The newer forms of circus that have emerged since the 1970s were originally driven by a rejection of both theatrical and circus convention. The result is a number of new circus cultures, firmly established in terms of national and international recognition, that can longer define themselves in such negative terms: conventions have developed that neither belong to traditional circus, nor do they belong to theatre, dance or other performance traditions. While non-traditional circus continues to flourish, capturing the imagination of audiences, there is a sense that the industry is undergoing a kind of adolescent crisis in identity. This manifests itself in many ways. Publicly funded circus finds itself under pressure to constantly develop new material: a pressure not known in traditional circus, and not always an ideal situation for developing circus performance. Many non-traditional circuses are still struggling with the development of narrative in circus performance (discussed in Chapter 3). Some of those interviewed are looking towards elements of traditional circus to provide further direction. This crisis is best illustrated by the changes that have occurred in Circus Oz over the last eighteen years. The company has been faced with problems in internal structure as it has undergone a transition from collective management to a more conventional company structure.
5.2.1. Physical Performance
Contemporary circus has opened up the field
of possibilities for circus in terms of form and content in circus performance.
While many of the skills are the same, non-traditional circus is constantly
introducing new material to the traditional cannon of circus acts, and
bringing to circus elements of dance and other physical performance, as
well as other dramatic elements such as narrative.
It is this challenge to the notion that circus
is an unchangeable form that the traditional circuses find so threatening.
Olsen (Line 333) believes that change is healthy in circus because it makes
it a �living art form�. Laurie (Lines 481-485) believes that change in
circus is inevitable:
| �Nothing remains exactly the same. No form, no cultural form remains the same. Otherwise you are setting things in aspic. That�s not how they exist and live. There isn�t one manifestation of anything. There�s all sorts of different circuses.� |
Broadway (Lines 651-660) concurs, believing
that �tradition� is illusory:
| �Everyone talks about these forms as if they�ve been around forever ... the Royal Ballet was playing army drill halls in 1 930. There�s a whole lot of arts companies and art forms, although they�re seen as traditional, in fact they�re very young. Circus is exactly the same.� |
Non-traditional circus takes a very broad
view of what is considered to be circus performance. Mullet (Line 246)
feels that circus is �anything physical�. She (Lines 257-268) says:
| �it is anything you can do with your body that takes you a certain amount of time to actually learn ... as soon as you put someone on stage, circus, acting or whatever, it is physical. Even if they don�t do much, even if they just walk around.� |
Broadway (Lines 683-686) also considers that
physical skill is the primary prerequisite for a circus:
| �I think [Circus Oz is] a circus in that the starting point of our work is the skill base. We don�t write and devise a show, and then go hire a couple of acrobats to do some tumbling in it.� |
5.2.2. Pressure for New Material
There is not only a desire to innovate amongst
many contemporary circuses, but also pressure to innovate. Because contemporary
circus is publicly funded, mostly through the Performing Arts Board of
the Australia Council, such funding depends on a company being able to
demonstrate that they are developing new material. This pressure can be
quite demanding on a company. Olsen (Lines 456-471) says of companies that
are at the forefront of innovation:
| �It seems that a lot of times, the groups that get the most recognition artistically are the ones taking the risk, and yet the amount they�ll be able to market that show is very limited. You can do arts festivals, you can get the arts crowd, but it�s not going to have a lot of popular appeal. They�ll be forced to come up with new material to present to that same arts crowd again ... I think for a company that�s a drawback, because they are not building on a body of work.� |
This pressure is not only difficult for companies
artistically, it is also physically demanding on performers who have little
chance to maintain their work on specific skills, and must push themselves
to constantly develop new skills. Such pressure to innovate is also felt
by the more established companies such as Circus Oz. The growth in contemporary
circus means that many of the tricks that were once only performed by Circus
Oz are now being performed by a number of companies:
| �And that means it�s a constant pressure to devise new material, to stay one step ahead, to keep getting better, to move forward. That can be seen either as an exhausting and difficult thing, or a very positive force of change.� (Broadway: Lines 401-404) |
This is a pressure that is not felt in traditional
circus. While the traditional cannon of acts may be seen as a form of artistic
stagnation, it does allow the performer more opportunity to build a body
of work in a specific discipline, and provides greater opportunity for
performing, rather than taking time away from the ring to rehearse entirely
new productions.
5.2.3. Return to Tradition
While innovation in form and challenge to
the traditional cannon of acts are regarded as threatening to traditional
circus, they do not necessarily indicate a lack of respect by contemporary
circus. The view that contemporary circus satirises traditional circus
may be the result of some acts performed in the early days of Circus Oz.
There is, in fact, a growing sense of respect for traditional circus amongst
contemporary circus performers. This is indicated in the growing tolerance
of the animal act (discussed in detail in Chapter 1). Oates (776-780) says:
| �We don�t backlash [against traditional circus] using animals and stuff and basically if it wasn�t for them we wouldn�t be here and I think we try to make that clear to trad circuses by going and seeing their shows and you know like being friendly with them and respectful of them.� |
There is also an indication that there is
growing interest in the travelling tent show, which has been replaced in
contemporary circus by performances in theatres. Olsen (Lines 409-4 1 2)
says:
| �there is something about having this band of people turn up in the town and have a tent mushroom overnight, and suddenly become a familiar feature in the old park down the road. There�s a lot to be said for that.� |
There is also an interest expressed in aspects
of traditional circus life. Forth (Lines 340-342) believes that the Women�s
Circus could learn from traditional circus:
| �they [traditional circus] could teach us a lot about group dynamics, getting acts together, they could certainly teach us a lot about how to live by it, because they are earning their living by it.� |
5.2.4. Circus Oz Structure and Identity
Circus Oz plays an important symbolic role
for many contemporary circuses, as well as providing creative models and
experienced personnel for the training and creative development of other
circus performers. As the culmination of the radical arts practices of
creative and structural experimentation in Australia in the 1970s (see
Chapter 4), Circus Oz is often regarded as the first non-traditional circus
in this country. In its early shows there was some political comment, but
more importantly, the company was managed collectively where performers
had complete and equally shared (in theory, at least) control of all aspects
of performance and administration. This notion of the autonomous performer
is still an important part of the mythology of Circus Oz and many other
contemporary circuses. The company, however, has experienced significant
structural change over the last eighteen years to a point where the myth
and the actual conditions for performers are no longer integrated.
The circus operated effectively as a collective
until 1984, when a significant change in membership occurred. The Leapers,
who were graduates of the Flying Fruit Fly Circus joined the company. These
new members were highly skilled, but were younger and did not have the
same strong political commitments of the older members:
| �Show and business meetings were compulsory but more of the newer people weren�t interested in the business meetings, found them inefficient, boring and lengthy. Many people eligible for collective membership hadn�t taken up the offer and eventually business meetings [in 1 985] were declared optional.� (Appendix D:470) |
In 1986, the Australia Council brought pressure to bear on the company to restructure. They increased the company�s general grant to $83 000, with the condition that $25 000 be earmarked for a full-time administrator�s salary (Appendix D:470). The appointment of Sue Beale as full time administrator in 1987 represented �the first real wage differential in the history of Circus Oz� (Appendix D:471). Until this time, there had been parity in wages paid by the company. A full wages restructure followed, where wages were set to reflect experience.
The appointment of an administrator was accompanied
by a complete restructure of the company, formally ending collective management.
A board of management was appointed which included former members of the
working company and current members of the working company �who have the
experience and the capacity to make informed decisions relating to management
of the company� (Appendix D:464). There was a feeling, however, that this
board did not truly represent the interests of many of the performers,
especially newer performers. The next four years proved to be tumultuous
for Circus Oz. It was gaining a reputation for being a very difficult environment
for performers to create their own work. There were a number of accusations
being made during this time, including specific difficulties faced by women
at Circus Oz:
| �We all know that the Circus is not known for its ability to support and encourage and I think that this presents particular obstacles for women.� (Appendix D:473) |
Changes in performing personnel meant that few in the performing company were eligible for board membership, further taking control away from the performers. Tensions culminated in 1991, when many in the company began to wonder �is the sense of group ownership of the show strong enough�? (Appendix D:469). The company underwent yet another restructure, this time bringing in George Fairfax as a consultant. His recommendations included the appointment of a full-time artistic director, formalised casting, and an increase in the board to include two working company members, elected by current working financial members of the company. (Appendix D:477-480). This latter recommendation, however, did not really solve the grievances amongst performers because a performer had to be with the company for two years before being eligible for financial membership. This excluded almost all of the performers from either being represented on the board or voting. The internal problems of the company were reflected in performances, with the cancellation of a Sydney season due to financial problems, despite the performers offering to go ahead with the show without pay, and a fateful tour of Edinburgh where Annie Davey fell from the trapeze breaking her neck, and other members of the company experiencing emotional breakdowns.
Since 1991, the situation seems to have improved,
but serious problems remain, particularly in regard to a lack of support
felt by many of the performers. Yates (Lines 155-1 67), who left Circus
Oz in 1993, says of the company:
| �It�s a pretty hard environment to work. I don�t knock Circus Oz because it�s Circus Oz, but some people do find it hard to work there. It�s an institution now. The people who�ve started it aren�t in the show anymore, but they still maintain control of the company, and that�s a kind of a hard way to work. When you get down and do something you want to own it, you�d like it to be yours a bit. When you start getting told ... not outwardly and overtly, through the way things are set up, and through the systems you get the message that there�s certain other people who have control over how things go, and it just gets a little bit frustrating.� |
While it is obvious that Circus Oz is no longer a collective, there is a feeling amongst performers that the company stands for the performer, and should give the performer control over the direction of the company, and ownership of the artistic product. This is a powerful myth that survives at Circus Oz. The reality, however, is quite different, and may represent the basis of the instability that the company has experienced over the last few years. It points furthermore to a tumultuous transition overtaking contemporary circus as a whole.
5.3. CONCLUSION
Previous
Home
Circus culture, including traditional and
non-traditional culture, is in a state of difficult transition. While traditional
circus culture is firmly established and provides a strong network of support
for individuals within the culture, its resistance to change threatens
its relevance and hence it�s continuing existence. Non-traditional circus,
on the other hand, is developing a vibrant and relevant form of circus
performance, and is still in the process of creating a culture that accompanies
the artform, but lacks the network of support and clear career structure
to be found in traditional circus. Different companies are coming to terms
with this emergent culture with varying degrees of success. The inherent
difficulties in this process, however, are best illustrated by Circus Oz�s
transition from a collective to a more conventional company structure.
The beliefs that fuelled the early movement are no longer either workable
or applicable to an industry that is now firmly established in the cultural
landscape of Australia. This turbulence is mirrored by traditional circus�s
desperate attempt to cling to forms that are becoming increasingly difficult
to sell to a public with changing tastes and attitudes.
There is evidence that the cultural gap between traditional and non-traditional circus is closing, and indeed may not have been as wide as was first thought, judging from attitudes towards the use of performing animals. The focus of this convergence is centred on the training and development of the circus performer. Non-traditional circus stands to benefit from the experience and knowledge of circus training possessed by traditional circus. Traditional circus, on the other hand, could benefit from exposing its performers to the creativity of nontraditional circus. Whether there is the will to further promote such a convergence is another question. Attitudes still prevail that prevent both sections of the industry from acknowledging their common interests. Many individuals in traditional circus still see the relationship as adversarial, with non-traditional circus threatening their cultural identity. This perception is accentuated by condescending attitudes towards traditional circus that are still expressed by many individuals in nontraditional circus. While tentative contact between the two cultures has been made over the past few years, the potential benefits of such contact are far from being fully realised.
Bakhtin, M. (1985) Rabelais and His World. Trans. H. Isowlsky, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Bergin, T. (1989) �Recreational Animal Welfare� in proceedings of a symposium at the Bardon Professional Centre, RSPCA, Brisbane.
Bolton, R. (1987) New Circus, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, London.
Bouissac, P. (1985) Circus and Culture: a Semiotic Approach. Sources in Semiotics Series, Series Eds J. Deely and B. Williams, University Press of America, Boston and London.
Bristol, M. (1985) Carnival and Theatre. Methuen, London and New York.
Burgess, H. (1974) �The Classification of Circus Techniques� in The Drama Review, Vol. 18, No.1.
Cato, N. (1987) �Ordinary Kids Doing Extraordinary Things� in This Australia, Vol. 6, No. 3.
�Circus Oz� (1983) in Hemisphere, Vol. 28, No. 1.
Dobbin, C. (1984) �Women�s Theatre and the APG� in Meanjin, Vol. 43, No.1. �First National Circus Summit Report� (1990) Unpublished.
Fo, D. (1979) �Mistero Buffo: Dialogue With an Audience� in Theatre Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 9.
�Fruit Flies - No Sting� (1984), in Hemisphere, Vol. 28, No. 6.
Geddes, V. (1992) �Leaping Off the Edge ... With the Women�s Circus�, in DVIRC Newsletter, Domestic Violence and Incest Resource Centre, Brunswick, Vic.
Glasser, B. and Strauss, A. (1971) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Oualitative Research. Aldine Atherton, Chicago and New York.
Guy, V. (1991) �Culture�s Mirror: Traditional and New Circus Observed�, unpublished.
Kiley-Worthington, M. (1990) Animals in Circuses and Zoos: Chiron�s World?. Little Eco-Farms Publishing, Basildon, Essex.
Laurie, R. (1984) �A Thousand Bloomin� Flowers: No Stopping Now� in Meanjin, Vol. 41, no. 1.
Mitchell, T. (1 979) �Dario Fo�s �Mistero ��Buffo�: Popular Theatre, the Guillari and the Grotesque� in Theatre Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 35.
A Potted History of Rock�n�Roll Circus (1991) Unpublished.
Perrier, R. (1982) �Finding an Audience: The Murray River Performing Group� in Meanjin, Vol. 41, No. 1.
Ramsland, J. and St. Leon, M. (1993) Children of the Circus: the Australian Experience. Butterfly Books, Springwood, NSW.
Richards, A. (1992) �Women�s Circus ... Leaping Off the Edge�, Photographs by V. Méhes, in Meanjin, Vol. 51, No. 1.
Schechner, R. (1990) By Means of Performance: Intercultural Studies of Theatre and Ritual. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Port Chester, Melbourne and Sydney.
Singer, P. (1990) Animal Liberation. Avon Books, New York.
St. Leon, M. (1983) Spangles and Sawdust: The Circus in Australia. Greenhouse Publications, Richmond, Vic.
St. Leon, M. (1986) �The Circus in the Context of Australia�s Regional, Social and Cultural History� in The Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society, Vol. 72, No. 3.
St. Leon, M. (1988a) �Australia�s Circus Heritage� in Heritage Australia, Vol. 7, No. 4.
St. Leon, M. (1988b) �Entertaining the Outback� in New Theatre: Australia, No. 6, July/August.
Watt, D. (1991)
�Interrogating �Community�: Social Welfare Versus Cultural Democracy� in
Community and the Arts: History, Theory, Practice. Ed. V. Binns, Pluto
Press Australia, Leichhardt,
NSW.
Watt, D. (1992) �Community Theatre: a Progress Report� in Australasian Drama Studies, No. 20, April.
�West End Community Circus Festival Report� (1983) Unpublished.
Williams, R. (1983) Culture, Fontana Paperbacks, Glasgow.
Williams, R. (1989) Resources of Hope. Verso, London and New York.