People get offended when the word "circus" is used to describe a "crazy, chaotic, disorganized" situation, because that is not what the word means, and that is justified. Some would suggest that I am disrespectful of the "circus," when I suggest that "cirque" is alright to describe one thing, and I suggest there should be different "words" to describe a show with animals, acrobats, clowns, aerialists, instead of putting them all under the umbrella of "circus."
Judges at the ready, here is an easy competition. Contestant #1 or Contestant #2 Above and below. Apples against Apples. Like animal against like animal. Show against show, production against production, creativity against creativity, Who should have the real title, CIRCUS!!!!!!
Friday, July 25, 2008
The word "circus"
Posted by
Wade G. Burck
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
Anonymous said...
Well, they say politics is a circus, but I don't think that's fair to the circus. There are surely "politics" in the circus business [at a personal level], but the circus usually has a route to know where it's going, and a performance schedule to specify who's to be in the ring.
25 July, 2008 09:54
Buckles said...
Circus, what does it describe to whom,
In response to an article in the press describing the US Congress as a "circus", Kenneth Feld indignantly replied that unlike Congress, his circus was highly efficient and quite profitable.
He neglected to mention however that when it comes to "politics" RBBB takes a back seat to no one.
25 July, 2008 10:07
Wade, I'm less of a "circus" purist than I am stickler for language. We don't get to define circus, the great unwashed masses do. A theatrical show with circus acts can call itself anything it wants, but if the public doesn't view it as circus, it ain't. If I was a purist I'd tell you that it's gotta have a 42' ring, and it's gotta have at least one act involving horses -- because that's what Astley had and what John Bill Ricketts had. A ring, equestrian acts AND..... Personally I think that elephants are nice, or cats, or a good flying act...but historically a horse and a clown are the real pillars.
Hey Ben,
I hope things are well. If we go to the Superbowl, a sporting event what do we expect to see? If we go to the World Series what do we expect to see? Assuming we are "sports fans, and they are "sporting events."
If we go to a circus, what do we expect to see? Alright, a 42 foot ring, and equestrian acts is a term that we will use for Circus." What should we call Zambuco? "Cirque" is good, it denotes something different from "Circus" so people know what they will see with their ticket purchase. What should we call Ringling? What should we call Culpepper and Meriweather? Wait a minute, we can't call Zambuco "Cirque" that's what Vincent, calls Krone.
What if the people go to what the assume is a "Cirque" and it is so bad, they don't go to to another one. What if they go to a "Circus" and don't like just horses, will that stop them from going to see Ringling?
I do know if I bought a ticket for the "Movie" The Godfather, and when I sat down, the "Movie" Napoleon Dynamite came on, I might not go to "Movies" any more.
Wade
I'd have to agree with Ben. I don't think the word 'circus' is a static thing. It has always evolved to some degree. I like a ring with sawdust and horses, but when there are no animals there isn't a use for either, other than the atmosphere and practicality of seating people in a circle.
I'm bored with cirque and all their solemn faces, weirdo presentations and predicable acts. But that format still seems to have some life left in it.
Personally, I think there's room for some type of hybrid, borrowing some of the spectacular production and incorporating it into traditional circus, which some overseas shows seem to be doing.
It's probably wise to follow trends to some degree to keep the performance fresh. 'Lovely Luanna Lady' might have been new and thrilling at one time, but would be a bit flat right now.
By the way Wade, I have found several acts in Europe that are doing the water thing like Irina, and they were all copied from Soleil's 'Zumanity' show in Vegas, except they had contortionists (what else) working on the edge of a big water bowl, followed by the dip in the water.
Ian
I think Vincent uses the word "cirque" for Krone because his native language is French - but he has the right to correct me.
As far as I'm concerned, if it ain't got animals, it ain't a circus. And if it ain't got horses it almost ain't a circus.
But it's true that it's the general public who decides. If Joe Public/ John Doe thinks he's seen a circus, then he's seen a circus.
John.
John,
That was my point to Ben who is a "stickler for language". It is called Cirque by Vincent and in EU because of the language. Yet in America it denote something else, different from a circus. Many act's from EU and Steve Robinson made note of it one time perceived America as having the biggest and best shows, a lot of that based on Ringling's international recognition. There are many "misconceptions" that can be caused by thousands of miles of distance. My attempt is to try to put it in perspective. Pointing out a full house in a 1200 seating capacity tent is different then a half house in a 12000 seating capacity building is not a knock at great EU circus, it is the lumping together of the public and the industry of the word circus. Animals/acts that will work in a small tent won't do so well in a larger format. Not a knock just a reality of the different environments.
Wade
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJXTPe-BncY
Ian
Here's 'Cirque' with horses
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr5Zuxw9_-0
Ian
Ian,
Thank you for the videos. John Cooper may be able to confirm, but Laura Miller, was doing a water deal as early as 2004. When she did MC in 2005 she had to wear a different costume, as they did not want the "see thru" affect.
I have been meaning to post this video of Jasmine Smart, to show you how you mis understand the position of the trainer, when you think they are doing a wheel, and I point out that they are getting ready for the hind leg rear. A "method" in Europe where the hind leg rear is a standard behavior(contrary to what John Herriott may think) is to as you will see, stop the wheel, with the trainer in the middle and "swing it in line". This puts the horses, in the middle of the ring, instead of lining them up in the back and doing the rear, or walking them forward into the middle. This is a basic act with a pirouette in twos(not a waltz, thats what single animals do, or a head to tail waltz), pirouette in three's, a wheel, and the rear.
Wade
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuP4a_QQCfk
Wade, I'd see that video. The tight circles in twos and threes are something I'd not seen before. That the horses stay together without the following horses falling behinnd the lead is pretty amazing training. Whose horses were these? I saw her presenting Garden's black arabs in Boston. A nice act, but this one is terrific.
I read an article that she will be training a solo horse when she returns to england and booking that.
Ian
Ian,
Believe it or not, I originally put "this is a basic act, and no reflection on Ms. Smarts ability" in the response, but I erased it as I didn't feel Ms. Smart needed me to patch for her. The 5 and 6 are out of formation in the wheel, but those horses have been through the mill, and as John Herriott pointed that out in reference to the hind leg rear, it is not a patch.
Those are not "tight circles" Ian, those are pirouettes standard in a liberty act. A "waltz" is a tight circle, unless you want to be
continental and mysterious, then some will call them pirouettes. The act was trained by Ian Garden, went through a number of goofs, before going to Ms. Smart. Ian Garden also trained the Blacks that she presented.
Wade
Addendum to Ian,
You use the leader to establish the direction, not to lead them by the hand through each behavior. The Blacks thread the needle, do a clock waltz, which is tough, and a serpentine. Which act did you see? The greys aren't even close.
Wade
I had always thought that a pirrouette reffered to a very tight waltz where the horse's forelegs actually left the ground to make the turn to avoid touching the ring. I would have called these something more like a wheel where the trainer is not in the center, or something like that. nyway, it's something I haven't seen before.
Ian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirouette_(dressage)
Ian
Ian,
Dressage and liberty are two different things. They have a standard. We are trying to establish one. LOL
A wheel obviously denotes "all" the animals going around the ring abreast, with the trainer as the fulcrum. One of the reasons wheels can run out of control and fall apart, is that the trainer can not walk to the middle and control the front, while asking the end to mark time. With a skillfully trained group of horses, that is possible, and is done on occasion. Don't abject to it. It is known as precision. Again a waltz is done with one animal, with a definite stop and turn, sloppy and strung out if unchecked, and going back to your dressage and precision, definite stop and pivot if checked up. In Europe where 12 is a more normal number of animal in an act, pirouette in 3's is the norm with 4 groups at 12, 3, 6, and 9 o'clock. In a clock waltz they are individually at 12, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 o'clock.
Wade
Post a Comment