The 1700s marked a transformative period in the history of theatre, characterized by the emergence and widespread adoption of the actor-manager production system. This system, where a leading actor would also assume the role of manager, profoundly shaped theatrical practices and the evolution of performance art during the era. The rise of the actor-manager system was driven by cultural, economic, and social shifts, and it brought several advantages to theatre as both an art form and a business.
Historical Context
The emergence of the actor-manager system can be traced to significant developments in the theatrical world of the late 17th and early 18th centuries. During this time, theatre began to transition from being a predominantly court-sponsored art form to one that catered to a broader, commercial audience. In England, the Licensing Act of 1737 played a pivotal role in shaping the industry, granting exclusive rights to certain theatres (like Drury Lane and Covent Garden) to perform "legitimate" drama. This led to increased competition among these licensed theatres to attract audiences, resulting in a greater emphasis on star performers and increased novelty in the productions.
The gradual decline of the traditional patronage system also contributed to the rise of actor-managers. Previously, royal or aristocratic patrons had largely funded theatrical productions. However, as public interest in theatre grew and urbanization created larger, more diverse audiences, financial responsibility for productions shifted to theatre companies themselves. This change necessitated more entrepreneurial leadership, which actor-managers were well-positioned to provide.
The personality-driven nature of 18th-century theatre further facilitated the rise of actor-managers. Audiences increasingly valued individual star performers, and actors with significant public appeal often found themselves in positions of authority within their companies. These individuals combined their artistic vision with business acumen to take control of productions, blending the creative and administrative aspects of theatre management.
Advantages of the Actor-Manager System
The actor-manager production system brought several notable advantages that contributed to its prominence during the 1700s.
1. Enhanced Artistic Vision
One of the primary benefits of the actor-manager system was the ability to maintain a unified artistic vision. As both performers and managers, actor-managers could ensure that every element of a production—from the script and casting to set design and costumes—aligned with their creative intent. This holistic approach often resulted in more cohesive and compelling performances. For example, David Garrick, one of the most renowned actor-managers of the 18th century, was known for his meticulous attention to detail and dedication to realism in his productions. Garrick’s leadership at Drury Lane Theatre set a new standard for theatrical excellence and innovation.
 |
| David Garrick (1717-1779) portrait by Sir Nathaniel Dance |
Garrick guided Drury Lane’s artistic endeavors over 27 years. In that time, he acted some 96 roles, appearing about 2400 nights. His theatre in that period offered some 6400 pieces in repertory. Operating Drury Lane Theatre was a major enterprise, involving in any given season about 140 performers and house personnel. He was largely responsible for arranging the repertory and reading, approving and producing new plays. He also managed to write 49 new plays and alterations and adaptations, forming a body of dramatic literature in his time inferior in quality only to the plays of Goldsmith and Sheridan. He brought discipline to his theater, on and off the stage, and to rehearsals and performances. Garrick also effected a number of significant changes and reforms in stage practices, introducing innovations in the theatrical arts of scenery, lighting, costuming, and stage procedures.
For instance, Garrick moved away from the static, painted backdrops used in the Restoration period and introduced more realistic and detailed scenery to better reflect location and mood. Though limited by the technology of the time, he made significant strides in stage lighting by focusing on the intensity and placement of candles and oil lamps. He aimed to highlight specific areas of the stage and create a more immersive atmosphere. Garrick introduced historically accurate costumes, which, at the time, was a stark departure from the traditional practice of actors wearing contemporary dress regardless of the play's setting. This innovation was particularly evident in productions of Shakespeare's plays, where he strove for authenticity in period dress, including paying attention to costumes in order to reflect the social status, personality, and context of individual characters. He was among the first to extend the rehearsal period significantly. He believed in thorough preparation, which contrasted with the previous approach of minimal rehearsals before opening night. He imposed stricter discipline during rehearsals leading up to opening a play for the public, demanding that actors learn their lines and blocking in advance. Garrick’s innovations marked a departure from the more static and formulaic practices of earlier periods, ushering in a new era of professionalism in the theatre.
Additionally, theatres sought to attract audiences by promoting individual actors with widespread appeal, often referred to as "star performers." These actors became central to the marketing and success of productions, drawing crowds who wanted to see their favorite performers on stage. This competitive environment also encouraged theatres to innovate by experimenting with new staging techniques, elaborate set designs, and creative interpretations of plays. These efforts ensured that productions stood out and maintained the interest of an increasingly discerning public.
2. Increased Financial Accountability
Actor-managers also brought a heightened sense of financial responsibility to theatrical enterprises. As individuals with a vested interest in the success of their productions, they were motivated to manage resources efficiently and tailor their offerings to audience preferences. This often involved balancing artistic ambition with commercial viability, leading to a more sustainable model for theatre companies. Actor-managers like Sarah Siddons and her brother John Philip Kemble exemplified this balance, combining their celebrated acting careers with astute managerial practices to achieve both critical and financial success.
 |
| Sarah Siddons (1755 - 1831) portrait by Thomas Gainsborough |
For instance, they selected works that showcased their talents and aligned with their public personas. Siddons, in particular, excelled in tragic roles, so much so she cultivated a public image as the "Queen of Tragedy." These roles highlighted her dramatic skills and resonated with audiences. They often performed in Shakespearean plays, which were considered both culturally prestigious, fitting to their public personas and commercially reliable. Siddons and Kemble created a theatre-going experience that was refined and sophisticated, attracting wealthier patrons while keeping ticket prices accessible enough to draw in a broader audience. They also capitalized on the theatre’s role as a hub of social activity, making performances an essential part of the cultural calendar for elite and aspiring audiences alike.
3. Development of Star Performers
The actor-manager system also played a crucial role in nurturing and promoting star performers. By taking control of productions, actor-managers could design roles that showcased their own talents or those of other actors in their companies. This emphasis on individual brilliance not only attracted audiences but also elevated the status of actors within society. The emergence of iconic figures such as Garrick, Siddons, and Kemble helped to establish acting as a respected profession and contributed to the growing cultural significance of theatre.
For example, by treating acting as a high art form rather than mere entertainment, American actor-manager Edwin Booth elevated the public perception of actors as artists and intellectuals. He was known for his refined and intellectual approach to acting, particularly in Shakespearean roles. His portrayal of Hamlet became iconic and set a new standard for serious dramatic performance. Booth went on to build Booth's Theatre in New York City in 1869, which was considered one of the most elegant and state-of-the-art theatres of its time. It featured innovative technologies, like hydraulic stage machinery, and a focus on high-quality productions. The theatre's sophistication reinforced the idea that acting and theatre could be respected cultural institutions. Additionally, in 1888 Booth founded the Player's Club in New York's Grammercy Park. The club served as a social and cultural hub where actors, writers, artists, and other intellectuals could gather on equal footing with prominent members of society.
 |
| Edwin Booth (1833 - 1893) as Hamlet, New York 1866 |
The Player's Club embodied Booth's vision of fostering camaraderie and mutual respect between artists and influential figures from other professions, breaking down social barriers that had historically marginalized actors.Booth carried himself with grace and professionalism, which helped counteract the lingering societal prejudice against actors as morally or socially suspect. This was especially significant for Booth himself, for he also had to overcome the stigma associated with his name after his younger brother John Wilkes Booth, (also an actor, though not as good as Edwin) assassinated President Abraham Lincoln. Edwin Booth carried himself with dignity and a composed demeanor throughout this period of personal and public turmoil. While he grieved privately for both the loss of the president and his family's disgrace, he refrained from public outbursts or defensive statements that might have been seen as self-serving. This quiet professionalism earned him sympathy and respect from the public, who recognized his distance from his brother's actions. Edwin was a Unionist and supporter of Lincoln who publicly denounced slavery and made it clear that he did not share his brother’s Confederate sympathies or political extremism. His commitment to his craft and his dignified demeanor helped change public attitudes. It helped solidify his reputation as a man of principle and integrity. Despite calls for his retirement, Edwin eventually returned to the stage, most notably in 1866, with a powerful performance as Hamlet in New York City. His triumphant return was widely interpreted as an act of resilience and redemption. His performances, imbued with deep emotional intensity, resonated with audiences who admired his ability to rise above personal tragedy and disgrace. By focusing on his art and maintaining high standards of professionalism, Edwin Booth reminded the public of his personal and artistic merits. The ripple-effect of this helped in making the acting profession more respectable and paving the way for future actors to be taken seriously.
Decline of the Actor-Manager System
The actor-manager production system remained a dominant force in theatre well into the 20th century, leaving a lasting impact on the art form. It laid the groundwork for modern theatrical practices by emphasizing the importance of cohesive artistic direction, financial sustainability, and the cultivation of star performers. The system eventually declined with the rise of ensemble-based productions, corporate management of theatre venues and the advent of new entertainment mediums in the 20th century. This shift was driven by several factors.
The increasing complexity of theatrical productions required more specialized roles, such as directors, designers, and producers, which diluted the centralized control traditionally held by actor-managers. Additionally, the growth of large-scale production companies and syndicates brought a more business-oriented approach to theatre management, prioritizing efficiency and profitability over the personal artistic vision of an individual actor-manager. As independent theatre magnates such as Charles Frohman and Fred Zimmerman, and later the Shubert Brothers and David Nederlander, began buying up theatres and forming theatrical booking monopolies the actor-managers lost negotiating power. The preference to keep a show running by extending its run, if profitable, played havoc with touring schedules. By the time the Theatrical Syndicate was formed in 1896, founded by five of the biggest theatre magnates, the death knell of the traditional nineteenth-century actor-manager had sounded.
In 1874 the Meiningen Ensemble began to tour Europe. The group was founded by the first modern "director" George II, Duke of Saxe-Meiningen, a cultured and intellectual member of the higher nobility in the German Empire. He and his ensemble brought many innovations that became widespread over the next sixteen years the company toured. This included highly detailed choreography, especially in the crowd scenes, an emphasis on verisimilitude over vocal and physical acting technique, the use of a well-trained ensemble over the star system and a focus on historical accuracy in scenery, costumes and props. The Meiningen Ensemble greatly influenced many other theatre professionals including Ibsen, Stanislavski and Antoine. The concept of a professional leader molding the production from outside of the performance (especially someone who had not even written the work) was novel at the time. On top of this, theatrical tastes were changing. Realism was becoming fashionable and the classical canon and melodramas - the standard fare for many actor-managers - was on its way out.
The rise of ensemble-based productions emphasized collective creativity and collaboration, moving away from the star-driven model of the actor-manager era. Furthermore, the emergence of radio and cinema as dominant forms of entertainment significantly diminished theatre’s audience base by the early decades of the 1900s. These new mediums offered mass accessibility and lower costs, drawing the public away from traditional theatrical performances. As audiences shifted their focus to these innovative platforms, the financial viability of the actor-manager system waned. Together, these changes set in motion the decline of the actor-manager system, paving the way for a new era of professionalized and diversified theatre management.
Though these changes ultimately marked the end of the actor-manager system as the dominant theatrical production system, its influence can still be seen in rare cases in contemporary theatre, where directors often take on roles similar to those of 18th-century actor-managers.
Legacy of the Actor-Manager System
In conclusion, the rise of the actor-manager production system in the 1700s was a response to the changing cultural and economic landscape of the time. It lasted as a viable production structure for over a hundred years and declined also because of changes in the cultural and economic landscape. By combining artistic leadership, managerial responsibility and personality-led presentation, actor-managers transformed theatre into a more dynamic and professionalized industry. Their contributions not only shaped the theatrical practices of their era but also laid the foundation for future innovations in the theatre arts.
# # #
Perhaps you would be interested in adding more excitement and romance, adventure and intrigue to your life. If that's the case, I don't know what to tell you. But I would suggest you subscribe to my newsletter. I mean, who knows? Life is full of surprises. I only send stuff out occasionally, but it is good stuff. Hit the button below...
.jpg)
.jpg)
