A Brief History of Pop Art in Britain and America

The roots of Bingo can be traced way back to the year 1530, when an Italian, state run lottery called "Lo Gioco del Lotto d'Italia" first began. Over a century later, the French adopted a similar game, one version of which used a playing-card grid of numbers. A caller would reach into a bag and draw out wooden tokens which were marked 1 - 90, and the first player to cover over all the numbers on their card would be marked the winner. This was the first lottery-style bingo game to be seen, the craze spread and soon was very popular all over Europe.

The Bingo that we know today was developed during the late '50s and early '60s and its growth is linked with the introduction of television (in particular ITV) which had a damaging effect on cinema ticket sales, as more people could now watch news and other shows from the comfort of their own home. This meant that cinema owners needed to create a new attraction, something that would draw people from the TV set and back to the cinema. That something was Bingo.

To begin with, Bingo was only played on certain days of the week when films were not being shown, but the cinema owners soon found that these 'Bingo nights' were much more popular than then film nights, and so they devoted more and more time to the game - eventually phasing out films altogether. Conversion of cinemas to Bingo halls was a pretty simple task, involving taking out the screen, installing bingo apparatus, removing tiered seating and adding new tables and chairs.

During the 1960s and 1970s, Bingo exploded across the country and almost every town had at least one Bingo hall. The game's popularity went further than just being a numbers game; people came not only to play Bingo, but also to socialise, have a meal and a drink, and catch up on gossip.

As the game's popularity grew, a whole new language evolved along side it, all related to the game and its rules, most famously, the nicknames of the Bingo numbers that callers use. For example, a caller might say "Tony's Den, number ten", or "All the fives, fifty five". Many of the terms are simply rhyming slang; others are based on the shapes of the numbers, for example, number 22, is also called "Two Little Ducks", because the shape of number two is similar to that of a duck's neck. Other nicknames are based on popular culture, for example "The Beatles Number" for 64, simply because of their well know hit "When I'm 64".

Though bingo clubs have struggled to attract the numbers they did during their hey-day, the new generation of online bingo players has appeared, and with them, the age-old game enters a new, phase of its long history.

Robert Walpole was a British Statesman whose was one of the central figures of 18th Century Great Britain. He is considered as the first Prime Minister of Great Britain. He has headed various government offices, played so many roles and finally attained the status of the first ‘Prime Minister’ of Great Britain. He became the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of Exchequer. He was a strong and undisputed leader of the Cabinet. His governance period was a powerful era in British history. He held various posts from 1721-1742 and his administration was the longest administration.

Walpole started his political career in the year 1701, winning the General Election from Castle Rising. Soon he left Castle Rising and moved to the crucial borough of King’s Lynn, where he enjoyed victory consecutively for forty years. Robert Walpole was an enthusiastic member of Whig Party (which was stronger than the opposing Tory Party, then). Walpole became a part of Council of Lord High Admiral in 1705, the Council which took care of the Naval matters. He had excellent administrative skills and was promoted as the Secretary at War (1708) by Lord Godolphin. He managed the post of Navy Treasurer also. These experiences helped him to become an advisor of Duke of Marlborough. Robert Walpole very soon became an important member in the Cabinet. In spite of having such an influence, he could not prevent Lord Godolphin and the Whigs from forcing the prosecution of Henry Sacheverell, who popularized anti-Whig ideas. This attempt was very unpopular and resulted in the fall of Whig Party and Duke of Marlborough in the 1710 Election. The new rule under Tory Robert Harley no longer allowed Walpole to be the Secretary at War, but permitted him to continue as the Treasurer of Navy. Harley’s attempt to influence Walpole to make him join the Tories did not succeed. Walpole denied the offer and played an important role in Whig Opposition as its most outspoken member. He spoke for Lord Godolphin in Parliamentary debates as well as in press, defending him from Troy attacks. Tories were not happy with him and wanted to discredit both him and the Duke of Marlborough. They came up with a wrong allegation that he had done corruption during his tenure as Secretary at War. The origin of this blame was nothing but political hatred. He had to undergo impeachment in the House of Commons, and the House of the Lords also charged him. He had to suffer six months imprisonment (in the Tower of London) and was banished from the Parliament. But the public supported Walpole telling that the trial was an unjust one, and the move was backfired against Tories itself. He got re-elected from the same constituency even though he was expelled from the House of Commons. Heavy hatred grew in Walpole’s mind against Robert Harley and Henry St John, who made the conspiracy.
George I came to power (after Queen Anne) according to the Act of Settlement 1701. George I was not happy with Tories whom he thought opposed his way to Power. George came to power in 1714 and brought back Whigs to the show; he remained in power for the next forty years. Walpole came up as the Privy Councillor and soon became the Paymaster of the forces in the Cabinet. Cabinet was lead by Lord Halifax, for nominal sake, but was actually dominated by Lord Townshend (Walpole’s brother-in-law), and James Stanhope. Walpole became the Chairman of a Secret Committee that was supposed to examine the decisions and works of the previous Tory rule. The people who attacked and impeached Walpole came to similar but real troubles (that came out of political reasons). Lord Oxford had to undergo impeachment; Lord Bolingbroke had to suffer from an act of attainder.

When Lord Halifax (the Administration Head) passed away in 1715, Walpole (who had a big recognition) was posted as the First Lord of the Treasury and also as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. During that time he brought the Sinking Fund, a method to decrease the national debt. The Cabinet that time had certain opinion differences; Lord Townshend and Walpole on one side and Lord Sunderland and Stanhope on the other side. Disputes were mainly about the foreign policies. The former pair was of the opinion that George I was making decisions about foreign affairs according to the interests and opinion of his German territories. They believed that he is ignoring the interests of Great Britain. King supported Stanhope-Sunderland group. Townshend lost the position of Northern Secretary and was degraded to an inferior office. Townshend later got dismissed from the post of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland also (April 1717). Walpole resigned from his office the very next day to support Townshend in the opposition. Later in the year 1720, Walpole contributed for bringing peace between King and Prince of Wales who did not had a better fellowship.

Walpole was an influential and popular member in the House of Commons and opposed some of the government proposals like the Peerage Bill. Walpole’s attempt resulted in the bill abandonment and its rejection in the House of Commons the very next year. Stanhope-Sunderland group had to give up and reconcile with their opposition. Walpole could come back as the Paymaster of the Forces and Townshend became the Lord President of the Council.

After Walpole came back to the Cabinet, England saw the big South Sea Bubble issue which brought a financial ruin to the whole nation. England was swept in the tide of the problem and the committee that examined the scandal found corruption form the part of Cabinet members. Even Stanhope and Sunderland were found guilty, and it was the intervention of Walpole that saved them from further troubles. This attempt of Walpole that prevented others from being punished, gave him the nickname the ‘Screenmaster-General’. In the turmoil (following by the financial chaos), Walpole was found successful in keeping proper control over the Whig party and the Parliament. The resignation of Sunderland along with Stanhope’s death (in 1721) made Walpole the leader of the show, the most powerful person in the administration. Thus in 1721 he came to the positions of First Lord of the Treasury, Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister tenure (de facto) of Walpole is calculated from the date of his appointment as the First Lord in 1721. Lord Townshend also shared power with Walpole and managed the foreign affairs of the nation. Parliament started solving the financial crisis under the leadership of Walpole. Properties (estates) were confiscated and diverted towards helping the victims of the financial break down. Resources of South Sea Company were shared among East India Company and Bank of England. The crisis demolished the status of Whig party, but Walpole maintained his status in the House of Commons through his skilful oratory.

In the first year of Walpole’s tenure as Prime Minister, came up the Jacobite plot (a brain child of Francis Atterbury, who was the Bishop of Rochester). The establishment of the policy destroyed the expectations of Jacobites (whose attempts at rebellion met failure). The Tory Party also met with the same fate. Walpole’s progress continued during the reign of George I. The authority and powers of the Ministers started rising up and the rights and powers of monarch started degrading. Walpole and Townshend gradually became the supreme authorities in the ministry. They tried to maintain peace in Great Britain. They made a treaty signed between France and Prussia in the year 1725. Great Britain started getting relieved from the problems of war, Jacobite threats, and from various financial threats. The nation started prospering in every aspects; peace was established. Walpole got favour in the eyes of George I. He was ascended as a Knight of the Bath and a Knight of the Garter in the years 1725 and 1726 respectively. His position as Knight of the Garter gave him the nickname Sir Blustering.

Walpole’s authority and position had a threat when George II came to power after the death of George I in the year 1727. He was in the danger of dismissal even, but was retained by the King even though he disliked him. Townshed shared power with Walpole for few years, but the latter came up gradually in power and authority and became an important part of government. They had clashes regarding the foreign affairs of the nation (particularly in the policy concerning Prussia). Walpole found victory at last, with Townshed retiring in May 1730. This date is often considered as the starting of Walpole’s Prime Minister Tenure (unofficial). Walpole was strong in his rule during the following years more than any other time in his administration. Walpole made use of his royal patronage and had the support of Queen Caroline and George II. He used to make appointments for political gain and used to grant honours. Walpole himself used to select his Cabinet members and was very particular about their coordination and unity, during certain occasions. He was the most powerful and Administration Head that Great Britain has ever seen and was regarded as its first Prime Minister. Robert Walpole, however, had so many opponents (political enemies); Lord Bolingbroke being the most prominent one. William Pulteney, Alexander Pope, Jonathan swift and Dr Samuel Johnson were also included in the enemies list of Robert Walpole. In spite of having heavy opposition, Walpole got excellent public support and support from House of Commons. His policy of avoiding war (establishing peace) and reducing taxes made him very popular in the nation. He influenced George II and prevented him from getting into the European conflict in 1733 (during the War of the Polish Succession). But later in the year, Walpole’s influence and popularity got reduced because of a controversial taxation scheme that he introduced. During that time, the nation’s revenue reduced as a result of severe smuggling. Walpole came up with a proposal that tariff imposed on tobacco and wine could be cancelled and excise tax could be imposed, for compensating for the loss. In order to check the smuggling threat, tax had to be collected from warehouses and not from ports. The idea was very unpopular and invited opposition from merchants throughout the nation. Walpole after seeing the opposition consented to cancel the bill before it was put to vote. Walpole, but, dismissed the members who opposed the bill in the beginning. This made him lose many Whig Party members to the opposition party.

However, Walpole could form majority in the House of Commons in the 1734 General Elections, though the total strength of his group was very less compared to his previous state. Though his supremacy in Parliament was not affected by any issue, his popularity started withering. Later, the tax increase in gin (riots in London), Porteous Riots (Edinburgh) and other similar events affected Walpole’s name, though he preserved his majority in the Parliament. Walpole succeeded in getting the Licensing Act (London theatres were regulated based on this act) passed in 1737 by compelling the Parliament. Queen Caroline, Walpole’s close friend died in the year 1737, but, it did not upset Walpole’s fellowship with George II (who was found to be loyal to Walpole). His authority and power in the government started declining gradually in these years. Walpole’s opponent, Prince of Wales and several other young politicians gathered and started playing against him.

Robert Walpole failed to maintain a peaceful military (without conflict), which resulted in his downfall. Various disputes and problems occurred in the State during this time. Walpole tried his best to prevent war but House of Commons, King and a particular group in the Cabinet opposed him. Walpole, in 1739, stopped his attempts to prevent war and came up with the War of Jenkin’s Ear. Walpole’s status went down dramatically even after the starting of the war. Supporters of Walpole could get a general increase in the number of votes in some constituencies but could not win the crucial pocket boroughs. Government improved its status in Wales and England but could not overturn the failures of 1734 Election. Walpole’s new majority (simple majority) was also not secure because of the uncertain attitudes of the new members. Many Whigs in the Parliament was of the belief that the ageing Prime Minister would be unable to pilot their military campaign. Moreover Walpole did not have a strong majority as he used to have. He had more opponents than supporters. In the year 1742, House of Commons planned to check the validity of a by-Election (allegedly rigged) in Chippenham. Walpole and his companion, but, treated the case as a Motion of No Confidence. Walpole could not see victory in the issue and planned to resign. King decided to elevate Walpole to the post of Earl of Oxford (House of the Lords) in the year 1742 as a part of Walpole’s resignation. Walpole withdrew from the posts and surrendered the office seals within few days.


The influence of Robert Walpole in eighteenth century politics was tremendous. He was successful in making Whig party an unrivalled and dominant political party. Tories had their toughest time during his reign and became a powerless, unimportant, trivial faction. Walpole’s policy of maintaining peace resulted in the overall prosperity of the nation. Robert Walpole could sell his ideas leaving a big imprint, and keeping his hands clean politically. He remained in those posts till 1742 and managed to develop a powerful personal control upon the British Political set up that prevailed at that time. He was rejecting the Prime Minister’s post but was the first British politician who occupied that post. Walpole was very particular about loyalty, faithfulness and regular attendance from his placemen in the House of Commons. He wanted to keep House of Hanover on rule against the Jacobite opposition and wished to maintain prosperity that can establish peace and contentment with Hanoverians as well as Whigs. He tried hard to achieve his motives like increasing trade, decreasing taxation and so forth. Later but in his rule, he could not prevent the war of Britain with Spain in 1739 (after the eventful Jenkin’s Ear happening). However, in the development of Great Britain’s Uncodified Constitution, the attempts of Walpole was less momentous. He depended upon King’s support rather than depending upon the favour of House of Commons. His self confidence and his personal influences were the secret of his success but not the support or influence of his office.

Walpole’s strategies were successful in maintaining peace in Great Britain, which can be considered as his greatest success. He was one of the intelligent politicians that the whole world has ever seen. His political style brought stability to 18th Great Britain. His influence in the Cabinet was fantastic. He was a great Orator too. 10 Downing Street was another significant legacy of the First Lord of the Treasury. George II gifted 10 Downing Street to Walpole (in 1732), which he considered only as an office residence. The house has been considered as the official residence of the Prime Minister. He had a treasured collection of art, which was one of the best collections in Europe.

In his history book "The Nature of Britain," Alan Titchmarsh explores the unique ecology of different landscapes and ecosystems of the UK. Alan shares his enthusiasm for Britain's wildlife with his readers as he travels across the length and breadth of the UK. The author encourages readers to step outside and explore the natural history right at their doorsteps.

The Nature of Britain features eight key landscapes of Britain. The landscapes are - Islands, Freshwater Areas, Farmlands, Coastal Areas, Urban Areas, Woodlands, Wilderness and Secret Britain. The book presents a beautiful contemporary portrait of Britain's wildlife. The author tells us the stories of the surprising relationship between the land and the creatures that live there. He pieces together the puzzle of what lives where - and why?

The history book features the very best of Britain's flora and fauna. It gives us information about the lives of magnificent boxing hares and bizarre dung beetles. From the tiny harvest mouse to the mighty golden eagles, the book covers almost every wild creature of Britain. "The Nature of Britain presents" us with detailed information about several rare and elusive creatures of Britain.

From otters to orchids, badgers to butterflies and dolphins to killer whales - "The Nature of Britain" presents to you a very comprehensive portrait of Britain's wildlife and habitat. The author reveals to us the beauty and spectacle of Freshwater Britain as he travels from the river's source to the sea. More than 60 million people live in Britain but about one-third of its area can still be classified as wilderness - virtually empty of people. Join Alan Titchmarsh as he explores the flora and fauna of Britain's wilderness.

This history book is available at leading book stores across the UK. There is also an online book version which you can download from the Internet or order online. BBC network is also showing a television series based on the book.

Nile Gardiner has written a column, available at National Review Online, titled, A British Blunder. The column’s first two paragraphs contain these sentences:

“Over the last 200 years, Great Britain has waged more wars and won more conflicts than any other nation in the world. From the Falkland Islands to Sudan to the North West Frontier, British soldiers have left their mark with a distinguished record of heroism, sacrifice, and bravery. That tradition continues today in Iraq and in Afghanistan, where more than 250 British servicemen have laid down their lives for queen and country. It is a proud history that has earned Britain a reputation as a great warrior nation.”

Great warrior nation, indeed! But it never acquired a proud reputation as a great civilizing nation. And that’s the shame of it all. Great conqueror, plunderer, and exploiter? Yes! Great civilizer? No! And since the end of World War II and the decline of the British Empire, what the world has inherited is “one fine mess.” In a November, 2002 interview with UK Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, published in the New Statesman magazine, even he blamed Britain's imperial past for many of the world’s present problems.

Look at the list of these places where Great Britain has left its sordid influence.

Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq where wars supposedly against the Taliban in hopes of snaring Osama bin Laden are causing utter destruction and enormous loss of life. The Sudan where genocide is a common practice. Myanmar where a military government is killing its Buddhist monks and protesters. India and Bangladesh where sectarian violence has never abated. Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Israel, all of which have been devastated by the admitted prevarication of the British government.

"The Balfour declaration,” Jack Straw said, “and the contradictory assurances which were being given to Palestinians in private at the same time as they were being given to the Israelis . . . [is] interesting history for us, but not an honorable one." And in a 1919 memorandum, Arthur James Balfour, Britain’s Foreign Secretary, wrote about these contradictory assurances: “The contradiction between the letter of the Covenant is even more flagrant in the case of the independent nation of Palestine than in that of the independent nation of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country. . . . The four great powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, is of far profounder importance than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.”

And lest we forget. Great Britain was the first drug pushing nation, having fought two wars in China to protect its opium trade.

What nice people these British have been!

Of course, Britain today is not so Great; it now refers to itself not as Great Britain but as the United Kingdom, and this kingdom today consists of only the partially willing. The sun now daily sets on the empire on which the sun once never set.

Great warrior nation, indeed, which for more than a century now could and can not even protect itself, except from minor foes such as Argentina (the Falkland Island War).

Unfortunately, the United States has assumed the British mantle and has stepped in where Britain withdrew. In the twentieth century, Great Britain, along with France and other European countries, discovered that they could not afford to maintain and defend an empire. Americans may soon find themselves coming to that realization too. Then the money and lives squandered will haunt us, perhaps, forever.
©2007, John Kozy

In Britain, the repertory movement was a theatrical movement that originated in the early years of the twentieth century, was continued and developed between the two world wars, and became, after 1950, the prevailing form of theatrical organisation outside London. The earliest repertory companies were created and introduced as a protest against London’s domination of the theatres in the regions, along with a desire to counter-balance the commercial successes of the ‘West End’. My argument in this essay is that the time has come for a renewal of that protest in the face of a modern domination of British theatre by ‘The West End’.

By the second half of Queen Victoria’s reign, most people earned more money and worked shorter hours than ever before. This meant that for the first time, ordinary workers had enough leisure time to enjoy pastimes. By the mid-1800s, most of the large towns had several theatres, providing a range of ‘song-and-dance’ shows that entertained the whole family. By the 1860s, theatre became so successful that not only were they decorated to make them more comfortable with proper cushioned seats and carpet, but also matinées were introduced and the representational style of theatre was replaced with a new realism, pioneered on the continent by writers such as Ibsen. This meant box-sets were placed on the stage to create a proper room or rooms and the set would then be decorated with all the household items appropriate to that type of room; the set would appear exactly like a real-life room. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, theatres had stayed open many hours, often until midnight, showing tragedies, farces, pantomimes and other forms of entertainment that appealed to a mass audience. Theatres were not always the most salubrious places to visit. However, by the end of the century theatres were more attractive, stayed open for much shorter periods of time and the theatre programmes again consisted of just a single play. Banks and Marson (1998, p.45) claim that:

The court of Queen Victoria and so-called Victorian morality and attitudes affected the theatre. The Queen invited actors and companies to give ‘command performances’ at Windsor Castle;

thus the theatre became open and acceptable to all social classes, not just the lower classes of the earlier part of the century.

After the end of the Victorian period, things began to change significantly. Annie Horniman was “one of the most important forces in the shaping of twentieth century theatre in England” (Flannery, 1970, p.34), funding many worthwhile and critically acclaimed theatrical ventures and launching the careers of many famous figures in the world of drama. Annie was one of the key promoters of realism in the theatre in the UK, after observing with interest some of Ibsen’s plays. She also became aware of the number of repertory theatres in Germany and was keen to introduce into England the cultural value they brought. In her time Annie Horniman bought and renovated or financed several theatres that went on to achieve international recognition, as well as developing the modern repertory movement and enriching Britain’s dramatical culture, for which she was awarded an honorary MA. Most significantly, Horniman collaborated with W B Yeats on the establishment of the Abbey Theatre in Dublin as the first British repertory theatre in 1903. In 1907, she then bought the Gaiety Theatre in Manchester and redeveloped it as a regional repertory theatre. Harold Brighouse was another supporter of Manchester’s Gaiety and a prolific playwright of over seventy plays. Brighouse’s dominant style of writing was realism, and with Annie Horniman, was one of the first Britons to introduce and project this new style of theatre into British society. Brighouse, author of ‘Hobson’s Choice’, and other writers working in a similarly realistic style at the Gaiety became known as the Manchester School, which influenced the work of many other regional repertory theatres.

Barry Jackson shared with Annie Horniman her belief in the repertory movement. He was responsible for opening the Birmingham Repertory Theatre, which offered a valuable springboard for young actors wishing to work in ‘professional theatre’; through his work in Birmingham, he was also financing and supporting four other theatre companies. In 1904, a small group of theatrical players travelled around an area giving performances of old plays such as, ‘Youth’. It was this group, the Pilgrim Players, that later developed, under Barry Jackson’s guidance and influence, into the Birmingham Repertory Company; soon small repertory companies were beginning to establish themselves all over the country.

Although uncommon in British repertory theatres, some companies employed a form of repertoire system. In theatre, a repertoire system can operate with a theatre putting on many plays, including musicals, ballets and operas, at any one time. It is different from a weekly (or three-weekly) repertory system in that each play will have a different cast from within the same company, and possibly a different technical team too, making each production quite separate and unique. There are many benefits to this system, such as better quality and an increased variety of productions. However, the repertoire system has drawbacks too, including increased production costs due to each show needing separate sets, props, costumes, actors and publicity, with frequent changes to be organised.

When the British repertory system was in its early period of great success, it used to be that even smaller towns supported a theatre. The resident company would present a different play each week, normally a revival from a range of classics, but occasionally, if given the chance, a new play - the rights for which would have been recently released after a West End or Broadway run. However, these companies were not known for producing and developing new, untried work. Generally, companies would include a ‘leading lady’ and a ‘leading man’, two younger actors who would generally play the romantic roles. There would also be a ‘character’ actor and actress who would usually play the older roles and possibly a ‘soubrette’ who would play the cheeky, mischievous roles, thus creating a resident cast of seven actors. Occasionally a ‘guest star’ would be brought into the company for a short run to boost audience attendance and help pick up ticket sales.

The process of weekly rep was very stressful and pushed both the actors and the technical team to their limits. Typically the plays put on were three act plays and so along with performing one play, perhaps seven times a week, they would also have to learn lines, run and block a second play in their time between performances. However, from the audience’s point of view, seeing so many more, different performances, nearby and cheaper than the West End, was a fantastic and exciting opportunity. Local communities would strongly support the actors and would treat them like celebrities. According to the article on ‘repertory’ in Wikipedia, “sometimes entire families would make a visit to their local rep as part of their weekly routine like going to church”. For many of the younger audience members, this became a base for their future recognition, acknowledgement and enjoyment of live theatre, and indeed, a base for their social and cultural sense of self. However, today the practise of a new play every week and a week’s rehearsal does not happen and the practise of rep is more likely to be seen in large cities in well known establishments such as Birmingham Rep where plays run for between three and six weeks. Now actors rehearse for at least three weeks and as a result, a better show is produced and performed. However, a variation of weekly rep can still be found in some places in the UK. For example, producer Charles Vance still produces a successful weekly rep in Sidmouth based on a rotation of twelve plays.

Local repertory companies were keen to ensure a regular, good quality production for their communities. However, due to the World War between 1914 and 1918, the development of repertory slowed so much, it almost ground to a halt. The repertory theatres that remained open and successful such as Birmingham and Liverpool, encouraged other theatres to open, and continued giving their own performances, even twice a night. However, despite other smaller repertory theatres opening, by 1950, the popularity of the old style repertory theatres was disappearing, being replaced by regional theatres. Following an act of parliament in 1948, which established the arts council, many new regional repertory theatres were built; these were better financed, provided better facilities and put on longer runs of plays and invested in new writing, although still in repertory.

Regional repertory theatre in Britain was at its most important and influential between the 1950s and the 1980s. During this period the number of repertory theatres increased and the movement offered a good solid base to teach actors their trade, often acting as a preparation for professional theatre. This enabled many actors, such as Imelda Staunton, Judi Dench and Ian McKellen, who all began their careers in repertory theatres, as did Laurence Olivier, Peggy Ashcroft, Edith Evans and Ralph Richardson at Birmingham Rep between the wars, to go on to achieve universal recognition for their acting abilities.

The financing of the early repertory theatres was found privately, either through wealthy patrons such as Annie Horniman and Barry Jackson, or by local support. This meant that the companies were dependent either on the public’s continual support or on a patron having enough money to keep them running for a long period of time. This left many companies in an unstable position; the money could disappear at any time and the group would dissolve. However, the importance of keeping morale high during the Second World War was recognised by government funding for the first time, through what would become the Arts Council. This resulted in an increase of financial assistance for repertory companies after 1945.There was also a noticeable growth in local funding for resident companies or ‘regional theatres’ through the 1948 Act authorising expenditure on the arts, from the local rates, by local councils.

The years between the 1950s and the 1970s were some of the richest for dramatical culture in Britain with a wide variety of productions. Not only were the classics performed, as we see in today’s professional theatres, but also many of the plays produced, both in and out of the West End, were contemporary, with playwrights such as Willy Russell, John Osborne and Harold Pinter bringing a new meaningful depth to British theatre. Regional repertory theatres enabled a wide variety of new writers to develop an interesting range of drama, often with a local or a social and political theme.

A feature of the work of Peter Cheeseman… at the Victoria Theatre, Stoke-on-Trent, has been… historical documentaries of local interest, using idiomatic speech and researched by his own group of actors. (Goorney, undated)

In contrast, the same theatre was the early training ground for the famous comedy writer, Alan Ayckbourn. On the stage today, there are fewer plays being written to be performed specifically in professional theatres, again reducing what could be a very rich theatrical culture.

The vast development of the regional theatres throughout the 1960s and 1970s was followed by a huge decline in the 1980s. Cutbacks in funding meant that seasons had to be cut back and some of the studio theatres were closed completely. The closing and disappearance of repertory theatres is due to the year-on-year reduction in funding, whether it be funding from the local communities, the regional arts boards, or from central government, the financial support is simply being denied to them. The increasing difficulty for theatres in finding sponsorship and benefactors to fund their work is resulting in lowering wages, reducing cast and company sizes and restricting budgets, all of which have a clear effect on the final performances; a reduced quality production is the outcome. This has become a concern for many politicians. In February 2003, Robin Harper, MSP for the Green Party, challenged the Scottish Executive over the funding of Scottish theatre, saying, “Core funding for the Scottish Arts Council has been at a standstill, causing many theatre companies to suffer financial hardship, and their capacity to stage productions to be severely restricted.” Repertory theatre depends upon money and support from local and national government; failure to provide sufficient support will mean that repertory will not survive and Britain will loose a key educational and entertainment resource. In a Lords’ debate on 14 July, 1998, Lord Jenkins of Putney quoted Sir Cameron Mackintosh, a leading commercial theatre producer in Britain, saying:

The reason that British theatre is the envy of the world – both artistically and
financially – is that public money was invested in revitalising regional theatre from the 1950s onwards… most UK theatres outside the West End were built, saved or funded by public money. (Lords Hansard, 1998)

Bill Alexander (1998) wrote to The Independent newspaper about the benefits of good funding from his experience at Birmingham Repertory Theatre, saying that good finance:

…will see us almost double the number of performances and productions… launch Birmingham’s only venue for new writing… produce more work for children and family audiences, double our investment in education and community activities… and bring a rich programme of large-scale work to our main stage.

Today, the situation with theatres has much reverted to how it was pre-repertory, with the ‘regional’ theatres predominantly producing amateur productions, occasional touring productions and one-night entertainment shows such as music evenings and dance shows. In contrast the West End is dominated by Shakespeare and musicals - many of which are the work of Andrew Lloyd Webber - with only very few theatres presenting plays, and those that do are long-running and change infrequently. Television has become the dominant medium at the expense of live drama. Without repertory theatres there are very limited opportunities for actors to develop their talents and train and learn their craft, thus resulting in the whole of the British arts system wilting and being reduced to a very primitive and unpolished existence. As Lord Rix said in the House of Lords, on 14 July 1988, “Regional theatre is the birthplace of most new work and the training ground for our industry.”

Film and television have been an increasingly dominant medium for drama and acting over the last fifty years with many actors who had been professionally trained in theatre, turning to work ‘on the big screen’, a career change that pays more and brings greater public admiration and acknowledgement. However, film and television do offer a lot, especially for those who cannot afford to go to the theatre regularly; a wide range of classics and dramas are constantly being reproduced on film and aired on television, making it possible for the majority of the population to have some experience of cultured drama.

It is inevitable that the experience of watching television at home, alone or in a small group, watching a film in a cinema in the company of a larger audience and being part of an audience at a live production in a theatre are not the same. The improvement in cinemas, both physically and in terms of technology, has lead to huge revival in cinema going in Britain in recent years. Watching, for example, a comedy or a horror film with a large audience around increases the individual’s pleasure and involvement in the film, because it is easier to laugh out loud when others are laughing around you too, and when one person jumps or screams, others feel the tension too. However, the performance on film is fixed and cannot react to the mood of the audience.

The unique quality of live drama is not only that the performance of the actors changes and develops from performance to performance, but also the involvement of the audience with the production adds an extra dimension to the experience for both actor and audience. The most obvious form of this is in the ever-popular Christmas pantomime. However, in more subtle ways, the same is true for all live productions in the theatre. This interaction is the key force that enables you to understand what is the purpose and underlying meaning behind the play. We need theatres in Britain that present a rich variety of drama from both contemporary and classic sources and from a range of different cultures. As Goorney (undated) suggests:

A popular theatre cannot be built solely on the basis of contemporary plays concerned with the political or social ills of our society. The plays inherited from the great theatres of the past, the Greeks, the Elizabethans, the Commedia dell’arte and the Spanish theatre of Lope de Vega, are the heritage of all people and must not remain, as at present, the privilege of the few.

I believe there are many good reasons why we need more repertory theatres today, perhaps most importantly because they encourage, prepare and train young actors and dramatists for professional theatre so thoroughly, presenting a more experienced and better trained actor to the public. This has worked for hundreds of actors over the years, many of whom have gone on to become Britain’s finest dramatic performers. There is no point training the best stage actors if there is no demand or opportunity for them to exercise their dramatic performing skills. The whole community is impoverished if we are not able to be challenged, entertained and educated by the experience of seeing meaningful scripts brought to reality by skilled and exciting actors. As Goorney (undated) says, “…Art generally, including theatre, exists to enrich our spirit, to inform and extend our horizons…” In the past, regional repertory theatre has been at the heart of that experience and I believe it is time for it to be so again.

Bibliography

Alexander, Bill. 1998. Rep must look to the future, not live in the past, The Independent, July 3, 1998

Arts and Humanities Data Service 2005 Birmingham Repertory Theatre Archive Database http://ahds.ac.uk/performingarts/collections/birmingham-repertory.htm

Baker, F (Ed). 1998. The Annie Horniman Papers, Manchester: John Rylands University Library
http://archives.li.man.ac.uk/ead/search/eadSearchHandler?operation=full&recid=gb-0133-aeh

Banks, R A and Marson, P. 1998. Drama and Theatre Arts, London: Hodder and Stoughton

The Birmingham Repertory Theatre 2007 Birmingham Rep
http://www.birmingham-rep.co.uk/core_asp/gen_faq.asp#24

Chambers, Colin (Ed). 2002. The Continuum Companion to Twentieth Century Theatre, London: Continuum

Goorney, H. (Undated). Political Theatre in Britain 1928-1986
http://www.wcml.org.uk/culture/hgepilogue.htm

Hayman, Ronald. 1973. The Set-up, London: Eyre Methuen

Flannery, James W. 1970. Miss Annie F. Horniman and the Abbey Theatre, Dublin: Dolmen Press

Lords Hansard 1998. Provincial Repertory Theatres http://www.publications.parliamnet.uk/pa/ld199798/ldhansrd/vo980714-16.htm

National Museum for the Performing Arts 2007. Drama Tour: 1900-1945 http://www.peopleplayuk.org.uk/guided_tours/drama_tour/1900_1945/repertory.php

The Queen’s Theatre Hornchurch 2007. The Queen’s Theatre (1975-present day)
http://www.queens-theatre.co.uk/aboutus/billetlane.htm

Scottish Green Party 2003. Green MSP Challenges Executive Over Theatre Funding
http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/...6/title/Green_MSP_Challenges_Executive_Over_Theatre_Funding.html

Wikipedia 2007. Repertory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repertory