<-|Top|Showmanship For Magicians|Trick Brain|Magic By Misdirection|Mail|->
<-|!*!|C|I|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18|19|20|21|22|23|24|25|->
SHOWMANSHIP
For
MAGICIANS
CHAPTER ONE
It seems inevitable that sooner or later someone must take up the matter of showmanship and presentation for magicians in a detailed manner. Too many performers of magic, increasingly so in recent years, either do not know or totally disregard the fundamentals of modern entertainment as exemplified elsewhere throughout the amusement industry.
Years ago Dr. Wilson said, "Magic is an art that sometimes instructs, often amuses and always entertains." This writer disagrees emphatically with very much of that statement. Particularly does he question the "often amuses and always entertains" part. He is inclined to think that the doctor was somewhat carried away with his enthusiasm for a hobby.
It is a pretty set of words. But it's also an ugly infection.
In my belief he would have been more nearly correct had he written, "Magic, as exhibited by the majority, is the indulgence in a hobby that rarely instructs, seldom amuses and almost never entertains." Pure magic, as the presentation of a puzzle to be solved, particularly as performed by the too enthusiastic and poorly prepared devotee, almost never entertains anybody except the enthralled practitioner himself. And if this devotee is not watched, he is extremely likely to become an insufferable bore.
Unquestionably this attitude will meet with considerable disagreement. But the bulk of opposition will come from those with little experience.
The performance of magic is a minor branch of the entertainment field. We are not here concerned with the collecting of apparatus or books, the manufacture of magical apparatus, the recreational hobby aspects or any other auxiliary activity connected with the general term magic.
Here we are entirely occupied with magic in its ultimate form. That form, of course, is its performance in the presence of spectators. In any other form it becomes research, exercise, recreation, hobby, or even a particularly exotic type of egotistical narcissism.
Even if one of the alternative basic forms is the cause of a beginning in magic, sooner or later the doer-of-sleights or the collector-of-apparatus ventures outside his secret hideout and elects to "perform" for somebody.
Then it is that the damage starts.
Usually this type of "magician" is inadequately prepared and quite without any right to consider himself an entertainer in any degree. Of the thousands of performers-of-tricks who daily exhibit their wares throughout the world, but a minute percentage has given any thought to presentation or showmanship that is the heart-beat and the life-blood of the entertainment field.
Yet just because this tyrant's exhibitions may be limited to but a few admiring and, let's hope, forgiving friends or relatives, the writer must insist that he still has no right to do so without some intelligent preparation in selling entertainment to an audience, whether his audience is large or small.
The chief trouble is that the damage is not personal only. It is not limited to the bungler himself. It goes much further than that. It hurts all magicians as entertainers. And it injures all magic as entertainment.
Take the number of exhibitions of magic that are given throughout the country in a single day. This means all of them--good, mediocre and poor. Fully seventy-five percent of the performances are poor according to modern entertainment standards. Another twenty-four percent are mediocre.
The writer feels certain he is being conservative when he estimates that not more than one percent of the daily and nightly performances can be called smart and modern.
When ninety-nine percent of a product is poor or mediocre ALL of it is classed that way. That's why every poorly prepared magical performer hurts the entire field.
There is much tolerance for magicians as a group. Spectators are generally inclined to overlook the shortcomings of the magician probably because of some psychological conditioning germinated during childhood. Yet this very favorable circumstance reacts as a considerable disadvantage. It creates too easy opportunity for the incompetent to inflict himself upon an utterly unwarned audience.
Of course, all people in an audience are not favorably inclined towards magic. Many people have experienced extreme boredom as the result of poor presentation in the past. Others regard the challenge to their wits, and the fact that they are frequently ultimately deceived, as a reflection upon their own acuteness. This carries with it the implication that the person accomplishing the deception is of superior mentality. This type of spectator distinctly resents such a situation.
Still another type of spectator simply is not interested. He is not interested in puzzles or trying to solve them. He is not interested in the mental effort. To him, such endeavor is just the opposite of relaxation. And this type of person is in the majority by far.
This is provable conclusively by the magazine field, which is printed entertainment. Are the magazines filled with puzzles? Or narratives? Are they most interested in things? Or people?
Spectator attitudes towards the presentation of tricks are complex and varied. In speaking of the presentation of tricks I am now referring to the generally accepted method of presenting magic. What this means is the exhibition of magical effects solely as mysteries as to method of accomplishment, as paradoxes, as accomplished impossibilities or as puzzles.
The child, the adult with juvenile mentality, and the hobbyist look upon the challenge eagerly. Certain mental types who gain their relaxation through a change in mental activity regard the solution of puzzles, whether in the form of tricks or mystery stories, as a form of mental refreshment. People who have a strong sympathy with childhood and the things of childhood respond to magic.
But the friends of magic itself, the magic of the performance of a simple mystery, as a puzzle alone, include but few in addition to the list above.
A man who was once called the greatest agent in the show business remarked to me that the customers for a magic show now were only "kids, bohunks and magic nuts." At one time he was the agent for what was then the greatest magic show in existence. I believe this man's judgment is sound.
But it is obvious that magicians have only themselves to blame. The Thurston show was at one time known as the most valuable property in the show business. No magic show even remotely approaches that status now.
Obviously, magic itself is not to blame. It attained this distinction once. It attained this distinction when its method of presentation was geared and attuned to the times.
That particular method of presentation, so successful once, is no longer suitable. It is not in key or in sympathy or in tempo with what is now the modern concept of entertainment, or with what the present-day public seeks.
"If your principal can so present a magic show that it once more appeals to the masses, he will be greater than Thurston, or Herrmann, or Houdini." This remark was made by another nationally prominent theater executive to one of our agents during my experience with the International Magicians In Action show. He added, "And he'll make a fortune."
Subsequently, both agents expressed the belief that we had achieved the desired formula in that show.
Parenthetically, it might be stated that those who are familiar with the actual history of the show know the character, the slant or the material in the production, or its artistic side did not cause its difficulties. Rather entirely insurmountable commercial obstacles impeded its progress and lack of sufficient capital to allow it to be opened in the only environment which would supply it with the necessary prestige and publicity opportunity. Sufficient funds were not at hand to take it to Broadway in order to build and exploit it properly as we knew it should be done. That show never had its chance.
However, through this experience and in view of the reactions available through its receptions by audiences and from many theater executives, it does supply the foundation for many of the examples to be cited later in this text. If references to this show appear frequently, it will be understood I hope that it furnished the writer an opportunity to put his knowledge, limited, it is admitted, and theories, unlimited, perhaps it may be regretted by the reader, to practical application in an endeavor to gear magic to modern entertainment standards.
Marco, of Fanchon and Marco, said when he saw the show, "In its present form it is a good show-definitely a good one." Remember, he was speaking as an experienced theater man, rather prejudiced against magic than interested in it, as so many professional theater men are. "It can be made a great show, I think, by the addition of a voice, perhaps the right type of girl numbers in keeping with the idea already there, and a few minor changes here and there."
Leo Morrison, one of the best agents in Hollywood, said, "If you could open this show on Broadway tonight, with the proper exploitation, it could become a national sensation in a few weeks."
Macklin Megley, director of many original Broadway successes had much the same opinion, as had Rodney Pantages and others of equal prominence in the motion picture and theater fields.
These opinions are cited to show that apparently we were well on the way towards a solution of this problem of modernizing magical presentation, although we may not have succeeded in evolving its final form.
But the individual performer need not become alarmed that this text is to be devoted to methods of making a full evening, big theater magic show palatable to the seeker for entertainment. That is not the intention. However, the principles are the same, whether the entertainment is a six-minute night club turn, a two-hour program by a single performer, the performance of an elaborate legitimate theater production, or the presentation of a pocket trick for an acquaintance.
This book seeks to discover what is objectionable, according to modern standards, in the usual presentation of magic at present. It seeks to discover why magic is no longer popular with the masses. It seeks to take apart other types of successful entertainment to find out what makes them popular.
It seeks, then, to apply these principles to magic performance.
But it also endeavors to impart to magicians generally the fundamentals of showmanship in such a manner that magic presentation may be improved from the spectators' viewpoint, whether in the performance of a single simple pocket trick for a solitary friend, an act for a club or a night club, or a full evening's show, alone or with a large company.
That it can accomplish this entire purpose is almost an impossibility, the writer freely admits. But it may clear the way in such a manner that subsequent writers on this subject may find the route a bit less difficult.
This can be the most important reading a magician ever did, even if the only thing the reader gets from it is an urge to look upon his magic performance objectively, as his spectators see it.
<-|!*!|C|I|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18|19|20|21|22|23|24|25|->
<-|Top|Showmanship For Magicians|Trick Brain|Magic By Misdirection|Mail|->