ON
THE WATERS FRONT a column of information
and opinion by T. A. Waters
THE OPINIONS
EXPRESSED IN THIS COLUMN ARE THOSE OF
THE WRITER, AND MAY NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT
THE VIEWS OF THE STEVENS MAGIC EMPORIUM
OR GEMINI.
Column Two:
CAN'T OUELLET WELL ENOUGH ALONE?
The answer is
-- no.
Honestly, I
TRIED to be good. I tried to be very circumspect
in my previous column, regarding the November
NBC-TV special in which exposures of magic
were a prime feature. I did not indulge
in name-calling, tried to keep my comments
general, and thought that I'd said all
I needed to say on the subject. I had
planned very different subject matter
for this second column.
Then the latest
Genii appeared. In it are a couple of
pieces dealing with the show: Richard
Robinson against, and Gary Ouellet, not
surprisingly, in favor. I thought Robinson's
piece was sadly amusing, but Mr. Ouellet's
response was anything but amusing.
I have no wish
to be forcibly inducted into the ranks
of the Society for Flagellation of Decedent
Equines, but perhaps -- just perhaps --
there is a little more to be said. What
follows is an Open Letter to Mr. Ouellet;
I've no doubt that, should he wish to
respond to it, Joe Stevens will be happy
to put that response up on GeMiNi.
Dear Mr. Ouellet:
Let's begin
by defining our terms. To quote a few
lines from the definition of EXPOSURE
given in a magic encyclopedia of a few
years ago: "Perhaps a clear definition
of exposure would carry the element of
NON- SOLICITATION; in other words, that
the exposure is being presented to an
audience -- in newspapers, general magazines,
films or television -- which had not specifically
sought it out. Another element might be
serious intent on the part of the recipient,
the revelation of magical information
not being given simply to satisfy idle
curiosity."
My words, but
hardly a new definition or distinction;
it was pretty much the view of the Magic
Circle when it tossed out David Devant
not because Devant had written a book,
but that excerpts from the book had appeared
in a general magazine. That view of what
constitutes exposure has been followed
with slight variations by most magicians
of this century.
I trust that
you will understand that, by that definition,
CLOSE-UP ILLUSIONS, your book still available
in magic shops, is not an exposure; neither
is my ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MAGIC AND MAGICIANS,
available in general-interest bookstores.
However -- by that definition, with which
you may not agree, what happened on the
television show clearly WAS exposure,
and your mention of the material having
previously appeared in books and magazines
was irrelevant. Let us suppose that every
single item exposed on the show had been
exposed a few weeks earlier in TIME magazine;
would that justify doing it again on television?
An element of your defense seems to be
that "Hey, it's been done before..." --
which seems to me an extraordinary argument
for a lawyer to advance; I hope you've
never tried this approach in a courtroom.
You comment
that the "...greatest source of exposure
continues to be incompetent magicians
and not the likes of THE WORLD'S GREATEST
MAGIC." Lousy magicians may be a source
of spectator dislike of magic, but this
almost always comes from boredom rather
than revelation of secrets. Besides, there
have been incompetent magicians since
forever, and there's only been one TWGM
show thus far; can we confidently expect
that if the show becomes a yearly event,
it eventually WILL be the greatest source
of exposure?
You seem to
imply that professional performers were
all in favor of what you choose to call
the "teaching" segments, and the only
ones who disliked the segments were "...hobbyists...
armchair dabblers... collectors... historians...
critics..." Pausing only to wonder how
this kind of thinking will endear you
to readers of your books and purchasers
of your effects, most of whom fall into
the categories you named...
...I can only
surmise that you and I travel in very
different circles of magic. I do not,
at this particular moment, consider myself
a professional performer by any means
-- but I am fortunate enough to know a
number of the top-ranked magicians in
the world. In my conversations with them
I have yet to hear from a single one that
the exposure segments were a good idea
-- and, as you perfectly well know, this
includes some performers who were ON THE
SHOW.
(That you may
not have heard negative comments from
some pro performers is hardly surprising;
you are, after all, in the position of
hiring, or influencing the hiring of,
acts for the next edition of the show,
and for you to expect open criticism from
those hoping for employment is more than
a little ingenuous.)
It is pleasing
to hear that you were able to stop exposures
on other television shows, and unfortunate
that you were apparently unable to perform
the same service for a show on which you
were listed as a co-producer.
I think you
might agree with me that the three most
important and influential magic acts now
in the business are David Copperfield
for stage touring shows -- Siegfried and
Roy for major Vegas productions -- and
Ricky Jay for theater. I do not pretend
to have perfect knowledge of the careers
of these gentlemen, but to the best of
my knowledge they have attained their
eminence without ever finding it necessary
to expose magic to hang onto their audiences.
You say that
network specials on magic had all but
disappeared. To belabor the obvious, TV
networks are not charitable institutions,
and their decisions are ruled primarily
by two factors: star power and economics.
David Copperfield is not a star because
he does television specials; he does television
specials because he is a star. He may,
in fact, be the only national star in
magic, and thus it is hardly surprising
that he is the only one who regularly
does specials.
So we come to
economics, and TWGM: lacking star power
-- except for Lance Burton's cameo and
Siegfried and Roy's little hello, clearly
more courtesies to you than career moves
-- it provided the network with two hours
of television for what was, on the evidence,
a budget that wouldn't cover Copperfield's
wind machines; the network could hardly
lose money on a show that didn't cost
any.
You tell us
that "...the show (World's Greatest Magic)
helped the careers of every magician (sic)
who appeared..." -- but you don't share
with us how you came to that determination.
You also tell us that it helped to increase
the popularity of magic as an art form;
it would thus appear that our social circles
of laypersons are as different as those
of magic, because that certainly wasn't
the reaction of many who spoke to me.
Your critics
you describe as "...self-appointed spokespersons
(who) live in a cocoon, not realizing
what is happening in the real world of
show business, happy to hide in the 'exclusive'
world of magic club meetings (or even
more insulated world of computer bulletin
boards)..."
My, my. Unsure
whether that dig is aimed at Robinson
on Spidernet or me on GeMiNi -- and not
much caring -- I have to wonder whether
you realize that some of your critics
are indeed professionals, or have been,
and may have as much concern about the
future of professional magic as do you.
I am careful to note, at the beginning
of each of these columns, that the opinions
expressed are mine alone; I make no claim
to be a spokesperson for anyone. Likewise,
I think it would be unwise for you to
assume, because you have a co- producer
credit on a bargain-basement TV magic
show, that you've been appointed spokesperson
for any opinions other than your own.
Denigrating
those who disagree with you by the employment
of such phrases as "...incestuous swap
league... old boy's club... (members of)
a cult...social misfits..." and so on
is less than useful, except insofar as
it indicates your unwillingness to address
serious questions regarding magic as a
performance art.
Would you like
some of those questions? Well, what shall
we talk about? I know! We'll talk about
what went on during a show called THE
WORLD'S GREATEST MAGIC.
Was there a
magic director or technical advisor for
the show? If so, to look at just a few
examples, where was he or she when:
- Max Maven
was made by the producers to do an effect
that had recently been exposed (!) in
a national magazine -- which, after
his introduction as a psychic, made
him look silly and seriously undercut
his later piece. Maven is capable of
strong and effective mentalism of his
own creation, so why was he reduced
to doing this curiosity?
- Fielding
West did his gag version of the floating
lady which, while funny, informed the
viewing audiences that stooges were
being used in the show, and undercut
Brett Daniels' later serious presentation?
- Juan Tamariz,
one of the great close-up entertainers
of the world, was asked or permitted
to do an interminable card trick which
was dismissed by viewers I spoke with
as "...a little trick car..."?
- Tom Mullica
was filmed OUTSIDE, by the pool, so
one couldn't see the smoke of the cigarettes
-- and if you object to cigarettes,
why have him do the bit at all?
- Brett Daniels
went up the steps to do his excellent
levitation and, because the director
was not told to move in on the shot,
the ball switch was excruciatingly obvious?
- the Interlude
illusion of the Pendragons was shot
from the side, rendering it for the
most part meaningless?
- the marvelous
Bill Malone did a version of Sam The
Bellhop which may have impressed magicians
because of the continuous shuffles,
but to laypersons was like that trick
Uncle Bill does at parties -- instead
of the stunning card work of which Malone
is more than capable?
- Alain Choquette
did Gypsy Thread with the lights turned
out -- an interesting approach to magic
which might well have been used elsewhere
in the show? (And, again, might have
benefited from judicious editing or
reshooting, particularly when the load
was taken).
No criticism
of the performers mentioned is intended
or should be inferred; EVERYTHING I have
talked about should have been noted and
corrected by the magic coordinator, who
should have been in the production meetings
before the shoot and in the booth during
it. As anyone who has been in the business
for more than a few minutes should know,
the most elementary rule of magic on television
is: YOU CANNOT MISDIRECT A CAMERA. You
must, therefore, control the camera movement
by specific direction, just as you would
control a spectator's attention by misdirection;
the same goes for editing.
Mr. Ouellet,
I am a member of no magical organization;
other than the recent Desert Seminar,
through the hospitality of Joe Stevens,
I have not attended three magic conventions
in 30 years; I do not go to magic club
meetings, and may have even less interest
than you in the 'social' side of magic.
Since I left the military at age 20, one
area or another of the entertainment business
has been my primary mode of making a living
for most of my life. I will not bore you
with my resume, but I assure you that
I am deeply committed to magic as a PERFORMANCE
art, and am alternately amused and angered
by your claim that anyone who didn't view
TWGM as a "positive milestone" for magic
"...just doesn't get it." What I DID get
was a long article from you in Genii in
which you did not offer a single shred
of proof that the exposures enhanced the
ratings for the show, which appears to
be the only bottom line you can see. If
the exposures didn't help the ratings,
there's no excuse for their inclusion;
and if they did, it implies that magic
is not enough of a performance art to
stand on its own merits.
It would seem
that my view of magic is a bit more positive
-- and a bit less cynical -- than your
own. I do not believe the exposure (the
'teaching') was necessary; funny, but
I'd just bet that Copperfield, and Ricky
Jay, and Siegfried and Roy don't either
-- as I noted earlier, on the evidence
of their own shows, that seems likely.
But maybe we're
wrong, Mr. Ouellet, and you're right.
I hope not.
Cordially,
T. A. WATERS
Copyright (c)
1995 by T. A. Waters. All rights reserved.
