Who Owns the Buildings (The Rooted Stage, Part 3)

Yesterday, I wrote about the birth of the star system prior to 1870, when notable actors would travel from resident stock company to resident stock company throughout the country, performing with the company actors for a few days and then moving on.

Today, I need to double back to talk about real estate for a moment, because it is crucial to the story of what happened in 1896. To do so, I am reliant on the invaluable work, once again, of Alfred L Bernheim’s 1932 classic (reissued in 1964) The Business of the Theatre: An Economic History of the American Theatre, 1750-1932. Just a few words about this book. Bernheim was hired by the Actors' Equity Association to write a historical description addressing the question of “how is the theatre run?,” i.e., “the economic factors involved in the business of conducting the enterprise known as ‘the theatre.'” Bernheim endeavored to “analyze the theatre industry as it might the steel industry or the automobile industry or the shoe-string industry, if any of those had been its subject.” The book, which is well worth reading, unfortunately is no longer in print but is available to read online at the Internet Archive to those who are interested, and used copies can be found occasionally online. According to my mentor, Calvin Pritner, the book was standard in graduate theater programs when it was reissued in 1964, but that is no longer the case.

Rather than try to synthesize and paraphrase Bernheim’s discussion of the ownership of theater buildings in the 19th century, I intend to string together a series of quotations from the book. It is another example of how different the business model of theater, commercial and noncommercial, became in the 20th century until this very minute. From this point on, unless otherwise indicated, all quotations are of Bernheim.

If I were going to provide a tl;dr summary of what follows, it would be this:

“During this century and a half each company was a self-contained unit, entirely independent of every other company; entirely independent of every form of outside control and influence, except, of course, that of the taste of the theatregoing public. Each company consisted of a group of relatively permanent actors with a repertoire of standard English plays, which later on was gradually augmented by the addition of contemporary successes from abroad—from Germany and France, as well as from England. The settings, costumes and properties necessary to mount these plays were part of the equipment of each company, and were used repeatedly with necessary alterations and additions as new types of plays were added to the repertoire. Each company controlled, either through ownership or by lease, the theatre in which it played; and as time wore on and the theatre buildings took on a more permanent character, the relationship between a company and a given theatre became closer and closer. The companies continued to travel for part of each season among a limited number of cities, but more and more they remained at their home theatres and were identified with them.”

But let’s be clear: these theater buildings were not the elaborate palaces associated with Broadway or large regional theaters.

“The buildings were flimsy wooden affairs, erected apparently without any idea of permanency. They were burned with discouraging frequency. There is a tradition that one was blown down in a wind storm…It was not until the building of the Southwark Theatre in Philadelphia in 1766 that there was any serious attempt to make a playhouse durable…”

Often, paying off the cost of the theater building was built into the budget for the first season, and often the cost was financed by the manager himself. “Since the company controlled the theatre, there was no division of receipts between the house and the company. Total gross receipts went to the company out of which, however, had to come rental or the cost of erecting the theatre. For instance, the first permanent theater in America was founded by Lewis Hallam in 1752:

…the profits of Hallam’s company were distributed in eighteen shares. Each of the twelve adult actors, including Hallam, got one. Hallam himself received two additional shares—one for his services as manager and one for the services of his three children. The four remaining shares were assigned to the property.

“Later,” Bernheim adds, “it became common for citizens of a community to aid with subscriptions, in return for which they were entitled to seats for the performances….Still later, when theatres were being erected of a more enduring nature, and when, as a result, they acquired a capital value, they were frequently financed by stock issues, often through public subscription, and were leased to managers for a money rental sufficient to yield a moderate return on the capital expended.”

But the central thing to keep in mind was that the theater company either owned or had a long-term lease of their venue, and the entire endeavor was independently financed:

“…up to about the close of the Civil War, there was no separation of control between the theatre and the company that used it. Whether a company owned its theatre, or leased it, or had the use of it for some consideration, it managed and controlled it in every instance. The theatre [building] was never an independently operated venture as it is nowadays.”

Further:

The manager conducted his enterprise as an individual, or, if he had one or more associates, as often was the case, then as a partnership. All the funds that were needed were supplied by the manager, or managers. There was no outside money in the theatre—no angel to back a show: no speculator in theatrical real estate. No one thought of borrowing money for the theatre, and no one thought of lending it. All the necessary equipment, costumes, properties, sets and effects were bought outright. They could not be rented. There were no theatrical supply houses. The theatre was run on a cash basis.”

Crucially, “The manager was in almost every instance an actor himself, and he was in complete control over every phase of the company’s activity. He was not responsible to any outside interest, for there was never any outside capital invested in the company which might claim a share in management or look for a share of profits.” Indeed. “A theatre owner was not deemed a theatrical manager unless he also actually managed a company and produced plays.”

In other words, resident stock companies were artist owned, artist financed, and artist operated, and thus answered only to the audience. This is one of the things that changed in 1870, and was completely destroyed in 1896.

In Part 4 of this series, I will take a side road and, well, interview myself to explain the purpose of this series. And at long last, Part 5 will bring us to 1870.