Abstract
The theatre written and performed between 1914 and 1918 has been long neglected within literary and theatrical histories and within studies of the First World War. With this volume, however, Andrew Maunder makes an important step towards recovering this vibrant and fascinating period of theatrical and cultural history. As Maunder points out in his extensive introduction, the fact that there has always been a difficulty in “pinning” down the theatre of 1914–1918 owes much to the confusions and tensions which its role as cheerleader, propagandist and profiteer provoke. It also has a great deal to do with the complexity and scale of the field.
1
Throughout the volume, contributors resist simple distinctions between various types of entertainment, and theatre is used as a term to encompass a diversity of cultural outputs including Shakespeare, music hall, concert parties, repertory theatre, pantomime, melodrama and even cinema. As Emma Hanna’s chapter on cinema during the war reminds us, we need to consider theatre as part of a broad landscape of cultural production and popular entertainment. A real strength of the volume is its focus not only on the drama itself but also on the ways in which it was produced. Previous volumes on theatre during the war have, understandably, placed stronger emphasis on one aspect over the other: Heinz Kosok’s Theatre of War (2007) focussed solely on a literary analysis of plays about the war; Gordon Williams’ British Theatre in the Great War (2003) examined London performances during the war but gave limited attention to plays about the conflict; and L. J. Collins’ Theatre at War: 1914–1918 (2004) considered the industry’s response to the war but only briefly touched on war-themed plays and non-military performances. 2 In the current publication, however, careful attention is given to exploring the drama, whether war-themed or not, as the product of the cultural, aesthetic, practical and financial conditions both during and leading up to the war.
The focus, as indicated in the title, is predominantly on British theatre, yet this does not limit the volume. British theatre in this context includes theatre for Anzac troops, in prisoner-of-war (POW) and internment camps, and on the front line, as well as films about Edith Cavell produced in Australia. There is also a conscious effort to look beyond London despite the fact that, as Maunder points out, London was ‘the “centre” from which the war effort was directed’, 3 a fact implicitly recognised in the final section’s sub-heading: ‘alternative spaces’.
Following Maunder’s introductory essay, which places the period’s theatre within a wider cultural history and explores some of the complex reasons for the declining interest in wartime theatre after 1919, the volume is divided into four largely equal parts. In the first, the three essays examine the ways in which theatre could be co-opted for patriotic and propagandistic ends. Steve Nicholson’s chapter focuses on the first months of the war and identifies key tropes used within early patriotic dramas, as well as arguing convincingly that these plays could offer more nuanced representations of war duty than might be apparent from the scripts. Andrew Maunder moves us into 1915, examining the melodrama War, Red War staged at the Brixton Theatre. With its focus on the problem of war babies, this play, Maunder argues, held in tension messages that were both patriotic and progressive. Where Maunder focuses on ‘low’ art, Anselm Heinrich turns to the other end of the high/low art binary, reminding us that Shakespeare functioned in exactly the same way. As Heinrich points out, Shakespeare was used as a ‘powerful tool of patriotism’ during the war, both within Britain and beyond. 4 With the war fuelling pre-existing tensions between Germany and Britain over where the ‘real’ home of Shakespeare lay, continuities were as much a feature of wartime culture as were breaks from previous ideas and practices. This theme of continuity recurs in a number of other essays within the volume, including most notably Viv Gardner’s essay on gender and spectatorship.
The question of women and representation is also threaded throughout the volume, but is the specific focus of the essays in Part II. In her chapter on the representation of women’s work during the war, Sos Eltis notes a marked contrast between the wartime revolution in women’s employment and the ways in which women’s roles were represented on stage. Drawing on a range of plays, Eltis argues that women’s wartime roles were either absorbed into their traditional domestic identities, or women were shown to be incompetent in undertaking these new roles. In Katherine Cockin’s chapter on the Pioneer Players, which focuses in particular on the 1916 production of Marjorie Patterson’s Pan in Ambush, however, we gain a glimpse of how one theatre society enabled a more challenging representation of femininity to be framed. Alternate versions of femininity are also the subject of Veronica Kelly’s essay which turns to the Australian films about Edith Cavell produced soon after the nurse’s execution. Here, Kelly argues that Cavell’s representation was more complicated during the war than is often recognised, with alternative and ‘submerged’ Cavell narratives developing out of nineteenth-century melodramatic conventions.
Cinema is also the focus of Emma Hanna’s chapter in ‘Part III: Popular Theatre’. Hanna argues that film was distinct from theatre, although it provided audiences with continuities of theatrical environments and conventions. Hanna’s chapter takes us from the factual films of earlier in the war, to cinema at the front, and reminds us that concerns over the morality of cinema go back more than a century. Morality is also a theme within Viv Gardner’s chapter on gender and spectatorship, where she discusses concerns over the ‘feminization’ [sic] of theatre. Gardner examines the association between frivolity and femininity during the war, but shows us that this shift began as early as the 1880s and was merely accelerated during wartime. Gardner’s chapter provides an invaluable insight into demographic audience changes and emphasises the need to consider the interplay of factors such as class, war service, gender and generational difference when considering attitudes towards theatregoing. Continuities and breaks are also the central theme of Simon Featherstone’s chapter on music hall and variety. Featherstone presents the war years as an encounter between the music hall industry, changing audiences and wartime restrictions. He argues that the war was the beginning of the end for the industry not because it challenged wartime mores but because it took on a stabilising and traditional role during the conflict and thereby lost its innovative nature.
The final part of the volume turns to ‘Alternative Spaces’. Clare Cochrane’s chapter on theatre in Birmingham provides a detailed picture of the theatrical landscape of the city during the war, taking into consideration both the structural basis of the industry and dramatic output. From music to the poetic work of John Drinkwater via pantomime, Cochrane shows how one city’s theatres responded to the war. Ailsa Grant Ferguson takes us back to London but to the alternative spaces of the Anzac ‘Huts’ set up for New Zealand and Australian soldiers on leave from the front. Comparing the work of each ‘Hut’, Ferguson argues that not only did these venues foster theatrical innovation but they also provided an important space in which Imperial, Anzac and national identities interwove. The idea of theatre as restorative is also threaded through many of the chapters culminating in the final chapter on theatre in POW camps. Here, Victor Emeljanow offers a fascinating insight into these little examined entertainments and shows how theatrical activity was part of wider strategies of survival, for both military and civilian prisoners who feared the loss of memory and identity.
Overall, in both methodology and range, British Theatre and the Great War makes a valuable contribution to both Great War studies and theatre history. Whilst at points the reader might find themselves seeking deeper analysis or further development of key themes, the volume succeeds in laying strong groundwork for future scholarship, opens up vital questions and along the way provides readers with glimpses of some long-forgotten plays which demand further attention.