Vaudeville in Los Angeles, 1910-1926: Theaters, Management, and the OrpheumAuthor(s): Stan SingerReviewed work(s):Source: Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Feb., 1992), pp. 103-113Published by: University of California PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3640790 .Accessed: 11/03/2012 18:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to PacificHistorical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

Notes and Documents

Vaudeville in Los Angeles, 1910-1926: Theaters, Management, and the Orpheum

STAN SINGER

The author is a member of the theater department in Arizona State University.

One of the most neglected areas of study in the history of American popular arts has been the development of variety theater in the West. Scholars generally have limited their inves- tigations to the history of vaudeville from its inceptions in New York and Boston to its dissemination through the circuits to the Midwest. Except for a few specialized studies on vaudeville in Seattle and Portland, there have been almost no inquiries into the variety movement west of the Mississippi.1 In truth, a thriv- ing vaudeville tradition had evolved in distant Los Angeles where theater construction experienced accelerated growth, vaudeville personnel efficiently managed productions, and audi- ences responded enthusiastically to the acts presented.

Los Angeles's relationship to the history of vaudeville dif- fered greatly from that of the East. Geographic isolation, fron- tier influences, logistic obstacles, administrative innovation, and architectural style all combined to create a distinct theat- rical climate for West Coast vaudeville. Between 1910 and 1926,

1. Eugene Elliott, A History of Variety-Vaudeville in Seattle from the Begin- ning to 1914 (Seattle, 1944); William T. Foster, Vaudeville and Motion Picture Shows in Portland, Oregon (Portland, 1914).

Pacific Historical Review ? 1992 by the Pacific Coast Branch American Historical Association 103

104 Pacific Historical Review

variety theater realized a meteoric and sustained rise as one of the entertainment attractions in Los Angeles. The popularity of vaudeville is indicated by a surge in the building of theaters over a short period of time. This rapidity of theater construc- tion was strikingly evident in the listings of theaters in the busi- ness and professional directories of Los Angeles from 1905 to 1926. In 1906-1907, thirteen theaters were noted, including the

Orpheum, the Unique, the Novelty, and the Star (the last two short-lived).2 After 1910, most of the well-established vaudeville circuits were represented by their own theaters in Los Angeles. The thirty-two theaters named in 1911-1912 were headed by the

Orpheum, the Pantages, the Empress, and a new establishment called the Clune Auditorium.3 Remarkably, during the next two

years, the list of theaters jumped to seventy-one, and twenty percent of these were vaudeville or "small-time" variety. The

Hippodrome was built in 1912 and later became a top competi- tor to the Orpheum in variety offerings.4 In addition to these, there were also small houses throughout the metropolitan area -

Pasadena, Santa Monica, Hollywood-and many of them were lavish and well constructed.

The circuits generally sent their own managers to operate the theaters on the coast. They were experienced in the work-

ings of their syndicates and were expected to conform to the structure and policies followed by all the theaters in the circuit. However, because of the distance of the theaters from the vaude- ville top management office in New York, the local manager had complete control over the bookings, payroll, and personnel of his theater. Even with less direct corporate control, the man- agers attempted to duplicate the programs and practices fol- lowed in the East. Most of the modifications arose from travel

problems and scheduling- the difficulty of booked acts arriving on time.

Throughout the teens, Los Angeles became a favorite city for vaudeville performers because of its excellent theaters, rea- sonable housing costs, receptive audiences, recreational activi- ties, and pleasant weather. In his 1919 Vaudeville Guide, publicist and agent Herbert Lloyd provided some vital information about the city for the traveling vaudevillians. One such entry read:

2. Complete Business and Professional Directory of Los Angeles, 1906-7 (Los Angeles, 1907), 48.

3. Business Directory of Los Angeles, 1911-12 (Los Angeles, 1912), 39. 4. Southern California Business Directory, 1913-14 (Los Angeles, 1914), 44.

Vaudeville in Los Angeles 105

LOS ANGELES GENERAL INFORMATION Recommended hotel: Continental Newspapers: "Times," Tribune," "Examiner," "Express," "Record,"

"Herald." Recreation: Griffith Park Municipal Golf Course. 18 holes. No Charge.

Take Hollywood car from Hill Street. Fare one way- 10 cents. Trolley or motor to Pasadena-one of the most beautiful cities in the world. Two or three hour trip. Also has Ostrich and Alligator farms, Busch Sunken Gardens.

Trains: Service to Salt Lake City. 9:00 A.M. Journies across desert. If you have any old newspapers or magazines, throw them off at any isolated houses you pass. They are greatly appreciated by the people living in this barren land.5

Lloyd's description of Los Angeles in 1919 is not only amusing to those who are familiar with the city today, but it also under- scores the role of the area as a leisure-time oasis in the desert West. Southern California had a remoteness about it even as late as 1920. In spite of its geographic separation from the rest of the

country, the city produced and sustained its own theater culture and became one of the leading centers for vaudeville west of St. Louis.

In the vaudeville season of 1917-1918, one of the peak peri- ods for attendance across the nation, Los Angeles had four major "vaudeville only" theaters: Clune Auditorium of the Sullivan and Considine circuit; the Hippodrome, representing Ackerman and Harris; the Pantages, founded by Alexander Pantages; and the Orpheum of the Orpheum circuit, the largest. Lloyd, along with such publications as the National Vaudeville Artists and Julius Cahn's Theatrical Guides, cited these theaters as the leaders in top quality vaudeville.6 Information about them was provided to all acts that were to be booked. Each house maintained a full staff- theater manager, stage manager, treasurer, press representative, carpenter, props, electrician, flyman, grip, and motion picture operator.7 Vaudevillians often praised the atmosphere, facili- ties, and service provided by the Los Angeles theaters, and very

5. Herbert Lloyd, Vaudeville Guide (San Francisco, 1919), 113-116. 6. Ibid. Lloyd's publication was a detailed listing of items ranging from

railroad schedules to local housing rates. National Vaudeville Artists Yearbook (New York, 1910-14). The yearbook listed all the available acts in vaudeville and also ran ads for the leading theaters. Julius Cahn, Julius Cahn's Official Theatrical Guide (New York, 1909-1915). Cahn's guide listed all theaters in the various states and cities, including those devoted to vaudeville and burlesque.

7. Lloyd, Vaudeville Guide, 115.

106 Pacific Historical Review

few performers refused the opportunity to make the long trip to the West Coast.

A review of Los Angeles's four leading vaudeville theaters reveals that the methods of operation in the far West were up-to- date. The circuits managed their theaters differently, and these differences reflected the status of each in the profession and the

community. Architecturally, the Hippodrome was the largest, with an audience capacity of approximately 2,500. Its prosce- nium measured 49 feet, with a grid height of 68 feet and stage depth of 45 feet. Clune Auditorium (capacity approximately 1,800) was slightly smaller in size. The luxurious Orpheum (capacity 1,200), housed in its own commercial building, had a moderately constructed stage area at 40 feet (proscenium), 68 feet (grid), and 31 feet (stage depth). Built in 1911, the

Orpheum boasted the latest in theater technology backstage. The smallest theater was the Pantages (capacity approximately 900) with a 30-foot proscenium, 52-foot grid, and 26-foot stage depth.8 Of the four, the Pantages held the most notorious repu- tation for not providing adequate facilities and equipment for the traveling acts.

In booking acts and in providing rehearsal time, the the- aters differed widely. The opening day for the new bill was

Monday, except for the Hippodrome which featured a split- week bill, and opening days were on Sunday and Wednesday. As such, the Hippodrome engaged acts for only three or four

days at a time, a schedule which proved a hardship to the travel-

ing performers. Clune would book for six days, with the other two theaters booking their acts for seven days. For acts newly arrived in Los Angeles, the stage was usually opened at 9 a.m. with the exception of the Orpheum which opened 8 a.m. The

stage was available for rehearsals at 10 a.m. or 11 a.m.9 A survey of the show schedules also indicates different

approaches. The matinee at Clune was scheduled for 2 p.m., with the first evening show at 6 p.m. The Pantages offered a 2:30 matinee, with a first night show at an odd 7:20. The Hippo- drome had a 3 p.m. matinee, 6:45 night show; the Orpheum's matinee was at 2:15, with an 8:15 evening performance. Except for the Orpheum which held only two shows daily, the other

8. Theater Programs and Ephemera, file 73-83, Department of Special Collections, University Research Library, University of California, Los Ange- les (hereafter cited as UCLA).

9. Lloyd, Vaudeville Guide, 114.

Vaudeville in Los Angeles 107

theaters offered three. The Clune, which was a more family- oriented theater offering circus-style acts and comedy, ran four shows on Saturday and was dark on Sunday. The Hippodrome and Pantages pushed the vaudevillians to the limit, forcing them into four shows on Saturday and five on Sunday. The Orpheum held to the two-a-day on weekends. Unlike the others, the Orpheum maintained a more sophisticated approach to its offer- ings, to the performers, and to the audiences. The 8:15 evening show conformed nicely to upgrading vaudeville as an after- dinner theater diversion.10

Generally, the vaudeville bill in Los Angeles was the same as in other theaters across the nation. A typical bill at the Pantages Theater or the Hippodrome would begin with a short concert by the theater orchestra (if it had one), followed by a "dumb" act such as Gallos's Wild Animal Circus. Next would be a solo musi- cal number (Murphy, the boy violinist or "Illustrated Songs by Homer Long"), a comedy team or sketch, a playlet, and the first headliner. After intermission would come another musical num- ber, a sketch, the second headliner, and a final act-a dumb show or a flash act (featuring all the acts in a spectacular musical number). The small-time theaters would also feature "photo- plays," often at the beginning of the first intermission and at the end of the entire bill. These became increasingly popular with the patrons, especially when they were billed as "first showings.""

In the treatment of the performers, there were marked con- trasts among the Los Angeles theaters. The Hippodrome and the Clune Auditorium provided nine dressing rooms, with three stage dressing rooms for the headliners at the former and five at the latter. The Pantages offered twelve dressing rooms, with none directly off stage. The Orpheum had fifteen dressing rooms, with two off stage; it also was the only theater which provided shower facilities in each dressing room and a large washing room for the animal acts. As for compensation, the Orpheum had a businesslike approach in paying its talent. While other theaters paid the actors between shows back stage, the Orpheum issued checks once a week, from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays in the manager's office.12 In addition, the Orpheum boasted a full orchestra of eighteen instruments, a boon to any act featur-

10. Theater Programs and Ephemera, file 73-83, UCLA. 11. See Los Angeles Times and Los Angeles Examiner, June 1910 to Septem-

ber 1926. 12. Lloyd, Vaudeville Guide, 115.

108 Pacific Historical Review

Figure 1. The third Orpheum Theater, 6th and Broadway, Los Angeles, 1911. Established two years before the Palace in New York, the Orpheum booked every major vaudeville act which toured the West Coast. Cour- tesy of The Architect and Engineer of California, September, 1911, p. 34.

ing singing, dancing, or mime sketch. Under the direction of A. F. Frankenstein, the Orpheum orchestra had a well-respected reputation, and it often presented its own concerts to large audi- ences. The Clune and Hippodrome offered orchestras with nine instruments, while the Pantages had a small group of seven.13

Although there were several other "small-time" vaudeville theaters operating in Los Angeles, the four main houses attracted the majority of the audiences. The above comparisons illustrate how each functioned differently, yet they also reveal the superior organization and respect earned by the Orpheum. It was there that

performers hoped to play, and it was there that the audiences were the most congenial and responsive. The Orpheum combined the essence of beautiful architecture with the best in management to provide a superb vaudeville theater on the West Coast.

The individual responsible for the success of the Orpheum

13. Theater Programs and Ephemera, file 73-83, UCLA.

Vaudeville in Los Angeles 109

in the 1910s was manager Clarence Drown. Born in Chicago in 1870, Drown came to Los Angeles to manage the old Orpheum on Main Street, rectifying a system that witnessed the "hiring and firing of a new manager every week."14 Drown managed the

Orpheum theaters from 1902 to 1918, when his health began to deteriorate. He commanded a respect rarely bestowed on a vaudeville manager. Morris Meyerfield and Martin Beck, the founders of the Orpheum circuit, held the utmost confidence in his decisions, and vaudeville performers regarded him as the most competent in the business. Variety in 1912 devoted an entire article, written by W. C. Fields, in praise of his policies.15

Considered a complete theater man, Drown often submit- ted feature articles to the Los Angeles Times on various aspects of the theater business. In a piece in 1905, he outlined and praised the benefits of a large city having several stock companies which could produce plays economically and with spirited profession- alism. In addition, the companies not only served as excellent showcases for young, talented actors, but also fostered an "ensem- ble" approach, that is, a unified company of players who had achieved a consistency in style and technique. Such groups developed a following and insured actors a steady income as a result.'6 Actors did their best work for him because they regarded him as fair and considerate. He would inform his stage hands

explicitly about his concern for the performers:

They arrive here Monday from San Francisco after a long, tiresome journey. Being temperamental, they naturally pack a "grouch." Now it is not our play to foster this grouch; we must show them they are welcome, and I want you to get them everything they ask for. If they have a grievance, do all in your power to remedy it. Under no circum- stance argue with or irritate them in any way. We must get the best work out of them.17

Drown's attitudes and policies were a far cry from those of Keith- Albee syndicate's managers who treated performers with curt aloofness. Drown recommended that the best dressing and lava-

14. Julian Johnson, "The Opening of the Orpheum Theater," Los Angeles Times, July 27, 1911, sec. 3, p. 31.

15. W. C. Fields, "A Regular House," Variety, XX (Dec. 1912), 34. 16. Clarence Drown, "The Stock Company," Los Angeles Times, Dec. 8,

1905, sec. 3, p. 1. 17. Fields, "A Regular House," 32.

110 Pacific Historical Review

Figure 2. The interior of the Orpheum Theater. Its design and facili- ties were praised by performers and audiences. Through manager Clarence Drown's efforts, the Orpheum became the top vaudeville showplace in Los Angeles. Courtesy of The Architect and Engineer of California, September, 1911, p. 36.

tory conveniences be installed in the Orpheum. For the acts he

provided a dozen sets of furniture which were stacked in the accessible store room.18

Drown's concern extended not only to the headliners on the bill, but to the other acts as well. To highlight the first act's

position, he had his fine orchestra play a thirty minute overture of classical music which put members of the audience in a recep- tive mood as they found their seats and waited for the show to

begin. He instructed conductor A. F. Frankenstein not to play popular tunes so as to discourage the audience from "singing along." He also introduced a very rare practice in vaudeville of not allowing late arrivals to be seated while an act was in prog- ress. This applied even to the opening "dumb" act. In addition,

18. William Hamilton Cline, "The New Orpheum Theatre Building, Los Angeles," Architect and Engineer of California, XXVI (Sept. 1911), 38.

Vaudeville in Los Angeles 111

he provided double the usual number of ushers so that patrons would not be kept waiting at the back while others were being shown to their seats. For his employees, Drown prominently displayed the slogan: "Incivility is a crime and means instant dismissal." W. C. Fields pronounced Clarence Drown "a bruin, and the Orpheum in Los Angeles a paragon of perfection."19

The opening of the Los Angeles Orpheum on July 26, 1911, was a celebrated affair. The theater was filled with politicians, dignitaries, show people, and journalists. Julian Johnson, a critic for the Los Angeles Times, spared no praise in describing the

Orpheum's architecture, atmosphere, and latest technological assets, especially the lighting. Crowds had lined up early for tickets, and except for reserved seating for a select group of notables, Drown made the opening bill accessible to the average vaudeville patron. Several reviewers cited the effectiveness of seat placement for sight lines-the farthest seat was only sixty feet from the footlights. Most of the audience that packed the

Orpheum that evening had been faithful patrons of the previ- ous, short-lived Orpheum on Spring Street.20

Adhering to Drown's policy of opening with a musical over- ture, the Orpheum orchestra played the "Tannhauser" march and the "Jubel" overture. The bill that evening also subscribed to the "average" definition; it was a summer offering and per- haps lacked the full force of a "big name" appearance. The reviewers were still fair and even enthusiastic about the talents presented: Hall Forde, English comedian and impersonator; "The Little Stranger," a melodrama sketch by Joseph Hart; Henry Clive, a think magician; the Boston Fadettes, a female

song/music group; Isabelle D'Armond, a dance and "talk" act; "A Legitimate Holdup," drama with William H. Macart and

Ethylynne Bradford; Ed Wynn and P. O'Malley Jennings, a duo comedy in a sketch called "Daffydils" (Wynn's appearance as part of a comedy team pre-dated his later solo appearance at the New York Palace opening in 1913); and Bowers, Walters, and Crooker, a rural comedy act. The bill ended with the usual "daylight pictures"-short documentary travelogues. Times critic Johnson acknowledged that the bill was not as attractive as others presented by the Orpheum, but he noted that Drown had made "no real effort to get special inaugural features of any kind."21

19. Fields, "A Regular House," 34. 20. Johnson, "Opening of the Orpheum," 31. 21. Theatre Programs and Ephemera, file 73-83, UCLA.

112 Pacific Historical Review

After the show, Drown opened the theater to patrons and friends for a short, informal luncheon on the stage. People were invited backstage to examine the latest theater equipment, and

figures who were responsible for the success of the theater- Drown, architect G. Albert Lansburgh, Charles E. Bray (Or- pheum circuit representative), and music conductor Frankenstein -were praised. William Hamilton Cline, another critic for the Los Angeles Times, made a short speech acknowledging the honor bestowed upon him as the Orpheum's publicity agent.22

In spite of lavish architecture and effective organization, the status of any American vaudeville theater rested mainly on the quality of the acts presented. From 1911 to 1926, the Los

Angeles Orpheum offered vaudeville that was competitive with the best in the country. Drown stayed with the standard vaude- ville lineup, and he strove to book every reputable talent which toured the West Coast. Having a clientele in Los Angeles of show business customers - ex-vaudevillians, movie people, legitimate theater personnel -Drown certainly recognized the professional/ critical nature of his audiences. Conversely, the performers who

appeared at the Orpheum during these two decades were well aware of the rising motion picture industry, and the Orpheum served as a showcase for potential film talent.

In early 1926 the Orpheum circuit was purchased by the Keith-Albee syndicate. The merger led to the opening of a new

Orpheum Theater at 9th and Broadway, the site of the present Orpheum. At the old Orpheum, now renamed the Palace, musi- cal revue shows, musical comedy productions, and small-time vaudeville were still offered. By 1929, both theaters had given way to commercial progress and had become movie houses.23 Meanwhile, Clarence Drown, who had retired in the early 1920s, was spending his leisure hours at home or in patronizing the

neighborhood theaters. His dream had been to bring top-quality vaudeville to Los Angeles, and for twenty years he did so, man-

aging the city's number one showplace. He found it difficult to witness the death of the theater he loved so much, but patrons long remembered the efforts of this man of taste and integrity.24

For nearly twenty years, vaudeville was an integral part of the American cultural energy. It was the number one choice of

22. Johnson, "Opening of the Orpheum," 31. 23. William Hamilton Cline, "Orpheum Final Curtain Falls," Los Angeles

Times, Dec. 9, 1929, sec. 3, p. 43. 24. Los Angeles Times, Feb. 3, 1930, sec. 4, p. 29.

Vaudeville in Los Angeles 113

the populace for their leisure-time diversions, and it created and nurtured some of the most dazzling talents ever to have graced the stage. Vaudeville in the East had created the form, then organized and shipped it west to an entertainment-starved

citizenry. In the early 1930s vaudeville as an established theatri- cal package, a corporate syndicate, and a morally defined enter- tainment died on the West Coast just as it did throughout the country. Though Vaudeville in the West was a product of all that had gone before, it also differed from precursors in the Midwest and East in significant ways: an accelerated growth in theater construction, including the latest in stage technology; geographic isolation, which promoted management innovation; quickened community support and patronage of a competitive vaudeville tradition; and as a popular theater environment, with showcased talents who eventually went on to careers in the

emerging media arts. Subsequently, radio, motion pictures, tele- vision, and modern theater all benefitted from the legacy of vaudeville. Los Angeles itself was one of the last cities to close the doors of vaudeville and did so without erasing vaudeville's memory.