Saturday, September 12, 2009
Cirque de Soleil rethinks the franchise
Variety: "Anyone who thinks they know the kind of people who attend a Cirque du Soleil show -- old enough to be affluent, arty enough to embrace risk, highly influenced by critics and artistic tastemakers -- should spend time in line at the Luxor Hotel in Las Vegas. 'Criss Angel: Believe' is a different kind of Cirque show for a different kind of crowd."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Cirque really does have a way of catering their shows to a range of audiences. They don't just cater to those older artsy crowd, but they design shows in such a way that your Elvis, or more "gothic" crowd can really enjoy. The material that they put on stage is done in such a way that places them away from the crowd, while still making it desirable to a large populous. This article helped me realize that this corporation is really brilliant in the way they design not just their individual shows, but their productions as a unit themselves. They have a name not for the quality of the work that they are producing, but the balance of themes throughout their shows.
Kudos to Cirque for staying afloat during the recession. It is definitely surprising that they have not only managed to keep their Las Vegas shows up and running smoothly, but have added to the mix as well. Cirque has done something that many theaters still have not been able to regularly accomplish, diversify their audience. By using stars like Elvis and this famous magician (of whom I have never heard), they have drawn new audiences in without damaging the draw for their more "Cirque=like" shows. While both new shows, Elvis and Magic, sound interesting and enjoyable, I hope that Cirque does not completely forget the art that they began their rise to fame; bringing circus to the level of fine art. Their touring shows in the giant big-tops will hopefully remain at the heart of this brilliant, envelope-pushing, artistic giant.
I know I have been kvetching about people not doing origional shows, for example Shreck, 9 t 5 and Legally Blond, but I think the Cirque show are different. They use the music as inspiration and then create their own art. I would love to see the Elvis show. It is more fascinating to me that Elvis will be the only male voice you hear.
As for Chris Angel, they should cancel his show. I know they have a new niche market, but it can only last for so long. I think they are have tried to redo the show enough and need cut their losses. Besides, what are they going to do when Chris runs out of magic tricks, pay him to make up new ones? But then again, that may be the way of Vegas.
Agreeing with Cody here, Angel is too much of a specialized person to have any sort of longevity for Cirque. His "bad boy" attitude doesn't lend itself to him staying in one place for too long and thus taking him away from other projects. If Cirque is truly interested in the unique angle Angel has to offer American audiences, they should use his expertise in the form of consultation for future ventures. Cirque has cornered the market in the world for their incredible style of performance, so why not add in the "mind freak" to the creative team for a show. Billing his name as a collaborator in a show would still draw audiences without him physically having to be there.
It is refreshing to see Cirque doing so well in this period of economic turmoil. By bringing in a new audience, they are ensuring business where others are losing it. I agree that unlike Cirque's other long-lasting shows, Criss Angel's may be a short lived one. Perhaps Cirque will continue to create shows aimed at the same audience that they have just generated with this current show, which would probably be the best decision, seeing as it's been working well at the moment.
I think that the Criss Angel show is vastly different because it actually has a star as a headliner. The rest of the brand shows are inspired, but not necessarily tied to the needs of a single individual. The Criss Angel show is volatile because it hinges on a single individual. The Elvis show sounds like it is the advancement of the Criss Angel show because it revolves around a single individual but doesn't hinge on that individual for every single performance. I'm glad that Cirque's aesthetic hasn't been compromised in all of these new shows they have started up.
While you can say that Cirque is abandoning its artistic path just for the sake of staying afloat in these hard economic times, I believe that any kind of diversification is a really good thing. As I have said in previous comments, anything that opens the world of theatre up to a new group of people is movement in a good direction. Both the star of "Mindfreak" and the "King", have fan bases that do not necessarily find themselves in a theatre so often. The fact that Cirque is able to draw these people to the theatre is amazing. On the other hand, I hope that their more classic shows remain as they are and are not affected by this divergence from Cirque as we know it.
I think its wonderful that Cirque has the flexibility to explore so many themes that can appeal to a large audience. It opens up the theatre world to a variety of people from all walks of life. This is something theatre should focus on. How to attract different kinds of people to a certain place so that they can all share the same experience. It fosters a sense of community in the population that is sometimes lost by people attending only arts events that are applicable to their specific social circle.
I think it is great for Cirque to rethink their franchise. Not only is their oldest show 16 years old but new ones are constantly coming and out entertainment has changed from 16 years ago. By adapting their pieces to feature the music of Elvis or the Beatles is a brillant move to show they are willing to change and still offer great entertainment, even if it does mean sacraficing a small element of a huge production. Adding stars such as Criss Angel is a great move to because it changes the atmosphere and markets the show as something people already know- thus easy marketing and a new crowd or people more interested in what they know then the artsy scene Cirque has created for itself.
This article discusses something that has been the subject of much debate lately. Does the current economy mean that anything creative edgy and out of the box must be inevitably pushed aside in order to be replaced with something that is flashy,commercial and easy to market. I think what is important thing demonstrated by Cirque is that this does not have to be the case, but that making compromises will be inevitable. Cirque is smart not only because it does produce shows that may be considered more mainstream in order to avoid "cannibalizing" those shows that are the true essence of Cirque, but also because it does not limit itself by not limiting its audience. It is clear by the description given here that they are not trying to produce massive shows that will appeal to everyone, but recognizing different audiences and catering specifically to what they want to see. In a way this brings Cirque's unique aesthetic to a group of people that might have never see it under different circumstances. It seem as if when done correctly both the creator and the audience can benefit greatly from being pushed to do something they would not have done ordinarily.
I'm sorry, what? This piece of garbage literature is some of the biggest trash I have read recently. It actually praises Chris Angel: Believe. Did they even go to see his show before writing this article? Within the article it even says that the show had some of the worst opening reviews EVER. That is a pretty big thing to live up to, and this show actually beat the old record by a lot. Not only that, but in the industry in Las Vegas the show is a gigantic joke and Chris Angel is a known hack. I think this article makes some very incorrect assertions and some blatant lies, and I think the Chris Angel show should have been canceled after opening night and never have a second performance. We can do so much better than that garbage. Cirque can do so much better. Ugh.
Not that Cirque wasn't corporate before, but it really sounds like they've "gone corporate" with this whole Chris Angel gag. I totally understand from an economic perspective -- to increase your audience base you must diversify your programming, given the tendency of individuals towards different forms of entertainment. And while maybe Cirques foray into magic will open a younger audiences eyes to the joys of live entertainment, it sort of feels like Cirque is polluting their whimsically fantastic circus background.
I am really not sure how I feel about Cirque branding its shows. I think that Cirque as itself should be enough of a draw to bring in audience goers, the amount i paid for my Koza ticket should be proof in that. However, I do recognize the appeal of certain branded shows like Chris Angel's will broaden the type of audience who attend these types of shows. Can it last forever, absolutely not, but for now it will bring in some new "clients" and with this economy, that is something our industry certainly needs.
i personly think that cirque is more set for the none dark side. i think that people when they wount to go to a cirque show they wount to see some thing that is fun and uplifting. also the bad reviews are not helping them. also mixing magic and cirque is not a mixture that i see working. i personally wound not go see this show because i dont like magic shows and when i go to a cirqu show i think of amazing tec and aw of a show.
I cannot help wondering if Cirque's continue involvement with Las Vegas, especially since the city might as well be their headquarters, has negatively affluenced the company. There used to be an originality to cirque that made it more about art than just entertainment and yet with The Beatles and Criss Angel dipping into the creative pool how long will it be until Walt Disney or 80s Rock jumps on the bandwagon? I understand the desire to open up the audience demographic, but there are better ways of doing it. At least the Beatles show still resembles the artistic excellence of the other shows. When does circque hit the point they are just trying to hard? Perhaps, I am merely an old Cirque fan and cannot adjust to the franchice's changing image, but It'd be a shame to see Cirque fall to nothing but a Vegas act. Hopefully, the tour and show opening in LA will help salvage it's old image, or at least resemble it more closely.
I've always been impressed with Cirque's attitude towards not just cranking out the same selling thing over and over again. Cirque's managed to make itself one of the major pinnacles in the entertainment world, and they just don't seem to believe that's enough. I'm not a fan of Criss Angel, but I've got to admit that him partnered with Cirque leaves me deeply intrigued as to what and how things would happen. Cirque has a reputation of putting on well polished shows, and I doubt they'd let that reputation be compromised so their ventures into less artsy, more mainstream showings just leads me to wonder about what they'll do next. Does the future hold a Cirque show set to heavy metal and German lyrics? Who knows, but given that it is Cirque, I bet it'd be awesome to watch.
More than ever Cirque is revealing itself to be about more than spectacle. Cirque de Soleil is a money making business and this recent business move is one that will surely upset a few fans.
Congratulations to Cirque. While the Criss Angel Show may not be typical Cirque fare, I don't think the move away from the usual form of production is a negative thing. By creating a separate show rather than splicing apart existing works to generate a wider crowd appeal, Cirque preserves the artistic integrity of their existing work.
Sometimes people forget that artists are allowed to deviate from their usual styles and subject matter. Cirque de Soleil is a business, and this is a business move there is no question. At the same time however, a new direction doesn't mean a slackening of artistic standards.
I am personally tied in he matter. While I love the idea of more themed and aimed shows from Cirque, I also believe that the franchise was made on the style that it created 16 years ago. For years, Cirque has been the iconic modern day replacement of the circus. They create a complex and intricate production that intices the audiences for more. But with the indtroduction of this new style of Cirque, I feel that they are taking away from the thing that makes Cirque, Cirque. But on the other hand, as with the world, the theater must adapt to the demands of the times and people. I believe that if Cirque remains tasteful and creative, that this is a good move.
This is utterly ridiculous. Cirque is supposed to be about the relatively high art of the french circus. The whole idea behind it is visual story telling with fantastic and beautiful stunts. It's a visual feast. Not the "Jersey Boys" of The Beatles and Elvis.
I'm not against these shows really, it just shouldn't be considered a part of Cirque because it destroys the process. Picking the style of a show and forcing it to fit any subject manner will not naturally result in a good production. They say in the article that they are attracting new audiences, but it is at the expense of the original concept of Cirque. It is similar to when a Broadway tour casts a famous actor to draw crowds based on star power rather than any actual talent (Jerry Springer as Billy Flynn. Seriously).
My point is that if the company wants to create a biographical show of Elvis, or a magic show performed by Chris Angel, then that is what they should do. Write the story and create something suitable for that story.
Chances are Elvis' life story isn't really similar to a french circus.
Cirque is a great company which has been able to survie this economic downturn. It is great that they are finding new and interesting show subjects that will entertain audiences for years and years to come...they have a show already running over 15 years (not many shows can say that). Hopefully the new Elvis show will be a huge success for them.
Wow. I would have thought Cirque de Soleil and Criss Angel were artistically incompatible. I guess that shows my assumptions about the validity of each art form. But still, this makes me wonder; what defines a Cirque show? Is anything produced by the company automatically part of their artistic repertoire? How does Criss Angel, who has a very specific style associated with him, fit into the "higher art" world of Cirque? Also, I find it strange that we applaud this but laud other obvious attempts to make money in a recession. Our community has such mixed feelings about commercialism.
Post a Comment