What is an Actress?

"Is a Gibson Girl an actress?" That was the question put before a common jury and Mr. Justice Darling in the King's Bench Division of the High Court on May 23rd, 1905. It arose in the case of Thomas v. Messrs. Frohman and Gatti, in which Miss Ethel Lucy Carrie Thomas (known professionally as Miss Karri) was suing Charles Frohman and the Gatti brothers, proprietors of the Vaudeville Theatre in London, for alleged breach of contract.

Miss Thomas had been employed by the defendants without any written contract - in the absence of which the terms of her employment were determined by theatrical tradition. That tradition dictated that a chorus girl was employed for no assured term and could be dismissed at any time subject only to the provision of two weeks notice. An actress, on the other hand, according to the same tradition, was engaged for the entire run of the production in which she was to take part.

The critical question to be decided by the court, therefore, was whether the nature of Miss Thomas's employment by the defendants was as an actress or a chorus girl. To answer this it was necessary first to establish what it was that distinguished one role from the other - a thorny question that would take no less than three trials and many hours of expert testimony to settle.

In her complaint, Miss Thomas stated that she had been engaged to play the part of a 'Gibson Girl' in the musical comedy play "The Catch of the Season," which had been produced at the Vaudeville Theatre under the auspices of the defendants. After several weeks of rehearsals she began her work in earnest when the production opened to the public on September 9th, 1904 - at which time she was drawing a salary of £3 a week. On the 30th of September, however, she received a letter from the defendants giving two weeks notice of termination of her employment. The reason given for her dismissal was that some of the earlier members of the company, who had been engaged on other business, had now returned and places had to be found for them.

In a bid to find alternative employment for Miss Thomas, Mr Seymour Hicks, co-author of the play, then arranged for her to audition for Mr. Dion Boucicault who was producing "Peter Pan" at the Duke of York's Theatre - but no alternative offer of work was forthcoming because she did not fit the type Mr. Boucicault was looking for. Out of work, and feeling she had been improperly dismissed, Miss Thomas then instituted her legal action.

The defendants position was that Miss Thomas was employed as a chorus girl, and therefore that they were acting within their rights in dismissing her with two weeks notice. Miss Thomas's position, on the other hand, was that, since she had been given her own lines to speak, she had in fact been engaged as an actress and was therefore entitled to expect to continue in her role for the run of the production.

Giving evidence, Miss Thomas explained that when she was first engaged for the production, she had been given a speaking part of three pages but that this was subsequently cut down to just two lines. The fact that she had been given lines to speak of her own, was the basis of Miss Thomas's assertion that she had been engaged as an actress, as distinct from the chorus who sang or spoke their lines together.

Justice Darling: "What were the two lines?"
Miss Thomas: "'I am a perfect wonder at spotting winners, and I hardly ever lose at bridge' and 'Dear old Hyde Park'"

Cross-examined by Mr. Bankes (K.C. for the defence), Miss Thomas said that her engagement had resulted from an interview with Mr. Brett, brother of Mr. Seymour Hicks who had engaged her to appear as a 'Gibson Girl.'

It was then explained to his lordship by counsel that a 'Gibson Girl' was an ideal of feminine hour-glass body shape that had been invented and popularised by an American artist named Gibson. Miss Thomas asserted that she had been engaged to play a girl of this type. As to the matter of contract, she added that Mr. Brett had said that a formal contract was not necessary and that she "need not bother" to sign one. In further examination, Miss Thomas agreed that, according to theatrical tradition, an actress who proved herself incompetent in her part could be dismissed at any time but that at no point had the defendants indicated to her any dissatisfaction with her performance.

Among the witnesses called to give evidence was Mr. Charles Cruikshank, secretary of the Actors Association, who was examined as to theatrical custom.

Justice Darling: "I suppose there is a slight difference between an actress and a chorus girl. What is an actress or an actor?"
Mr Cruikshank: "I should say that the chorus girl is not an actress, and that the same may be said of the chorus gentleman, but that the gentleman who comes on and says, 'My lord, the carriage waits,' is an actor."

Questioned as to the term of employment, Mr. Cruikshank opined that if a person was engaged to take part in a piece without anything being said as to the duration of the term, then the general understanding would be that the engagement would apply to the run of the piece.

Justice Darling: "How long have you known a piece to run?"
Mr. Cruikshank: "Charley's Aunt ran for three years."
Justice Darling: "And suppose a young girl joined a company that ran for three years to play a young girl's part, would she still be considered young at the end of the run? She would still play the same part. It might be very unfortunate for the management."
(Laughter in the court.)
Justice Darling: "Is that the custom?"
Mr. Cruikshank: "Why my lord, some of them get married in the morning and play in the evening!"
(More laughter)

Principal witness for the defence was Mr. Seymour Hicks. When asked what constituted an actress he stated that differences of opinion existed on that point, but that in his own opinion "a person who speaks two lines is not necessarily an actress. A super may have twenty lines consisting of 'Hooray!' and 'What ho!'" He described a 'Gibson Girl' as a show girl and stated that nobody but a madman would engage them without reserving the right to dismiss them upon a fortnight's notice. On further examination:

Mr. Powell (counsel for plaintiff): "Did you write the lines about 'spotting the winners'?"
Mr. Hicks: "Oh no - I am sure that was not mine. Mr. Hamilton wrote that."

Further witness for the defence was Mr. M. Dean, chorus director of the Vaudeville who gave evidence that when Miss Thomas was given her letter of notice she received it tearfully but without any complaint as to the terms.

The evidence for both sides having been presented, Justice Darling, in his summing up, explained to the jury that in order to determine whether the plaintiff's suit might succeed they must first of all decide, based upon the evidence, upon what terms the plaintiff had been employed. Only then could they determine whether those terms had been breached. They were unable to do so, and were dismissed, the case remaining unconcluded.

(Daily Mail [London] - 3rd February, 1906)
WHAT IS AN ACTRESS?
MR. G. Edwardes Says a Chorus Girl is One

The vexed question "What is an actress?" will not be settled easily if one may judge by the various definitions given by managers interviewed yesterday by a "Daily Mail" representative.

"According to some newspaper reports," said Mr. Tree, "an actress is a lady in trouble, but I would define an actress as a lady who speaks in a stage play."

Mr. George Edwardes carries the same idea somewhat further. He said, "A chorus girl is as much an actress as anybody. She is on the stage to portray something that is being done, and would not be there if she was not necessary. She may be called a minor actress, but she is an actress."

Mr. George Alexander is more conservative. "An actress who played Portia in the provinces would, for instance," he said, "if she came to London to speak two or three lines, unnecessary to the unfolding of the plot of a play, be still an actress. I do not, however, think that if a young, inexperienced lady had to speak the same lines that she could on that account be called an actress."

Another manager, who wished to retain his anonymity, defined an actress as one who plays a part that is necessary for the development of the plot, or the advancement of the story, or the elucidation of another character in the plot. Show girls "Speak lines that are not necessary, and they are therefore not actresses. A chorus girl is not an actress, but if she or a show girl speaks a line or two absolutely necessary for the development of the play, or of a character, she becomes an actress."

Instances of leading ladies and men who began in the chorus could be given by the dozen. It is interesting to state that the Actors' Association is preparing a scheme for the registration of actors and actresses, which will be ready in a few weeks, and that the committee will then also publish the association's definition of actor and actress.

A Second Hearing

The second hearing, the following February, in the court of Mr. Justice Ridley, was a much more solemn affair than that before the somewhat eccentric Justice Darling had been. The plaintiff was now Mrs. Hawkins, having been married within the previous fortnight.

Actor, Dramatist and Manager, Mr. John L. Shine, gave evidence for the plaintiff, confirming evidence from the previous trial that the custom in engagements was for the run of the piece if no agreement was made to the contrary, and stating that in his opinion one line in the piece would make the plaintiff an actress.

Mr. Cruikshank was again called to give evidence for the plaintiff and was also questioned as to this latter point.

Justice Ridley: "Would the speaking of one word or one syllable make an actress, such as saying 'Good night' or 'Good morning'?"
Mr. Cruikshank: "Yes, if it was necessary to the piece."

Recalled as principal witness for the defence was Mr. Seymour Hicks who stated that he had known nothing of Miss Thomas before her engagement but had had no complaint against her and would give her work again if he had the opportunity. As regards her status, he remained of the opinion that she was not an actress.

Mr. Hicks: "The 'Gibson Girls' were not actresses. They were attractive 'show ladies,' and when they were engaged they were never asked to be anything more than attractive .... I have been everything in the theatrical profession from call boy upwards, and in my opinion Miss Thomas was not an actress."
Mr. Marshall Hall (for plaintiff): "When does a lady with 'lines' cease to be a 'show lady' and become an actress?"
Mr. Hicks: "It is difficult to say. A Covent Garden porter may come on stage and speak, but that doesn't make him an actor. Where are you to end?"
Mr. Marshall Hall: "I want to know where you begin. I don't care where you end."
(Laughter - to his lorship's annoyance)
Mr. Marshall Hall: "Great actors and actresses have risen from the chorus?"
Mr. Hicks: "Yes"
Mr. Marshall Hall: "When is the line crossed?"
Mr. Hicks: "Certainly not in musical comedy with one line"
Mr. Marshall Hall: "You mean that musical comedy is all chorus?"
Mr. Hicks: "No"
Mr. Marshall Hall: "Much nearer all chorus than all acting?"
Mr. Hicks: "I don't know. You know more about that Mr. Hall"
Mr. Marshall Hall: "Ah, but then I mustn't laugh!"

His Lordship then remonstrated with Mr. Marshall Hall over the levity of his last remark. Continuing his examination, Mr. Marshall Hall referred to evidence given in the previous trial.

Mr. Marshall Hall: "'Once a chorus girl, always a chorus girl.' Do you adhere to that statement."
Mr. Hicks: "No, I'm sorry I said that"
Mr. Marshall Hall: "I thought you would be, because the corollary to that is once and actress, always an actress."

Also called to give expert evidence for the defence was writer and dramatist Mr. Augustus Moore, who considered that the plaintiff was not an actress but a chorus girl entrusted with a few lines. In his opinion it was not a 'part' because it had no bearing on the plot.

Mr. Marshall Hall: "But suppose the play has no plot - are there no actresses in it? Doesn't Mr. Seymour Hicks sometimes speak lines which have no bearing on the plot?"

Mr. Moore replied that there were many on the stage who spoke and yet were not actors, and many who did not who were actors. He stated that 'show girls' ask for a line because it is a distinction. A 'Gibson Girl,' he said, is an elite group within the general body of chorus girls.

After hearing all the evidence, the jury retired for ninety minutes before returning to deliver their verdict. They found that there was not express agreement between the parties as to a fortnight's notice, but could not agree upon the question of whether a 'Gibson Girl' was an actress.

They assessed damages at £50, prompting Mr. Marshall Hall to respond "I submit that is a finding in my favour." Justice Ridley disagreed, discharging the jury and setting aside the verdict.

A Final Outcome

The case was tried for the time in June 1906, Mr. Justice Grantham presiding. Testifying for the plaintiff on this occasion were the dramatists and managers Sir Charles Wyndham and Mr. Robert Courtneidge. Sir Charles gave it as his opinion that a chorus girl became an actress if she had a single line to speak.

Mr. Courtneidge, when asked by Mr. Marshall Hall to define an actress, replied that the definition given by another witness in the case was most excellent: "An actress would express her own individuality apart from the chorus, who expressed their part collectively."

After hearing much of the same evidence from the earlier trials the jury at last were able to return a verdict on which they were agreed - finding for the plaintiff and awarding damages of a little under £200. Justice Grantham also granted costs to the plaintiff of all three trials.

It was an expensive defeat for the defendants and a singular victory not only for Miss Thomas but for all chorus girls - henceforth most managers, mindful of this ruling, would be more careful to put their employment matters on a firm footing with terms fully agreed by both sides beforehand.