Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1883-06-13
Poor Theatrical Ventures.
Nav York Times la

| w aStOIc were recently eLaQOlll
q little apart from the throng Of Thes
plans, in Union Square engaged il
earnest conversation. They were dis
cussing the merits of a theatrical pro
duction and appeared to be of ont
mind in regard to it's being failure
A reporter OF the Times turned to
we'll known theatrical agent who wal
near and asked him why those mer
said the play was not success. TIT
reporter had been in the theater anC
had seen an excellent audience.
MY dear fellow" said the AGENT
theatrical people never are wiIlinI
to admit that anything in a theater i
success. Meet an actor, an AGENT. OF
q manager anywhere and ask hin
about play in which ht
is not interested, and ninetv-nint
times out of a hundred he'll tell YOU
it is failure.
rs it not strange that professions
jealousy runs so farP" A'
1T is not professional jealousy
That really has very little to do will
1t. 1t is professional incredu!ity. Ac
tors do not really believe that play
Is successful" "N' =
But surely they will be convinced
when they see large audiences?"
by no means, for large audiences
are not sign Of success. The system
Of keeping up appearances has gone 81
far in the theatrical world that mana,
gers are willing to distribute fret
tickets far and wide rather than have
empty houses. The strange thinr
about this is that it does not do am
good. Actors and managers, as | have
told you, are not deceived by it, and
90 far as l can tell, it has no effect or
the public. But tho real cause oil
the incredulity is that success is the
exception with managers, not the
rule. | believe it is safe to say moi
more than one play out Of ten sue.
eeeds. When you come to figure the
cost OF producing plays in these days
you can make up your mind thai
every time a manager pro6uceg play
which fails, he loses heavily. For in,
stance, | know of one theater in this
city wnere about $4,000 was spent in
getting up q new play. 1t ives fail
lre, and in three weeks during which
the manager was obliged to run it be.
fore he could get up a new one, ht
lost $4,000 more. On some night
there was not more than $75 in thu
house, audit cost 500 to raiselthe cur.
tain. il
People here don't 60 to see failure
You would think that theater which
takes in from $500 to $1,000 per nigh
with q success could get in from 500
to $500 with a failure just out of thu
vast amusement loving public Of cit
like New York, but sucn is not thu
case. Now, how often have you
noticed plays that have run from three
to six weeks? A great many more
times, I'll be bound, than you have
noticed plays which ran Tom three tC
six months Now, nearly every time
you find a play taken off after three
or four or six weeks-I mean
regular stock theater or al
q comic operahouse-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
expense up amazingly, aud then there
are the elaborate costumes to be pro
vided. In the stock company Of a
reg llar dramatic house the actors fur.
nish their own wardrobes. Then there
is another evidence Of the want Of suc-
cess in theaters. How many Of the
old MANAGERS are out Of the business?
IIdon't want to count them, but I'll
just call yonr attention to the fact that
Booth, Mccullough, McAuly, Ellsler
and John Norton used to be managers.
Did they 60 back 20 getting for iun?
Not by a large and interesting jtsful.
They had to. Those are some OF the
reasons why actors don't believe in
SUCCESSES. sl '''