Though most commercial, light comedies continue to be written and acted realistically, realistic theatre fell out of fashion in the first half of the 20th century in response to a host of avant-garde theatrical experiments and the advent of motion pictures. Just as realistic painting declined when photographs began to achieve similar effects mechanically, so did staging that attempted to reproduce the actual world in every detail lose artistic status when such effects became commonplace in films.
Even before the introduction of motion pictures, the theatre was moving toward extravagantly nonrealistic theatrical effects, from the puppet-inspired theatre of Alfred Jarry, author of Ubu roi (1896; “King Ubu”), to the Symbolist dramas of Maurice Maeterlinck, the concept of the Übermarionette (“Superior Puppet”) developed by Edward Gordon Craig, and theatrical Surrealism. The most unrealistic productions, however, inevitably retained certain realistic features; the actors still had to be human, no matter how fantastic the script and settings might be. Theatre as social expression
In different contexts, various aspects of humanity have seemed important and have therefore been stressed in Western theatrical representation. Much Renaissance drama, for instance, emphasized the individuality of each character, while in later 17th-century theatre, which was much more restricted in its philosophy and in its setting, a character was presented not as a creature who occupied a unique place and status in the universe but rather as someone adapted to and determined by the quite limited environment of 17th-century society. The greatness of the Elizabethan theatre was the universality of its outlook and the breadth of its appeal. Since the latter part of the 17th century, the art of the theatre has been concerned with smaller themes and has aimed at a smaller section of society.
From the 17th through the 18th century, the theatre’s leading characters were almost exclusively persons of breeding and position; the “lower classes” appeared as servants and dependents, mostly presented in low comedy. Rustics were almost automatically ridiculous, although sometimes their simplicity might be endearing or pathetic. The 17th-century plays of Molière are a good deal more egalitarian than English plays of similar date or even of a century later; but even Molière never allowed the audience to forget that his plays were about, and for, persons of high station. A very clear line is drawn between employers and employed in these plays, and the latter, though often more intelligent, never seem to belong to even the same species as the former. However, such English plays as John Gay’s The Beggar’s Opera (1728) and George Lillo’s The London Merchant; or, The History of George Barnwell (1731) were influential and theatrical successes that stood out against the norm.
By the early 19th century, European theatre had become at least as much a middle-class as an aristocratic entertainment. Nevertheless, it was still thought important, especially in London, that the actors suggest gentility. George Bernard Shaw, in Our Theatres in the Nineties (1932), remarked that, to be employed in a good production, it was far less important that a young actor be talented than that he speak “well” and be beautifully dressed. The plays that succeeded throughout Europe were plays about men and women of good social position, and the plots were concerned with some infringement, usually sexual, of the genteel code of behaviour; The Second Mrs. Tanqueray (1893) by Arthur Wing Pinero is an example. The melodrama that dominated 19th-century European (and especially British) theatre championed the values of the middle class. However, the new literary drama of Henrik Ibsen that emerged during the second half of the century challenged those values.
After the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Soviet theatre broke with gentility. The heroes and heroines of Soviet theatre were muscular, idealistic workers. In western Europe, however, gentility continued in the 1920s and ’30s to be the dominant aim of the fashionable theatre. In New York City it received a setback at the time of the Great Depression of the 1930s. At a famous series of productions at the Group Theatre, the director Harold Clurman was in conscious revolt against the oppressive bourgeois gentility of the day. The Group Theatre was not spectacularly successful, however, and it stayed in existence for no more than a few years.
In Europe after World War II, the theatre made more-concerted efforts to reflect and to interest a wider section of society. By that time, however, audiences at all levels had lost the habit of theatregoing and were fast losing the habit of moviegoing, as television was becoming the popular medium of drama—indeed, of all entertainment. Theatre began to be directed not to any one class in society or to any one income group but rather to anyone who was prepared for the energetic collaboration in the creative act that the art demands. By the end of the 20th century, the emergence of digital technologies that enabled the use of high-quality recorded video and sound in theatres had sparked a debate over the “liveness” of theatre and whether the nature of theatre itself had become fundamentally altered by these technologies. Elements of theatre The theatrical hierarchy
Theatrical art demands the collaboration of the actors with one another, with a director, with the various technical workers upon whom they depend for costumes, scenery, and lighting, and with the businesspeople who finance, organize, advertise, and sell the product.
Collaboration among so many types of personnel presupposes a system that divides duties. In the commercial theatre the most powerful person is usually the producer, who is responsible for acquiring the investment that finances the production. The rehearsal of the play is conducted by the director, who is responsible for interpreting the script, for casting, and for helping to determine the design of the scenery and costumes. Under the director’s general direction, a stage manager, possibly with several assistants, looks after the organization of rehearsal and the technical elements of the performance—light and curtain cues, properties, sound effects, and so on.
Naturally, the hierarchy varies somewhat in different circumstances. In the state-subsidized Royal National Theatre of Great Britain, for example, the apex of the pyramid has traditionally been occupied by an artistic director, who is more concerned with guiding the policy of the theatre than with details of administration or the preparation of any single production—though the artistic director may, of course, also assume responsibility for the preparation of a number of productions. In regional theatres, implementation of artistic policy may be subordinate to a board of directors that is ultimately responsible for overseeing costs.
The dominant expression—so far as the audience can tell—is nearly always that of the actor. It may therefore be wondered why theatres are no longer dominated by the actor-manager system, as they were during the 19th century in Europe and the United States. In London, for example, Sir Henry Irving managed the Lyceum for 21 years (1878–99) as its artistic director, administrator, producer-director, and leading actor. After Irving’s day, theatrical business became infinitely more costly and complicated. Budgets in Irving’s time were only a fraction of what they are today. A single Broadway musical can now cost many millions of dollars, while the running costs of organizations such as the Royal Shakespeare Company are tens of millions of pounds each year. In addition, negotiations with trade unions make oversight of a theatre significantly more complicated.
Although the leading actor seems to dominate a performance completely, that actor is often only a mouthpiece: the words spoken so splendidly were written by someone else; the tailor and wigmaker must take some credit for the actor’s appearance; and that the actor should play the part at all was usually the idea of a producer or director.