June 2012
What can you say about 'Theatre'? (A great deal, of course, and plenty has been.) I did think of writing down a list of facts and figures – but then, it would seem too much like a boring history lesson (the sort we all had to endure at school). I could have gone way back to ancient Greek and Roman times, dropping in such names as Aristophanes (the laugh a minute comedy writer), or Seneca, one of Rome's finest dramatists, in the first century. But, if I had started on that path it would, inevitably, have led on to famous playwrights from later periods. (As the saying goes 'no account of this subject would be complete without . . .') But, can I avoid that route? And, of course, complications would creep in, like, for example, many 'Roman' dramas were, in fact, translations and adaptations of existing Greek works – and we wouldn't want to go into all that, would we?
Anyway, to minimize the pain, I would probably skip forward to the English dramatic scene of the middle ages. (Let's say, broadly, between the 5th and 15th centuries.) Happy hunting ground this . . . I could drone on about liturgical drama, mystery plays, morality plays, farces, and masques. Personalities would have to include Hrosvitha (10th century) – the first recorded female dramatist (a guaranteed insomnia cure).
Things got a bit more exciting in the Stuart period – (1603–1714); royalty and the aristocracy became patrons of the arts; no doubt trying to out-do each other in commissioning ever more extravagant displays involving music and dance. However, to spoil things slightly, after the execution of Charles 1st in 1642 public theatrical performances were banned, as being likely to lead to civil un-rest.
The scene looked up again with the arrival of Charles 2nd; Drury lane and Covent Garden were established and, more generally other theatres began to take on a more or less modern design; (even having roofs and proper stages.) ( It seems this is beginning to look like a history lesson, after all!)
The 18th century, with the passing of a Licensing Act, saw the division of theatre into legitimate and illegitimate. Only the legitimates were allowed to perform 'genuine' drama; while the illegitimate took care of the rest, comprising pantomime, ballet, and opera. These, because they contained musical interludes, were not governed by the Act.
Another innovation of this period was the introduction of travelling groups of players, moving from one market town to another on a regular circuit; a routine that would eventually lead to our fairly modern Repertory Companies.
In the early 19th century, with harder economic conditions (sound familiar?), and a worsening of acting and management standards, theatre attendance, by the general public, declined. In addition, the 'middle classes' kept away, perceiving the 'new', urban, theatres to be vulgar and rowdy.
In mid-century performing regulations were relaxed allowing more play-houses to present traditional drama. Developers, with an eye to a quick profit, started to build many more town and city theatres.
This period also witnessed the birth of the wide-spread 'Music Hall'. These venues, which were much more informal and, especially, permitting the consumption of alcohol on the premises, resulted in a clear separation of 'serious' theatre and 'entertainment for the masses'.
The early 20th century saw the introduction of a very new attraction which was to have far-reaching consequences for the live theatre; this was the arrival of the 'bioscope', the forerunner of cinema as we know it to-day. This soon led to the closure of large numbers of theatres and music halls.
About 50 years later the dreaded T.V., in turn, caused the failure of many cinemas (palaces of dreams) and that, more or less is where we are today; although, it should be said, the traditional cinema, usually a multi-screen complex has made a very considerable come-back.
And, in conclusion, in spite of earlier good intentions I hope this small essay has not ended up as the aforementioned boring history lesson.