Holy culture batman!

October 8, 2006 5:36 PM

Assuming I’m equally interested in both, should I go and see The Bell Shakespeare's production of 'The Tempest' or Cirque du Soleil's Varekai?
posted by oxford blue to society & culture (25 comments total)

Go see The Tempest. You can always watch Varekai on the Bravo network.

If you're taking a date/friend, though, find out what they would prefer to do. Then go see The Tempest.
posted by backseatpilot at 5:38 PM on October 8, 2006

I've seen a few of the the Bell Shakespeare Company's productions and I enjoyed them a good deal. I think they've enriched my inner intellectual life. I've only seen Cirque du Soleil on video, and although I'm sure I'd enjoy seeing it live I don't think that it would be the sort of thing I could think about again and again.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:45 PM on October 8, 2006

I saw Varekai when it was in Vancouver a few months ago.

I saw Alegria by Cirque du Soleil a few years ago - and I was blown away! whereas Varekai was just meh-h.

I have not seen the Bell Shakeseare production.

Oxford Blue: why not go see both? Is it a time conflict?
posted by seawallrunner at 5:56 PM on October 8, 2006

I get the feeling from watching the tapes of Cirque du Soliel on Bravo that unless you have really, really good seats, the enhanced sound and close-ups provided by the taping enrich the experience more than seeing it live. But that is just a feeling--I've never seen the Cirque du Soliel live.

Plays, however, are essential live. Provided you know the plot and basic dialogue beforehand.
posted by schroedinger at 6:04 PM on October 8, 2006

O was amazing live. There's nothing like seeing the live productions. But as above, I haven't heard the *best* things about Varekai.
posted by SpecialK at 6:07 PM on October 8, 2006

Oxford Blue: why not go see both? Is it a time conflict?

A budget conflict, truth be told.
posted by oxford blue at 6:07 PM on October 8, 2006

I think Cirque du Soleil is the tops, bar none. And, Verekai was a great show. That said, Cirque tends to have a regular touring schedule, especially if you live in a fairly big city. (It comes to Miami, and Tampa, Fl. with every American travelling show.) So, you should be able to catch the next show that comes through.

I know little about Bell Shakespeare (but I admit that it looks really good). If it doesn't tour as often or as regularly as Cirque, I would lean toward Bell now and Cirque next time.
posted by oddman at 6:09 PM on October 8, 2006

unless you have really, really good seats, the enhanced sound and close-ups provided by the taping enrich the experience more than seeing it live

Whoa, totally don't agree there. Cirque du Soleil -- and especially Varekai -- is far more compelling live than on video. I'm not sure why people are down on Varekai relative to the other shows. It's probably my favorite of the touring Cirque shows I've seen.

I'm guessing you're in Australia. I don't know how often Cirque comes around, but I imagine Bell has productions touring every year. If you know Cirque doesn't make it there too often, see Cirque this year and see Bell next year.
posted by jjg at 6:21 PM on October 8, 2006

I've been to 5 or 6 of the Cirque du Soleil's shows and I highly recommend them all (Even though I have not heard of Varekai). Seeing them on video must be like imagining the taste of food based on a TV cooking show.
posted by growabrain at 6:40 PM on October 8, 2006

I get the feeling from watching the tapes of Cirque du Soliel on Bravo that unless you have really, really good seats,

Their tent shows are in the round, so they don't have many seats that are far from the action. Much closer than a typical concert or Broadway show, as a comparison.
posted by smackfu at 6:42 PM on October 8, 2006

Can you volunteer as an usher for either show? That might solve your budget problem.
posted by Joleta at 7:31 PM on October 8, 2006

I'm a huge Cirque fan, but when the Singularity comes, they will be the sole source of entertainment. Seriously, if you are interested in Shakes, and Bell is not regularly available to you, go for it. On the other hand, while we regularly trip over Cirque shows in north america, it might seem rarer down yonder. I guess if you're "equally interested" you could assume that Bell will do some other WS play soon, but that you'd have to go to Vegas to see "O," which is Tempest without the annoying poetry...
posted by Mngo at 7:36 PM on October 8, 2006

For the uninitiated why is Cirque du Soleil loved so?

The only thing I know about them/their oeuvre is from the ‘Cirque du Puree’ parody on the Simpsons.
posted by oxford blue at 8:54 PM on October 8, 2006

Well, man, I now have more motivation to go see a CdS show.
posted by schroedinger at 9:02 PM on October 8, 2006

Totally dude.
posted by oxford blue at 9:14 PM on October 8, 2006

For me, Cirque is great for two reasons. First, it's a truly unusual spectacle. Every show has at least a handful of jaw dropping feats. Second, it's a completely multi-media and multi-directional experience. The music, the lights, the action on the stage and in the stands all come together in ways that most entertainment can't come close too. The show is not just on one spot of the stage, nor is it just on the stage, there is action all over the place. (In fact, I'd reccomend sitting at least a few rows back from the stage to get a better view.) Did I mention, the mix of comedy and drama woven into the plot? Yes, Cirque shows have plots. Did I mention the clowns? They have such wonderful clowns.

(For comparison my next favorite entertainment is opera, my wife's is dance. We both prefer Cirque.)

Ah hell, Oxford Blue, life is too short. Borrow some money and see both! (Seriously.)
posted by oddman at 9:20 PM on October 8, 2006

>why is Cirque du Soleil loved so?

Originally the Cirque wanted to offer a show that would appeal to young and old, offer a circus-like show without the animal acts and the barkers and stale popcorn... it's like theatre, except with original music, beautiful costumes

...and then there's the gymnasts. oh. my. gawd. the things these athletes can do with their bodies.

I saw two of their shows - Alegria and Varekai. When I saw Alegria I expected a trapeze act with beautiful costumes and cool music.

Every seat in the tent was a good one - while we had excellent seats, no matter where you sat, you were close to the stage.

What blew me away in Alegria was the emotion behind the acts. I can't explain why, but Alegria touched my soul. There was tremendous affection, compassion, emotion between the performers on stage - and all of us in the stands were touched by it. The music was emotional, the interactions between the performers were beautiful, the little kids performing were spectacular and the experienced oldtimers were absolutely stunning.

So when the Cirque returned to Vancouver a few years later with a new show (a few months ago), of course I was keen to go! And while I was looking forward to yet again experiencing the emotion, as well as looking at colour, marvelling at the sound and watching the performers do amazing feats, I only saw... a gymnastic event.

OK, I'm being a bit harsh here. It was an ok show. But there was so little of the emotion that enchanted me in Alegria, in Varekai. There were two clowns (male, female) that created a line of continuity between the acts, and some of their antics were a little old. The trapeze acts were 'ok, I've seen this before'. The colours and the music were no longer innovative.

I found that people who had seen other Cirque acts didn't like Varekai much. But I also found that first-timers to the Cirque liked Varekai very much.

It's not a bad show. It's just that the Cirque has done so much better in their other shows. If this is the only Cirque show that ever comes to town - by all means go. If it's one in a series, give this one a pass.

I grew up in Montreal, where the Cirque first started. Hard to believe that they used to perform for free on the old harbour grounds. I've also seen many of their shows on video. And those do not compare at all to being there, in flesh and blood, under the Grand Chapiteau (tent)
posted by seawallrunner at 9:22 PM on October 8, 2006

/me shrugs. I liked Varekai better than Alegria.

I'm not familiar with Bell Shakespeare, but honestly, I can see a Shakespeare production anywhere from a high school to a professional theater production nearly any day of the year. Unless there's something truly astounding about these particular productions, I wouldn't pass up an opportunity to see Cirque.

Watching Cirque on TV is nothing at all like seeing them live, for, I think, two reasons.

The first is that the things that the acrobats do in a Cirque show are astounding. On TV, you're always sort of left with the vague feeling that it might all be fake. You've seen a million astounding things on TV and in movies that are just stunts. But these things are very, very real.

The second is how busy a Cirque show is. At any moment, you could be looking at 3 or 4 very interesting things happening on the stage. In the TV versions, some editor has made the decision about which of those things you want to watch at any given moment. They're still interesting, but maybe aren't the things you'd have chosen to watch, and certainly don't give you the incredible sense of choice that a live performance offers.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:50 PM on October 8, 2006

I'd actually class these as two completely different things. Vareki is a circus performance, "The Tempest" is a play. Any similarities between the two are strictly cosmetic. I haven't seen Bell's "The Tempest", but I have seen Vareki live. It was...ok. Not as amazing as Allegria or Qui Dam. And, compared to another performance of "The Tempest" that I DID see live, I'm voting for the play over the circus in this instance.
posted by ninazer0 at 12:42 AM on October 9, 2006

When I was in Sydney a few months back, I had the chance to see Bell's Romeo and Juliet at the Opera House and my entire group absolutely loved it.
posted by phritosan at 1:01 AM on October 9, 2006

I've seen three excellent - and I mean really fucking excellent - Bell productions and fallen asleep through boredom at one CdS thing (called "Quidam", I think. Or "Allegria", maybe). I'd take Shakespeare over that poncey, look-at-me circus crap any night of the week.
posted by bunglin jones at 2:18 AM on October 9, 2006

I also strongly disagree that Cirque is better or even anywhere near as good on TV. In fact I see no point in watching it on TV at all. And there are maybe 4 "really, really good seats" on the touring show. It's a small tent--almost all the seats are about the same, quality-wise.

I also liked Varekai better, at least as far as the visual "holy crap that's amazing" performance. But I did see Varekai first, and saw the revival of Allegria. And a couple of the performers were injured when I saw Allegria. It was the music of Allegria that really blew me away.

Also, both times I got in for free or for less than a quarter of the full price. I would not pay $90+ for a touring Cirque show. Then again, I'm cheap.

I would probably do this, seeing as how you're equally interested. Do the Shakespeare now, and save your pennies to see a Cirque show either the next time one comes around, or even better, when you get the chance to see one of their stationary shows in Orlando or Las Vegas. I get the impression that you get more bang for your buck when they don't have to worry about being portable.
posted by lampoil at 4:36 AM on October 9, 2006

I don't know much about different productions of Shakespeare, but I do know that Varekai is one of my favorite Cirque shows, and I've seen quite a few. Regarding the comment about Bravo, seeing Cirque on TV is about 10% as impressive as seeing them in person.
posted by whatzit at 5:59 AM on October 9, 2006

Bah. I've only seen La Nouba, and watching Quidam on Bravo was definitely just as good. (Maybe better.) Perhaps it was just that show, but it seemed like the performers (at La Nouba) would do some amazingly cool breathtaking thing, pose 60 seconds for applause, do it again, pose 60 seconds for applause, do it again, pose ANOTHER 60 seconds for applause, do it AGAIN... and it all got really tiresome. (And I have a long attention span.)

However, the first time they would do something it was, indeed, really impressive, and the clowns were terrific. And yet, despite living within ten minutes of five CdS productions (with tickets discounted for locals), I'd rather do just about anything else. For me, the best thing about seeing Cirque du Soleil was getting the desire out of my system before I wasted years wishing I could see a show.
posted by Liffey at 4:44 PM on October 9, 2006

So, Oxford Blue, what did you decide to do?
posted by oddman at 12:21 PM on October 16, 2006