Theatrical Riots: Explosions in the Audience

If both Aristotle and the laws of thermodynamics are to be believed, theatre is human nature and the world trends to entropy. So, what rawer form of humanity than a theater riot? Riots in theater have been observed globally and through written history. On the early end of the spectrum, Roman pantomimes led to rioting in 14 and 15 AD, and two millennia later theater riots were occurring well into the 1900’s. Theater riots can be tracked as related to particular times of tension within the community surrounding the events, often related to issues of class and social status. As a phenomenon, theatre holds a tension between its rich origins as a social melting pot imbuing a sense of ownership from all patrons and its evolution of class stratification in relation to theater consumption. In modern times, theatre, to the dismay of many, is a pricy entertainment requiring an investment of money, time, and social skills. The practice is inaccessible to most Americans except as a special treat. A paper by Chan and Goldthorpe (2005) explains class inequalities ties to theater consumption. They found that consumers in England in the early 2000’s followed the omnivore–univore pattern. Those of high social class consume a wide range of culture, making them omnivores, while those of the lower class–univores–are restricted to less expensive, low-brow entertainment (Chan and Goldthorpe, 2005). In addition to its modern class stratification, theater can also be the home of controversial art and is presented in enclosed spaces, other characteristics that help explain the eruption of riots 

Why do riots happen?

One key model for understanding public disorder events, including riots, is the flashpoint model (Waddington, 1989). Developed by David Waddington, a sociologist,  in 1989, the model uses structural, political, cultural, contextual, situational, and interactional levels to explain riots. Each level brings a different perspective to analyzing the causation of riots. The structural level is concerned with the state’s indifference to citizens’ plight. The political level evaluates how the state responds to the rioters’ wishes prior to the violence. The cultural level relates to the degree of in-grouping, how connected the rioters are to each other. The contextual level speaks to the communication between conflicting parties. The situational level deals with the setting: does the area tend to be heavily policed? Can a crowd easily disperse? Does the locale hold symbolic meaning for the rioters? The interactional level examines the history of events and interactions leading up to the riot. Waddington’s framework offers a lens and language for understanding theatre riots and by implication helps illuminate some broader ideas about the history of theater. 

Early Riots 

Though knowledge about Ancient Greek theater is vast, there is a dearth of scholarship suggesting the occurrence of theatrical riots in Ancient Greece. While this could be because there is simply no surviving record, the flashpoint model points to the religious importance of theater in this culture and suggests there probably were no, or very few, riots. The ancient Greek theater was for all people to worship Dionysus, an act that would benefit the entire community. With such a heavy and agreed meaning, disruption to the ritual does not make sense. This symbolic significance of the space, according to the flashpoint model, is key to public order.  The people of Ancient Greece surely had social and political issues, but the theater would not seem an appropriate place to air grievances. The Greeks were so culturally tied to ritual that if there was a disruption they would have to do it again. For a fight to be instigated in the theater would be sacrilegious.

Ancient Rome had a different relationship with theater. While theater was popular with Romans, it lacked special religious significance. One form of popular entertainment was the pantomime, a silent dance. One of the earliest notable theatre riots in Western history was about the Augustales Ludi (or Augustalia) which honored the first Roman emperor, Caesar Augustus (Slater, 1994). The festival that sparked the riot happened only a month after the emperor's death under Emperor Tiberius, who had much less love for theater than his beloved late predecessor. Tiberius and the senate wanted to police the theater and cut spending significantly, but the public was not happy (Slater, 1994). Looking back on the flashpoint model, there was no response to the people’s wishes (political) and the festival was honoring a beloved leader (situational) (Waddington, 2010). On the interactional level, there was a new leader who could not fill the shoes of the previous leader who just passed (Waddington, 2010). 

Similar to the Ancient Greeks, instances of theatre riots surrounding medieval drama has gone unrecorded or simply did not occur.  During this period, most drama was liturgical taking place in churches. Waddington’s theory of spatial symbolism being significant in explaining riots seems especially likely in this period. The dramas themselves were meant to proselytize Christianity and glorify the ruling institution, the church, while being sponsored by that ruling institution. The structural level and political level conflicts would have to be very strong to entice rebellion surrounding the church. Rebellions during the late medieval ages were much more likely to center issues with nobility and the feudal system than the church. During the reformation,  religious plays became controversial and were in turn highly censored.  

Renaissance Theatre and Beyond

During the Renaissance, as theater expanded beyond the church, it often took place in private courts. Since there was a clear power dynamic, powerful wealthy courtiers over peasant actors, and a small audience of the powerful, there were no structural or political level inspirations for rioting. What is significant about renaissance theater is the addition of public, permanent theaters to society. The public theaters of London, controlled tightly by the crown,  became one of the only and most potent social mixing pots available. Only two theater companies were patented by Charles II, somewhat stunting the growth of theater in England. This stunting likely made the few existing theaters lightning rods. The small number means they are better attended and more significant than if spectators had many public theaters to choose from. 

The first named theater riot is the Chinese Festival riot of 1755 which took place at Drury Lane. The riot is named after the ballet itself, The Chinese Festival, though no description of the dance has survived (O'Quinn, 2019). At the time of the riot, there were only two patented theaters in London, both popular and well-engaged with the public and contemporary issues. The conditions were perfect for a riot according to Waddington’s model. Neither the theater nor the government took the grievances of the public prior to the riot seriously (political); the rioters had kinship through their national and anti-French identity (cultural), and the rioters felt ownership over the theater (situational).  

The inciting incident was the hiring of French ballerinas during the Seven Year War (McPherson, 2002). During this time France and Britain were military opponents both in Europe and in the Americas. Spatially, theater in Britain was closely tied to national identity and much of the audience saw the glorification of the French dancers as an affront.  There was a significant element of social class fueling this view. The English gentry took no issue with the indirect support of French culture, but the lower classes did. When the general public made their displeasure known by hissing at the show, several nobles seized a few they perceived as ringleaders (McPherson, 2002). Both contextually and structurally, the seizure was a failure to de-escalate. Neither the theater nor the nobility listened to the lower-class spectators, thus when the theater continued to present the production despite public opinion, a real riot developed. Scenery, windows, and seating were all destroyed. The Chinese Festival riots foreshadowed issues that would continue to plague theaters in England. 

One of the more notable incidents in the early 1800’s was the Old Price Riots. England still only had two official theaters in London when the Covent Garden theater burned down. Buildings burning down was not an uncommon event in this age, so the destruction itself was not too upsetting for the public, the issue was the theater’s resurrection (Hadley, 1992). Covent Garden was rebuilt in about a year's time and re-opened its doors. In order to recoup the cost of construction, ticket prices were raised (Hadley, 1992). Alone the fairly minimal increase would probably have gone down with minor grumbling, however the increases accompanied a new ticket structure and seating tiers (Hadley, 1992). The pit and boxes increased in price but remained the same organizationally. Traditionally, the tier above the boxes was reserved for the general public, but the management of Covent Garden saw an economic opportunity and converted the first gallery into private boxes that could be rented out for £300 a year (almost equivalent to $8,000 today) (Hadley, 1992). Above this tier was the second gallery, which had no price increase, but the reconstruction included an architectural feature of large and low arches. The space was referred to as “pigeonholes,” which severely limited the poorer patron’s ability to hear and see the show (Hadley, 1992). This tier was not made with the audience’s experience in mind, or was purposefully unpleasant in an early example of hostile architecture, to be able to funnel attendees to other more expensive sections.

The British ties between a sense of nationalism and their theaters had not waned from the time of the Chinese Festival riots. Drury Lane and Covent Garden were not meant to be capitalist ventures, but public utilities, as is evident from the monopoly the government awarded them. The open nature and availability of the theater were highly important to the national identity, so (similar to the other riots) attendees felt a deep sense of ownership (Baker, 2016). The riots began on opening night at a production of Macbeth-most appropriate considering the themes of betrayal and tyranny. Management was headed by John Philip Kemble, an actor who had acquired a large share of the company. Kemble let the disturbance go unaddressed through the performance, perhaps in an attempt to signal that the “riot” was a meager nuisance and not worthy of attention (Hadley, 1992). However, when the audience refused to leave at the end of the show, the police were called. The police force was an extremely new concept, police preparation had not been professionalized, and there were no cultural standards to obey the police or established procedures for the police to follow (Baker, 2016).  So according to Waddington’s model there were several failures to avoid the riot. First on the political level the government, which approved the show, did not address any concerns. Culturally the group of riots was tied through a sense of both nationalism and social status. Situationally the riot was aggravated because of the tight setting of the theatre, quick disbursement would be difficult especially when the police came. 

The Astor Opera House Riot. 

Across the Atlantic a similar incident only a few years later in 1849. Like its predecessors, the Astor Opera House Riot was mainly motivated by nationalism and class differences. The new culture of celebrity generally takes the headline for causation and while it set the scene the central causes were far more universal (Cliff, 2007). The contemporary explanation was that the fans of William Macready, a British actor, and Edwin Forrest, an American actor, had a deadly clash. The actors had a famous rivalry and the passions of their fans just overcame the masses. This narrative obscures some very important tinder. 

Abandoning the actors for the moment, a look at the cultural climate that surrounded the riot, Waddington’s “structural” level, offers important insights. The financial panic of 1837 meant the fiscal crisis continued into the mid-1840s. By 1849 New York was recovering, but the strain still haunted the many affected. Adding nationalism to the tensions,  England was seen as partially responsible. In the mid-1830’s while the United States experienced famine, England was prosperous enough to stop U.S. imports. The Bank of England also raised their interest rates from 3 to 5 percent which effectively forced American banks to do the same. Ultimately almost half the American banks operating at the time permanently closed. The economic unrest, as well as abolitionist tensions, brought about a series of riots which encouraged the government to start establishing more professional police forces. Both the stress at the structural level and the consequences of the introduction of police at the political level can be seen in the Astor Place Riot. 

Another indicator of the likelihood of a riot is the degree of in-grouping the rioters experience, Waddington’s “cultural level”. In the case of the Astor Place riot, many of those protesting not only were of a similar working class but were Irish immigrants in particular. The Great Famine in Ireland spanned 1845-1849 meaning many of these immigrants were famine refugees and/or had family back in Ireland who were suffering. The root cause of the Great Famine is an unfortunate case of potato blight, but the British government’s response led to most of the carnage. The Great Famine was a contemporary strain on these Irish immigrants and a longstanding oppressive political relationship which lead to widespread anti-British sentiment. Beyond those circumstance, these immigrants came to New York for economic mobility and encountered ethnic discrimination. Macready and his supporters were an unfortunate and convenient stand-in for the targets of the crowd’s anger; many of the dead, and the majority of the arrested, were Irish refugees.

Prior to the theater riot there was little communication between groups, which makes a riot more likely according to Waddington’s “contextual” level. The public, having spiritual ownership of the theater, made it clear that Macready was not welcome. Despite the bad omens and warnings, Macready did perform May the 7th–opening night. Audience members in opposition threw “rotten eggs, copper pennies, potatoes, old shoes, chairs” and verbal abuse (Hershkowitz, 279). Macready, in a fit of sanity, retreated for the moment. Thursday, May the 10th, Macready attempted again to perform, and, because of Monday’s events, police were in heavy attendance. Police attempted to arrest some of the audience which further inflamed the fights. While the interior was in chaos, the streets were worse. Instead of retreating, the gentry fought back by convincing Macready to go on again that deadly Thursday (Berthold, 1999). They believed their more “refined taste,” in other words their cultural supremacy, should and would overrule the public’s grievances. The police, acting in their traditional role of hammer of the ruling class, were blatantly thuggish and ready to stifle the public. Instead of exercising their ability to have a private performance, the upper crust flaunted their privilege and insisted theirs was the point of view all of the city should enjoy.  The open letter to Macready written by local elites and published in the New York Herald makes clear that they claimed the power to decide what was correct and appropriate for society: 

…take this public method of requesting you to reconsider your decision, and of assuring you that the good sense and respect for order, prevailing in this community, will sustain you on the subsequent nights of your performances. (The New York Herald, 1849.)

It’s true that this letter is not addressed to the would-be rioters or the general public as written, but this fits in the category of contextual since it was certainly targeted towards them. In fact, the indirect communication suggests even stronger disdain for the Macready dissenters, as though they are not worth engaging. The signers (Washington Irving, Herman Mellville, and Cornelius Mathews among others) characterize their community, the Macready supporters, as having “good sense” and “respect for order” therefore implying the opposite for the Macready detractors. This letter had no practical purpose but to entrench the group boundaries. In response, the Native American Party printed their own flier that addressed the “working men” and made the baseless claim that British sailors were threatening to beat up protesters. Within the framework’s level of context, this communication is an abject failure. Both groups addressed their own, but never directly communicated in any productive way with each other. It certainly also shows governmental failure that no reconciliation or compromise was attempted though there was a threat to public safety. 

In the end, several thousand protested outside and a few were agitated enough to smash the windows and doors of the theater. The New York State National Guard, with cavalry at the head, came to the crowd. They were met with fierce opposition but made their way to the theater. Instead of focusing on crowd disbursement and minimizing injury, the focus was to protect the theater. The troops first fired overhead and then into the crowd, wounding and killing many, further evidence of the framework’s political level playing its part in creating the flashpoint This tactic only made the crowd angrier, but eventually, through continued shooting and the addition of cannons, the crowd finally fled. 

At the time, the classist nature of the affair was noted by the rioters and their sympathizers. A Rejoinder was published by an anonymous person who only identified themselves as “Citizen” which gave an almost Marxist view of the events focusing on class consciousness. In this accounting, the issue of nationalism is erased. The focus becomes the insults of the upper class onto the working class after the 7th and the working classes' secret hatred of the upper class. The riot is framed as almost unavoidable. 

Theater riots may seem a very specific sub-genre of flashpoints or public disorder events, however as a phenomenon, they have special significance.  Theater beyond the production itself, which could be interpreted as other art forms are, has a reliance on the audience. A theatrical show cannot take place without an audience, this is true both for the definition and also the energy that shapes each show. Western theatre's direct descendancy from Greek ritualistic theatre means that our beliefs surrounding it are shaped by a sense of community and ownership. The modern theatre of America which is populated by wealthier people, those who have power, and compete in a capitalist society that encourages broadly appealing pieces and decisions signal the current death of the theatre riot. After World War 3, or the planet’s complete meltdown, we will likely see the return of theatre riots. 

Works Cited:

Baker, J. W., (2016) “The Covent Garden Old Price Riots: Protest and Justice in Late‑Georgian London”, Open Library of Humanities 2(1), e4. doi: https://doi.org/10.16995/olh.13

Berthold, Dennis. “Class Acts: The Astor Place Riots and Melville’s ‘The Two Temples.’” American Literature, vol. 71, no. 3, Sept. 1999, pp. 429–61. EBSCOhost, https://search-ebscohost-com.trinity.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,uid&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.2902735&site=eds-live.

Chan, Tak Wing, and John H. Goldthorpe. “The Social Stratification of Theatre, Dance and Cinema Attendance.” Cultural Trends, vol. 14, no. 3, Jan. 2005, pp. 193–212. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1080/09548960500436774.

Cliff, Nigel. The Shakespeare Riots: Revenge, Drama, and Death in NineteenthCentury America. Apr. 2007.

Hadley, Elaine. “The Old Price Wars: Melodramatizing the Public Sphere in Early-Nineteenth-Century England.” PMLA, vol. 107, no. 3, May 1992, pp. 524–37. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.2307/462759

Hershkowitz, Leo. “An Anatomy of a Riot: Astor Place Opera House, 1849.” New York History, vol. 87, no. 3, July 2006, pp. 277–311. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,uid&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.23183493&site=eds-live.

McPherson, Heather. “Theatrical Riots and Cultural Politics in Eighteenth-Century London.” The Eighteenth Century, vol. 43, no. 3, Oct. 2002, pp. 236–52. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,uid&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.41467906&site=eds-live.

O'Quinn, D., Straub, K., & Anderson, M.G. (Eds.). (2019). The Routledge Anthology of Restoration and Eighteenth-Century Performance (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315181738

Slater, W. J. “Pantomime Riots.” Classical Antiquity, vol. 13, no. 1, Jan. 1994, pp. 120–44. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.2307/25011007.

The New York herald. (New York, NY) 18 May. 1849. Retrieved from the Library of Congress, www.loc.gov/item/sn83030313/1849-05-18/ed-1/.

Waddington, David P. "Applying the Flashpoints Model of Public Disorder to the 2001 Bradford Riot." British Journal of Criminology, vol. 50, no. 2, March 2010 , p. 342-359. HeinOnline, https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/bjcrim50&i=350.

“A Rejoinder to the Replies from England, &c., by an American Citizen.” Literary World: A Gazette for Authors, Readers & Publishers, vol. 5, no. 7, Aug. 1849, p. 129. EBSCOhost, https://search-ebscohost-com.trinity.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,uid&db=h9j&AN=48829650&site=eds-live.