There being no “syndicate,” no pooling, among the Gentile managers of the 80’s, they presented their stars or other attractions at rival theaters in com¬ petition as individual offerings, and at the end of a reasonable New York run, not forced for “road con¬ sumption,” took their companies on a tour of the country. The manager’s whole investment was prob¬ ably tied up in his enterprise. He thus became a part of his group of artists, sharing their hardships of travel, their joys and sorrows. If business was good they shared the satisfaction; if otherwise, it was sink or swim for one as well as the other. In those days much JEWISH CONTROL OF THE AMERICAN THEATER 99 was heard about troupes traveling “on their trunks.” The stories were not exaggerated, but life had its better side, too. The manager and the actor were daily companions; there was a mutual absorption of ideas; the manager learned to know and appraise the “artistic temperament”—which is a tangible asset when not a form of artificial grouch or congenital illnature—and to respect the actor’s point of view, while, reciprocally, the actor was able to place himself in the manager’s position and to get his point of view from close personal affiliation.
Issue of January 1, 1921.
The Rise of the First Jewish Theatrical Trust TT HAS long been known among dramatic critics that the reason for the maintenance of ‘‘Ben Hur” in the theater for nineteen years is this: it is the most successful of all the vehicles for pro-Semitism now on the stage. That will appear to be a prejudicial statement in the minds of the thousands who have seen and enjoyed “Ben Hur,” but there is truth in it. The point which should not be overlooked, however, is that if “Ben Hur” is useful in framing the public mind favorably toward the Jews, it is not because of a pro-Semitic intention in the story. That may be the intention of the producers, Messrs.Klaw and Erlanger, but it was not the intention of General Lew Wallace.