Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1883-06-14
THEATRICAL VENTURES.
Why Actors are IncredulOus as to Sue
cessful PLAYS.

Why Actors are IncredulOus as to Sue
cessful Plays.
Two actors were recently standing a
little apart from the thrOng of Thespians
in Union square, New York, engaged in
earnest conversation. They were discuss
ing the merits of theatrical production,
and appeared to be of one mind in regard
to its being a failure. A reporter turned
to a well known theatrical agent who was
near and asked him why those men said
the play was not success. The reporter
had been in the theatre and had seen an
excellent audience.
"My dear fellow" said the agent,
theatrical people never are willing to
admit that anything in a theatre is a sue
cess. Meet an actor, an agent, or MANA
ger anywhere and ask him about a play
in which he is not interested, and ninety
nine times out of a hundred he'll tell YOU
it is failure"
sis it not strange that professional
jealousy runs so far?'
cit is not professional jealousy. That
really has very little to do with it. 1t is
professional incredulity. Actors do not
really believe that play is successful
"But surely they must be convinced
when they see large audiencesY'
not proof of success. The system of keep
ing up appearances has gone so far in the
theatrical world that managers are will
ing to distribute free tickets far and wide
rather than have empty houses. The
strangest thing about this is that it does
not do any good. Actors and managers,
as L have told you, are not deceived by it,
and, so far as | can tell, it has no effect on
the public. But the real cause of the in
10
with managers, not the rule. / believe it
is safe to say that not more than one play
out of ten succeeds. When YOU come to
figure the cost of producing plays in these
days, you can make up your mind that
every time a manager produces a play
which fails he loses heavily. For in
stance, / know of one theatre in this city
where about $4,000 was spent in getting
up a new play. 1t was a failure, and in
three weeks, during which the manager
was obliged to run it before he could get
up new one, he lost $4,000 more. On
some nights there was not more than SIS
in the house, and it cost $500 to raise the
curtain, People here don't go to
see a failure. You would think that
theatre which takes in from $500 to
81 200 per night with a success could get
in from 5000 to $500 with failure just out
of the vast amusement-lOYing public of
city like New York, but such is not the
case. Now, how often have you noticed
plays which have run from three to six
weeks! A great many more times, I'll be
bound, than you have noticed plays
which ran from three to six months.
Now, nearly every time You find play
taken off after three or four or six weeks
u mean at a regular stock theatre or at
a comic opera hOuse-yOu may be sure
that money has been lost on it. The
comic opera business is worse than the
play business, for the expense is so
much greater. The large orchestra and
chorus bring the expenses up amazingly,
and then there are the elaborate costumes
to be provided. In the stock company of
a regular dramatic house the actors fur
nish their own wardrobes. Then there is
another evidence of the want of success
in theatres, How many of the old mana
gers are out Of the busipessf / don't
want TO count them, but I'll just call
your attention to the fact that Booth.
Mccullough, McAuley, Ellsler, and John
Norton used to be managers. Did they
go back to acting for fun? Not by large
and interesting jugfql. They had to,
Those are some of the reasons why actors
don't believe in successes. And if there
are many seasons as bad as the past one