Gradually, Then Suddenly: The Birth of Show BUSINESS (Part 2): The Resistance

The Resistance

The attempt by the six members of the Theatrical Syndicate to create a monopoly of the road was, of course resisted. But for the rank-and-file actors, the war was over in the 1870s when the combination companies killed the resident stock companies and actors were forced to move to New York in order to pursue their careers. They had no ability to resist this change--Actors Equity didn't appear until 1917.

No, this is a battle between stars (I.e., the actor-managers who headed their own combination companies) and real estate tycoons of the Theatrical Syndicate. These were the Big Boys duking it out.

As you probably remember from my [last post on this topic](https://scottwalters.micro.blog/2025/02/27/gradually-then-suddenly-the-birth.html), in 1896 the members of the Syndicate pooled first-class theaters they owned, and there were a bunch: "according to Monroe Lippman, writing in The Quarterly Journal of Speech, the members of the Syndicate 'controlled nearly all the first-class theatres in the key cities throughout the country, in addition to enjoying exclusive booking control of more than five hundred first-class houses on all the best theatrical routes from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.'” But the Syndicate wasn't done--oh no, not by a long shot. "The aim of monopoly is to eliminate competition," writes Douglas McDermott. And there was still some competition to deal with.

So once they had signed their contract formalizing their business arrangement (which they denied existed for several years until a court case--'a syndicate? No! We're just friends!'-- forced it to be revealed), "the theatrical trust began a campaign to secure control of the remainder of the first-class theatres in America, either through leasehold or by promises to theatre managers of the best attractions available. Their targets included theatres in Minneapolis, St. Louis, Cleveland, Detroit, and other major cities not yet under Syndicate control, theatres in towns that controlled the approaches to the big cities, and one-night-stand houses in between."

Within just a couple years, the Syndicate had locked down theaters across the country, and they then informed the actor-managers that they had two choices: either sign with the Syndicate or go elsewhere--there being, of course, nowhere else to go. Francis Wilson, one of the actor-managers who, along with Minnie Maddern Fiske, wrote "The contention of the Syndicate was that it must control the 'bookings' of theatrical companies throughout the country in order to avoid the ruinous opposition that happened from two prominent companies appearing in the same city or town at the same time; also that it could not run its theaters and pay the percentages demanded by some unattractive "stars" whom it did not wish to “book” at a loss. There was reason in the first plea, none in the latter."

To the local theater manager, the Syndicate would promise a steady stream of the country's best productions, making it possible to book "for an entire season without an expensive annual business trip to New York, and an end to empty theaters caused by performers' failure to appear without notice. To the actor-managers and their company who still booked their own tours, "they promised efficient, economical routes composed of first-class theatres in any region of the country or even coast to coast. In short, the Syndicate offered everyone involved in the Road greater prosperity and security than they could attain on their own. For their services, the Klaw and Erlanger Exchange claimed a fee of 5 percent of a theatre’s gross receipts." In other words, the Syndicate was doing everybody a big, fat favor. And so cheap, too!

At first, this pitch worked. According to John Frick, "As Syndicate members had hoped, theatre managers and booking agents flocked to the Klaw and Erlanger offices to sign contracts. In their first two years of operation, using little more than their ingenuity, persuasion, and their influence in the theatre, the Syndicate more than doubled the number of theatres it controlled, secured the contracts of stars with the stature of E. H. Sothern, Ethel Barrymore, Mrs. Leslie Carter, Blanche Bates, and Olga Nether-sole, and developed into a monopoly in actuality, not just in intention. With a strong nucleus of theatres and attractions, by 1898 the Syndicate was in a position to exercise its power overtly and to dictate terms to both theatres and performers."

But then things changed. Frick:

With its power and holdings consolidated, the Syndicate began to behave like any other monopoly - it threatened to withhold what it controlled from those who declined its terms. Theatre managers who refused to ally themselves with the Syndicate were unable to book high-quality talent or were forced to watch helplessly as the Syndicate built or leased a theatre nearby; meanwhile, recalcitrant performers might be routed from Cincinnati to Washington to Buffalo to Richmond with no intervening bookings, denied a route altogether, or, as in the case of Henrietta Crosman’s 1901 tour of Mistress Nell, led to discover that a rival production (Ada Rehan in _Sweet Nell of Old Drury_) had been booked for the same route a week earlier. Thus, by controlling both sides of the booking equation - theatres and attractions - and threatening to withhold one or the other, Klaw, Erlanger, and company were able to force all but the most stalwart to capitulate to their demands."

Some of the actor-managers had had enough. Frick:

In 1898, following a series of editorials criticizing the Syndicate in the New York Dramatic Mirror by its editor Harrison Grey Fiske [who was married to a member of the resistance, Minnie Maddern Fiske], the [Syndicate] faced its first public opposition in the form of an actors’ uprising, the first of many it would face. Convinced that their artistic freedom was being curtailed by the Syndicate, the actors - Richard Mansfield, Francis Wilson, James O’Neill [yes, Eugene's father], William H. Crane, Fanny Davenport, Joseph Jefferson, and Mrs. Fiske - vowed to maintain their independence and to aggressively defy Klaw and Erlanger’s dictates.

They made impassioned speeches from the stage prior to performances to make sure the spectators understood what was happening, they published editorials in the nations' newspapers. A few examples:

- **Joseph Jefferson**: --"When the Trust was formed, I gave my opinion as against it, considering it inimical to the theatrical profession. I think so still." [OK, that one is kind of lame.]

- **Richard Mansfield**: --"Art must be free. I consider the existence of the Trust or Syndicate a standing menace to art. Its existence is, in my opinion, an outrage and unbearable." [Way better.]

- **Mrs. Fiske**: --"The incompetent men who have seized upon the affairs of the stage in this country have all but killed art, worthy ambition, and decency." [Boo-yah]

- **Francis Wilson**: --"Dramatic art, in America, is in great danger. A number of speculators have it by the throat, and are gradually but surely squeezing it to death." [Ka-Boom!]

I don’t want to trivialize their effort–they weren’t wrong. It’s just that artists have been making the same arguments ever since, except in the face of new opponents, like, say, legislators skeptical of providing government funding for the arts. Did writers and other artists do any better?

• James A. Herne (playwright): –“The underlying principle of a Theatrical Trust is to subjugate the playwright and the actor. Its effect will be to degrade the art of acting, to lower the standard of the drama, and to nullify the influences of the theatre.”
  
  
• Augustin Daly (drama critic, theatre manager, playwright, and adapter, the first recognized stage director in America): –“I do not believe that the best interests of dramatic art nor the highest aims of the theatre will be served if the spirit of competition is chilled, crippled, or destroyed; and the first aim of all such combinations or syndicates must be to absorb opposition and to kill off rivals or rivalry.”
  
  
• Henry Irving (British actor-manager): “When I was in America, lately, a deputation of actors assured me that the Syndicate System is the curse of the American stage. Actor-managers, at all events, have made sacrifices for their calling, and protected its interests, and it will be an evil day for those interests when they are left to the mercy of speculation.” And all they had to do to take advantage of this generous offer was to let the Syndicate pretty much control their careers.
  
  
• William Dean Howells (bestselling novelist): –“Not merely one industry, but civilization, itself, is concerned, for the morals and education of the public are directly influenced by the stage. Everyone who takes a pride in the art of his country must regret a monopoly of the theatre, for that means ‘business’ and not art.”
  
  
• Thomas Bailey Aldrich (editor of the Atlantic Monthly): –“The inevitable result of a Theatre Trust would be deterioration in the art of acting and discouragement of dramatic literature. Certainly that is not a consummation devoutly to be wished.”

It’s not that they’re wrong, it’s that nobody outside the theater gives a shit about these arguments.

Nevertheless, Frick says, “for the remainder of the Syndicate’s existence, a coterie of some of America’s most respected critics and scholars, led by Walter Prichard Eaton and including John Ranken Towse, Sheldon Cheney, William Winter, and Norman Hapgood, indicted it, not just for the conventional industrial crimes (dictatorial management style, pressure tactics, and unfair labor practices) but for debasing the art of the theatre as well.” They charged:

that the Syndicate destroyed the quality of American acting by keeping players in long runs, thereby preventing them from assuming the variety of roles necessary to develop artistic versatility, and by undermining the stock company that had traditionally served as the training ground for performers. Second, the critics claimed that the Syndicate discouraged native drama, favoring instead the foreign scripts preferred by Frohman. And third, they asserted that in order to appeal to the largest audience possible for strictly commercial reasons, it discouraged “serious” drama and mounted popular “fluff” like _The Soul Kiss_, _Miss Innocence_, _The Queen of the Moulin Rouge_, and _The Girl with the Whooping Cough_.

Does any of this sound familiar, Dear Reader? Has anything changed in the 125 years since these arguments were being made? One glance at the plays available on Broadway in recent years leaves one longing for a revival of _The Girl with the Whooping Cough_. Or perhaps to develop the whooping cough oneself, preferably during intermission, so you can just go home. Maybe that's just me.

At any rate, when all was said and done, the Theatrical Syndicate emerged victorious. One by one, each actor-manager was starved into submission. The only successful challenge, ironically, came from the Shubert Brothers (Sam, Lee, and Jacob), producers who joined up with a few of the rebellious actor-managers to oppose the Syndicate. But they did so not because they objected to the effect of the Syndicate's monopoly, but rather because they wanted a piece of the action. "Emulating the Syndicate’s methods during the first decade of the century," Frick writes, "the Shuberts continued to acquire theatres and entire circuits nationwide and, exploiting the rapidly growing discontent among managers and performers with the constraints imposed by Klaw and Erlanger, they offered to assist anyone who resisted the Syndicate. As a show of good faith, the brothers guaranteed an “open door” policy in the booking of Shubert theatres."

By 1905, the Shubert's "underdog status attracted defectors from the Syndicate in ever-increasing numbers. By 1910, one decade after the Shuberts’ arrival in New York, the Syndicate had been successfully challenged; during the subsequent decade, it was fully eclipsed by the Shubert organization, which, through continued growth and acquisitions, became a monopoly that was virtually indistinguishable from its predecessor in intent, methods, and scope." But there was an unintended consequence, according to Frick:

"the period of fiercest competition between the two conglomerates (1909-13) was also the period during which the Road began its legendary decline, with the number of traveling combinations shrinking from 289 in 1909 to 178 four years later. As [Rudolph] Bernheim summarizes the situation, intensified competition brought an oversupply of theatres, as the Shuberts built or converted spaces in Syndicate towns to match their opponents house for house. The theatre glut, in turn, created a shortage of quality attractions. With vast chains of theatres to fill, panicky producers and bookers from both sides of the theatre war responded by cloning additional duplicate companies and billing them as “Straight from a Year on Broadway” with the hope that patrons in the hinterlands would not notice the ever-diminishing production values. However, spectators, perhaps remembering the great touring plays and players of earlier decades and refusing to be gulled by inferior productions despite advertisers’ puffery, stopped patronizing the legitimate theatre, thus adding the final link in the causal chain that ultimately led to the decline of the Road."

Ultimately, however, the damage had been done.
- theater casting was centralized in New York, and actors were forced to move there in order to make a living; - as the road declined, the Syndicate and the Shuberts sold off most of their small-town theaters, relying solely on tours to the largest cities; - businessmen managing real estate, now called producers, became the most powerful people in the theater; - as predicted, profit became more important than the quality of plays - and the number of productions began a slide to the pathetic level of today's theater.

So Why Should We Care?

“The ultimate hidden truth of the world is that it is something that we make, and could just as easily make differently." -- David Graeber

"The exercise of imagination is dangerous to those who profit from the way things are because it has the power to show that the ways things are is not permanent, not universal, not necessary.” ~Ursula K. Le Guin

For some reason, theater people have been taught that the way things are is the way they always have been, and if they were different before it's because "things were different then" and this system is the best of all possible worlds. It's a meritocracy! And if you can't "make it," well, that must mean that you just don't have enough talent or enough commitment to make the cut.

This is errant nonsense. It is what the owners want artists to believe, because they benefit from the current system.

Have there been different systems in the past? Yes. We've already described the resident stock company system that preceded the arrival of the combination company. But there have been others since the Syndicate took over.

For instance, it didn't take long after the Syndicate for movement to revolt against it. It was called the Art Theater Movement, and it gave us many important theaters and artists. For instance, the Provincetown Players were part of the Art Theatre Movement, and without them and without Jig Cook and Susan Glaspell, we would not have Eugene O'Neill. The Neighborhood Playhouse was part of the same movement, and the Theatre Guild. Sheldon Cheney, whose book _The Art Theater_ is an invaluable and inspiring account of the major theaters and artists of that time, defined the art theater as one "dedicated to creative staging of important plays...From the audience's viewpoint," he wrote, "an art theater implies a _playhouse permanently established_, where a spectator can go always with the assurance of seeing _fine plays of the past or present_ beautifully acted and adequately staged. From the viewpoint of the artist-producer, the art theater is:

a place where the arts of the theater are creatively practiced, free alike from the will of the businessman_, from the demands of movie-minded audiences, and from the fetters of superstitious traditionalism; he probably entertains, moreover, a vision of the several contributive arts of the playwright, the actor and the designer brought together in a union or synthesis, and in the final result invariably stamped with the style or the brilliance or the quality of his own mind or imagination—_this viewpoint implying an aesthetic policy and a lasting association of creative workers under artist-leadership_." [emphasis added]

Why yes, that _does_ sound like the regional theater movement of the 1950s and 1960s, which was another movement that pushed back against the crass commercialism of Broadway and strove to create permanently established theaters with a long-term commitment to artists performing plays from the past and present free from the will of the businessman.

In between the Art Theater and the Regional Theater, there were other notable and successful attempts to focus on art as art rather than commerce.

But rather than outline them all, I am going to suggest several books that will inspire you to think differently.
- _The Art Theater_ by Sheldon Cheney. I defy anyone to read this book without feeling inspired to strike out in a new direction. You can read it free at the [OpenLibrary.org](https://openlibrary.org/works/OL1150120W/The_art_theatre).

- [_At 33_ by Eva Le Gallienne](https://search.worldcat.org/title/At-33/oclc/1153280966). For reasons I cannot comprehend, Le Gallienne is rarely mentioned anymore, yet she had one of the most daring and successful theaters of the late 1920s and early 1930s: the Civic Repertory Theater. She was a highly successful Broadway actress who walked away from her career because she felt that the long run was killing the creativity and development of actors, and the plays were empty. "Too much cake," she declared, "not enough bread." She felt strongly that high-quality plays should be affordable and accessible to all people who wanted to see them--plays by Ibsen, Chekhov, Shakespeare, Dumas, and contemporary plays as well--and she ran in rotating repertory, eventually having 37 different productions available to perform.

- [ _Theatre in the Round_ by Margo Jones](https://search.worldcat.org/title/77659). The regional theater movement was founded by women, and Margo Jones was the dynamo. This book, like the previous two, will inspire you and restore your sense of purpose. Read this first, and then read [Zelda Fichandler's _The Long Revolution_](https://search.worldcat.org/title/1419873213) (edited by Todd London), co-founder of the Arena Stage and the regional theater movement. These two books might just get you to realize why an arena theater is particularly valuable for artistic independence.

- [_Arena: The History of the Federal Theatre Project_ by Hallie Flanagan](https://a.co/d/hd1NkdI). Do you see a pattern here? Yes, resistance to the theater of commerce was often led by driven, idealistic women who got things done. Flanagan's book describes the values that informed yet another influential theater movement outside of Broadway, while also showing us why relying on the government for, well, just about anything is a risky business indeed. The mind boggles at what might have been had not the Dies Committee killed the Federal Theatre Project. You could also read Todd London's anthology, [_An Ideal Theater: Founding Visions for a New American Art_](https://a.co/d/2axrcuM) to get started. I have used this book in several of my classes when I was teaching, and it was always an eye-opener.

But the reality is that, whether you want it to or not, the current theater system is starting to collapse. There are 41 theaters on Broadway, 33 or which are owned by three organization: the Shubert Organization, the Nederlander Organization, and ATG Entertainment, all of which also have producing arms. So the real estate men still are making the artistic decisions for America. The number of new productions on Broadway has flat-lined at 38-40 new productions per year, only 20% of which make any money. Well, I mean, the investors may not make money, but those three organizations make money as long as there are shows in their buildings.

Meanwhile, the nonprofit stage has been on the ropes since the pandemic, a fact that I've written about a lot. Many of those who are still standing are staging productions of old standards of the commercial stage.

The brilliant essayist Rebecca Solnit wrote in her book _Hope in the Dark_, "Resistance is first of all a matter of principle and a way to live, to make yourself one small republic of unconquered spirit." That's the first step toward escaping this collapse: sharpen your principles and develop an unconquered spirit. And one way that can help you with this is to find others in the past who did something similar. There are more than you think--I have only been writing about America's leaders, and only theater people; there are so many others across the world, throughout theater history, and in other art forms who can provide inspiration, strength, and models to draw upon for the future. It is going to take a combination of creativity and historical awareness to start something new and keep it going.

This series about might allow you to say that the Emperor has no clothes, while also recognizing that there are closets filled with beautiful styles placed there by past artists for you to try on. You don't have to keep rolling an artistic boulder up a > commercial, centralized, and dysfunction hill. Develop your own vision./end