Is the circus dead and buried? A circus in a cemetery digs its grave even deeper

If you go down to the cemetery... forget killer clowns.
Watch out for sacrilegious aerial dancers

Has the image of circus hit an all-time low? Once the big top was a magical place that whole families flocked to for wholesome entertainment. Clowns - how funny! Trapeze artists - how daring! Elephants - just look how big they are!

These days the media mostly greets the circus with contempt and outrage. The animal issue has, of course, decimated the traditional circus.

Last week, The Sun, the good old Current Bun, spat its hate at a "Sick" Ukrainian circus in which a bear is made to salute and a sea lion made to look as if he's playing the guitar. Who but the depraved could find pleasure in such degradation?

Clowns are no longer funny, nor even scary but just plain dangerous. This month a young man was given six months for chasing a couple down the street while dressed as a clown. Okay, he had an axe. But you'd think the fact he was dressed as a clown would have flagged the incident up as a harmless teenage prank. I mean, look at that guy in the clown suit - he's just playing around, right? But no. The judge said the fact the lad was wearing a clown mask was "an aggravating factor."

Clearly when you see a clown these days you don't think, "Ha, ha! Friendly, funny man!" You think, "Homicidal maniac! Run!"

At least there's all-human, clown-free new circus to pull circus tricks out of the mire and restore them to a place of respectability -right?

Well, there was. But now the Australian company Circa has caused fresh ire with its plans for a show in a cemetery.

"Abhorrent!" screams the headline on the BBC's website. "Disrespectful," say residents with loved ones buried nearby. "Sacrilegious!" says another.

Just when you thought these new circus Johnnies were almost civilised it turns out they're as bad as those buggers with the lions! Deport the lot of them! Or lock 'em up! Or... or... I don't know... just don't buy a ticket!

Still, there was one interesting thing in the report, and that was a surprisingly concise definition of the difference between old circus and new.

According to one objector: ".They are swinging from trees like acrobats, performing what is in effect a circus act."

I like that "in effect." Even the protesters know modern circus ain't quite circus as we remember it. Which is a fact one of the council bods sponsoring the show as part of Hull's City of Culture celebrations astutely confirms: "This is contemporary circus, which is best described as aerial dance."

I think that's something traditional circus fans have been trying to say for years.

The Educational value of Circuses, Zoos and SeaWorld

Douglas McPherson
author Circus Mania

The dumbest argument against animals in circuses, zoos and aquariums such as SeaWorld - and it's one I see parroted with irritating regularity in articles and comments threads - is that they provide "no educational value."

If only the people who blindly spout that view could be persuaded to actually visit such an establishment before condemning it, I am sure that most would find that the biggest educational benefit lies in simply seeing and sometimes touching wild animals close-up. TV doesn't have nearly the same impact, only a tiny percentage will ever go on a safari, and even those who do will probably not get quite so close to the animals as they can in a circus, zoo or aquarium. 

Society is becoming far too removed from the animal world. Kids in cities often won't even see horses or the farm animals they eat. Many couldn't tell you which animal some of the processed food on their plate came from. 

Circuses, zoos and aquariums reconnect us with the natural world, and that is life enhancing in the same way that pat dogs in hospitals are. It also creates an appreciation and respect for nature. It was largely the tricks performed by dolphins in aquariums, for example, that made people realise how clever they were and therefore worthy of conservation in the wild. 

As for the animals, as long as they are properly cared for, they're better off in human care where they are protected from all the natural threats (as well as the human kind) that they would face in the wild. Being animals, they don't have a human's mental capacity to conceptualise freedom or captivity, they only know if they are happy, mentally stimulated and physically well, and human care can provide that, in exactly the same way domestic pet ownership does. 

I used to believe entertainment-based animal shows were a bit iffy - largely because that was the view presented in the media - but the more I've looked into it, during the research for my book Circus Mania and many newspaper and magazine articles since, the more I've seen that the arguments against such establishments aren't based on genuine welfare claims (although they always campaign on grounds of alleged cruelty) but an ideological objection to captivity irrespective of welfare standards. 

Every circus animal I have seen in the ring or backstage has appeared to be in exceptionally good health, mentally and physically, and their keepers and trainers have been 100% dedicated to them. 

In my opinion, we need more businesses that put the public in close proximity with animals, not fewer.

Why we need circus animals more than ever

How dangerously removed we're becoming from nature when a survey by the National Trust finds nine in ten children can identify a Dalek but only three recognise a magpie. And when the Oxford Junior Dictionary has taken out terms like acorn, buttercup and otter in favour of blog, chatroom and voicemail, and the only Blackberry in its pages is the electronic kind.

No wonder kids go mad to see even the ducks run around the ring at Peter Jolly's Circus. We need the sawdust circle more than ever.

Click here for a glimpse of a vanishing art form.

Growing up in the circus - a picture that says it all

Here's a picture that surely sums up how wonderful it must have been to grow up in one of the great circuses of yesteryear. Two kids taking an elephant for a walk down a suburban street... on skateboards!
That's Bobbo Roberts in the foreground (read about his new clown show here) and his sister bringing up the rear. As for the elephant... surely this picture sums up the harmony in which circus folk and their animals once lived.* The jumbo was obviously part of the family, a big pet, considered safe enough to play in the street with two young children who she clearly trusted completely, and them her.
Notice there's not a bull-hook in sight. Bobbo's father Bobby Roberts, the circus owner and elephant trainer never used nor even owned one. He thought an ankus was something you found on a boat.
What a shame we're unlikely to ever see scenes like this on a British street again - a picture from the days when human and animal relationships were considered both normal and natural, to be celebrated, not outlawed, as they are today.
*And yes, I know there are still circus trainers keeping alive the tradition, but they are becoming ever more rare and the threat of a ban on their vocation grows ever closer in Wales (see article here) and now Scotland, where a ban on wild animals in travelling circuses will be debated in the Scottish Parliament next year.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if those with the power to ban could gaze upon a photo like this, from the days before protesters, political correctness and killjoys, and realise that those simpler times were better times. Let's bring them back!

Zippos circus kicks out clowns shocker!

Years of attacks by animal rights activists couldn't stop Zippos circus touring with cats and budgies, but the evil clown craze has caused showman Martin Burton to call time on that other circus staple, clowns.

According to a report in The Sun, Burton fears the evil clown craze has stoked the fear of clowns to such proportions that he fears families would be put off buying tickets if they thought they'd see any red noses in the ring:

“The recent hijacking of clowns from comedy into horror, started by Stephen King and now adopted at Halloween horror mazes and in film around the world is simply not funny.

"I would like to make it clear to our visitors that Zippos Circus shows feature no clowns, in fact the 'red nose' has been redundant with us for a while - we prefer comic slapstick characters of the Charlie Chaplin style, but nonetheless we are concerned that families might be put off attending our circus, and robustly condemn these clown stalkers."

The press reports about Zippos' no-clown policy, however, are not strictly true. Zippos still features clowning in the form of Mr Lorenz, who may not wear a red nose or a scary mask, but still wears recognisable modern clown make-up including a white lip, and performs clown routines (as opposed to, say, stand up comedy or some form of non-clown funny business).

What we have, then, is a great example of a circus turning the bad clown publicity to it's advantage in the form of national advertising.

It still seems odd though that Burton, who is also the President of Clowns International and a former clown himself, appears to be distancing himself from the clowning profession he's supposed to represent. Is this an example of how badly the prankster clowns have unsettled the professionals?

10 Facts the Welsh Assembly needs to know about Circus Animals

Rebecca Evans of the Welsh Assembly wants
to ban performers such as Britain's last lion tamer
Thomas Chipperfield, who toured Wales last year.
She is not believed to have met him, seen his show
or inspected his animals.

In December, the Welsh Assembly’s deputy minister for farming and food, Rebecca Evans announced, “The Welsh Government believes there is no place for the use of wild animals in circuses.” In the next step to introducing a ban in Wales, she has commissioned Professor Stephen Harris - a man with a long history of opposition to animals in the big top (which you can read about here) - to carry out a review of their welfare

I was brought up to believe it was wrong for animals to perform in circuses, so I understand why many people harbour that belief. But having investigated the matter in great depth for my book, Circus Mania , I changed my mind and would like to present 10 reasons why the show - with animals - should go on.

1 The Radford Report (Read it here) found no grounds for a ban. In 2006, the last Labour government commissioned a six-month study of circus animals, with full participation by circuses and anti-circus campaigners, and concluded that circuses were as capable as other captive environments, such as zoos, of meeting the welfare needs of the animals in their care.

2 An earlier study by animal behavourist Dr Marthe Kiley-Worthington found circus animals suffer no stress during performance, training or transportation. The 18-month study, sponsored by the RSPCA and published as Animals in Circuses and Zoos: Chiron’s World? (Read it here) also pointed out ways in which the relationship between animals and trainers could contribute to our scientific understanding of how animals think, learn and perceive the world.

3 Circuses with wild animals are strictly regulated by a licensing scheme, introduced in 2012, that sees them inspected by vets six times a year (twice unannounced) with the results available online. Every aspect of the animal’s life, diet and accommodation is governed by strict guidelines. Plus, every circus, including animal accommodation, is on continual show to the public.

4 Circuses aid conservation through breeding programmes and by raising awareness. It was largely the tricks performed by dolphins in aquariums that convinced the public they were intelligent and worth saving. Animals in the wild are endangered by human predators and shrinking habitats, and live short, dangerous lives. Circus animals receive food, shelter and veterinary care. They live twice as long as their cousins in the wild.

5 Circus animals lead rewarding lives. Every cat and dog owner knows their pet enjoys playing with humans, and it’s no different for a horse or a lion. Training and performance are organised play, like throwing a stick for a dog or pulling string in front of a cat. Zoos stopped animal performances to distance themselves from circuses, but have reintroduced them because animals benefit from the stimulation. These days they call it ‘enrichment.’

Click here to seeBritish circus big cats

6 Children are enthralled by circus animals. It’s the only form of entertainment where the under-fives are guaranteed to enjoy themselves as much as their grandparents, making it a cheap day out for all the family. Seeing the skill and intelligence of animals at close quarters can only foster admiration and respect for other species. Even adults will seldom get as close to wild animals as they do in a big top. expectancy

7 It’s what the public want to see. Unlike most contemporary all-human circus shows, traditional circuses with animals receive no public funding and survive entirely on ticket sales. I’m not sure who was surveyed in the oft-mentioned ‘public consultation’ that found 98% of respondents supported a ban, but it wasn’t circus fans. The consultation was held during the year I was writing Circus Mania and regularly attending circuses, but I never heard about it. Perhaps it was only publicised by animal rights organisations to their existing supporters?

8 No other profession is judged by the actions of individuals. There have been 7 prosecutions of circus trainers in 130 years; a tiny minority of the trainers who worked blamelessly in that time. Banning circus animals because of the case of Anne the elephant would be as ridiculous as banning children’s television presenters because of Jimmy Savile. We have existing laws to deal with individual cases of cruelty.

9 A ban on circus animals would be the thin end of the wedge because animal rights campaigners have a wider philosophical agenda than animal welfare. The next targets would be zoos and aquariums, horseracing, meat consumption, wool, silk and leather-wearing, medical research and pet ownership. The slogan of the world’s largest animal rights organisation PETA is “Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way.”

10 The circus is a 250-year-old art form that Britain gave to the world. It was started in London by horse-rider Philip Astley and although the global success of Cirque du Soleil proves circus can flourish without animals, surely there should be room in the land of its creation for a few well-run and regulated shows that keep alive the entertainment in its most pure form, with a mixture of human and animal acts.

Douglas McPherson is the author of Circus Mania - The Ultimate Book For Anyone Who Dreamed of Running Away with the Circus (Peter Owen Publishers) 

The Saddest Show on Earth - A Circus Memory From Long Ago

My journey into the circus world began at the Great Yarmouth Hippodrome where I interviewed aerial silk artiste Eva Garcia, just a week before she fell to her death during her act.

In Circus Mania, I describe that trip to the circus as my first since childhood. But in fact I made one previous visit to the big top as an adult, maybe a decade before that fateful trip to the Hippodrome.

I can’t remember the name of the show, or even if I knew the name at the time, only that it was in the Hampton Court area on the border of south London and Surrey, where my girlfriend and I frequented a pizza restaurant, beside the Thames.

That may have been why we went - the circus just happened to be local and it was something different to do. It may have been my girlfriend’s idea. To this day, she harbours a fond memory of a single previous trip to the circus before she met me. On that occasion she’d seen a poster of a bear riding in a car and been unable to resist the spectacle. The image of the bear circling the ring was all she remembered of that visit. In fact, she remembered wanting to see the bear more strongly than she remembered actually seeing the bear. The spectacle had left her bemused, but the image on the poster had made her buy a ticket.

I guess the best circus posters can be like that; they sell a dream, and how often does reality live up to our dreams?

Anyway, there were no bears that night in Hampton Court, but there is something dream-like about my memory of our night at the circus.

For one thing, it was in a location I don’t remember visiting before or since. All I recall is that it was pitch dark, remote and a long walk from where we parked. The air was damp from our proximity to the river. There was nobody about.

In the bright interior of the snugly small tent, we sat at ringside. We could have sat anywhere, there were so few people there. I can’t say we were the only people there, but there was certainly nobody on the seats immediately to either side of us. Perhaps a couple of families were dotted around the sawdust circle.

The recorded music began, that old circus classic, Entrance of the Gladiators, and I noticed that the sound of a cheering crowd was mixed into the recording. How sad, I thought, that they have to play a recording of cheers and applause to whip up an atmosphere, because there was none coming from the handful of people who had bought tickets.

I remember just two acts. The first was a chubby girl climbing a rope to strike some poses above our heads. Only two things struck me about her routine. The first was that she was the girl who had sold us our tickets. The second was that she had an enormous ladder in the thigh of her tights, which seemed to symbolise the threadbareness of the show we were watching.

The climax to the first half was a pony trotting around the ring with a chicken standing on its back.

I looked at my companion and we burst out laughing with embarrassment.

We didn’t stay for the second half.

As we made our way back through the darkness, a couple of young hippies tried to give us some leaflets, which we declined. They were trying to educate the public about the cruelty of keeping animals in the circus, they said. They were pleasant people and we passed the time of day for a few minutes before going on our way, bemused by the concept of people picketing a show no one was going to anyway.

Looking back, I wonder what I would have made of that show with the appreciation for circus that I have now. Would I have been charmed rather than embarrassed? Would I have overlooked the show’s shortcomings and been impressed by the pluckiness of performers carrying on a tradition that had been in their blood for centuries, despite the indifference of a public that had turned its back on them?

Or would I have been as underwhelmed as I was then? There are still bad shows out there. I’ve sat in empty, badly lit, freezing cold tents watching out of shape performers and unfunny clowns go through the motions of uninspired routines. I’ve reported on them truthfully - and been banned by the showmen from ever darkening their doors again. (Read here why circuses contribute to their own invisibility by refusing to be reviewed.)

I’ve also seen great shows full of heart-stopping, spellbinding and spirit-lifting spectacle that could compete with the best of any other form of entertainment.

But how many people have seen only one show like the one I saw in Hampton Court and never attended another circus, believing on the evidence before their eyes, that a dying form of entertainment had nothing else to offer them?

It was for those people, the people like me who never went to the circus, that I wrote Circus Mania, to show them a world rich in history, tradition, colourful characters, gripping stories and wonderful contemporary entertainment that is easy to overlook.

The Mail on Sunday called my book “A brilliant account of a vanishing art form.” But it’s not really vanishing, just waiting to be discovered.

Circus Cruelty Videos - The Camera Doesn't Lie, or Does It?

Michael Hackenberger
Telling it like it is?

Animal rights groups will tell you that circus animals are beaten into submission and forced to perform through fear. It’s easy to believe if you never go to a circus with animals, which is why campaigns to “stop circus suffering” generate such a big income from armchair animal lovers (the combined income of UK organisations including Peta, ADI, CAPS and Born Free is over £350 million per annum).

Circus trainers will tell you they love their animals like their children and train them with a system of rewards and kindness that enriches the animals’ lives. That makes sense, because lots of other animals are trained, from guide dogs and riding horses to household pets - and nobody assumes they are cruelly treated.

But then there are those covertly shot videos of behind-the-scenes abuse that periodically show up in the news and live forever on YouTube to nag at the conscience of even the most ardent circus fan.

The latest star of such a video is Michael Hackenberger who trains big cats in a circus ring at Bowmanville Zoological Park in Ontario. Just before Christmas, Peta (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) released a video of Hakenberger appearing to whip a tiger twenty times during a training session.

Hackenberger, who owned the tiger used in the film Life of Pi, thought he was in the presence of a woman interested in animal training, but didn’t know she was secretly filming him. The video shows him telling her that it’s more effective to hit a tiger’s foot while it’s on its pedestal, because being trapped “like a vice” between the whip and the hard surface “it stings more.”

Clearly an abuser caught bang to rights, you might think.

Except that Hackenberger is the first trainer filmed in such circumstances to reply with a video of his own explaining how his actions have been taken out of context. View it here.

First, he shows us that far from whipping the tiger twenty times, he was actually whipping the air near the animal to make a lot of noise without touching it. His purpose wasn’t to hurt it, but to show his displeasure at it jumping onto the ring kerb which, during a performance, would be dangerous.

He demonstrates with the same tiger, which shows no fear of the whip, and points out that if he’d actually been beating it, its natural reaction would be to try and kill him.

Next, he explains that in another segment from the Peta video he hit the tiger’s paw, but only to stop it taking a swipe at his assistant.

Discipline is part of any training regime and, given an animal’s short attention span, has to be administered at the moment of bad behaviour - just as rewards are given at the moment of good behaviour.

It’s the animal equivalent of smacking a child to stop it running into the road. Witnessed in isolation the wallop may make you wince, and if a celebrity were filmed hitting their offspring it might cause a media storm. But, in the real world, it doesn’t mean the parent is generally abusive or that the child won’t be all smiles again five minutes later.

Some people will question why Hackenberger needs to assert his authority over a wild animal. His answer is that in a world of shrinking habitats, captivity is a necessary option. Boredom and obesity are the biggest problems for zoo animals, whereas training gives them exercise and stimulation.

As justification, Hackenberger invites us to look at Uno, the tiger from the Peta video, who is with him throughout his own film: as relaxed around humans as a housecat, and the constant recipient of treats, strokes and affection.

Hackenberger’s anger at the Peta video isn’t with the two minutes of his training session that it shows, but the 90 minutes that it doesn’t show.

“If there was anything bad in that time, they’d show you,” he reasons. So could it be the complete film would put two instances of responsible discipline in the context of a caring training regime, or actually show the tiger enjoying the interaction the way a well-trained dog enjoys playing with its owner?

Take a look at another of Hackenberger’s videos filmed in an outdoor exercise pen and make up your own mind.

When the last Labour government commissioned the Radford Report on the welfare of circus animals, undercover film submitted by animal rights groups was excluded as evidence, precisely because it had no context. In the words of then Minister of State Lord Rooker: “A film showing a lion pacing up and down may indicate evidence of stereotypical behaviour, but equally the film may have been shot when the lion had seen its keeper approaching with food.”

Without such film, the report concluded there was no evidence that animals were more likely to suffer in the circus than any other captive environment.

I understand why many people harbour an instinctive objection to the idea of performing animals. I was brought up with that belief. But when I became interested in circus, I knew I had to visit one of Britain's last big top shows with elephants, tigers and horses to get a glimpse into the disappearing history of where the art form began. My interviews with trainers and my changing opinion on their work forms a major thread of Circus Mania, the book the Mail on Sunday called "A brilliant account of a vanishing art form." Click here to read a sample on Amazon.


Author's Note: I'd be interested to hear the views of any animal trainers on Michael Hackenberger's video and training methods. My impression is that he's maybe at the harsh end of the scale and perhaps a little old school, but I reckon he's sincere. Whether his honesty will cut any ice with his detractors is another matter. We live in an age where the Daily Mail has just run an hysterical piece about a training display during an open day at Amazing Animals - the UK's leading supplier of trained animals to TV and film. There's no 'evidence' of mistreatment underpinning the piece, just the opinion of TV presenter Chris Packham that the very idea of using animals to entertain the public is wrong. In such a climate, it's no wonder that few trainers speak as openly about their methods as Hackenberger. But an open debate on what happens 'behind closed doors' is necessary if the animal training industry is to gain the wider public's trust. Hackenberger's bravery in opening that debate is to be commended.

Update: Unfortunately we live in a world where an open debate on what does or doesn't constitute the abuse of animals is increasingly difficult to have. I wanted to give this post a wider airing on the Huffington Post - a supposedly open-door blogging platform for the expression of all viewpoints - but because Hackenberger admits to striking his tiger twice (in a responsible way) the Huff wasn't "comfortable" with publishing the piece. So TV presenters such as Packham can have their views of animal training aired in the media, but animal trainers, who are the only people who know anything about animal training, aren't allowed to tell us how they work. How can the public make up its mind if it only hears one side of the argument?


 

World Circus Day - But how do you define circus?

Does a horse and ringmaster a circus make?

Saturday 16 April, 2022 is the 12th World Circus Day. But what is a circus in 2022? Is it different from a 'cirque'? Should it have animals? Must it be in a tent?

I wrote the piece below back in 2015 in response to some comments by contemporary circus people that sought to distance themselves from what Charlie Wood of the Edinburgh Fringe’s Circus Hub called the “nasty tents” and “hack clowns” of traditional circus.

If the c-word has such negative connotations for them, I argued, why don’t they come up with a new name for a new form of entertainment that while using circus skills generally results in something that looks and feels very different from what many people would call a circus?

But can we define what a circus actually is?

For me:

It doesn’t have to have animals - the Moscow State Circus is an example without them.

It doesn’t have to be in a tent - the Yarmouth Hippodrome is a purpose-built circus building. Other venues such as the Roundhouse and Royal Albert Hall are perfectly suited to circus, and the very first circuses were in amphitheatres.

It can have themes and story lines - Giffords Circus being an example that mixes theatre with the traditional elements of a big top, sawdust ring and horses.

But for all the differences between the above shows, they have one thing in common: a programme comprised of a variety of different acts.

Astley's - Where it all started.

All the acts in Philip Astley’s original circus - horse riding, acrobats, strong man, clown - existed for hundreds or even thousands of years before he brought them together in a single show - and they weren't called circus until he did. So if Astley is by general consent the Father of the Circus, it must surely be the bringing together of disparate acts into a whole that’s bigger than the sum of the parts that defines the art form.

Many acts have been introduced to the circus since Astley’s time: the flying trapeze; magic; wild west displays and other historical re-enactments. The strength of the format is that it can incorporate just about anything: kung fu, performing budgies, human cannonball, motorbikes, hypnotism.

It’s the continually changing line-up - the constant search for a unique must-see attraction  - that has kept the circus popular and relevant for 250 years. And it’s because of the constantly changing repertoire, as different acts come and go, that it’s hard to say any one act is essential. If a circus can have flying trapeze or not and still be a circus, it should be able to have animals or not and still be a circus. It’s the format that makes it a circus, not the content.

By the same token, individual acts are not in isolation circuses.

Clowns are a familiar sight in the circus.
But is a party clown a circus act?

Clowns, for example, are often seen as the ‘face’ of the circus. But clowns also work outside of circuses (party clowns, for instance) and when they do, their show is not circus; it’s clowning.

Jugglers are a circus staple. But a juggling troupe performing at a festival is not a circus - it’s a juggling show.

Tightrope is a circus skill, but Nik Wallenda walking across the Grand Canyon is not in itself a circus.

It recently pained me to read an article that described Bromance by the Barely Methodical Troupe as “circus at its purest.” By “pure,” I guess the writer meant unadorned. The show is performed on a bare stage largely without props or equipment. But the show is more an example of gymnastics than circus.

Zippos or Giffords would be better examples of circus purity, since they retain the elements of Astley’s first circus: horse riding skills, a circus ring and a variety of other acts.

The three-man Barely Methodical Troupe, to me, are comparable to an act like the Kenya Boys. The latter perform a mix of balancing acts within many circuses, but if they performed their routine on its own in a theatre it would have to be called something other than a circus, such as an acrobatics display.

The idea of defining circus as a format is not about it being traditional or contemporary, incidentally, and there’s no reason why circus can’t up date; in fact, it always has.

Cirque Berserk is basically Zippos minus the animals, dressed in a more contemporary way and relocated from a tent to a theatre. It’s a mixture of acts presented in an exciting modern way but just as much a circus as its parent.

Cirque du Soleil - the progenitor of new circus - may have linked its acts with a theme or storyline, just as Russian circuses did before them, but it too retained the format of a lot of different acts, and different types of act, being brought together into the same show - a circus.

Many of the companies calling themselves circus today, by contrast, are basically single act shows that draw on a narrow repertoire of skills (usually its a mix of acro-balance and aerial acts - you seldom see a big stunt like a wheel of death or a human cannonball). They are the ones that should be calling themselves by a different name. And why not, if the image of circus is such a burden to them that people like Charlie Wood have to battle popular perceptions of what circus is?

Instead of trying to redefine circus in their own image, why not leave the C-word to circuses and come up with a new one that defines them as they are?

Finally, to prove this is about defining different art forms, rather than saying one is better than another, I’ll leave you with Thomas Chipperfield’s An Evening With Lions and Tigers. Wow, you might think, big cats in a big top - ‘Tiger Douglas’ is going to like that! And, of course, I do. But since it contains no other acts (as far as I know) I wouldn’t call it a circus. And neither, it seems, would Chipperfield.

“What we are doing isn’t actually a circus,” he told BBC Radio Wales, “It’s animals in a show.”

Wouldn’t it be more accurate if certain other shows said, “What we are doing isn’t actually circus, it’s gymnastics and dance in a piece of conceptual theatre.”

Douglas McPherson is the author of Circus Mania - The Ultimate Book for Anyone who Dreamed of Running Away with the Circus.

Click here to buy the new, updated 2nd Edition!

# Tiger Douglas!

Not being on Twitter, I've only just noticed what a storm blew up around my Daily Telegraph article, A Critic's Plea: Stop All Arts Funding Now.

There have been newspaper articles about it and blogs. No less than the chief executive of the Arts Council weighed in with a column. I was even given my own hashtag on Twitter - #tigerdouglas, which makes amusing reading.

The nickname came from this brilliant send-up in Exeunt Magazine which you just have to read to the end. The tears of laughter are still rolling down my face!

When Circus Stunts Go Fatally Wrong

Twice hospitalised but undeterred
and accidents likes the two headline-making cases last week keep happening
in the world of circus, sometimes with fatal results. 

Read all about it... in Circus Mania author Douglas McPherson's account in the Daily Telegraph.

Has New Circus Run It's Course? Circa at the Norfolk and Norwich Festival

Out in sunny California, circus blogger Showbiz David calls the arty end of circus 'big top brocolli.' I had a plateful at the weekend, but did it do me good?

Read my review of What Will Have Been by Australian ensemble Circa at the Norfolk and Norwich Festival this week, in The Stage, or read it online here. (You may have to register, but it's free.)

Circus animals - 10 Reasons why the show must go on

Click here to read my blog on the Huffington Post.

Thomas Chipperfield - Why lions attack their trainers

King of the Cage
Thomas Chipperfield and Tsavo the lion

Following the news that trainer Faten El-Helw was attacked by a lion during a performance in Egypt (click here to read all about it), British big cat trainer Thomas Chipperfield has written an article in the Daily Telegraph online explaining why the animal behaved as it did. Read his article here.

Oh, and after reading the mane article do paws for a scroll down the 100+ comments where the refreshingly light-hearted tone includes plenty of puns and jokes, ie:

"Why do lions attack their trainers? Because they don't like any kind of shoes!"

Cirque du Soleil Kooza preview - Royal Albert Hall, January 7 to February 8

There often seem to be battle lines drawn between contemporary and traditional circus, but as Zippo's Martin Burton put it, the choice shouldn't be between old circus and new circus, just good circus and bad circus.

Cirque du Soleil was largely responsible for the rise of the term cirque and its adoption by a proliferation of companies hoping to grab a little of Soleil’s thunder - and thus was at the forefront of the division between contemporary theatre-based cirque and traditional big top-set circus styles - and audiences, which are often as different as the shows. So I’m pleased to report that Cirque du Soleil's show Kooza, which comes to London's Royal Albert Hall from January 7 to February 8 not only asserts Soleil’s supremacy atop the tree of cirque but is a very accessible and circusy show.

It’s a pity Soleil won’t be pitching the big top - or Grand Chapiteau - of its American travels in Hyde Park, although the in-the-round setting of the Royal Albert Hall is perfect for circus, and circus buildings actually pre-date tents, recalling the atmosphere of Astley’s Amphitheatre in the early 19th century.

A pity, too, that (as far as I know) they won’t be bringing superstar juggler Anthony Gatto who seems to have done that most un-superstar-like thing and retired at the peak of his powers.

But Kooza has many thrills still to offer, including a three-person human pyramid on bicycles on a high-wire; a wheel of death and some charismatic solo trapeze from Darya Vintilova (in the States at least; I guess the cast may change).

On the ground, meanwhile, there’s a charming double act on a single unicycle that works both as ballet - the depiction of a romance between the characters - and gymnastics: the girl standing on the male unicyclist’s head.

Kooza - check your pockets before you leave.

The highlight is a clown pickpocket routine originated by Michael Halvarson. While Soleil is great at doing ‘big,’ it’s compelling to watch a ‘close-up’ act where we can see how the volunteer’s tie is removed with out him realising.

The routine is slickly scripted, with sly lines like “You’re a waste bin, my friend,” as some scrap paper is returned to the victim, and the punch-line: “Don’t forget your Viagra!”

The sketch ends with an exploding police wagon and disappearing trick that would fit perfectly into any big top show.

So yes, cirque can be as accessible as circus.

The only trouble is, having watched all the best bits on YouTube, would I drive 100 miles each way to spend an evening in the Albert Hall?

(And you thought I'd seen it America, didn't you...?)

Big Apple on the Big Screen

Which brings me to New York’s Big Apple Circus. On November 8, the Apple streamed its show live to cinemas across America. US blogger Showbiz David found himself watching it in a near deserted cinema in California, as did his brother in Utah.

In a country as big as America the broadcast offered circus fans a fantastic opportunity to see a show that would normally cost them a tremendous amount in airfares and hotel accommodation - so it's hard to know why so few turned up at the movie houses. Maybe it just wasn't promoted enough and nobody knew about it.

It would be wonderful if the Big Apple extended the favour to the rest of the world. Perhaps the organisers of UK circus festivals should consider augmenting their programmes of visiting acts with live cinema shows of circuses from around the world, letting us watch the gold acts of Monte Carlo, the elephants of Ringling or, indeed, Soleil in Las Vegas.

But can watching a circus in a cinema, or at home on a DVD or YouTube, be as good as sitting ringside? Or could it even be better?

The atmosphere of a big top, with grass under foot and popcorn in the air, has to be experienced first hand. But multiple camera angles and close-ups can offer a better view than the best seat in the house.

The Kooza pickpocket, for example, was enthralling for me because on screen in close-up I could see everything so clearly. Would I have been able to follow the routine as closely from a side seat ten rows back?

Darya Vintilova’s trapeze act was enhanced by the sudden close-ups of her face that let us see the exhilaration in her eyes.

Trapeze
Click here forreview

Circus acts are by their nature often too fast for the eye to fully catch, so might there be a place for the slow-motion action replay? I’ve seen many flying trapeze acts, for example, but watching from the ground has never matched the drama of the trapeze scenes in the (fictional) movie Trapeze, where we’re given a real sense of vertigo.

Finally, while experiencing a show in person may be more atmospheric, not all atmosphere is good atmosphere. Take the ‘atmosphere’ of a tall person sat directly in front of you, a noisy eater to your side and a coughing kid behind you, and the distraction of people fiddling about with their brightly lit phones. How about the queue for the loos and scramble for over-priced refreshments? Or the traffic jam at the car park?

Douglas McPherson
Frankly, he'd rather be at home...

One advantage of traditional circus is that the big top comes to your local town or village. You may not see the biggest or best acts, but you can park easily or go on foot and prices tend to be on the low side, whereas most cirque shows necessitate a trip to a bigger town or city with its attendant cost and bother.

At home, though, you get the best acts in the world without the crowds or hassle and, dare I say it, a volume control and fast forward button - things I often sorely wish for when I’m reviewing shows in person.

Cirque or circus, live or on screen. Ultimately, it’s not a matter of one being better than the other, more that they all have advantages and disadvantages, and they all have a role to play in making all our days circus days.

To read about my visits to some of the wide variety of circus and cirque shows in Britain today - and to hear the stories of the performers and showmen I met backstage, read Circus Mania - The Ultimate Book For Anyone Who Dreamed of Running Away With The Circus. Click here to read the reviews on Amazon.

Animal welfare or animal rights - the big difference

Can you tell the difference between
these two circus performers?
Read on to see how animal rights groups like to blur it.

After Andrew Rosindell blocked Jim Fitzpatrick’s attempt to get a second reading for his Circus Animals Bill last week, I looked up a YouTube clip of the former shadow minister for Animal Welfare addressing the Commons about the issue on a previous occasion.

From the constant barracking, jeering, laughter and attempted interruptions (par for the course in the Commons, of course) it was clear that no one wanted to hear what sounded like a perfectly reasonable argument by Rosindell in defence of the big top.

His view was that the Government should base its decisions on facts rather than emotions and opinion polls; that he had personally investigated circuses rather than being blindly guided by anti-circus campaigners, and found the animals to be well cared for. He added that we have existing laws to deal with individual cases of cruelty, and that it would be more cruel to take circus animals out of the environment where they had been bred than to leave them in a situation they were accustomed to.

That last point prompted another MP to ask whether Rosindell believed third generation African-American slaves were more comfortable with their slavery because they’d been born into it?

The questioner smugly thought he’d played a trump card and so, it seemed, did most of the House.

But in fact, the questioner had pinpointed an issue that he probably wasn’t even aware of, and which is this:

Slaves were people.

Circus animals are animals.

To regard them in the same way is to cross the line between ‘animal welfare’ and ‘animal rights.’

The difference is important, but generally overlooked in the circus animals debate.

Animal rights organisations such as Peta - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - believe animals should have similar or the same rights as humans, i.e. that they shouldn’t be eaten, owned or otherwise exploited. That’s fair enough. But is it a philosophy shared by the 94.5% of people that such groups generally claim oppose the use of animals in the circus?

I would say most people in the civilised world are opposed to cruelty to animals. But I reckon the vast majority consider humans and animals to have very different ‘rights.’ Most of us have no objection to eating meat, wearing clothes made from animal products or owning pets.

Most of us can see the difference between eating an animal and being cruel to it - or owning a pet and being cruel to it. We will happily support laws that prevent farmers being cruel to their livestock, but would we so ready support a law that gives cattle the right not to be eaten?

We’re constantly told by campaigners that the use of animals in the circus is wrong. But is it wrong from an animal welfare point of view - i.e. that the animals are cruelly treated or institutionally suffer in the circus environment? Or is it wrong from an animal rights point of view - i.e. that the animals have the right not to be kept in captivity, trained and exploited for entertainment?

If you believe animals should have the right not to be owned and exploited, go ahead and support a ban on circus animals on ethical grounds. Just be sure that you are committed to not eating meat, buying animal products, riding horses or owning pet cats and dogs - because banning all those things is the next logical step on the grounds that they would all infringe the rights of the animals concerned.

If, on the other hand, you’re happy to eat meat and own a pet, be 100% sure that there are grounds to ban circus animals for reasons of welfare. A scientific study headed by Mike Radford for DEFRA in 2007 concluded that circuses were no less able to meet the welfare needs of their animals than other captive environments such as zoos, while the 2012 prosecution of Bobby Roberts and 1999 conviction of Mary Chipperfield proved we have existing laws to deal with individual cases of cruelty within the circus industry, just as we have laws to deal with cruelty by livestock owners without needing to ban the meat trade.

If you are unsure about the welfare of circus animals, I suggest you do what Rosindell did - and what I did while researching my book, Circus Mania - visit a circus, inspect the living conditions and meet the trainers before you make up your mind.

The most important thing, though, is to be clear whether you support a ban on the grounds of animal welfare or animal rights.

Anti-circus campaigners generally blur the distinction because they know nearly everyone supports animal welfare while very few share their view of animal rights.

Understanding the difference means you can be an animal lover and still love the circus.

And what about the positives...
All of the above, of course, looks at the issue from a negative perspective - suggesting that the welfare of circus animals be judged by the absence of cruelty or suffering. But should we actually be talking about the positive aspects of training animals?

Could circus animals benefit from interacting with their trainers? Every dog and cat owner knows that pets enjoy playing with their human companions. Chasing some string or fetching a stick is stimulating and makes them happy. The owner is also enriched by the relationship - the love for a pet and the sense of bereavement when one dies can be as intense as any human relationship. So why should it be any different for a lion and its trainer?

Audiences, and particularly young children, surely also benefit from seeing well-trained circus animals up close. Apart from seeing the animals themselves, seeing the degree to which an animal can think and learn must surely encourage respect for other species.

In wishing to completely segregate animals and humans, and illegalise the relationship between them, it strikes me that animal rights activists have a very different agenda to the animal lovers they appeal to for donations. They seem to me to be more like animal haters.

I understand why people often harbour an instinctive belief that keeping animals in circuses is cruel or distasteful. I was brought up with that belief. When I began writing a book about the circus, it was the daredevilry of the human performers that I wanted to celebrate. I quickly realised, however, that I would have to visit some of the last remaining circuses with animals because that was where I could get a glimpse into the history of the art form. I went along as a sceptic. Indeed, I went looking for signs of cruelty. But I was determined, too, to speak to the trainers and find out the truth. You can read about my journey behind the scenes in Circus Mania - The Ultimate Book For Anyone Who Dreamed of Running Away with the Circus.
Click here to read the reviews on Amazon.

Cirque du Soleil's Kooza Preview - Royal Albert Hall Jan 7 - Feb 8

My previous post on Mr Fips Wonder Circus highlighted the division between circus and cirque, the former term being associated with traditional, family-friendly big top shows and the latter with contemporary or progressive theatre-based productions.

It’s a fluid division, of course, and not a battle line. Showman Martin Burton presents Cirque Berserk alongside his traditional Zippos circus and argues that the important question isn’t whether circus is old or new but good or bad.

Katherine Kavanagh, who reviews a tremendous quantity and variety of circus shows on her blog The Circus Diaries rightly commented that shows with cirque in the title can be as accessible as those with circus, and vice versa.

Katherine also mentioned Cirque du Soleil’s Kooza, which comes to London's Royal Albert Hall from January 7 to February 8. Soleil was largely responsible for the rise of the term cirque and its adoption by a proliferation of companies hoping to grab a little of Soleil’s thunder. So I’m pleased to report that Kooza not only asserts Soleil’s supremacy atop the tree of cirque but is a very accessible and circusy show.

It’s a pity Soleil won’t be pitching the big top - or Grand Chapiteau - of its American travels in Hyde Park, although the in-the-round setting of the Royal Albert Hall is perfect for circus, and circus buildings actually pre-date tents, recalling the atmosphere of Astley’s Amphitheatre in the early 19th century.

A pity, too, that (as far as I know) they won’t be bringing superstar juggler Anthony Gatto who seems to have done that most un-superstar-like thing and retired at the peak of his powers.

But Kooza has many thrills still to offer, including a three-person human pyramid on bicycles on a high-wire; a wheel of death and some charismatic solo trapeze from Darya Vintilova (in the States at least; I guess the cast may change).

On the ground, meanwhile, there’s a charming double act on a single unicycle that works both as ballet - the depiction of a romance between the characters - and gymnastics: the girl standing on the male unicyclist’s head.

Kooza - check your pockets before you leave.

The highlight is a clown pickpocket routine originated by Michael Halvarson. While Soleil is great at doing ‘big,’ it’s compelling to watch a ‘close-up’ act where we can see how the volunteer’s tie is removed with out him realising.

The routine is slickly scripted, with sly lines like “You’re a waste bin, my friend,” as some scrap paper is returned to the victim, and the punch-line: “Don’t forget your Viagra!”

The sketch ends with an exploding police wagon and disappearing trick that would fit perfectly into Mr Fips Wonder Circus.

So yes, cirque can be as accessible as circus.

The only trouble is, having watched all the best bits on YouTube, would I drive 100 miles each way to spend an evening in the Albert Hall?

(And you thought I'd seen it America, didn't you...?)

Big Apple on the Big Screen

Which brings me to New York’s Big Apple Circus. On November 8, the Apple streamed its show live to cinemas across America. US blogger Showbiz David found himself watching it in a near deserted cinema in California, as did his brother in Utah.

In a country as big as America the broadcast offered circus fans a fantastic opportunity to see a show that would normally cost them a tremendous amount in airfares and hotel accommodation - so it's hard to know why so few turned up. Maybe it just wasn't promoted enough and nobody knew about it.

It would be wonderful if the Big Apple extended the favour to the rest of the world. Perhaps the organisers of UK circus festivals should consider augmenting their programmes of visiting acts with live cinema shows of circuses from around the world, letting us watch the gold acts of Monte Carlo, the elephants of Ringling or, indeed, Soleil in Las Vegas.

But can watching a circus in a cinema, or at home on a DVD or YouTube, be as good as sitting ringside? Or could it even be better?

The atmosphere of a big top, with grass under foot and popcorn in the air, has to be experienced first hand. But multiple camera angles and close-ups can offer a better view than the best seat in the house.

The Kooza pickpocket, for example, was enthralling for me because on screen in close-up I could see everything so clearly. Would I have been able to follow the routine as closely from a side seat ten rows back?

Darya Vintilova’s trapeze act was enhanced by the sudden close-ups of her face that let us see the exhilaration in her eyes.

Trapeze
Click here forreview

Circus acts are by their nature often too fast for the eye to fully catch, so might there be a place for the slow-motion action replay? I’ve seen many flying trapeze acts, for example, but watching from the ground has never matched the drama of the trapeze scenes in the (fictional) movie Trapeze, where we’re given a real sense of vertigo.

Finally, while experiencing a show in person may be more atmospheric, not all atmosphere is good atmosphere. Take the ‘atmosphere’ of a tall person sat directly in front of you, a noisy eater to your side and a coughing kid behind you, and the distraction of people fiddling about with their brightly lit phones. How about the queue for the loos and scramble for over-priced refreshments? Or the traffic jam at the car park?

Douglas McPherson
Frankly, he'd rather be at home...

One advantage of traditional circus is that the big top comes to your local town or village. You may not see the biggest or best acts, but you can park easily or go on foot and prices tend to be on the low side, whereas most cirque shows necessitate a trip to a bigger town or city with its attendant cost and bother.

At home, though, you get the best acts in the world without the crowds or hassle and, dare I say it, a volume control and fast forward button - things I often sorely wish for when I’m reviewing shows in person.

Cirque or circus, live or on screen. Ultimately, it’s not a matter of one being better than the other, more that they all have advantages and disadvantages, and they all have a role to play in making all our days circus days.

Read Circus Mania - The Ultimate Book For Anyone Who Dreamed of Running Away With The Circus. Click here to read the reviews on Amazon.

Jim Fitzpatrick circus animals ban update

Endangered Lion Act
Britain's last big cat act, presented by
Thomas Chipperfield at Peter Jolly's Circus

The question of animals in the circus just won’t go away. With the Government failing to deliver its long-promised - or threatened - Wild Animals in the Circus Bill in the current parliamentary session, Labour backbencher Jim Fitzpatrick hopes to hasten a ban with a private members bill introduced under the ten minute rule on September 3.

The bill was due for a second reading in parliament on Friday but the second reading was postponed until October 17 -  and thanks to an objection by circus-supporting Andrew Rosindell MP, has now been pushed back to November 21 - so if you want your local MP to oppose a ban, get writing to him and her now and let them know you want to support a Great British tradition.

(Click here for 7 November update on the second reading.)

The 10 minute rule allows any MP to propose a piece of legislation for future debate. Most never progress to law, but a rare few do. Since 1945, sixty acts of parliament have become law after originally being introduced under the 10 minute rule. The most recent was the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act 2002.

In most cases, however, MPs know private members bills stand little chance and introduce them purely as a way of gaining publicity for their chosen cause.

In this instance, leading animal rights campaigners Animal Defenders International (ADI) have leapt on Fitzpatrick’s announcement by issuing a press release that says the Government are still fully behind a ban.

Click here to read the 100 year historyof attempts to ban animals from British circuses

According to the release, ADI president Jan Creamer this week received a letter from the Prime Minister which stated, “While the recent Queen’s Speech did not contain the Government’s proposed Wild Animals in Circuses Bill, let me reassure you that it remains our position that the use of wild animal acts in travelling circuses is an outdated practice and that we will introduce a ban as soon as Parliamentary time allows.”

The communication from David Cameron was in response to a letter signed by ADI and 75 celebrity and political campaigners including Eddie Izzard, Julian Clary, Moby, Michaela Strachan, Brian Blessed, conservationist and former MEP Stanley Johnson and social change campaigner Peter Tatchell, urging the Government to bring forward legislation to ban wild animals in circuses. On the day it was presented, in April, the press release claims, the Prime Minister confirmed to the ADI deputation, “We’re going to do it.”

But would ADI be wise to believe anything a politician says when their promises are so often different from their actions?

Update: November 7: Circus Bill blocked again.
Jim Fitzpatrick made another attempt to get his circus bill read again this afternoon. This time it was blocked by another Conservative MP, Christopher Chope. Fitzpatrick will try again on November 21. But is there a limit to the number of times he can keep bringing his bill to Parliament, or will the issue be brought to the Commons and blocked every few weeks from now until the next election? Sounds to me like it's becoming more of a pantomime than a circus...

"Circus Madness"

And can we take anything seriously about an ADI press release? ADI were responsible for the undercover films that led to the conviction of chimp trainer Mary Chipperfield 15 years ago and more recently, Bobby Roberts, who’s groom was filmed abusing Britain’s last circus elephant, Anne.

Tsavo the lion relaxes backstage
at Peter Jolly's Circus - and perhaps wonders
what the animal rights protesters are
on about.

But ADI’s most recent claim, that the big cats on Peter Jolly’s Circus were displaying ‘stereotypic behaviour’ or ‘circus madness’ suggested the only ‘circus madness’ being displayed was in the hysteria of the protesters.

Film shot backstage at Jolly’s showed lions pacing in their cages, but no more than you might expect if they were about to be fed - and it is when the cats are fed, after the evening’s show, that members of the public would be most likely to be wandering backstage with a camera. It also showed one of the lions freely stepping from its “tiny cell” into a generous exercise enclosure.

The ‘expose’ was such a non-story that only one paper, the Daily Express, ran it.

The rest of the ADI press release tried to stir outrage by reporting:

Protest or publicity?
ADI took this picture of animals in the ring
at Peter Jolly's Circus
- Would this image put you off going,
or make you more likely to buy a ticket?

“Animal acts in the ring included a fox being made to ‘ride’ on the back of a donkey, and a ‘parade’ featuring the ankole, camel and zebra. For the big cat act, two tigers and a lion were made to sit on their hind legs and jump between podiums. A tiger was also made to sit upright on a glitter ball, and a lion ‘kiss’ Thomas Chipperfield.

“During the interval, children were invited to ride on the camel and photo opportunities were provided with the snakes. Camels are known to be difficult to handle and transport, and as a result of their size, strength, mobility and aggressiveness, they can be dangerous, with the ability to inflict fatal injuries. Meanwhile, snakes are known carriers of salmonella, which is of particular risk to pregnant women, the elderly and young children – the latter were documented posing with the animals.”

Hang on a minute. A fox riding on a donkey? A parade featuring an ankole, zebra and camel? A lion kissing its trainer? Camel rides for kids and photo opportunities with snakes?

Sounds more like an advert for the circus than a protest against it.

I’d go and see a show that included those things. In fact, I did. Click here to read my review of Peter Jolly’s Circus.

I was brought up to believe that the idea of performing animals was wrong. But when I became fascinated by the bravery of human circus daredevils, and decided to write my book, Circus Mania, I realised I had to go to some of Britain’s last traditional circuses with animals because that’s where the history of the entertainment lay. Read about my experiences in Circus Mania, the book the Mail on Sunday described as “a brilliant account of a vanishing art form.”

Click here to buy Circus Mania from Amazon.