This is a test
- 272 pages
- English
- ePUB (mobile friendly)
- Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub
Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations
About This Book
Maggie Gale's West End Women uncovers groundbreaking material about women playwrights and the staging of their performances between the years 1918 and 1962.
It documents a dynamic era of social and theatrical history, analysing the transformations that occurred in the theatre and the lives of British women in relation to specific plays of the period. Focusing on the work of playwrights such as Dodie Smith, Clemence Dane, Gordon Daviot and Bridget Boland, Maggie Gale examines the cultural and political context within which they enjoyed commercial success and great notoriety.
Frequently asked questions
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlegoâs features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan youâll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, weâve got you covered! Learn more here.
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Yes, you can access West End Women by Maggie Gale in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Media & Performing Arts & Performing Arts. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.
Information
1
INTRODUCTION
West End women, a force to be reckoned with
Old paint on canvas, as it ages, sometimes becomes transparent. When that happens it is possible, in some pictures, to see the original lines: a tree will show through a womanâs dress, a child makes way for a dog, a large boat is no longer on an open sea. That is called pentimento because the painter ârepentedâ, changed his mind. Perhaps it would be as well to say that the old conception, replaced by a later choice, is a way of seeing and then seeing again.
(Hellman 1974: 1)
Women playwrights who wrote for the London stage between 1918 â the point at which some women were granted the vote â and 1962 â the year which saw the publication of Lessingâs The Golden Notebook (Lessing 1962a), which many feel paved a way for a renewed radicalism within the womenâs movement â have made vital, witty and various contributions to the British theatre which should no longer be ignored. During the 1980s and 1990s there were a number of London revivals of both British and American plays by women playwrights of the mid-twentieth century. The Royal National theatreâs productions of Sophie Treadwellâs Machinal and Lillian Hellmanâs The Childrenâs Hour received great critical acclaim, and these followed in the wake of other successful British revivals of plays such as Susan Glaspellâs Alisonâs House and Enid Bagnoldâs The Chalk Garden as well as the star-studded production of Clare Boothe-Luceâs The Women at the London Old Vic. These plays represent only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the number of successful plays by women that were originally produced on the London stage during the years which span the end of the First World War to the early 1960s. However, in both feminist and non-feminist histories of British theatre, the inter-war years and those leading into the early 1960s are usually presented as being less than fruitful for women playwrights. Brief acknowledgements of the fact that women were writing for the theatre are followed by comments on their lack of a feminist perspective or innovative strategyâin other words, there is an assumption that their work does not warrant serious examination. Their work is often dismissed because they were middle class, writing for a commercially oriented theatre.
In a recent anthology of plays written by women and produced on the London stage between 1900 and 1950, the editor frames her choice of included texts with the following statement:
There were⌠scores of women playwrights during this period⌠most of them⌠fall outside of the mainstream of the theatrical movementâŚ. I started my search for plays by reading everything that had been put on in London, hoping that I would stumble across a lost masterpiece. It didnât take long to realise that the likelihood of this was slim, and the task would take a lifetime.
(F. Morgan 1994: xv)
Indeed there were âscores of womenâ writing for the theatre between 1918 and 1962, most of whose work existed inside the mainstream. These mid-twentieth-century women playwrights, who at one time were household names and popular public figures, have largely been allowed to disappear from conscious historical-theatrical memory. It would probably take a lifetime to analyse all of the plays written and performed, but to use the search for a masterpiece as a working criterion is rather short-sighted and in many ways irrelevant; this search depends on such outmoded agendas that it is hardly worthwhile. Morgan falls into a trap of censoring as identified by Davis, whose antidote is that the âfeminist historianâs task is to address the censoring impulse, to validate the experience, and to connect the woman with the work and the work with the world at largeâ (Davis 1989: 66â69). Morgan gives too much credibility to the comments which male historians of the past have made about the women writing for the theatre of the period under discussion, whereby prolific and successful women playwrights like Clemence Dane and Dodie Smith are discussed in the following terms:
Briefly, in Clemence Dane and Dodie Smith we have the tempest and the teacup-storm. Each, in its way, has been felt in the theatre. Yet I think Aphra Behn, turning the play-bills of nearly three hundred years, would have to shake her head. Womenâs Hour upon the stage is sparsely filled indeed.
(Trewin 1953: 132)
This book aims to challenge such notions and provide a starting point for those interested in the work of âWest End womenâ, female playwrights who wrote for the London stage between 1918 and 1962.
Texts have been selected and examined both in the context of the theatre of the time and of the changing society in which women lived and worked. Although there is no immediate common political thread which binds the plays together, many of the texts shared certain key thematic preoccupations which shaped the way in which woman and the feminine were inscribed within narrative. Questions around women and work, the family, mothering and the âfemale conditionâ in general are dramatically foregrounded. The playwrights took into conscious and active consideration the discrepancies between the social expectations and the lived experiences of women. Discussions around womenâs role in both postwar economies and in the âmaking of Britainâ, marriage, family life and womenâs social status were frequent and, at times, explicit. These were the same issues which both fuelled public discussions and created debate within the womenâs movement and the popular press of the time.
Itâs a curious thing that nobody ever has a good word for the modern girl. Nevertheless, she is more useful than the weather as a subject of conversation. She is always the centre of interest and always in disgrace. When she wears long skirts men rail upon her for her unsanitary ways: when she shortens them they tell her that she is immodestâŚ. When she sits at home and takes no interest in public life she is told that she is a doll in a dollâs house; when she beats the Senior Wrangler they exclaim indignantly that a womanâs place is in the homeâŚ. It is a fact, Iâm afraid, that she is less reverent than once she wasâŚ. She is too busy keeping fit: educating herself: playing games: running a business: running a home: flying an airplane, or looking after a babyâŚ. Seeing her thus healthy, able to be wealthy by her own exertions, and much wiser than most of the âmodern girlsâ who have preceded her, the critic has only one weapon of offence left: so nowadays he tells her that in becoming what she is she is losing her femininity, that she may become a female magnate, but that she will never again be a Helen of Troy!
(Clemence Dane, âModern beauty has nothing to fearâ, Evening Standard, 27 March 1930)
Over the forty or so years covered here, debate and theorising on what it meant to be a woman was fervent. The debate often presented a womanâs life choices as being polarised â she should choose between a career or a family, marriage or work and so on. The plays examined in this book are viewed in the context of this debate.
This book provides a âre-charting of an historical canon of plays by womenâ which, as Aston has observed, âdoes not engage in a more radical re-thinking of what constitutes theatre historyâ (Aston 1995: 28). However, documentation, description and analysis are combined with questions around how the work was perceived and whether it reflected womenâs lives and experiences of what it meant to be a woman. The impact and variety of the wealth of plays is only indicated here. This book represents the beginnings of research which needs to be carried out, first, by a number of researchers and, second, from a number of ideological positions. My own position of analysis was influenced by a desire to transgress the boundaries of research on the history of womenâs play-writing which were already in position. The formation of these boundaries itself reflects the many assumptions which have been made by some feminist theatre historians who have been eager to âchallenge the canonâ. The limitation of the male-dominated canon was integral to the research, but the danger of re-marginalising womenâs playwriting through an attempt to insert it into a purely feminist framework was also a concern. The purpose here has been to examine the way in which women, as a social and cultural âout-groupâ â lacking real power in criticism, management, programming and so on â infiltrated and integrated with a dominant form of theatre. Similarly the investigation of âout-groupâ contributions to legitimate or dominant forms of theatre is bound to reveal information about less visible, less legitimate theatre activity and possibly invite re-thinking of theatre history itself. Klein suggests that when we look at the role of an âout-groupâ within any given society, we learn much about the social structure of that society itself (Klein 1989: 4). Certainly, the results of this research should encourage a questioning of the way in which histories of playwriting for the London stage have thus far been constructed. Re-charting the work of women playwrights is not only a âuseful and necessary part of challenging the male canonâ, it is also a continuing process, the results of which need constant expansion and analysis (Davis 1989).
PERIODISATION
In general, twentieth-century theatre in Britain has been periodised according to either social or economic events such as the First and Second World Wars, or âtheatre eventsâ such as the now almost mythologised introduction of the âangry young manâ in 1956.1 Equally, there is a temptation for theatre historians to use the inauguration of the new state-funded theatres as some kind of measuring stick for turning or even starting points and new theatrical eras, carrying with it the assumption that a new era in terms of structure and economics brings with it a new kind of play. The political events of 1968 in Western Europe are pinpointed as the context for the fruition of the Fringe and later the âalternativeâ theatre for which the ideological position was that of left or socialist politics and a desire to re-invest theatre with the âpopularâ simultaneous to finding new audiences. Although these events have a great significance for theatre history, there has been a tendency to see them as fixed points, each one inspiring a completely new direction in the making of theatre. Thomas Postlewait stresses that this kind of agenda frames the way in which history is re-created and received. As he points out:
The concept of periodization, in its normative if somewhat misleading usage, delineates one aspect of history, the condition of stability (or identity), in relation to another aspect, the process of change (or difference)âŚ. The continuous flow of time is organised into heuristic categories, episodes of our creation. As such, periods are interpretative ideas of order that regulate meaning.
(Postlewait 1988: 299â320)
In truth, the âwell-made playâ still dominates the component of mainstream British theatre which produces plays. Equally, Findlaterâs observation in 1952 that, âGoing to the theatre is still for most Englishmen (sic)⌠a holiday treat. The Englishman, whatever his income, does not visit the play for week-to-week entertainmentâ (Findlater 1952: 194) would arguably be just as applicable today. Play-going is still, it would seem, a predominantly upper- and middle-class habit.
The years 1918â1962 have hitherto been largely neglected in terms of a re-assessment of women playwrights in particular. Thus taking 1918â1962 as a phase in womenâs playwriting cuts across traditionally accepted periods of theatre history. Michelène Wandor states:
During the 1920s and 1930s organised feminism was far less visible; struggles to improve the position of women within society continued less publicly. Organisations continued to argue and work around specific issues, such as contraception and child care, and within working-class organisations⌠feminism still found a presence. But theatre work controlled by women, and linking feminism and aesthetics, ceased to command its own space. There were a number of women who were active within the Unity Theatre Movement⌠and there was the occasional play about the âwomen questionâ â equal rights for women, equal educational opportunities, abortion. But it was only well after the Second World War that feminism and theatre again came together; this time in a greatly changed social and political situation in which radical postwar changes to the family had produced intense and contradictory pressures on women.
(Wandor 1981: 10)
Wandor is writing about a specific historical period, but in general terms. There was apparently no centralised theatre organisation similar to the Actresses Franchise League during the period under examination here (see Chapter 3). However, there were many women managing small companies or theatres, directing and producing or writing plays. The criterion for the inclusion of plays here is simply that the play was performed, not necessarily professionally, and that it is available in print. The framework within which the plays are examined is the social, historical and theatrical context in which they were performed. Although on one level Wandorâs statement about the linking of âfeminism and aestheticsâ in theatre can be taken as true, it is based on a simplified notion of what happened to the feminist or womenâs movement during the period in question. It also negates the existence of many plays written by women that, in effect, centred their narratives on the âwoman questionâ, and the intense and contradictory pressures on women which were felt, developed and grew in intensity continuously between the two world wars, up until the early 1960s and beyond.
THE LONDON STAGE 1918â1962
A history of the London stage during the first half of the twentieth century is characterised by complaint, disorder, difference, indifference, innovation, financial crisis, elitism, populism and competition. The plays written by women or male/female teams, moreover, represent approximately one-sixth of the total number of new plays which were previewed and produced during the period. The drama, as exemplified by the âwell-made playâ, is only a proportion of that which made up the dramatic and theatrical content of the London stage as a whole. This book examines the context, content and reception of plays written by women in the commercially oriented theatre. Here, a distinction must be made between the commercial drama â produced by commercial managements â and the commercial theatre.
During the late nineteenth century the belief that theatre as art could exist for artâs sake gained popularity alongside a belief in the educational potential of theatre. That drama could be educational as well as entertaining created an environment in which plays could focus on social and political/moral issues â but these plays would not necessarily draw the large audiences needed for theatre to be profitable. Arguments for a non-profit-oriented theatre plagued the minds of critics and theatre historians of the inter-war and post-Second World War theatre. Similarly, the search for a drama which contained the means to interest and represent an audience beyond the social elite inspired the work of many playwrights and a number of producers. Some, however, were concerned that the drama maintain its interest for the minority, as an art form that should not pander to the needs of the âmassesâ, lest it be contaminated by the trivial concerns of their lives. The identification of âtrivialâ concerns in the drama has had a significant influence on the way in which the work of the women playwrights in question has been historically and critically positioned. Domestic stage spaces are regularly assumed to be the place where the âtrivialâ concerns of womenâs lives, of interest to a âminorityâ, are played out. Thus many of the plays by women, because they take âdomestic lifeâ as a starting point, have been considered unworthy of critical analysis.
Numerous critics and historians in the 1950s hailed the Royal Court and the writers whose work it promoted as a new departure point for the drama. Through the Royal Court a new generation of writers emerged in London, playwrights whose interest lay in an âotherâ class, and an âotherâ perception of playwriting and the power of the drama as an art form. In the early days, the Royal Court may have reached out to different audiences, but certainly not larger ones. The plays may have reflected more honestly the lives of the âmassesâ, but this does not mean that the masses flocked to see them. New playwrights may have borrowed from the popular but it would be difficult to prove that their work re-popularised drama and play-going as a leisure activity.
A history of the drama during the period in question is not only plagued by the frequent questioning of purpose and form, but also by a number of assumptions about the desired effect of theatre, both as a culture-producing and culture-reflective institution. Many critics questioned the idea that drama should entertain, finding it hard to accept that for some the theatre represented a social event more than anything else. In their eyes, entertainment was the job of the entertainment industry, not the serious playwright. That a play should contain a serious and discernible social or moral message was primary, ent...
Table of contents
- Cover
- Halftitle
- Title
- Copyright
- Dedication
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- 1. Introduction: West End women, a force to be reckoned with
- 2. Women in Society 1918â1962: An overview
- 3. The London Stage 1918â1962: An historical context for women in theatre
- 4. To Work or Not to Work: Representations of working women
- 5. Motherhood and the Family: From matriarchs to refusing mothers
- 6. Dramatising History: The search for national heroines
- 7. Spinsters and Widows: Women without men
- 8. Postscript
- Appendix. Table of plays by women on the London stage 1917â1959
- Notes
- Bibliography
- Index