This chapter charts the impact of the establishment of systematic state funding on the nature of the relationship between theatre goers and theatre makers; the forms of theatre available to audiences; and theatre makers’ attitudes towards theatregoers. Citing Baumol and Bowen’s 1960s survey of British theatregoers – which noted their exceptionally elite status – it discusses the social, technological, and cultural shifts which have shaped the opportunities for greater audience interaction, agency, and ownership in recent years. Touching on the building of new civic, repertory, and university theatres in the regions between the 1950s and 1980s, the health and status of touring theatre companies, and efforts to create more accessible and inclusive experiences, the chapter acknowledges that the period since 1945 has seen extraordinary developments in the understanding of what being an audience means, in terms of visibility, conventions governing behaviour, marketing, opportunities for participation, and assumptions about what constitutes an appropriate place for the encounter between performer and spectator. It concludes, however, that twenty-first century British theatre still has some way to go before it can claim to have addressed its reputation for elitism and exclusivity.

This chapter considers the close interrelationship between theatre and cinema during the First World War. As well as looking at key examples of plays which were adapted into films such as The Better ‘Ole (1917) it looks at the relationship between the two modes of popular entertainment, emphasising, for example, how film screenings often incorporated or were incorporated into live performance, and how the two industries shared business practices. The chapter examines the economics and practices of cinema exhibiting, drawing parallels to the regional theatre circuits. It argues for the role of government-endorsed films such as The Battle of the Somme (1916) in establishing the respectability of cinema and demonstrates how from 1917 cinema could shift to being more of a source of entertainment: a shift which threatened the theatre industry. It examines this competition through a focus on the growth of the ‘Super film’ and through attention to the dominance of American films on British screens. The chapter ends with a focus on post-war films. Through discussion the factual war films produced in the 1920s, as well as the fictional dramas, it highlights the ways in which post-war cinema became a means for mediating memory on the war.

This chapter provides a partner to Vivien Gardners examination of theatre-going in Chapter 4. It examines the social and economic context of wartime theatre production, considering the ways in which the conflict impacted on theatre and shaped what could and could not be performed. It covers the practicalities of theatre-making during the war considering the enlistment of actors, touring patterns, the repertory system, censorship, military tribunals, and air raids. It positions the war as a period of change, whether in terms of the growth of cinema, the increasing role of women, changing sexual mores, or changing audiences. It shows how managers responded to this change in order to keep their businesses afloat, for example with the introduction of twice-nightly performances. The chapter also emphasises the importance of understanding the value of ‘feel-good’ entertainment, and shows how the interweaving of ‘new drama’ and multi-mode, popular entertainment on the touring circuits was designed to satisfy audience demand. In highlighting the ways in which the constraints of war determined both the format and content of theatrical production this chapter provides an important framework through which to read subsequent chapters.

Chapter 2 shows the company’s first tour was planned according to protocols from Mary’s reign, and relied on age-old trade routes to find their way to two locations that served Dudley’s interests. Later, as Dudley’s interests shifted and as plague, extreme weather, and floods hit their routes, the company adopted the circuits we now associate with later companies. The players’ London origins also shaped their early approach to commercial playing, performing in inns and hiring livery company halls, but hostile city authorities compelled them to look beyond London’s walls, prompting the construction of the Red Lion. Drawing on new archaeological evidence, I argue the Red Lion was designed to reflect the Great Hall at Whitehall, to give public audiences a taste of the spaces the players enjoyed at court. The plays the company adopted in the 1560s promoted Dudley’s Protestant ethos and presented characters based on the very artisans and labourers who made up their audiences and in whose midst the players lived in London.

This chapter portrays Ibsen as a world dramatist with commercial productions touring five continents between 1889 and 1916. These productions travelled on the well-established commercial theatre touring circuits of the late nineteenth century that used the shipping, rail and road networks of trade routes that linked European nations with their colonial settlements and diasporas. This early distribution of Ibsen's plays is visualized in the chapter using data from IbsenStage (https://ibsenstage.hf.uio.no), the online database that holds 23,604 production records of Ibsen’s plays. At the heart of this chapter are the stories of the star actors who played Ibsen’s characters on their international touring circuits to show off their virtuoso skills.