PBS did a four-hour television history of the circus (and they weren’t clowning around) …
In 2017, Hollywood released a movie that reminded people of a much earlier form of entertainment than its own movies. The movie was “The Greatest Showman,” starring Hugh Jackman as P. T. Barnum – the owner of a circus. The circus was popular in many areas of the Western world, but it seems to have been founded in England, and reached its greatest heights in the fledgling United States. The word comes from the Latin “circus,” associated with the Roman circus – a somewhat barbaric predecessor. The Roman circus saw vicious chariot races that could be violent and brutal, dramatized in movies like “Ben-Hur.” The American circus saw some risks of its own, although it seems safe to say that it was far less hazardous than its Roman counterpart. Entire towns could be shut down on the days when the circus pulled into town, because people wanted to spend their hard-earned money to attend it. People would even take their children, although they were often concerned that their children would “run away to the circus” – a metaphor for getting involved with seedy and unsavory company, and sometimes a literal statement.
How the circus was perceived at the time, and how it appealed to conservative religious audiences
PBS covered the circus in a four-hour documentary for “American Experience.” It is simply entitled “The Circus,” and documents the institution from its eighteenth-century English beginnings to its gradually fading away in the 1950s. Like other forms of entertainment, the circus relied on novelty, which was why it seldom stayed in one place for long. They moved from town to town, putting circus animals, performers, and equipment into customized train cars. At each stop, they would unload and set up again, using a massive mobile tent as the place of the show. As Wikipedia puts it, their acts included “clowns, acrobats, trained animals, trapeze acts, musicians, dancers, hoopers, tightrope walkers, jugglers, magicians, ventriloquists, and unicyclists as well as other object manipulation and stunt-oriented artists.” (see source) By the standards of the time, circuses could be somewhat seedy affairs, and were often offensive to the era’s profoundly-conservative sensibilities. But the circus tried to appeal to more conservative viewers with more “educational” acts. That is to say, they featured real lions, and other animals mentioned in the Bible. Thus, they were actually able to convince conservative Christians to come and see the animals, and learn something about the cultures found in their Bibles. It seemed less like a “waste of time” when the circus played up the educational angle, and so the circus made sure to mention it in their rather innovative advertisements.
Astley's Amphitheatre in London, c. 1808
Yes, the circus was “lowbrow,” but it also demanded real talent from its performers as well
Circuses have often been criticized as “lowbrow,” and modern critics are often miffed about the era’s “cruelty to animals” as well. One should be careful before judging previous generations by modern standards, which were not known to the people of that time. Regarding the “lowbrow” part, there was often some truth to this charge, but much entertainment is still fun despite these things. In generations that had never been to the movies, or seen any moving pictures, it was a truly revolutionary form of entertainment. The term “three-ring circus” has since come to be used as a metaphor for a (seemingly) chaotic situation, which is complicated and rapidly-changing. But the various “rings” of the circus were far more controlled than that. They were staffed by consummate professionals, who had done it all before in other towns, and were willing to keep on doing it as long as the money came in. Then, as now, it was hard to break into the entertainment business, although those who were good at it could make a decent living. Some of them were perceived as “freaks,” which is why people are often insulted via comparisons to clowns and other circus performers. But success in the circus required no small talent, and there was a certain prestige to it when you separated it from the lowbrow-ness and seediness.
Trapeze artists, in lithograph by Calvert Litho. Co., 1890
The secrets of the circus’s business success (including innovative advertisements)
Part of the reason that I wanted to see this film was because of the business angle. The leaders of the circus, such as P. T. Barnum, were great businessmen as well as showmen. This film gives brief biographies of some of the major figures in the circus’s long history. It shows how they were able to make a living in a somewhat demanding industry. Part of their success was knowing when the local paydays were, and knowing which cities to visit next. Those that had been visited by the circus more recently were to be avoided, whereas those that hadn’t been visited for a while (or at all) were golden opportunities for a quick buck or two. And advertising played a key role throughout the circus’s history, helping to increase its appeal to the public. Sometimes entire walls were covered with massive circus posters, showing all of the acts that would be likely to appeal to the local audience. They certainly made it seem exciting, and reaped handsome dividends as a result. If you went with your family, it was even more memorable, and a childhood visit to the circus could be remembered well into one’s adulthood – in part, because one was having fun with one’s parents, siblings, or young children.
P. T. Barnum
The seeds of the circus’s demise were sown by a new technology: motion pictures
But the seeds of the circus’s demise were sown by a new technology: namely, motion pictures. Even in the early days of silent film, the novelty of moving pictures was enough to draw an audience, although it was still hard to beat live entertainment (and still is today). Sometimes, the circuses would themselves show motion pictures at the end of the show, in those days when motion pictures were still quite new. And the history of the circus would itself be recorded with the new technology, as they show with old footage here. For the early days of the circus, there are paintings and real photographs, and the vibrant colors of the posters that advertised the various acts. Thus, this may be the ultimate visual history of the American circus. They interview surviving performers from that generation, and more modern historians of the circus. They help to capture the excitement, the harsh working conditions, and many other forgotten things about the circus. Some of them would seem eerily familiar to the performers of today, who have to seem happy all of the time to succeed in the entertainment business. Some things never change, and many still tend to dismiss performers (particularly comedians) as something “less than serious” – a sad thing, given how many of them struggle with drug addictions and mental illness. There was a reason that circuses were often viewed as “seedy” affairs, because its performers often struggled with wild drinking and carousing. Some went to the circus just to see women dressed a little scantily, and there is more than one parallel with certain aspects of today.
Elephant trainer (1903)
The demise of the circus, and the culture of live entertainment that it reflected
The circus eventually faced its demise in the 1950s, as the movie industry came into full gear with unheard-of sound quality, and a greater frequency of color pictures. One understands why the circus isn’t that popular anymore, but there’s almost something to be lamented about its demise. We sacrifice much live entertainment for the well-edited recorded kind, free of rehearsal mistakes and behind-the-scenes gaffes. Or we go on YouTube to watch “epic fails,” with the humiliation living on in undying infamy for millions of viewers. I love a good movie, and I love a good musical recording. But there’s still something to be said for live entertainment, even when it’s not as skilled as the recordings from the professionals. Live entertainment still exists today, and performers still tour the world in search of audiences and new markets. But most entertainment is now delivered via televisions, computers, and smart phones; and many are never treated to a live performance. I’d rather live in a time with an abundance of media options, but I’m still glad that one occasionally has the option (even if somewhat rarely) of viewing live entertainment, even if it comes in a slightly different way. If anything has been lost, it’s the frequency of opportunities for this kind of “live entertainment”; and that seems to be what the circus provided to the people of its time.
Lion tamer, in lithograph by Gibson & Co., 1873
Conclusion: Great film about a forgotten (but underrated) American institution
This film is heavy in nostalgia, although it is not blind to certain other aspects of the circus’s complicated history. But viewers will come to understand a great era in American entertainment, and understand a forgotten (but underrated) institution from our country’s not-so-distant past.
“When I was around thirteen and my brother ten, Father had promised to take us to the circus. But at lunchtime there was a phone call; some urgent business required his attention downtown. We braced ourselves for disappointment. Then we heard him say [into the phone], ‘No, I won’t be down. It’ll have to wait.’
“When he came back to the table, Mother smiled. ‘The circus keeps coming back, you know,’ [she said.]
“‘I know,’ said Father. ‘But childhood doesn’t.’”
– Arthur Gordon, “A Touch of Wonder” (1974), p. 77-78 – as quoted by Thomas S. Monson in 2003, 2005, and 2008
If you liked this post, you might also like:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment