| �For this generation community theatre meant political activism through artistic means, and it was responsible for the establishment of a radical arts practice: many of its members emerged from the Australian Performing Group in Melbourne or the Popular Theatre Troupe in Brisbane.� (Watt:1 992:4) |
Laurie (1 984:81) describes this radical arts
practice, developed by the Australian Performing Group (APG), as �self-managed
performance collectives, working in a variety of non-theatrical venues,
creating relevant and popular performances, intensely conscious of the
politics of content, form and audience/performer relationships.� Circus
was able to fulfill a number of these objectives. Traditional circus already
had a long history of popular appeal amongst audiences who did not normally
attend theatre. The informality of the tent, together with the popular
appeal of physical performance provided an alternative to the audience/performer
relationship typified by proscenium arch theatre.
4.2.1. Soapbox Circus, New Circus and Radical
Arts Practice
The potential to fulfill the radical cultural
agenda of the time gradually became apparent as experimentation with physical
forms of theatre continued through the 1970s. In 1973, the Great Stumble
Forward was formed under the auspices of the APG. It�s work represents
an early move towards the model of participatory theatre that was to be
developed further during the 1 980s as part of the community theatre movement.
Laurie (Lines 219-222) describes the working method of this group:
| �We�d in fact make the story up for [a performance] in the morning. Whoever came along could come to it, and we�d just go and do performances in parks in the afternoon.� |
These performances were based on making physical images with the body and, together, with the group�s desire to express its political views, �slowly lead into the narrative stuff� (Laurie: Lines 223-224) that was to become a feature of much contemporary circus.
Taking such work into parks was part of a
deliberate strategy of the APG to take performances to audiences that did
not attend the theatre. In 1 976, the APG formalised this strategy with
the establishment of a Mobile Theatre Unit, which within a few months had
become the Soapbox Circus. This group performed around Australia in 1976
and 1 977, playing rock concerts, student demonstrations, factories, jails
and university campuses (Appendix D:454-456). Laurie (Lines 1 79-1 82)
cites International Workers of the World, talking newspapers of the 1 930s
and Myerhold�s biomechanics (Laurie: Line 206-207) as influences on this
work, the aim of which was to �try to help manifest people�s voices.� (Laurie:
Lines 1 88-1 89). One of the first productions of this Unit was The Timor
Show. This production, funded by the Australia Metal Workers� Union, was
about the invasion of East Timor by Indonesia, and was performed in factories
around Melbourne (Appendix D:454). Laurie (Lines 196-200) says of the factory
work:
| �Some people are happy to have you there; some people aren�t. We tried to come up with a form that would actually be easier for people to relate to, they could switch off from if they weren�t interested, they could look at if they did.� |
The form that the group used on was multi-lingual, combining song and physical imagery (Laurie: Lines 202-205). These types of projects, however, were not always successful. Dobbin (1984:132) believes there was very little tradition in Australia for doing this kind of work: �We had to find out by doing it - there were no role models.� Laurie (Line 1 90-1 91) believes the factory work suffered from �that political earnestness of telling people what to think.�
In 1977, Soapbox Circus began planning the first Circus Oz show with New Circus who had recently moved to Melbourne from Adelaide. New Circus had been performing since 1974, and brought to this partnership knowledge of traditional circus and touring. The group was �strong in aerial work and clowning and dedicated to the revival of circus skills� (Appendix D:468). Between January 1 974 and May 1 975, members of New Circus worked with Ashton�s Circus and Circus Royale. By November 1975, the company had an �entirely self supporting 1 5 person show performing in sidewalls and travelling on 6 trucks and 6 trailers with seating for 500� (Appendix D:455). This show toured three states performing �70 shows in 55 towns in 80 days for 20 000 people� (Appendix D:455).
New Circus�s desire to be a self-supporting
community in the tradition of older family circuses combined with notions
of collective management inherited from the APG to produce the management
structure of the new Circus Oz:
| �Here we have a place that�s ours, we decide what goes into the show, when we will have holidays, all that is bound up with economic reality. But the truth is we have so much more choice than other people who don�t have control over the place where they perform.� (�Circus Oz�:1983:16) |
The early Circus Oz operated as a �mini-welfare
state� where all �life expenses� were met by the company through a receipt
system and each member was paid a small amount of �pocket money� (Appendix
D:469). Company decisions were all made collectively:
| �Meetings (and there were millions) were compulsory and decisions were made by consensus so everyone could have a say. They often went on forever.� (Appendix D:468) |
Despite the onerous nature of such a process, this structure of the company was seen to be as much a political statement as the satire employed in performances.
There is evidence that Circus Oz may have
at one stage intended to pursue work with communities, rather than the
type of work for which the company has now become renown. At the end of
1 978, Circus Australia Limited sent a proposal for three year funding
plus a pilot project funding application to the Community Arts Board (CAB)
of the Australia Council. The company proposed the establishment of a �travelling
community arts complex�:
| �This programme would incorporate public performances by the circus, workshops and interaction with the community (focusing particularly on working up performances with local groups).� (Appendix D:445) |
This proposed direction for the company is
reinforced in a letter from the APG to the Director of the Theatre Board:
| �Because [Circus Australia�s] proposed activities for 1979 are completely focussed on touring and community work it was felt that this activity fell squarely into the ambit of the Community Arts Board.� (Appendix D:458) |
The CAB granted pilot project funding in June, and Circus Oz�s first publicly funded activity as an independent organisation was a schools tour in July. However, the events of the following years eclipsed any desire the company may have had in working with communities. A highly successful tent season at the Victorian Art Gallery at the end of 1978 was followed by a record-breaking 32-week season at the Last Laugh Cabaret Restaurant in 1979. In 1980, Circus Oz played seasons in Sydney, New Guinea, Britain, Belgium and Holland, transforming into an international touring company.
4.2.2. The Flying Fruit Fly Circus Creating
a Community
The Flying Fruit Fly Circus, was the catalyst
that has enabled the Murray River Performing Group (MRPG) to establish
itself in the skeptical and sometimes hostile environment of a new community
in Albury/Wodonga. The result is that this circus is now an established
company in its own right, the subject of a great deal of local pride, and
the focal point of a network of contemporary circus performers throughout
the country as Albury/Wodonga emerges as an important centre for circus
training.
In 1979, the Murray River Performing Group
commenced full time operations in Albury/Wodonga after three years of planning.
In their initial performances that year, the group encountered indifference
and even aggression from local audiences:
| �Two of our clowns were approached by half a dozen Aussie warriors in full ceremonial dress, terry towel hats, shorts and zinc war paint, and dumped in the Murray River. (We had failed to realise this particular event was a manifestation of Australia�s psychotic disorders rather than a celebration of them.)� (Perrier: 1982:30) |
The MRPG managed to win over the Albury/Wodonga community, however, with the first performance of the Flying Fruit Fly Circus. The initial production was the result of 1 71 workshops, and involved 117 young people in performance. The production sold out with ten per cent of the Albury/Wodonga population passing through the box office (Perrier:1982:30-31). This event still stands as the MRPG�s greatest achievement, assuring the company�s survival in a conservative regional community.
The company was able to foster interest in
the community through the involvement of so many young people:
| �The process is simple: once a child has mastered a skill and that skill is appreciated by parents and peers, it gives the child the confidence and self-motivation to attempt more difficult pursuits.� (Perrier:1982:31) |
These positive effects on the children encouraged the involvement and the support of parents who were to become an important part of the company�s network of contacts, �many of whom had very specialised trades and some of whom were in positions of power.� (Perrier:1982:34). Since the circus represented Australia at the Vancouver International Festival for Young People in 1 981, a growing national and international reputation has encouraged support from local businesses and service organisations as well.
Since 1981, the Fruit Flies have sent representatives to the United States, China, the United Kingdom, and Italy, and have toured inside Australia. They have also been host to three international training projects, as well as appearing with Edgley�s Great Moscow Circus. In 1987, the Acrobatic Arts Community School was established by the Victorian Government at Wodonga High School, developing further community involvement in circus in the region (see Appendix C). The result is an extremely high profile for the circus in the region. This was evident when they performed their group bike routine as an act in the Great Moscow Circus, when it toured the district in 1994. The response from the Albury/Wodonga audience to this act was massive. The company still considers community involvement an important aspect of its operations.
Certainly, many parents are still involved
in the day to day running of the company, and it continues to conduct public
workshops and have some kind of social mix with the audience, especially
with regional audiences. The purpose of the workshops and socialising process
is to demystify the performance and show the audience what is possible:
| �[The circus performers] do a workshop with them [the audience] ... and it dawns on them that the kids they watched doing fantastic things are just like them really, they are just ordinary country kids like them and it opens up a whole world of possibility.� (Parkinson: Lines 161-167) |
These workshops, however, are becoming increasingly difficult with the financial pressures of a growing company. Parkinson (Lines 143-144) admits that �we would like to do more workshops but they don�t generate the income.� Having to compromise community agendas because of commercial concerns is a problem faced by a number of organisations and is discussed in more detail later.
4.2.3. Street Arts, Circus and Cultural Disadvantage
The origins of Rock�n�Roll Circus can be
found in the use of circus by Street Arts since its formulation in 1982.
As with the MRPG, Street Arts was faced with the task of establishing itself
within its community; in this case, the West End community in Brisbane.
This community was very different from the one found in Albury/Wodonga:
| �This community is typified by the many ethnic groups of which it is composed ... Average incomes are low, unemployment is high, there is a large transient population ... and despite its proximity to the city centre the residents have little contact with the Arts.� (West End Community Circus Festival Project Report:1983:4) |
In spite of the differences between these two communities, circus was found to be equally useful in both communities in establishing the respective companies.
In 1983, Street Arts produced the West End Community Circus Festival, which was the culmination of many weeks of planning and public workshops. The company chose circus for three main reasons. Firstly, it was based in physical skill, which the company believed was a major part of everyday life amongst sports-conscious Australians. They also believed that people without experience of theatre found the process of producing a play �tedious, alienating and bamboozling� (West End Community Circus Festival Project Report:1 933:2). With circus, however, the skills taught in workshops could be applied immediately to performance, and �performers are led gently into the concept and experience of theatrical performance� (West End Community Circus Festival Project Report:1 983:2). The third reason that the company cited was that circus was more familiar to the community than theatre.
As with the project in Albury/Wodonga, workshops
were an important component of the project, both in preparing community
performers for the final production, and as a means of raising the profile
of the company. There were three main workshop projects, conducted through
East Brisbane State School, West End State School and public workshops.
One hundred and fifty people, ranging in age between eleven and forty,
attended the workshops (West End Community Circus Festival Project Report:1983:1
3). Both schools had English as a Second Language (ESL) Units, and the
company found circus particularly useful working with students from these
Units. Enthusiasm at the East Brisbane ESL Unit was such that �ESL teachers
integrated Circus in all aspects of the children�s schoolwork i.e. language,
maths, drama� (West End Community Circus Festival Project Report:1983:10).
The ESL Unit at West End State School was quite different. It was a class
of fifteen students:
| �Thirteen of [the students] were Vietnamese with virtually no English at all and no previous experience of schooling despite the average age of 12. As a result they proved to be a difficult group to work with but over a period of six weeks responded strongly to our workshop classes.� (West End Community Circus Festival Project Report:1983:12) |
Although none of the latter group performed at the festival, there were twelve nationalities represented amongst th6 sixty-four performers. Three thousand people attended the one-day festival.
The project was an outstanding success, with a lasting impact on both the West End community and the work of Street Arts. Over the next three years the company was involved in at least another ten circus-related projects, including three more performances by Thrills and Spills Circus Troupe (established from the public workshops held for the Festival), a second community circus festival in 1984, and in 1985, a touring festival show.
In 1986, Street Arts staged a production at
the Rialto Theatre in West End, called Rock�n�RolI Circus. This production
involved more than eighty people in the final production, including a 23-piece
rock orchestra (A Potted History of Rock�n�Roll Circus:1991 :Section 1.0).
Such was the success of the project that the following year Rock�n�Roll
Circus was established a separate company. Among its objectives was a desire
to share its experience with the community:
| �both the general public and specific minority or disadvantaged groups. This is reflected in the circuses remote area touring, its work in institutions and its regular public access workshops.� (A Potted History of Rock�n�RoIl Circus:1 991 :Section 2.0) |
The company also established an administrative structure where decision-making was shared collectively, similar in principle to the administrative structure of the early Circus Oz.
4.2.4. The Women�s Circus Healing Through
Physical Training and Performance
The Women�s Circus is perhaps the most significant
community circus project ever conducted in this country. It is leading
the way in what is currently a diffuse and stagnant community theatre movement
(Watt:1992:3-15). Its target community was originally women who had survived
incest and sexual abuse, although this has since been broadened to include
women over thirty and women from non-English speaking backgrounds (Forth:
Lines 113-114). The objective was to use circus to build body confidence
and general self esteem amongst the participants, in an environment of
mutual support.
The Women�s Circus project was initiated in
1 991 by the Footscray Community Arts Centre, situated in the Western Suburbs
of Melbourne:
| �There were twice-weekly sessions on circus, theatre and production skills, as well as a music group, a mural project and a group newsletter. Support groups were set up to discuss body image, sexual abuse and other issues that might be a focus of fear for performers.� (Richards: 1992:90) |
From the outset, circus training and performance
was the focus of a total approach to providing a community of support for
the women involved. Health is an important issue with such a network able
to take an integrated approach to healing mind and body. This is particularly
useful for survivors:
| �I had always viewed my body with disdain. As a young girl, I treated it with scorn and abuse, and I was never proud of it. It tried to pretend to myself that it didn�t matter that I disliked my body, but it didn�t matter joining the Circus was a positive step to improving, or at least facing my negative body image. (Wilson:1993:1) |
The inevitable improvement in physical fitness,
co-ordination, balance and general body confidence is enhanced by the network
of support within which the circus training takes place. Newsletters carry
articles on back injury, aromatherapy, and support groups, as well as personal
accounts of experiences with the circus. There is also a deliberate attempt
to keep the training environment noncompetitive:
| �What I did like was the noncompetitive atmosphere and the large amount of encouragement I received for my first efforts.� (Geddes:1992:22) |
This environment is partly achieved by tailoring
the training to �what women want and are capable of doing, rather than
trying to make women fit the skills� (Women�s Circus Newsletter:1994:l).
Forth (Lines 144-1 46) explains this from the trainer�s point of view:
| �you are seriously looking at their health and their capabilities, along with their dream and you are sort of trying to put the two together.� |
Performance is also an important part of the
healing process. This process consists of a series of ��thresholds� ...
where the demands on participants would become more intense� (Richards:1992:90),
the culmination of which was performance. The importance of this last threshold
is explained by Wilson (1993:3):
| �The Women�s Circus gave me the opportunity not only to work with my body, but to present these workings to an audience. For me, the performance and media interest broke down some of the secrecy surrounding incest.� |
Steps have been taken to dismantle some of the more intimidating aspects of performance. Olsen (Lines 211 -21 4) considers that neutrality of mask and costume allows performers to �get out and not necessarily perform as themselves�. Also, due to the ensemble construction of performance, performers can participate effectively at a range of different levels of skill.
The Women�s Circus successfully taps into
the mythology of circus to create a close-knit family environment. This
environment is constructed in a way that it stands outside the everyday
life of the women involved. As Forth (Lines 147-1 50) says, the women feel
as if they can run away from their everyday lives and join the circus.
4.2.5. Rock�n�Roll Circus Pressures on Social
Agenda in Circus
The Women�s Circus represents one of the
more successful projects in a movement that is beset by funding difficulties
and pressures of commercial success that makes work with specific communities
increasingly difficult. The experiences of Rock�n�Roll Circus since its
formulation in 1987 illustrate these difficulties.
Between 1987 and 1990, Rock�n�Roll Circus
was primarily concerned in developing contact with specific communities.
Work in West End continued, with perhaps the most significant project being
Circus on the River:
| �Over 200 people took part and many expressed the desire for it to become an annual event� (A Potted History of Rock�n�Roll Circus:1991 :Section 4.0) |
It also toured Queensland in the same
year with a general entertainment show and community workshop program.
In 1989, the company presented its landmark production of PSST (Practice
Safe Sex Today). This was the first time the company had targeted a community
defined by a particular exigency, rather than general concerns defined
geographically or demographically. In this case, it was risk of acquiring
HIV confronting street kids in South East Queensland. The show �elicited
an overwhelmingly positive response from young people, parents, professionals
in the field and media critics� (A Potted History of Rock�n�RoIl Circus:1991
:Section 6.0). This production, however, was not free from controversy
and to some extent illustrates the problems faced by the community theatre
movement as a whole, in terms of funding and general direction. Watt (1992:
4) talks of �a movement in crisis, or at least stasis.� The problem of
finding funding for community work has been evident to the company since
at least 1989:
| �While the CCDU [Community Cultural Development Board] funds our workshop stages neither the PAB [Performing Arts Board] or [sic] CCDU sees the final product as their responsibility ... The PAB has become the circus� [sic] major artistic and cultural censor. Their refusal to fund our work is quickly forcing us to become a mini �Circus Oz� touring with a commercially viable show.� (First National Circus Summit Report:1990:29) |
These words have proven to be prophetic, with the company having moved away from both community work and regular public workshops in the last four years.
The turning point was a show in 1990, called Shame: an Incarcerated Tale. devised by the company about young people in detention centres. The show was a rap-style poem written by Megan Redfern. There was less emphasis on circus skills as the company attempted to present the issues of detention in a �physical theatre/dramatic piece� (A Potted History of Rock�n�RolI Circus:1991:Section 9.0). Although it was received well by audiences from the target community, the production received a mixed reaction from media and general audiences.
While a strong �social-issue based style�
(A Potted History of Rock�n�Roll Circus:1991 :Section 12.0) continues to
be developed by the company, its work since is difficult to define in terms
of a specific community. While their next major production, Blood on the
Butter, funded by Amnesty International, dealt with the plight of prisoners
of conscience, the was no direct contact with a target community as such.
The material for Shame came from primary sources. That is, from youth in
detention. The research for Blood on the Butter, on the other hand, came
from secondary sources:
| �people who worked for Amnesty International, people who worked at the Mater Hospital�s unit for people who had been tortured.� (Yen: Lines 54-56) |
The audience for Shame was primarily people who had been incarcerated and related directly to the subject matter. The audience for Blood on the Butter however, was a more culturally privileged group who could appreciate intellectually the need to support Amnesty International which generally operates in communities far removed from the target audience.
The pressure to develop an �excellent� artistic
product as defined by the PAB is partly fueling this evolution of the company.
The result is pressure to come up with an artistic product that suits the
tastes of audiences for which the PAB caters. Bodyslam represents further
changes in the direction of the company. This production was directed by
David Bell who was, at the time of the first season was a member of the
peer assessment committee of the PAB. It is ironic that a company that
has such a strong tradition of working in community theatre should choose
to work with a director who holds the form in such low regard:
| �What you end up so often seeing is a bad play, a really bad play. It happens to be about some really important social issue, possibly, but it�s just a bad play performed really ordinarily.� (Bell: Lines 82-85) |
The show was inspired by the theme of body
image and grew into a sophisticated cross art form exploration, pivoting
around physical expression. It has been a considerable commercial success
for the company, currently in its third year of repertoire. Taking Bodyslam
interstate has resulted in the company redefining its audience:
| �the original West End mob our still our fans and they still come and see our shows and a lot of them do the artwork and stuff like that but I think it has spread out a lot.� (Oates: Lines 561 -564) |