British Pantomime Performance

British Pantomime Performance

Millie Taylor

• Publisher: Intellect Books
• Year: 2007
• ISBN:
  9781841509877
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Literature
• Subtopic: Literary Criticism in Drama
• Index: Literature

This original analysis of contemporary British pantomime addresses the question of how pantomime creates a unique interactive relationship with, and potentially transformative experience for, its audiences.British This is an accessible and valuable text that encourages readers to review their assumptions about pantomime and reconsider its importance as a popular theatre form. Pantomime draws audiences into the story, an engagement with the hero, and an empathetic attachment to the success of the quest. Attention is held by the familiarity of the event, and the comedians draw the audience into a relationship of complicity as they unite to create the unique experience of the live interactive performance. At other times the audience is diverted by the artifice of dance, the illusion of transformation and the surreal playfulness of physical and verbal comedy. The trick of pantomime is to maintain an effective balance between the intellectual appreciation of artifice, the chaotic complicity of interactivity, and the emotional engagement of story-telling.

1

MONEY MATTERS

Pantomime began life in the theatre as a commercial product. By the nineteenth century pantomimes and burlesques at Covent Garden and Drury Lane in particular were famous for their spectacles, illusions and hordes of extras. Most books about pantomime history concentrate on the developments in these principal London theatres, but they were followed by other theatres in London and the regions, and pantomime became hugely popular all over the country.¹ Theatre managers depended on attracting large audiences to pay for the hundreds of supernumeraries (extras) and spectacular scenic illusions. Theatres vied with each other to create the most extravagant spectacle, which would become the talk of the town and attract the largest audiences. Two things go hand in hand here; more revenue can produce greater spectacle, but the expense of spectacle relies on success and popularity. Since it is the producers (theatre managers in the nineteenth century) who take the financial risk, they must always make a judgement about the likely income from a production and assess what the outlay should be in order to ensure that they break even or make a profit. Not surprisingly producers try to assess what audiences are most likely to want to see. At the moment the most visible evidence of this is in casting, where, for example, television stars trade on their popularity in another sphere to draw the television audience in to the pantomime. Casting pantomime has always been subject to the presence of star names, from music hall through variety and later musical comedy. In the last thirty or forty years the stars or celebrities have sometimes been employed from different media including pop music, television and sport, and the transfer can be less satisfactory. However, there are other areas where the economic priorities impact on the production.

Reducing the number of dancers and musicians employed, the re-use of sets, costumes and the re-working of scripts all allow the producer to reduce the costs. At the same time the length of the run of the show and therefore the income produced is critical. Alternatively, if the show can be re-worked at a series of different venues, the costs of a production can be recouped over a number of years, which means that more can be invested in the production. It is the impact of this juggling act that underlies the different production values in commercial and repertory pantomimes. There are other differences in the perception of the audience that also impact on the two types of pantomime. Repertory theatres have subscription series and regular, often loyal audiences, while commercial producers are dependent on the production and its stars to attract the audience. Perhaps there is more pressure in this case to retain familiar material, while the repertory theatres need to present themselves as different from the commercial companies who can afford spectacular effects and well-known casts. There is a seemingly obvious correlation here, but in practice the borderlines are not clearly defined and the arguments are more complex.

During the twentieth century the regions and the London suburbs retained a pantomime tradition while that in London’s West End became much sparser and finally died in the 1980s, although there was a pantomime at Sadler’s Wells as recently as 1994, pantomime returned to the Old Vic with Aladdin in 2004 and 2005, and Mark Ravenhill wrote a version of Dick Whittington for the Barbican Theatre in 2006. From 1843, when the requirement for theatres to have a Royal Patent for dramatic performances was repealed, pantomime began to flourish in the regions. From then until about the 1920s it was generally local managers who produced the pantomimes catering for the specific tastes of the town and audience. This practice now continues in repertory theatres. In the first two decades of the twentieth century producers began to appear who created pantomimes for the larger cities and moved them from one venue to another from year to year. ‘Partly because of economies and partly because of the growth of the syndicates which delegated their numerous pantomimes to one or perhaps two outside producers, there emerged a group of pantomime “Kings” whose activities spread far and wide and as a result to some extent pantomimes began to lose their local identity’ (Salberg 1981: 61). This is the pattern that continues in many commercial productions. Commercial producers send out a number of pantomimes which they circulate from year to year, making adaptations to suit the locality.

Commercial pantomime accounts for the largest number of pantomime performances in the country and is the type of pantomime most people see.² Commercial producers are contracted by theatre managers to take a production to a theatre. The performance is then likely to be recreated over a number of years at different venues around the country. So, for example, QDos Entertainment Plc,³ produced thirty-three of the biggest pantomimes in the country in 2003–4, a few of them in association with Jim Davidson and Midas Productions Plc. They therefore have the capacity to move successful productions around, though the different sizes of venues has an impact on where productions can fit. This company would expect to spend £400,000⁴ on a new production. It may then take as much as ten years to recoup these costs, with the show being refurbished and the script adapted for other venues and performers. Paul Elliott, one of the executive producers at QDos, identified the difficulties and the costs:

You’ve got to store the production, refurbish the production, change certain costumes, sometimes you have to change bits of scenery. We used to take them out of Plymouth, which used to cost us £300,000, then spend another £100,000 to change it for Birmingham. That’s why none are being built at the moment. It’s all refurbish and add to, and we’re making new scenes within an existing production so that it will look fresh. But it is better to spend £20,000 or £30,000 refurbishing and £10,000 or £15,000 to write a couple of new scenes than starting again (Elliott).

These pantomimes will fill the largest theatres in the country, employing a group of dancers, a band of five or more musicians as well as actor/singers, comedians and a group of children from a local dancing school. In Plymouth in 2003 there were sixteen performers onstage plus the children and eight musicians in the pit. This scale of employment is necessary to fill the stage with movement and sound at the biggest venues. The Mayflower Southampton has 2,300 seats, Birmingham Hippodrome has 1,900, and both are among those supplied by QDos productions.

Birmingham is a better seater because it doesn’t have a gallery. Southampton has a third level. Birmingham is beautifully built because it is all on two levels. In fact, I think it is the only theatre in the country where the circle is bigger than the stalls.…. You don’t have to go up a third level. People don’t mind being at the back of the circle, but they do object to going up into a gallery. In Southampton it’s very hard to sell the gallery. And the smallest that we’re dealing with this year is St Albans and Lincoln. I still have an affection for Lincoln which holds 480 seats (Elliott).

QDos can recoup their huge costs over time but it is this sort of company who has to provide a sure-fire audience draw in order to sell the tickets. That means that, although the stories are important in selling the show, big-name stars are employed in many of the QDos pantomimes to attract the audience and create a return. In 2003–4 pantomime headliners for QDos included Lily Savage, Gary Wilmot, Brian Conley and Julian Clary. There is often a list of other celebrities on the poster and advertising material appealing to different sectors of the audience, perhaps someone from children’s television or a performer to bring in ‘the grey pound’ and so on. This is further reflected in a script, musical score, comedy and references that will include material likely to be familiar to different age groups.

QDos is the largest company with the biggest budgets and stars, but there are many other producers who take pantomimes to a number of theatres, moving them round from year to year to recoup costs. Ian Liston at The Hiss & Boo Company Ltd describes how a production is adapted for the venue based on what the theatre can afford.

We tailor-make all the shows to the theatre. You look at how long your run is going to be, how much money you’re going to be able to take, what you want the break-even figure to be, and then you say, ‘Right, for that we can do this.’ So the Aladdin that we do this year at the Millfield Theatre in Edmonton will be a different price or a different cost to the Aladdin that we did at the Hall for Cornwall in Truro. That’s a much bigger theatre, so we can take more money, so we can put more people on the stage, we can put special effects in, we can do all sorts of things. The cost of Red Riding Hood (Winchester Theatre Royal 2002–3) was about £75,000. Peter Pan at Barnstaple this year (2003–4) is going to cost about £165,000, 10% of that is the cost of flying the actors.

Although there is a perception that commercial companies like these are relying only on star names, many producers identify certain pantomimes that will sell whoever is performing in them. It appears to be a combination of story and star that draws the audience. Paul Elliott identifies an example of this: ‘Lily Savage in Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. They come and see Lily Savage, but they also come and see Snow White ….but the impact when Savage does it is quite unique…. Yes, stars put bums on seats, but so does the pantomime’.

Opinions vary as to which stories are currently the most popular stories for pantomime, but a survey of the professional productions in 2003–4⁵ reveals that, of 186 pantomimes listed, there were 38 productions of Cinderella and 37 of Aladdin. These were closely followed by Jack and the Beanstalk with 33 productions. Other favourites are Peter Pan (16), Dick Whittington (16), Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (22) and Robin Hood (with or without the Babes in the Wood) (13). Less common are Sleeping Beauty (8), Mother Goose (7), Puss in Boots (2), Red Riding Hood (5) and Goldilocks (4). Beauty and the Beast had 6 productions, no doubt building on the success of the Disney film and the West End and touring productions. Jungle Book, Pinocchio and A Christmas Carol are all musical tales that appear in the Christmas slot, as is Rodgers and Hammerstein’s Cinderella and the musical version of The Wizard of Oz. In fact, it is debatable whether all those listed as pantomimes are, in fact, pantomimes. As Paul Elliott commented, ‘The Wizard of Oz and those sorts of things are more musical theatre than pantomime. You’ve got to have elements of anarchy and participation which you don’t always get in those stories. There’s no audience participation in The Lion King or Beauty and the Beast – they [pantomimes] need a bit of that’ (Paul Elliott).

According to Paul Elliott the best shows at the box office are Snow White, Peter Pan and Cinderella.

Then you have Aladdin, Dick Whittington and Jack and the Beanstalk. Then you drift down to Babes in the Wood and Robin Hood which are a bit weak. Mother Goose is always weak, although it’s the best moral pantomime of the lot…. Goldilocks and the Three Bears can be fun, but it has to be star led because it’s an odd subject once you get the porridge. So we set it all in a circus. It’s good fun, I’m very fond of Goldilocks. (Paul Elliott)

But perceptions vary among producers and audiences. Ian Liston agrees about Cinderella and Peter Pan but then points to the Disney influence and the increased popularity of shows like Beauty and the Beast that are not pantomimes at all. Chris Jordan agrees about the popularity of the big six pantomimes, Dick, Jack, Cinderella, Aladdin and then Peter Pan and Snow White, but doesn’t regard the last two as pantomimes because of the absence of a Dame. In fact, in many productions a Dame is inserted into Snow White in the guise of a nurse or governess, but it is a small role that has no particular function. There is no place for a Dame in Peter Pan,⁶ but Cinderella, which no one appears to doubt is a pantomime, has two Dames in the Ugly Sisters who are the villains of the piece.

However, there seems to be general agreement across both repertory and commercial fields that the story is the most important single factor in selling the show and in maintaining the audience’s interest, although in the commercial field the ‘star’ also has an effect. The pantomimes that have generally been the key roles for principal boys, Jack and the Beanstalk, Aladdin and Dick Whittington, are variously played by men or women, again depending on the choice of star. The star role in Cinderella is usually either Cinderella or Buttons. The best roles for Dames are probably Widow Twankey in Aladdin, Mother Goose in Mother Goose and Dame Trott in Jack and the Beanstalk. The choice of pantomime can, therefore, be linked to a particular star and an appropriate character for that person to play. The difference in repertory theatre is that the story will be chosen purely for its appeal and then cast.

There is an alternative way of thinking about the economics of pantomime that is apparent in many of the commercial companies and the majority of repertory companies, and that relies on building up a sense of identity between particular performers and the venue. Paul Elliott has developed a type of repertory company at the King’s Theatre Edinburgh which uses the same leading actors each year.

Allan Stewart, Andy Gray, Grant Stott and Briony McRoberts have been in the last few pantomimes. And every year I have to write something that is going to use their talents in different ways. They’re hugely talented, but on their own, people won’t say ‘oh I’ll go down and see Allan Stewart’. Instead we say, what are we going to do this year, so now we’re inventing things together, we’re inventing new routines (Elliott).

For three years Ian Liston employed the same comedian, Terry Frisch, alongside the same Dame, Dougie Mounce, at the Queen’s Theatre Barnstaple. The popularity of one pantomime can therefore assist in selling the following year’s event. In general, however, although he employs some stars, Ian Liston believes that the pantomime story has to be a draw for the audience. This company has therefore branched out and, at Winchester, has produced two actor-musician shows by Kate Edgar and Colin Wakefield (Red Riding Hood in 2002, Sleeping Beauty in 2003), which have no star names and rely entirely on the interest generated by the title. On the other hand the company has a production of The Wizard of Oz with Ken Dodd recorded on video as the Wizard and they often use Roy Hudd as a writer, where Hudd’s name in the pantomime title is the draw. For example, Roy Hudd’s Cinderella played the Queen’s Theatre Barnstaple in 1999–2000.

These shows are moving away from the format employed by the majority of commercial producers and begin to overlap with the priorities of repertory theatres. Without the presence of stars to attract the audience the development of an audience over several years, building on the success of previous years, becomes more important. So, for example, Ian Liston prefers to sign contracts with theatres for a number of years, so that the benefit of good reviews and word of mouth from a successful pantomime one year is not reaped by another company the next. Where his company differs from repertory theatre is in the potential for the show to be presented at different theatres in subsequent years, allowing the costs of production to be offset over a longer period.

Chris Jordan writes and directs the productions at Devonshire Park Theatre, Eastbourne. Here, too, there is an overlap with the type of pantomimes performed in repertory theatre. The theatre is relatively small and must attract an audience throughout the year by presenting touring material, but the theatre does not support a company of actors producing new productions throughout the year (as repertory theatres do). There is a strong focus on audience development in a small theatre that cannot support a bank of television stars. There is usually one recognizable name and, for several years, a regular appearance by the same Dame, Ian Good. The scripts are strong with songs, comedy and participation all developing from the story, and the performances fulfil the audience’s expectations of pantomime. ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• List of Illustrations
• The Prologue: What’s Behind Them?
• 1. Money Matters
• 2. Chaos and Disruption in Slapstick and Slosh Scenes
• 3. Fantasy and Illusion in Design
• 4. Familiarity and Nostalgia in an Oral Tradition
• 5. Quests and Transformations in Pantomime Stories
• 6. Playing with Distance in Pantoland
• 7. Is She or Isn’t He? Gender and Identity
• 8. Audience Participation, Community and Ritual
• 9. Topical Reference and the Unique Event
• 10. Artifice and Excess in Pantomime Comedy
• 11. Mixing Genres in Pantomime Music
• 12. A Utopian Community of Dancers
• The Epilogue: What’s Entertainment?
• Bibliography
• Index