Anonymous wondered:
lots of changes are happening at cirque at all levels, because its become a company that has lost its touch with telling an intimate story and its now just having lights, set design, flashy costumes etc to please the audience. Its learnt that people will buy tickets no matter what because of the "cirque experience" not because of the story line/acts in the show. So the changes are happening because they need to make as much profit as they can. thats just my opinion, what do you think?

vivelecirquedusoleil:

tamsinelspeth:

vivelecirquedusoleil:

I do think that maybe Cirque has sort of lost touch with the feel of the earlier shows. So many of their shows in recent years have just been so short lived and we can speculate and talk forever about why that is. But I think they still have the ability to make shows that run for like 15 years but for whatever reason, that ability has been stifled. Because of the amazing shows that they’ve created, I want to believe that they’ve still got it. I do think though that part of it is like you said, just trying to please the audience knowing that many people will just go for the Cirque name, regardless of actual quality of the show. It’s unfortunate but I think there is a bit of truth in that. I mean I still personally think the only reason Believe is still running is because of Criss Angel’s fans and then people just going off of the Cirque name (because I’ve still honestly never heard much good about that show, especially the way it is now).

It may also have to be due to now all the tours going on, finding “permanent” houses for shows (ie Zarkana got moved to Vegas for its home). The tsunami in Japan a few years ago definitely threw a wrench into their dynamic, I think they had a show there that had to close? Plus shows at a sort of sub-level of Cirque. Then there was the death…

Just speculating and typing out things that have been happening with Cirque rather than making any argument. Just thoughts.

I don’t know how many directors they have and such. I met the director of creation a few years ago, and now I wish I had asked her if she is the only one, is there a sub committee, or what.

I am not fully on board with it “just having lights, set design, flashy costumes etc. to please the audience”. Of course aesthetics is a huge part of the show, but based on the Cirque people I’ve talked to, and designers who have worked with Cirque or were approached to work with them, I don’t think those areas are as close to the Cirque company’s center as one may think. 

Oy, words are hard and I am rambling. What I mean by that is from conversations I’ve had with people who have worked for Cirque, the company seems to have the main focus on the acrobatics and performers. Set and lights are likely more outside people—of course they still work with them, but they may be more outsourced.

I don’t think the directors are focusing more on design and their shows are just about that. It’s possible there has been more of a shift from story to performances though—the stunts and what apparatuses are needed; a natural shift in mindset—that sadly doesn’t always work how one wants—as a collective attempts to keep things new and appealing.

I definitely understand where you’re coming from. I have no idea myself the dynamics of how the costumes and such work as far as who’s in charge of that overall or creatively but it just seems within the past 7 years or so, so many shows have been opened and closed just as quickly and there has to be a reason for it. Well there’s probably tons of reasons though I’m not sure what they are. But the residency of shows definitely might have something to do with it as it’s been most of the newer resident shows that have closed. That’s honestly (along with all the changes) why I think Zarkana might not even last very much longer.

I LOVE Zarkana, but I would not be shocked if it did not last long. I think a huge part of its initial success was having Garou behind it. I had no idea who he was before Zarkana, but I learned he is pretty big in Canada. Having a pop star behind your show certainly helps, but I don’t think he even stayed a full year, if even six months. 

These conversations are making me really curious as to why so many have opened and closed. Hmm…well that happens on Broadway a lot, when you think about it. Shows open and close like that, may not even last a year. An average person can know so many shows just through the media and not be a theater person. There are SO many shows and musicals, but how many Broadway shows have lasted a long time? I am not one to ask in regards to Broadway history, but only a few shows have lasted over YEARS. It’s quite impressive how Mystere and other shows have stood against time as they have.

I have no idea who Cirque’s producers are, but perhaps this is how show biz works, and how life spans of shows often are. It is far, far more common to see shows have shorter runs than long ones.

Anonymous wondered:
All the shows have gone through cuts, as far as I know. I think it's related to all those employees being let go last year because of budget cuts?. For shows, its acts being removed, and parts of the show being shortened. :(

vivelecirquedusoleil:

And that’s incredibly unfortunate too. But I mean, most of the longer running shows are unchanged for the most part. Not saying they’ve never gone through cuts but not right and left like it seems in recent years. The budget cuts definitely do probably have something to do with it.

Acts changing or being removed have a lot to do with the performers. 
Injured acrobat: if there is no replacement (not everyone has an understudy) then the act cannot happen.
The diversity: Cirque is so international. Artists and performers are from all of the world. I think it was the clown advisor who described rehearsals to me with directions being shouted and then several translators shouting the same directions in their language. With foreign travel comes visas that do expire. That’s another variable that may be why performers cannot stay, and thus an act may be cut.


Some have to be directors’ choices as well. What comes to mind is how Zarkana had lines in English when it first opened. Then it went to Spain I believe? Then Moscow? When it arrived back to New York the next summer I heard that the show had only Cirque language. Zarkana also felt different than other Cirque shows, and I could tell people were disappointed. As someone who loves rock I too loved Zarkana and its rock-opera feel. I didn’t mind the distance it had from Cirque’s unique style.

Cuts may also happen due to touring. A show on tour is not going to be the exact same show on one stage.

Of course budget cuts are always a reason. Cirque also does not pay a huge amount, from what I have heard from some sources. You don’t become rich working for them.

Anonymous wondered:
lots of changes are happening at cirque at all levels, because its become a company that has lost its touch with telling an intimate story and its now just having lights, set design, flashy costumes etc to please the audience. Its learnt that people will buy tickets no matter what because of the "cirque experience" not because of the story line/acts in the show. So the changes are happening because they need to make as much profit as they can. thats just my opinion, what do you think?

vivelecirquedusoleil:

I do think that maybe Cirque has sort of lost touch with the feel of the earlier shows. So many of their shows in recent years have just been so short lived and we can speculate and talk forever about why that is. But I think they still have the ability to make shows that run for like 15 years but for whatever reason, that ability has been stifled. Because of the amazing shows that they’ve created, I want to believe that they’ve still got it. I do think though that part of it is like you said, just trying to please the audience knowing that many people will just go for the Cirque name, regardless of actual quality of the show. It’s unfortunate but I think there is a bit of truth in that. I mean I still personally think the only reason Believe is still running is because of Criss Angel’s fans and then people just going off of the Cirque name (because I’ve still honestly never heard much good about that show, especially the way it is now).

It may also have to be due to now all the tours going on, finding “permanent” houses for shows (ie Zarkana got moved to Vegas for its home). The tsunami in Japan a few years ago definitely threw a wrench into their dynamic, I think they had a show there that had to close? Plus shows at a sort of sub-level of Cirque. Then there was the death…

Just speculating and typing out things that have been happening with Cirque rather than making any argument. Just thoughts.

I don’t know how many directors they have and such. I met the director of creation a few years ago, and now I wish I had asked her if she is the only one, is there a sub committee, or what.

I am not fully on board with it “just having lights, set design, flashy costumes etc. to please the audience”. Of course aesthetics is a huge part of the show, but based on the Cirque people I’ve talked to, and designers who have worked with Cirque or were approached to work with them, I don’t think those areas are as close to the Cirque company’s center as one may think. 

Oy, words are hard and I am rambling. What I mean by that is from conversations I’ve had with people who have worked for Cirque, the company seems to have the main focus on the acrobatics and performers. Set and lights are likely more outside people—of course they still work with them, but they may be more outsourced.

I don’t think the directors are focusing more on design and their shows are just about that. It’s possible there has been more of a shift from story to performances though—the stunts and what apparatuses are needed; a natural shift in mindset—that sadly doesn’t always work how one wants—as a collective attempts to keep things new and appealing.