, as I sat in my studio, he limped
in--pale, delicate--almost an invalid in appearance. An illness in
childhood had left him with a shortened leg, so that he was
obliged to wear a shoe with a sole at least two inches thick. After
introducing himself, he told me of his ambition. ’Do you think I
can possibly become an actor with these?’ he asked, pointing to his
bent knee and drooping shoulder. The tragic pathos in his face
aroused my sympathy and I asked him to read to me. All his
selections were from the old classics, which he loved,--like many
another youth I have met, with the spell of the stage upon him. So
he read to me scenes from ’King Richard III,’ ’Julius Cæsar,’ and
’Romeo and Juliet.’ His reading was distinct, his interpretations
spirited. A flash of genius ran through the fibre of the boy; there
was strength and impressiveness in his delivery. He was thoroughly
exhausted when he had finished, and I was in a quandary. ’Surely I
can’t lengthen his leg,’ I thought; ’yet he wants to play juvenile
leads; he wants to play _Romeo_!’ I saw at once that Robert Taber
was not fitted to be a pantaloon actor, a parlor figure, for there
was a flourish and breadth to his style of delivery that dedicated
him to the costume play.
“He must have seen the perplexity in my face, for he said: ’Mr.
Belasco, I can raise $20,000, which you can have if you will help
me. You have assisted stammerers!’ I couldn’t tell him that a limp
was a different matter. Nevertheless, I resolved to see what I
could do for him. ’I’ll not take a cent of your money,’ I said,
’but if you will do as I tell you, we’ll see what can be done.’ He
agreed and there followed a regular campaign against a limp. It was
my idea to eliminate the defect through exercises. He worked
faithfully. He walked, he lay on his back, practising stretching
exercises; he studied the balancing of his body, throwing the
weight so that his short leg could be brought down slowly to the
floor, without any perceptible stooping of the shoulders. I had a
shoe made, with a deep inner sole, to take the place of the
unsightly shoe he wore when he first called upon me. After a year
of daily work, when he was ready to enter the school of acting, his
limp was so slight that it was barely perceptible! When he became
leading man for Julia Marlowe, whom he afterwards married, who
could have detected his deformity? His is a most remarkable
instance, and I have often recalled it. For it is an example of
what ambition and perseverance can accomplish, but few artists
would be willing to practise the self-denial and go through such
rigorous training.” [Robert Taber was born in Staten Island, New
York, in 1865, and he died, of consumption, in the Adirondacks, in
1904.--W. W.]
THE TRUE SCHOOL IS THE STAGE.
Observation has convinced me that, while the accomplishments of
elocution, dancing, fencing, deportment, and the art of making up the
face (all of which are highly useful on the stage) can be, and are, well
taught in some Schools of Acting, the one true, thoroughly efficient
school, the _only_ one in which the art actually can be acquired, is the
Stage itself. A master of stage direction, as Belasco is, can direct
novices in rehearsals, and, _if they possess natural histrionic
capability_, can, in that way, materially help to prepare them for the
Stage; but they cannot, in that way, be taught to act. An indispensable
part of any dramatic performance is an audience: without it, a novice
cannot learn to act, nor will it suffice to have an occasional audience.
The decisive ground for objection to the Schools of Acting, moreover, is
that, practically without exception, they are merely commercial
enterprises: they accept, regardless of aptitude, every student who
applies, because they want the fees. Belasco names nineteen pupils who
studied under him, some of whom have become proficient actors. No doubt
others could be named. What then? Belasco is a highly exceptional
instance of an accomplished, enthusiastic, practical instructor,
possessing the exceedingly rare faculty of communicating knowledge.
“I’ll not take a cent of your money,” he told Taber. How many other
instructors in acting are as scrupulous? Belasco applied the method of
actual stage management to the instruction of the stage beginners, and,
in some instances, with good effect; but it is to be remembered that
every one of his pupils who has since succeeded as an actor (and not by
any means all of them have) would have succeeded as well, or better, if
employed in the first place in minor capacities in actual companies; and
that against the number of graduates from Schools of Acting who have
been successful in the Theatre should be set the much larger number of
graduates--never mentioned--who, having studied in those schools, paid
for tuition and expended time, have never been able to act or even to
earn a dollar in the Theatre.
A REVIVAL OF “ELECTRA.”
After producing “The Kaffir Diamond,” and during the run of “Sweet
Lavender,” Belasco devoted himself assiduously to The Academy of
Dramatic Art (that being the correct name of the institution, which,
earlier, had been called The New York School of Acting), where, in
association with Franklin H. Sargent, who was the official head of the
school, and De Mille, he prepared an English version of the “Electra” of
Sophocles. This was presented at the Lyceum Theatre, on March 11, 1889,
by students of the Academy, and it was received with favor.
Writing about this production, Belasco says:
“The pupils of the Sargent School entered with great enthusiasm
into the preparations for our school productions, and we have had
many notable successes. I believe I am safe in saying that one of
these, the ’Electra’ of Sophocles, was the most remarkable
exhibition of amateur art ever seen in this country. It was so
accurate, so scholarly, so classical in every respect, that we were
invited to present it before the students of Harvard University, as
an illustration of the beauty and strength of ancient dramatic
literature. The faculty and students were enthusiastic in its
praise, and we felt highly honored that such distinction had been
conferred upon us. I understood then that it was the first time in
the history of Harvard that an amateur company had been transferred
from another city.”
On the occasion of that amateurs’ performance of “Electra” at the Lyceum
the stage was divided into two sections, the rear portion being higher
than that in front, and the latter being built out into the auditorium
in somewhat the manner of the “apron” of the old-time theatres. This
lower platform, in the centre of which stood an altar with a fire on it,
was reserved for the _Chorus_. The persons represented in the tragedy
stood or moved upon the elevated rear portion of the stage, which showed
the entrance to a Grecian house, with a view of countryside visible to
the left and to the right. Footlights were not employed, the higher
level of the stage being suffused with strong, white light which clearly
revealed the characters thereon depicted, while the _Chorus_ was kept in
Rembrandt-like shadow. That _Chorus_ comprised nine young women, in
classic Grecian array, who declaimed and sang commentary upon, and
advice to, the persons of the play proper. It should be noted in passing
that,--without extravagance and affectation,--all
[Illustration:
Photograph by Byron. Belasco’s Collection.
A scene from the “Electra” of Sophocles, as produced by Belasco, at the
old Lyceum Theatre, New York]
the much admired and highly extolled “modern novelties” of simplicity in
stage settings and lighting displayed by Mr. Granville Barker, at
Wallack’s Theatre, in 1915, were used by Belasco, in presenting
“Electra,”--twenty-eight years earlier! The principal parts in the Greek
tragedy were thus cast:
_Electra_ Grace Hamilton.
_Clytemnestra_ Edith A. Chapman.
_Ægisthus_ Percy West.
_Orestes_ White Whittlesey.
MANY NEW TASKS.
Concurrent with his work in connection with the amateur presentment of
the Greek tragedy Belasco had also prepared for Daniel Frohman’s stage a
revival of Sardou’s “Ferréol,” produced at the Union Square Theatre,
March 21, 1876. Under the name of “The Marquis,” and under Belasco’s
stage direction, it was acted at the Lyceum Theatre, by the stock
company of that house, on March 18, 1889, but it proved a failure. It
was withdrawn after one week, and on March 29 a revival was effected
there of “The Wife,”--with the original cast, except that Louise Dillon
succeeded Vida Croly as _Agnes_. “The Wife” ran till May 18, when the
Lyceum closed for the season. Belasco, however, did not finish his work
with the revival of that play. Mr. Gillette had made a drama of the
novel of “Robert Elsmere,” by Mrs. Humphry Ward, and, gratified by the
assistance Belasco had rendered in the vivification of “She,” he secured
his services, with consent of the Lyceum management, as stage manager,
to set that drama on the stage. This was accomplished, April 29, at the
Union Square Theatre.
With the close of the season of 1888-’89 at the Lyceum, in May, Belasco
found himself once more commissioned, in association with De Mille, to
write a new play with which to open that theatre, the following season,
and thus again under the painful necessity of producing a work of
dramatic art not as a matter of artistic expression but under compulsion
of necessity. This task seemed very formidable. He had worked hard. His
health was impaired. His spirits were low. His physician had ordered
that he should take a long rest. It is a good prescription, and
doubtless, in most cases, it is the best that can be given; but few of
the weary workers of the world can take advantage of it, and no workers
are more strictly bound to incessant routine duty than those who wield
the pen in service of the Theatre. In these unfavorable circumstances
Belasco again repaired to the peaceful seclusion of De Mille’s home at
Echo Lake, and there the two dramatists once more sought to strike a
spark of inspiration into the tinder of dramatic material. The result of
this confabulation was, eventually, the comedy of “The Charity Ball.”
“THE CHARITY BALL.”
With regard to the question as to what subjects are best suited for
treatment in the Drama, Belasco, writing (February 9, 1909) to Mr.
William Bullock, relative to the plays of the late J. M. Synge, made
this significant statement: “I think that _domestic life_ offers more
possibilities to the playwright than any other theme.”
Those possibilities (as he understands them), which he has utilized in
several plays, are specially exemplified in “The Charity Ball,”--so
named because its purpose is to inculcate the virtue of taking a
charitable view of human infirmity, and also because one important scene
of it occurs at a ball given for charity, in the New York Metropolitan
Opera House. It rightfully ranks among the best existent dramas of its
didactic and benevolent class.
The principal characters in “The Charity Ball” are the _Rev. John van
Buren_, his brother, _Dick van Buren_, _Ann Cruger_, and _Phyllis Lee_.
The _Rev. John_ is Rector of a fashionable church, in New York, while
_Dick_ is a Wall Street stock gambler, a person of exceptional ability,
naturally amiable, but weak in character, self-indulgent, and wild; he
is harassed by business cares and is breaking under the strain of his
speculative pursuits. _Dick_ has seduced _Phyllis Lee_, an orphan, and,
though he is represented as being truly fond of her, has discarded her,
with the purpose of marrying _Ann Cruger_, who is an heiress. _Ann
Cruger_, secretly, is enamoured of the _Rev. John_. The _Rector_
befriends _Phyllis_, not, however, being aware of her misfortune and
miserable plight as the victim of his brother’s duplicity, and the
parson soon succumbs to her charms, fancies himself in love with her,
and becomes a wooer. His method of courtship is indirect. Being
inscrutably,--and impossibly,--blind to the amorous attachment of _Ann
Cruger_, he seeks the aid of that lady to win for him the love of
_Phyllis_. Then occurs the gay scene of the Charity Ball, in the course
of which a painful interview happens between _Phyllis_ and _Dick van
Buren_, supplemented by _Phyllis’s_ revelation to _Ann Cruger_ of her
relation to _Dick_, his admission to _Ann_ of his misconduct, and her
offer to _Phyllis_ of an asylum in her own home.
The wretched _Phyllis_, immediately after the ball, distracted by her
sense of shame and degradation, speeds through night and storm to her
benefactor, the compassionate clergyman, finds him in his study, and,
appealing to him as a Christian minister, tells him her sad story and
supplicates for any word of comfort. The arrival of _Ann Cruger_, who
has followed her, prevents the disclosure of her seducer’s name. The
clergyman, however, surmises the truth, and when his brother _Dick_
returns home denounces his iniquity, implores him to make the only
possible reparation, and finally induces that selfish sinner,--whose
conduct has been that of a blackguard, soften it how you may,--to wed
the girl whom he has wronged. A midnight marriage then ensues, the _Rev.
John_ uniting in holy matrimony his dissolute brother and the woman
whom, in his blindness, he has himself wished to wed. This scene is
crowded with interest, incident, character, feeling, suspense, and
dramatic effect. Later, _Dick van Buren_ has died, the _Rector_ has
discovered that he loves _Ann Cruger_ and that she loves him (and not
another, as for a time he feared), and general felicity prevails.
The surge of deep feeling in this play is sometimes effectively
commingled with playful levity: its pivotal scene contains a strong,
vital, emotional appeal. Under Belasco’s expert direction it was richly
set on the Lyceum stage and it was acted with exceptional felicity and
force. Nelson Wheatcroft played the libertine, _Dick van Buren_, in a
way to make him credible and somewhat to redeem the cruel turpitude of
his conduct. Herbert Kelcey was duly grave, gentle, manly, and eloquent
as the _Rector_. Effie Shannon, as _Bess_, the clergyman’s sister, with
her sweet face and agile figure, enlivened the representation by her
effervescence of girlish frolic. Grace Henderson,--much commended as the
_Effie Deans_ of this play,--gave an admirable personation of weak,
bewitching womanhood. The persistent choice of a singularly beautiful
and engaging woman for assumption of persons to be abandoned was again
mysteriously exemplified in the casting of this actress for _Phyllis_.
“The Charity Ball” was first produced at the Lyceum, before a
representative and cordial audience, on November 19, 1888, and it had
200 consecutive performances there. As originally produced the play was
thus cast:
_Rev. John van Buren_ Herbert Kelcey.
_Dick van Buren_ Nelson Wheatcroft.
_Judge Peter_ William J. LeMoyne.
_Franklin Cruger_ Charles Walcot.
_Mr. Creighton_ Harry Allen.
_Alec Robinson_ Fritz Williams.
_Mr. Betts_ R. J. Dustan.
_Paxton_ Walter Clark Bellows.
_Cain_ Ada Terry Madison.
_Jasper_ Percy West.
_Ann Cruger_ Georgia Cayvan.
_Phyllis Lee_ Grace Henderson.
_Bess van Buren_ Effie Shannon.
_Mrs. Camilla de Peyster_ Mrs. Charles Walcot.
_Mrs. van Buren_ Mrs. Thomas Whiffen.
_Sophie_ Millie Dowling.
MRS. LESLIE CARTER.