Pictorial Shakespeare, 1880-1890 - eTheses Repository - University ...

82
palled on many observers - the critic of Vanity Pair* whose
disgust with Pluck and delight in The Silver Kini^ hare been
mentioned in the preceding section, found solace in the fresher
air of the East End theatres* On October 7, 1882 he reviewed
Hope at the Standard. Islington* Mazsppa at Astley's and ?or
Ever at the Surreyt in the last named. George Conquest, as
an ape-man shased the heroine round the room and cut her to
pieces behind the sofa* The critic found such delights a
pleasant changes
A rare place is your East-End for acting, no
finickin fiddling with cigarettes, no toying
with teapots, no subtleties of situation, nor
delicacies of dialogue; but great big slashing
stuff, sturdy and strong, is slung at you as you
sit in your exceedingly comfortable three-shilling
stall in a smoking-jacket, if you are too idle to
dress.
It seemed that in the West End there was no alternative to
the genteel niceties of the Court, the St. James'a or the
Haymarket and the realistic but empty sensation scenes of
Drurji Lane and - increasingly - the Adelphi. Even pantomime
had been debased, and Truth, castigating Drury Lane for its
"pantomime of panoply rather than the pantomime of fun" laid
the blame at Bancroft's door - "Years ago the Bancroft* started
the era of stage extravagance" (2 January 1890). The story of
the yearly pantomime had been buried under the costly trappings
of costumes and scenery, and interrupted by processions and
dances designed to show off these appointments to their best
advantage.
If the literary content of pantomime was jeopardised, it
is not surprising to find the literary content of the classics
subordinated to display. Not ,only were new plays being written
to provide managements with excuses for lavish expenditure, but
old ones were being re-written. The vagaries of Bancroft's
productions of "old comedy" are representative.
Since Hobertson's death, in 1871, both the Bancrofts and
the Kendals had been obliged to seek new material. No English
author, save Gilbert in his less cynical and fantastic moods,
could provide plays of the right kind with a range defined by
domestic pathos at one extreme, and domestic comedy at the other,