WSJ: Sarah Guillot-Guyard lay dying on the floor of a basement inside a darkened Cirque du Soleil theater here, one leg broken and blood pooling under her head.
It was June 2013, and the 31-year-old mother of two had fallen 94 feet in front of hundreds of horrified spectators after the wire attached to her safety harness shredded while she performed in the dramatic aerial climax of the company’s most technically challenging production, “Kà.”
It was the first fatality during a Cirque show, and it capped an increase in injuries at Cirque with the “Kà” production. The show had one of the highest rates of serious injuries of any workplace in the country, according to safety records kept by Cirque that were compared with federal records by The Wall Street Journal.
4 comments:
This whole situation is just a little bit frustrating. One one hand, its really important for the performer to understand that the nature of Cirque provides for a very unsafe working environments in exchange for a high pay for its performers and a very unique working environment. At the same time, Cirque doesn't fit in legally and somewhat morally to the currently structured OSHA standards and working codes, who place the blame entirely on the performers instead of considering the fact that Cirque has acts in place that aren't designer to their full capabilities in terms of safety. If an act can be made more safe without compromising audience experience, why would Cirque not be putting the money into the act in the first place? If they can't afford to put in the excess safety systems, they shouldn't be doing the act at all, in my personal opinion.
Like Brennan, after reading this article I find myself frustrated with the problem of balancing safety and innovation in Cirque's workplace. I also don't very much like how some of the injured performers, who (because of Cirque) cannot perform with their bodies, their only source of livelihood. It's awesome that Cirque is always looking to satisfy its customers need to see more and more death-defying stunts, and that their mission is always to push the envelope. That's why everyone looks to them as a forerunner in the entertainment industry; they produce work unlike anything the theatre world has ever seen. But when you make shows with stunts like those on Ka, you'd better pay attention to making safety procedures as intense as possible. It's one thing to have one person in five or six years fall and die due to malfunction. But 56 out of 100? That's insane. I'm glad Cirque is taking measures to prevent any more injury, and that they are willing to discuss the issue with the general public. The next time I see a Cirque show I'll definitely think more deeply about the amount of thought that goes behind all of the stunts.
What an interesting and revealing video. There are few things that I would like to point out about this and others have discussed them here as well but I would like to add my opinion. First, on the topic of artists being thoroughly trained. If you watch the video, the artist describes himself as “superficially trained with equipment.” If that artist ever felt uncomfortable or unknowledgeable about his safety equipment, he had a duty to step up and say something. Yes, Cirque is required to perform nightly equipment checks but I’m guessing that OSHA does not require technicians to ask each performer how they feel about it. Secondly the woman mentioned the climb scene and that she felt a little nervous every night when she went on. Part of me really wants to say that if you work in the circus, there is going to be some element of risk, but another part wants to say Cirque should be checking in and communicating with their performers more often. What I really hope this article does is begin a real, helpful conversation about safety between technicians and performers. Because I think that so often as technicians we care about the UBS of the wire or something similar to that, but not actually asking how the performer feels about each night.
I think there is something very valuable in implementing a close call report and investigation practice. That is really capitalizing on the company's ability to view practices in action and refine safety procedures. These previously overlooked data points can only strengthen the safety methods protecting the performers. Furthermore, what may be one person's "near miss" - as luck would have it - could quite possibly be another performer's fatality. Monitoring those and taking those incidents just as seriously as the actual injuries and fatalities that occur could completely eliminate the latter.
I also found the fact that - on a separate show, regarding a non-fatal incident - Cirque had been "cleared... of any responsibility for the accident" very concerning. I think that the company had a responsibility to evaluate the space, and, if all safety procedures could not be implemented, to search for a different venue. Lack of space is no excuse for life-altering injuries and fatalities.
Post a Comment