The Politics of the Pantomime: Regional Identity in the Theatre, 1860–1900 by Jill A. Sullivan (review)

Jill A. Sullivan’s The Politics of the Pantomime details the diverse methods by which Victorian provincial pantomimes expressed regional economic, political, and cultural circumstances or interests to the delight (and on occasion, dismay) of local audiences. In focusing on late-nineteenth-century annual pantomimes in Nottingham, Birmingham, and Manchester, Sullivan refreshingly redresses two common critical devaluations of the popular entertainment: that the generic “advances” of pantomime during the Victorian period denigrated the ideal form of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and that a history of pantomime necessitates as its centerpiece a study of the famed pantomimes of London’s patent theatres, a prevalent scholarly strategy that “to an extent, [assumes] homogeneity of those productions that occurred beyond Euston station” (2). As Sullivan notes, provincial pantomimes and their capital counterparts differed in far more than production budgets and technological capabilities. Unlike the specific, localized references in provincial pantomimes, London pantomimes tended toward generalized, nationalistic allusions that represented London as the undisputed epicenter of the Empire. Moreover, with their theatres leagues away from the Lord Chamberlain’s office, provincial pantomime authors and managers could engage in more overt and playful political satire without fear of significant censure, an enterprise that was further safeguarded by willingly complicit audiences. Citing pantomime playtexts, as well as numerous promotional materials and contemporary press reviews, Sullivan argues that theatre managers, authors, dramatic critics, performers, and audiences alike participated in the forging of regional identity through pantomime.

Chapter 1, “The Gorgeous Christmas Pantomime,” delineates the traditional pantomime format of the Victorian period, focusing on the transformation scene and the harlequinade as the primary suppliers of spectacle. As in London, provincial managers labored to outdo competing theatres’ pantomimes, as well as to surpass their own offerings from previous years; this required striking a delicate balance between satisfying audiences’ expectations for “traditional” pantomime fare and combating conventionality with innovative stagings, scenery, songs, and the inclusion of local references. Chapter 2 considers the various approaches individual provincial theatres took to cope with growing demands for spectacle, efforts that in turn “[established] specific local identities for their theatre, based on traditions of status and expenditure” (51). “Because spectacular theatre as a whole was predicated on scale,” Sullivan writes, the relative ostentation of pantomime spectacle “highlighted the financial and physical resources” of the producing theatre and, by extension (as was the case with Theatre Royal, in Birmingham), the city it called home (58–59). Other provincial theatres promoted their regional identity through the employment of local artists and authors, an initiative that also proved financially advantageous. Theatres that lacked the resources to buy spectacle in the form of extravagant design elements offered supplementary spectacle in the form of lively dances and grand processions performed by adult and juvenile supernumeraries. Ultimately, Sullivan writes, as managers attempted to appeal to audiences by blending tradition with novelty “according to available income and the practicalities of staging, new traditions, features and reputations were formed” (97).

These first two chapters, which together form the book’s first section (unified by the idea of “spectacle”), have much to recommend them. Sullivan demonstrates a masterful culling and employment of research in service of her history, and she proceeds through her arguments with clarity and fluidity. Sullivan is careful to acknowledge the dangers of relying too heavily on newspaper reviews before making regular (and effective) use of Victorian theatre critics’ flowery, adjective-laden accounts of unimaginable pantomime pageantry: cascading waterfalls, processions of children and live animals, mechanical wonders, and even the infusion of enchanting perfumes into the auditorium. Although the writing in part 1 occasionally lacks animation, as if Sullivan were wary of competing with the Victorian critics’ grandiloquent turns of phrase, this is not the case with part 2, in which Sullivan’s enlivened and clever prose complements the whimsical character of pantomime entertainments and better communicates her enthusiasm for her subject.

Part 2...