Vintage 510pc Pierrots at the Theatre Royal Extreme Line-cut 2
This vintage 510pc jigsaw, measuring 22x11in, is cut in a sharp, extreme line-cut style, along 'colour' lines. The performance of a Pierrot Troupe of children is at the Theatre Royal, every evening of -? Pierrots. I'm not sure if it is a photo or a b&w reproduction of a painting.
There is a long article about Pierrots on Wikipedia, but it doesn't really refer to this kind of performance.
I also found this academic thesis about Pierrot Troupes as seaside entertainment at the end of the 19th and first half of the 20thC in Britain.
www.seasidefollies.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Dave-...
"THE RAT PACK AND THE BRITISH PIERROT: NEGOTIATIONS OF NATIONAL IDENTITY, ALIENATION AND BELONGING IN THE
AESTHETICS AND INFLUENCES OF CONCERTED TROUPES IN POPULAR ENTERTAINMENT." by DAVE CALVERT.
Pierrots were first introduced to England in 1891 by Clifford Essex’ - first performances being in Brighton, the Isle of Man or Bray near Dublin. The act itself is a combination of two existing popular performance forms: the image is borrowed from the French
Pierrot, and applied to the musical revue structure of blackface minstrelsy. British Pierrots did assume the same costume of white smock, black pom poms and whitened face, but their own particular skill was far from pantomimic, being much noisier than the fey mime of its Gallic ancestor.
The genealogy of the French Pierrot leads back to the character of Pedrolino, or Pierro, in the sixteenth-century Italian form of commedia dell’arte. Pedrolino was a minor character in the Italian form raised to greater importance in Paris by the Comedie Italienne, developed by Moliere followed by the actor Giuseppe Giratone, who romanticised the role. Further refinement in the nineteenth-century by the mime performer Jean Gaspard Debarau, seems to be the route of British appropriation of the character. Pierrot became a sympathetic unrequited lover trapped in an eternal triangle with Colombine and Harlequin, in the dominant French version of the nineteenth century. Pertwee suggested that Essex adopted the Pierrot image following a visit to France, whilst Nield (2004) suggests the run of the French play L’Enfant Prodigue at London’s Prince of Wales Theatre provided the inspiration. Following its premiere on March 31 1891, the show’s immediate success led to its swift promotion from the
afternoon to the evening slot at the 1064-seat Prince of Wales’s Theatre, and an extended run of over 250 performances. From late summer 1891, a second cast toured large provincial venues in cities such as Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Hull, Sheffield, Bristol, Glasgow and Brighton. It inspired British experimentation with the image of the Pierrot that spanned the legitimate and Variety stages, masked balls and fashion houses.
Clifford Essex himself was a celebrated banjoist and later turned to banjo manufacture. Other troupe managers, such as Sam Paul of the Cleveland Cadets and Andie Caine of Filey’s Royal Pierrots also specialised on the banjo. Following the success of Essex’s Pierrots, other troupes quickly mushroomed, appearing all round the British coast, and developing a more distinct identity with the piano or strill becoming a common form of accompaniment, although other instruments could be used such as the harp and fiddle of the Waterloo Pierrots at Bridlington. Pierrot troupes operated under managers, such as Adeler and Sutton - Will Catlin, running troupes in Scarborough, Bridlington and Colwyn Bay and George Royle who established first the Imps and later the Fol-de-Rols. While the managers might have the final say on the shape, content and parameters of performance, the members of the Pierrot troupe could also bring their particular material, specialisms and routines to the shows.
These troupes retained the commedia dell’arte ensemble of skilled performers working in solo segments, various combinations and concerted sequences, across comic, musical and novelty routines, moving between slapstick comedy, witty routines, virtuoso recitations, romantic ballads, comic songs and specialty turns. This breadth of form allowed various incarnations of the Pierrot genealogy to be embraced: the clever intriguer; the lonely romantic; the knockabout clown; and the performer of impressive, or surprising, abilities. Where the specialities of commedia dell’arte would have commonly focussed on the acrobatic, in the Victorian and Edwardian Pierrot show these would echo the novelty acts of the Variety theatres and Music Halls. Further following the Variety structure, each song, sketch or routine would have its own slot and internal logic, without the overarching narrative frameworks of either the Italian or French forms of commedia. Adeler and Sutton’s Pier Pierrots at New Brighton comprised four comedians, a ventriloquist, two singers and a pianist. Later Pierrot troupes could be of mixed genders, partly occasioned by the shortage of male performers during the First World War, and Adeler and Sutton adopted a policy of employing ‘pierrettes’. Will Catlin had ‘an aversion to women performers’ and only engaged female performers ‘reluctantly’.
For John K. Walton (2000, p.4), the British seaside context of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries also ‘conjures up the spirit of carnival, in the sense of upturning the social order and celebrating the rude, the excessive, the anarchic, the hidden and the gross, in ways which generate tension and put respectability on the defensive’. Operating in this context, the Pierrot troupe did not simply reflect or adopt the performance modes and structures of the Variety tradition, but revitalised the elements of song, dance, clowning and spectacle in the disruptive manner of the theatres at the fairs and earlier carnivals.
The institution of the British Pierrot, enduring for the first half of the twentieth century, suggests that it held relevance for its audience, predominantly composed of British holidaymakers. The thesis section 1 & 2 concludes:
"The very foreignness of the character, evolved primarily through Italian and French contexts, allowed for reinterpretation of the figure while maintaining its historic associations. As such, the trend could serve the late nineteenth-century enthusiasm for invented traditions as contemporary responses grounded in references to historical situations. The alien and anachronistic qualities of the character were also pertinent for performers around the British coast, offering a striking visual image suitable to their alfresco performances. Linguistic association with the Pier also constructed a sense of belonging at the seaside. Equally significantly, the early modern roots of Pierrot formed a bridge between the entertainment structures of Variety theatre and the
carnivalesque spirit of the holiday resorts. While embracing the freedoms afforded by this environment, the British Pierrot multiplied its ancestral counterpart from an individual type to a class of character. In synthesising these aesthetic strands the
British Pierrot followed other invented traditions in renegotiating models of national identity that transcended social groupings."
" Although a unique performance form, it located itself within a symbolic network that resonated with contemporary national concerns. These included the increasing significance of racial and national identity, against an imperial backdrop; the diminishment of British power at international levels; anxiety about the political discontinuities inherent in the parliamentary system; and a growing sense of disenfranchisement in the face of relentless modernisation.
Such concerns were addressed by the repositioning of the royal family as symbols of national continuity and power that transcended socio-political ruptures. At the other end of the scale, the performance tradition of blackface minstrelsy constructed a low-black Other through which a white audience could vicariously enjoy and dispel all of the traits considered inimical to a proper British identity. The whiteface Pierrot situated itself between these two poles, recognising growing points of
alienation within the country and seeming to hold the potential to reconnect them to a unified and continuous whole.
This dimension of the Pierrots’ significance was accentuated by its context at the seaside, a space in which national restraints could be loosened – within reason – with a view to exploring alternative modes of being. The atmosphere of exotica that
was pervasive here extended to the Pierrot itself, which appeared as an imaginary variation on a white racial and national identity. In its conservative antipathy to change, however, the imaginary character could blur and present itself as the more
authentic sense of British aspiration and realisation. As such, it existed between reality and imagination, in both the fantasy lands of its own making and the recollections of its audiences, where its symbolic significance could circulate and exert a vivid influence."
Vintage 510pc Pierrots at the Theatre Royal Extreme Line-cut 2
This vintage 510pc jigsaw, measuring 22x11in, is cut in a sharp, extreme line-cut style, along 'colour' lines. The performance of a Pierrot Troupe of children is at the Theatre Royal, every evening of -? Pierrots. I'm not sure if it is a photo or a b&w reproduction of a painting.
There is a long article about Pierrots on Wikipedia, but it doesn't really refer to this kind of performance.
I also found this academic thesis about Pierrot Troupes as seaside entertainment at the end of the 19th and first half of the 20thC in Britain.
www.seasidefollies.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Dave-...
"THE RAT PACK AND THE BRITISH PIERROT: NEGOTIATIONS OF NATIONAL IDENTITY, ALIENATION AND BELONGING IN THE
AESTHETICS AND INFLUENCES OF CONCERTED TROUPES IN POPULAR ENTERTAINMENT." by DAVE CALVERT.
Pierrots were first introduced to England in 1891 by Clifford Essex’ - first performances being in Brighton, the Isle of Man or Bray near Dublin. The act itself is a combination of two existing popular performance forms: the image is borrowed from the French
Pierrot, and applied to the musical revue structure of blackface minstrelsy. British Pierrots did assume the same costume of white smock, black pom poms and whitened face, but their own particular skill was far from pantomimic, being much noisier than the fey mime of its Gallic ancestor.
The genealogy of the French Pierrot leads back to the character of Pedrolino, or Pierro, in the sixteenth-century Italian form of commedia dell’arte. Pedrolino was a minor character in the Italian form raised to greater importance in Paris by the Comedie Italienne, developed by Moliere followed by the actor Giuseppe Giratone, who romanticised the role. Further refinement in the nineteenth-century by the mime performer Jean Gaspard Debarau, seems to be the route of British appropriation of the character. Pierrot became a sympathetic unrequited lover trapped in an eternal triangle with Colombine and Harlequin, in the dominant French version of the nineteenth century. Pertwee suggested that Essex adopted the Pierrot image following a visit to France, whilst Nield (2004) suggests the run of the French play L’Enfant Prodigue at London’s Prince of Wales Theatre provided the inspiration. Following its premiere on March 31 1891, the show’s immediate success led to its swift promotion from the
afternoon to the evening slot at the 1064-seat Prince of Wales’s Theatre, and an extended run of over 250 performances. From late summer 1891, a second cast toured large provincial venues in cities such as Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Hull, Sheffield, Bristol, Glasgow and Brighton. It inspired British experimentation with the image of the Pierrot that spanned the legitimate and Variety stages, masked balls and fashion houses.
Clifford Essex himself was a celebrated banjoist and later turned to banjo manufacture. Other troupe managers, such as Sam Paul of the Cleveland Cadets and Andie Caine of Filey’s Royal Pierrots also specialised on the banjo. Following the success of Essex’s Pierrots, other troupes quickly mushroomed, appearing all round the British coast, and developing a more distinct identity with the piano or strill becoming a common form of accompaniment, although other instruments could be used such as the harp and fiddle of the Waterloo Pierrots at Bridlington. Pierrot troupes operated under managers, such as Adeler and Sutton - Will Catlin, running troupes in Scarborough, Bridlington and Colwyn Bay and George Royle who established first the Imps and later the Fol-de-Rols. While the managers might have the final say on the shape, content and parameters of performance, the members of the Pierrot troupe could also bring their particular material, specialisms and routines to the shows.
These troupes retained the commedia dell’arte ensemble of skilled performers working in solo segments, various combinations and concerted sequences, across comic, musical and novelty routines, moving between slapstick comedy, witty routines, virtuoso recitations, romantic ballads, comic songs and specialty turns. This breadth of form allowed various incarnations of the Pierrot genealogy to be embraced: the clever intriguer; the lonely romantic; the knockabout clown; and the performer of impressive, or surprising, abilities. Where the specialities of commedia dell’arte would have commonly focussed on the acrobatic, in the Victorian and Edwardian Pierrot show these would echo the novelty acts of the Variety theatres and Music Halls. Further following the Variety structure, each song, sketch or routine would have its own slot and internal logic, without the overarching narrative frameworks of either the Italian or French forms of commedia. Adeler and Sutton’s Pier Pierrots at New Brighton comprised four comedians, a ventriloquist, two singers and a pianist. Later Pierrot troupes could be of mixed genders, partly occasioned by the shortage of male performers during the First World War, and Adeler and Sutton adopted a policy of employing ‘pierrettes’. Will Catlin had ‘an aversion to women performers’ and only engaged female performers ‘reluctantly’.
For John K. Walton (2000, p.4), the British seaside context of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries also ‘conjures up the spirit of carnival, in the sense of upturning the social order and celebrating the rude, the excessive, the anarchic, the hidden and the gross, in ways which generate tension and put respectability on the defensive’. Operating in this context, the Pierrot troupe did not simply reflect or adopt the performance modes and structures of the Variety tradition, but revitalised the elements of song, dance, clowning and spectacle in the disruptive manner of the theatres at the fairs and earlier carnivals.
The institution of the British Pierrot, enduring for the first half of the twentieth century, suggests that it held relevance for its audience, predominantly composed of British holidaymakers. The thesis section 1 & 2 concludes:
"The very foreignness of the character, evolved primarily through Italian and French contexts, allowed for reinterpretation of the figure while maintaining its historic associations. As such, the trend could serve the late nineteenth-century enthusiasm for invented traditions as contemporary responses grounded in references to historical situations. The alien and anachronistic qualities of the character were also pertinent for performers around the British coast, offering a striking visual image suitable to their alfresco performances. Linguistic association with the Pier also constructed a sense of belonging at the seaside. Equally significantly, the early modern roots of Pierrot formed a bridge between the entertainment structures of Variety theatre and the
carnivalesque spirit of the holiday resorts. While embracing the freedoms afforded by this environment, the British Pierrot multiplied its ancestral counterpart from an individual type to a class of character. In synthesising these aesthetic strands the
British Pierrot followed other invented traditions in renegotiating models of national identity that transcended social groupings."
" Although a unique performance form, it located itself within a symbolic network that resonated with contemporary national concerns. These included the increasing significance of racial and national identity, against an imperial backdrop; the diminishment of British power at international levels; anxiety about the political discontinuities inherent in the parliamentary system; and a growing sense of disenfranchisement in the face of relentless modernisation.
Such concerns were addressed by the repositioning of the royal family as symbols of national continuity and power that transcended socio-political ruptures. At the other end of the scale, the performance tradition of blackface minstrelsy constructed a low-black Other through which a white audience could vicariously enjoy and dispel all of the traits considered inimical to a proper British identity. The whiteface Pierrot situated itself between these two poles, recognising growing points of
alienation within the country and seeming to hold the potential to reconnect them to a unified and continuous whole.
This dimension of the Pierrots’ significance was accentuated by its context at the seaside, a space in which national restraints could be loosened – within reason – with a view to exploring alternative modes of being. The atmosphere of exotica that
was pervasive here extended to the Pierrot itself, which appeared as an imaginary variation on a white racial and national identity. In its conservative antipathy to change, however, the imaginary character could blur and present itself as the more
authentic sense of British aspiration and realisation. As such, it existed between reality and imagination, in both the fantasy lands of its own making and the recollections of its audiences, where its symbolic significance could circulate and exert a vivid influence."