Official Site of True West Magazine, Since 1953
19th century Theater Life
Theater Life
In the 18th century and early 19th century, the acting profession was considered sinful and actors were subject to social ostracism. However, by the mid-19th century actors could be considered quite socially respectable. "Prominent persons in society, politics, and literature went out of their way to entertain leading members of the acting profession, while lesser actors seemed to have no trouble fitting into middle-class America. The memoirs of theatrical people like Wood, Ludlow, Smith, or William Warren gave no suggestion of social ostracism. On the contrary, once established in their profession, they became solid and respected citizens. Of course, to some extent their background, to a greater degree their modest salaries, limited actors' social success. But if actors succeeded, lived decently, and, perhaps most important, made money, they were socially accepted." (Grimsted)
The life of actors and actresses in the mid-19th century was very hard, requiring great physical stamina. In addition to a grueling performance schedule, actors must withstand stagecoach and early riverboat travel in addition to makeshift lodgings. Actors would often rehearse as many as three plays during a day and then would have to prepare for the night's performance. By the Civil War, the season was varied and demanding. A season could consist of 40 to 130 plays, changing nightly. Utility actors in a company might be expected to know over 100 parts. The famous actress Charlotte Cushman would offer 200 different lead roles. Actors were usually expected to learn a new part within two days, sometimes overnight.
In the antebellum period, beginning actors' salaries ranged from $3 to $6 per week; utility players' salaries from $7 to $15 per week; "walking" ladies and gentlemen, $15 to $30; and lead actors were paid anywhere from $35 to $100 per week. Traveling stars could command $150 to $500 per 7- to 10-day engagement, plus one or more benefits. Except for the lowest ranks of actors, these salaries were good for this period, especially for women, even though they were paid less than men in comparable roles. Actors and actresses were expected to furnish their own costumes.
Many of the actors and actresses of the 19th century came from theatrical families and backgrounds, and many got their start in the theater as children. "Child stars are an American tradition...but no period surpasses the mid-1800s for the sheer number of children appearing in live theatrical events or the degree of seriousness with which they were taken. And, unlike their modern counterparts, they more often than not drew recognition by play adult roles." (Hanners) However, these children usually played scenes from plays, such as those of Shakespeare, rather than playing the role in a complete production.
"Because the theatre has been remarkably free-thinking, women in the profession have always been relatively equal to their male colleagues. Bad managers have absconded with their salaries equally; audiences booed them equally; they starved equally between engagements; and their contributions to the traditions of the theatre have been equally forgotten."(Turner) Especially in the 19th century, women's roles in theater were rather ambiguous. The traditions of the time required women to be delicate, fragile, and dependent. However, the rigors of the acting profession necessitated that they be resilient, independent, strong-willed and determined.
Among the many problems faced by women in the theater, one more lighthearted problem was that of dealing with fashions of the day. Clara Morris recounted that long trains on dresses were particularly vexing. She tells the story of Fanny Davenport having to move about quite a bit on a crowded stage during a comedy scene, ending up with her trailing skirts so thoroughly wrapped around a chair that upon exiting the stage, the chair went right along with her.
In the 18th century and early 19th century, the acting profession was considered sinful and actors were subject to social ostracism. However, by the mid-19th century actors could be considered quite socially respectable. "Prominent persons in society, politics, and literature went out of their way to entertain leading members of the acting profession, while lesser actors seemed to have no trouble fitting into middle-class America. The memoirs of theatrical people like Wood, Ludlow, Smith, or William Warren gave no suggestion of social ostracism. On the contrary, once established in their profession, they became solid and respected citizens. Of course, to some extent their background, to a greater degree their modest salaries, limited actors' social success. But if actors succeeded, lived decently, and, perhaps most important, made money, they were socially accepted." (Grimsted)
The life of actors and actresses in the mid-19th century was very hard, requiring great physical stamina. In addition to a grueling performance schedule, actors must withstand stagecoach and early riverboat travel in addition to makeshift lodgings. Actors would often rehearse as many as three plays during a day and then would have to prepare for the night's performance. By the Civil War, the season was varied and demanding. A season could consist of 40 to 130 plays, changing nightly. Utility actors in a company might be expected to know over 100 parts. The famous actress Charlotte Cushman would offer 200 different lead roles. Actors were usually expected to learn a new part within two days, sometimes overnight.
In the antebellum period, beginning actors' salaries ranged from $3 to $6 per week; utility players' salaries from $7 to $15 per week; "walking" ladies and gentlemen, $15 to $30; and lead actors were paid anywhere from $35 to $100 per week. Traveling stars could command $150 to $500 per 7- to 10-day engagement, plus one or more benefits. Except for the lowest ranks of actors, these salaries were good for this period, especially for women, even though they were paid less than men in comparable roles. Actors and actresses were expected to furnish their own costumes.
Many of the actors and actresses of the 19th century came from theatrical families and backgrounds, and many got their start in the theater as children. "Child stars are an American tradition...but no period surpasses the mid-1800s for the sheer number of children appearing in live theatrical events or the degree of seriousness with which they were taken. And, unlike their modern counterparts, they more often than not drew recognition by play adult roles." (Hanners) However, these children usually played scenes from plays, such as those of Shakespeare, rather than playing the role in a complete production.
"Because the theatre has been remarkably free-thinking, women in the profession have always been relatively equal to their male colleagues. Bad managers have absconded with their salaries equally; audiences booed them equally; they starved equally between engagements; and their contributions to the traditions of the theatre have been equally forgotten."(Turner) Especially in the 19th century, women's roles in theater were rather ambiguous. The traditions of the time required women to be delicate, fragile, and dependent. However, the rigors of the acting profession necessitated that they be resilient, independent, strong-willed and determined.
Among the many problems faced by women in the theater, one more lighthearted problem was that of dealing with fashions of the day. Clara Morris recounted that long trains on dresses were particularly vexing. She tells the story of Fanny Davenport having to move about quite a bit on a crowded stage during a comedy scene, ending up with her trailing skirts so thoroughly wrapped around a chair that upon exiting the stage, the chair went right along with her.
Views: 138
-
Comment by Unkle Sherman on December 18, 2009 at 10:17am -
Which reminds me of a John Barrymore quote (I think it was Barrymore)
"Know your lines, be realitive sober, try not to bump into the furniture."
-
Comment by Ginny Morgan on December 18, 2009 at 10:24am -
exactly, Unkle! LOL That reminds me that the Barrymores were a theatrical family for several generations...hmmm time to do research! I think Ethel was on the stage in the 1900s....
-
Comment by Wolfgang on December 18, 2009 at 9:40pm -
Very interesting. Thanks for posting.
Comment
© 2012 Created by True West.
You need to be a member of True West Historical Society to add comments!
Join True West Historical Society