Controversial uses of Magic

[Guest]

Yes -- Diego -- have fun. Do not be bored. " Come to the Cabaret my friend ...life is a cabaret."

Jonathan -- your post is a (lol) great lift to remind us all that we can take simple magic performance much too seriously. And that is part of my point -- that if the work circumventing what we are communicating as a multi-faceted industry is ignored -- we are potentially broadbrushed into a bad position. The work is mnarket research as to what is out there and hbow it is received.

Ergo, Coke and Pepsi drinkers disagree -- but I would venture to say most people buy what is on special if they have not chosen a specific sweetness/caffine level. Lots of research there. Evangelical uses of magic? Not much that I can find.

Personally, for a while I considered Lovecraftian material -- and do not feel I can do it justice (let alone mercy) -- and have slanted my work to Olde West, Spanish Incursion with modern fables and tales of the USA for my message magic. Message itself -- lynching bad -- trial justice good. Blind acceptance bad -- reasonable questioning and research for decisions, good.

My Magical preferences -- never make fun of an audience or its members -- respect his/her beliefs and culture-- present sound magical entertainment -- and bring stagecraft to my bigger work for my (sorry Diego) artistic soul.

(Hmmmm-- Diego do you object to the word Artistic more than the concept that I have a soul and still question evangelical magic's role in the perception of who we are???

:rolleyes:

[Guest]

Think how the sincere (Magic or____) Gospel evangelist thinks, if he believes this is the most important/urgent message in the world to let others enjoy the happiness he has, or worse to prevent anyone from spending eternity in the everlasting Lake of Fire,(regardless what you think) in their minds, how could they be so cruel, as to NOT share/spring/preach that message.

Jack LaLanne,the exercise guru, was once asked on a talk show, why the pressure to get signed up, in his (then) health spas?
He replied, "When I opened my first spa and a man came walking up the stairs, huffing and puffing, overweight and smoking, I knew I had a DUTY to sign him up! I could not allow him to continue his path to an early death...I couldn't live with myself if I hadn't!"

Of course, cynics(!) would say he really wanted the man's dues/money, but he was also right. Duty or ________? Depends what side of the fence you may choose to be on, and that is why this thread can go on, but it has mostly been said...several times over, back and forth.

[Guest]

No, I don't mind an occasional use of words like art/artistic, or even "dangerous" at all.
Question all you want, please do, makes life interesting....but your soul's fixation on why for the most part, mostly Gospel magic is this problem, you warn us about, is open for questioning as well.

How many out there, did not get a show or lost an audience, because there was the suspicion/fear, you might spring a Gospel message between your rings and zombie? Please, let's have a count!

[Guest]

Bill Mullins -

I hope you do not feel your message was lost in the shuffle.

I would hope every magician is able to communicate his inner beliefs through magic -- with carefully thought out tricks and plots that make the points. It is when the magic stops -- and when the lecture starts -- I feel we leave our role as magicians.

I mentioned, early on in this thread, the work of Father Daniel Roland with his Catholic priesthood coming through in his "Spiritual Magic of Father Daniel" shows.

No lectures here -- and Eugene Burger and Jeff McBride have really helped Daniel develop his magic to make his points with the magic, not in spite of it.

A religion is more than one concept. Fr. Daniel's magic presents those concepts through his routines. His breath of life routine (Found in the Mystery School Book) holds rapt attention as he compares the fragility of a bubble to life. His mime routine of rags to ungrateful riches - thence back to rags speaks more than words with a miser's dream. His version of Mexican Poker teaches his church's belief in winning by effort -- not because of an icon bringing "luck."

He never launches into a lecture. His cut and restored rope DEMONSTRATES friendship and conflict resolution. His snow routine reveals his challenges in seeing the secular world as opposed to what could be if everyone followed the maxums of the world's faiths at the root of their lives.

The tricks, the routines, speak to the point -- and are not the object of worship or on the other hand common "puzzle wonder." Daniel's publicity heralds "The Spiritual Magic of Father Daniel." If you do not want to hear his religious message presented in these artistically and spiritually linked forms -- his publicity is clear as to WHAT he will be doing.

And -- boy I can tell you he works and fights hard NOT to be preachy. (In fact, Eugene demands that of him.) Demonstrative and magical, yes. Preachy and off topic for propaganda - never. Eugene does not suffer fools well at all. The material has to be magical AND entertaining -- and if you offer a message it must be coherent to the audience as part of the magical moment.

So yes -- we need to use our art to show who we are and what we believe -- BUT -- I believe we should "not" preach what we want others to believe by switching away from magic into a blatant sermon --- UNLESS the audience has been informed as to what they are getting into beforehand. And as Jeff says -- we would all benefit if we LIVE the magic, always. Live what you believe to demonstrate it!

And, on that note -- [Edited for political content by the moderator]

[Dustin Stinett]

So far you have all stayed civil in what is a provocative subject. However, the fastest way to insure that this thread gets closed is to ring in politics. Please do not go there.

Thanks,
Dustin

[Bill Mullins]

C.H. -- I appreciate your thoughtful reply.

But I wonder why you are spending so much effort on the subject -- it is like politics in that people arrive at their opinions in ways that aren't generally subject to being converted by others.

There are magicians:

a. Whose opinions of the relative importance of the "art" of magic and religion (their own, or the subject in general) will not allow them to subject their performance of magic to a religious message.

b. Whose desire to be as commercial as possible causes them to restrain from putting anything that might offend anyone into their acts, be it religion, politics, loyalty to sports teams, whatever.

c. Who don't have much interest in religion one way or another, and don't include it for those reasons.

d. Who do include religion, but do it in a manner that some (you?) would find appropriate (but everyone's standard is different).

e. Who feel that the religious message is so important, that they don't really worry about secondary effects, like doing magic poorly, or offending those who don't want to hear their message.

f. Who want to try and merge magic and religion, but also want to make sure that they are doing it in such a way that everyone enjoys the show.

There may be other relevant categories, but I can't think of them right now. Which one are you speaking to? It seems like "f." is the only one you have a shot at convincing, and I bet the total number of members in that group, that are on the Genii Forum, is less than two.

By this point, you are coming across more as someone who has a beef with Gospel magic in general, than someone who is trying to solve a real problem. I can't enjoy my own right to do a Gospel show, without also recognizing that you or anyone else has the same right. If I don't like how you do it, my best recourse is either to ignore it or try and do better. I can't imagine that I'll have much luck telling you that you need to reign in your message in order to further the art of magic.

[Guest]

Bill - thank you for the thoughtful reply -- and I do not intend to get into national or international politics.

However the politics of magic fascinate me. My messages seem to come across as a beef with Christian magicians I guess because the answers to my proposals have, in the main, have come from a very few forum members -- who have what seems to be a very protective attitude to looking at magic as a message or missionary tool for anyone.

Note that Nakul Shanoy lives in India and in this thread has told us of a perception he is detecting. Note that Christian Chelma checked in to say that in Belgium ( and I paraphrase broadly -lol) there is more of a preaching of surrealism the evangelical magic.

Note too -- that others defend -- and they are correct -- the right of anyone to preach their religion as a missionary from a magical show stage -- even if the audience is not notified it is coming -- or may be hostile to the sermon.

I have also asked -- how would our small town magicians like it if a magician promoted a show and filled a house in their town -- then stopped the shnow to preach about how the Taliban represents the only true message of God...then went on with a good show and a great climax of illusion.

Are we saying that as an audience -- Americans are tolerant -- and would not question all future magicians coming to town -- or even ban them ahead???

Now -- I must say that your list includes quite a thoughtful number of categories and shows it has you thinking about the category into which you fall in any given presentation.

That thoughtful process is exactly what I have been trying to open in this thread -- not just knee jerk responses.

Maybe I have expected too much. Or maybe many magicians never want to think of these things -- and those performers who may have opinions on this see it as too hot to handle and not lose bookings in zealotress areas.

To me -- a lifetime of magic is about more than tricks. Again -- maybe to expect thoughtful answers without attacking inuendo based on belief -- rather than investigation and thought -- is asking too much.

In fact -- censorship of our acts came to mind just now --- ask Eric Buss if it was difficult for him to book the castle the first time --- because he takes off his clothes (magically, of course) and some considered him a strip act -- not a magician -- until he won a few contests with thie REALmagic entertainment.

So -- I will keep monitoring for answers that explore and discuss -- rather than try to turn the discussion into a TV News attack on my beliefs through inuendo.

Yes, I do have a problem with Christian, Muslim, Bhuddist, Shinto, Hindu, Zoroasterian. Wiccan and even atheistic magicians who stop their act to preach without adequate forewarning to the audience. I have no problem when the magic tells the story
without a lecture on dogma -- and includes examples of how the belief system works in the magician's life -- using our art and craft. I have no problem with missionary magicians of any stripe going out into ther world and performing magic with a sermon or lecture if they forewarn the audience -- and do not bait and switch leaving big magic to tease the audience into staying through the message of faith.

I commend those who think about and discuss such things -- and feel that Andre Kole's workm is some of the most admirable -- as he lets you know (usually?) that he is going to preach as part of his show. I go to see his work when I can -- and even listen to the sermon because his magic is good -- although I wpuld prefer to see the whole show without evangelizing. BUT I MAKE THE CHOICE up front. It is not sprung on me.


OK -- another idea -- consider the reactions to Richiardi's sawing that flung (cattle) guts. It affected magic -- and audience reactions. His stuff even affected comedy -- if you count watermelon smashing instead of guts.

GX

[Scott Fridinger]

I can't believe it took me so long to find this post, well I will be brief.

There are people all over the world killing each other with guns and knives and bombs. These people are christian, muslim, jewish, atheist, wiccan and every other combination of philosophical belief you can think of. Why then are we spending so much time talking about the "theat" of magicians.

I am sorry to see this post personally. Why is it that magicians now have to try to play the political card like every other form of entertainment out there. There are those of us who read this forum who look at this like watching an award show. To be able to read messages from real professionals and have them read mine in turn is better than any red carpet. I don't like to hear it there and I don't like to see it here.

Anyway, Respectfully to Mr. C.H.Mara, in opening this thread you and through it's continuation, you continually say you have nothing against "Christian" magicians, yet I have seen you talk and laugh about the Penn and Teller event and you are offended by the christians who did not like it. You think that they should have known better, and they shouldn't have been offended. Yet you seem offended yourself by their use of Christian influences in magic. Is this not Hypocritical. You say that Christian Evangelist preaching using magic is a threat, are there no other magicians of who have other beliefs posssibly doing the same thing.

I myself perform magic as a way to entertain, I do not put my political views, religious beliefs, or moral ideals into it. If others do that is their choice, we live in a Country where we can make that choice. I also think the reason there is so much tension in is country is because of the types of discussions we are having here.

Why...... It is magic. It is not divinity, It is not evolution, it is not the beginning and will NOT be the end.....

But that is just my opinion I want to stop now, I need to sleep, I welcome and respect everyone else's opinion.

Respectfully

SSgt Scott Fridinger
United States Air Force

p.s. Cthulu, the Necromonicon, etc isn't real, Lovecraft just made it up. "The Outsider" is my personal favorite story.

[Guest]

Scott -

Glad for your comments. Yes I do enjoy P&Ts irreverant and even at times sacreligious (to some) bad taste pranks. But in every case of which I know -- they (or the group sponsoring an event) have warned their audience of their bizarreand/or adult attitudes. And they were aware of what happened when they dumped cockroaches(?) maggots(?) on an unwarned late night host's desk.

All through this thread -- you will note that I do not object to people performing shows where the audience knows what they are getting in for. That is why I can choose to see Andre when he performs locally -- or not.

It is implicit -- in this thread - that I feel the threat to magic comes from evangelist magicians NOT advertising to their audience that the spectators will be expected to sit through a sermon during -- or to see - the whole show PARTICULARLY WHEN THEY DO THIS IN OTHER CULTURES AND NATIONS. (Sorry to shout, but I have not figured out other ways to highlight with underlines, BF or such on this forum.)

I have shared -- and I think Nakul has indicated -- that in isolated towns and villages -- often the first magical show that will come from the US will be that of an evangelist -- and then following US magicians appearing there are often discounted -- as selling evangelism rather than working as a paid magical performance.

PLease also do not miss where in philosphy both Nakul and I have touched upon God-men -- those who use magic to acrue the credit for "powers" to themselves -- much as certain cult leaders in the US -- or as commercial gurus like John Edward and Uri Geller.

The conversatioon, then -- is not just about Christian magic -- but the controversial uses of magic -- and I repeat again -- as if an Indian magician appeared in say - Phoenix or Casa Grande and stopped his performance to preach about Krishna.

Sorcar, Jr's. recent big show from India played in Phoenix and was advertised and presented as a wonderful cultural experience. Andre Kole, Mark Strivings myself and more than a dozen other magicians enjoyed the whole show -- AND NOT ONE MENTION of Hindu Gods or Krishna in an overt lecture form.

Also -- consider the magic of Fr. Daniel. I do not object to the Christian massages he presents -- because they are magic -- not lectures that preach -- and his audience ALWAYS knmows beforehand they are going to see "The Spiritual Magic of Father Daniel," the official name of his show.

Yes, too. I am a secularist who does not want to be caught by surprise being put in the uncomfortable position of listening to a point of view I do not agree with -- after having paid for it in ignorance. I do walk out of shows and movies -- even though the social pressure not to leave is often immense.

Among our local magicians -- as you know -- my views are known -- PARTICULARLY ON Cultural Respect for other people and our craft.

It is when our local evangelists come back -- and make fun of the people they tricked into hearing their message -- or laugh about being run out of town -- that I quale at their lack of sensitivity and good show business sense. AND -- several of them we know are GREAT magicians -- who have not learned the difference between their preaching and their entertaining.

Until recently -- one of the locals had been going out to general kids birthday parties booked by general ads -- with just such a preachy show. He got several complaints -- and refusals to pay from some Jewish and Muslim families for whom he performed and complained they were cheap skates.

So, I must say that I am awfully tired of being called an anti-Christian preaching instigator . I just want our magic community to become a heck of a lot more sensitive and if going to criticize "Godmen" and people like Geller and Edward, to look at the offences they and their peers may be perpetrating on the unsuspecting.

I know as you serve overseas -- you perform and you're good. But, even though you have strong beliefs -- do you stop your show and preach your religion with no tricks -- without warning or asking your audience if it is OK????

Please also -- do not take the directon that Dominico has headed in just giving a knee jerk "oh he doesn't like Christian ministers -- therefore he...." without considering the ramifications of what the audience sees in another culture. I KNOW your magic recently outside the US has had some good reactions. Might you share those with us -- and whether you only use it to open up a preaching session????

[Guest]

I'm sure it was just a typo, but the last name is Domingo.
Far from a knee jerk reaction, I have only tried to put the questions/concerns in a more balance perspective.

Again and again, it is Mr. Mara who has used inflamatory words, regarding the "threat", about how "dangerous", their horrific practices can be....or likening the practices of Gospel magicians to "Russian Roulette", or "nazi marches", and likening this to a (perceived)larger culteral/political problem, that this country, is in such "a pickle" about, only shows his agenda...which when he pushed further, was fortunately edited and redirected.

99% of all Gospel magic/vent/puppet performers, appear in church-related venues.
Andre Kole is one of the few who is able to appear in more secular venues and still be very upfront, about his message, and allow people to quietly take a pass on it.

Talking about "spiritual" messages that he DOES agree with,by performers who have his favor, only shows, as revealed in his posts, his objection really is with conservative evangelical messages. (Which is his privilage, he is not alone, but face it.)

I am STILL waiting for those who have been "discounted", or lost shows, or faced negative audiences, because it was suspected that they might be including a religious message in their shows, just like those awful Gospel magicians did, that proceeded them. The count is still at zero. Please make yourselves known!
Speak up! You must be out there?! ____________

[Guest]

Diego - sorry about the spelling -- it was late.

FYI - the edited comment was four snide words about the US government. So let us put that idea to rest.

Again you miss the point. IN OTHER CULTURES stopping the "magic show" and giving a direct sermon -- is, to me -- a bait and switch tactic.

Why not discuss the mechanics of HOW to routine a message across cultural lines - rather than insisting I have a problem with Christian magicians. It it the non-thought about use of magical presentation to blatantly, without magic, try and evangelize that I DO have a problem with.

I think that to reduce the story of Joseph to a trick that uses silks to combine into the coat of many colors -- demeans the message and the presenting artist. Use a blendo, however, to demonstrate a point of blending views into a moral stance as part of a story routine -- well, how would you get there. What is your process?

When I create a routine -- research of the event or ideas referenced is now a must. I must confess it has not always been thus -- and as a variety entertainer I was as guilty of throwing a show together out of disparate junk as the next guy. The tricks and patter were (and are) entertaining -- nothing wrong with that -- BUT in years olf performing -- then a few years off did lead me to think of WHAT I am communicating and how.

My years of work as a writer, editor and investigative reporter taught me to look at and present (while trying to remove my biases via professional ethics) the articles and stories in a balanced manner. This is something that has changed in journalism and communication over the past 20 or so years. Editorials are now the stories -- and opinions are presented as fact. Contrary opinion or view is attacked rather than evaluated. Many of the pro writers now coming up have NEVER been challenged to get the balance into stories other than in sensational soundbites -- which often do not giver the meat of the matter.

When I bring that ethic to magic -- and its NATURAL AND PROFESSIONALLY CORRECT attitude that enforces the requirement to keep means a secret - I find no internal conflict as a performer who likes to think of myself as an artist. (Maybe mall displayed work -- and not in any museams -- but selling nontheless.)

I also bring a type of evaluation of the communication we do as magicians that is normally not found in magic -- that of a trained eye to what kind of communication takes place between performer and audience. That communication goes well beyond the critic's job of evaluating performance.

Hundreds of books have been written, many read and digested. on the media, message and meaning question. Admittedly I have not read them all. Few books have ever been attempted on looking at audience reception to "magical media" performances in this context. I know this is something Nakul is attempting in his nation -- and he recognizes the cultural context in India IS VERY DIFFERENT than in the USA.

I think -- by ignoring that communications/cultural difference -- my prime example of the Christian Evangelical magicians outside the USA are but one example of potential DANGER. Yes I use that term with consideration.

No matter how well meaning the message bearer is, how earnest the way of delivering the message -- the communication context (drama if you will) is something that MUST be considered in light of the audience.

A non-magical example -- if I might -- do you stop and hear every street evangelist (Christian or not) and get the literature from them once you get in earshot? Or do you choose to not listen or move on.

Now to magic -- and choice. In many cultures personal space at public events is nothing like that learned in the US. Theater seats here are wide -- and comfortable (mostly) for a spectator to stretch his leg. You could call the 25" x 5' high x 40" invisible box around the spectator his "personal space.

To leave a performance -- that spectator need only rise and briefly invade the other spectator's personal space for a moment stepping quickly over legs while exiting a row.

In many cultures this seating personal space does not exist. Seating is more like a festival in the park sitting on the ground. One friend going to see a show in a US park -- put his blanket out -- and that blanket's area was respected by the more than a thousand spectators who showed up. They did not sit on it, and left a few inches around it too.

When attending a show in Nepal -- another friend arranged themself comfortably early with a small mat. As others arrived -- and saw there was only one person on the mat -- they moved the mat back to my friends seated position and sat down in front, on the sides and immedietly in back -- where their crook's legs and elbows were all but touching her back.

Leaving during the event -- was out of the question. The problem of invading that personal space of others -- if you did not want to be there -- was one. in that culture, you should have considered beforehand. (And if you have ever been to a three hour long -- no intermission tablas concert with no way out -- you do not know what pain and frustration you are in for if you did not plan to sit at an easily exitable edge or back of the crowd.)

In these cultures, many individuals who love magic, but can become a captive audience because they were not forewarned to sit on the edge. I know that would make me at leqast peeved. If these individuals feel strongly about their own internal beliefs -- and are captive to a message delivered outside of the context of the magical show -- what is being communicated to them?

So, rather than pointing out my rather obvoiusly biased initial attention getting example, might I ask those responding in this thread to discuss the process of consideration of what a performance MIGHT use to promote the idea or dogma being carried by the magician.

Let us consider what might be done without stopping the magic show to verbally harangu or even more mildly just stop the show to verbally (only) teach and share religious ideas.

Of course -- when this sharing is done with an announced and advertised sponsorship (Rev. Moon, Christian, Wiccan, Red Cross benefit, Soccer Mom's Beer Fund) the audience (and I) can make a choice of attendance and attention or not. No sneak attacks there.

And -- as Scott knows -- even when I discuss my views of James Randi, Penn & Teller, I ask those with whom I am conversing if I should continue -- and warn them that the material I am saying might be offensive. Last time when I explained the P&T controversy's joke -- I asked Scott and the people about if they would be offended and if I should continue with the explanation. I was assured all there at the table wanted to continue. THAT is choice. Their opinion that Scott and several others did not like the joke is as valid after they heard the full context if not more so -- than when they did not know the context. They have had choice and information on which to judge.

That is what I feel has been left out of magic performances by people like Geller, Edward, evangelists and Godmen.

Process, anyone????

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by C.H.Mara:
...I would hope every magician is able to communicate his inner beliefs through magic -- with carefully thought out tricks and plots that make the points.

Or at least interesting and amusing stories of some kind for some reason. Such is the nature of theater.

Those who wish to participate in 'conversion by the wand' will do so for whatever beliefs they hold.

There is a wonderful story about the conquistador who poured his water bag on the ground, and lit it... then told the natives he would burn all their water if they did not obey him.

If we are going to have a civil discussion, we will probably need to avoid picking on the those who currently believe in mixed messages. We may agree to disagree on some things. Let's try be inclusive our discussions.

Can we find a neutral example to discuss? I was using the Lovecraft stuff for that purpose. Open to suggestions.

[Guest]

CH, you may want to try to keep in mind the old saying of "if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance baffle up with BS". For a writer you are not communicating very well. I am as far from a Gospel magician as you can find and I'm even a bit offended by some of your statements and also not real pleased with your attitude toward Diego. I accept I could be misunderstanding what you are trying to get across but sometimes it is the messenger....
Steve V

[Guest]

Running off to The Magic Castle tonight to see John Calvert...an education in presence/personality/presentation.....so only have time for this thought:

With all this talk about meaning in the message that is supposed to be conveyed,(intentionally or not) right now, I would do anything to hear the late Woody Woodward tell his "Story of Jack Diamond", or a decent rendition of "Sam the Bellhop"!
(Harry Cohn(?): "If you want to send a message, call Western Union!")

[Guest]

I hadn't the time to check all the replies on this thread but I do wish to place my two-cents into the pot.

Firstly, there is absolutely NOTHING Christianity hasn't first damned then turned around and found ways to exploit and use to their advantage e.g. converting souls and getting their fingers into bank accounts. They've been doing this for over 1,750 + years (officially)and probably will continue to do so till JC returns or Hell Freezes over. It's just their way and there's no real way to change that fact (other than insisting that all their shows, crusades and Tv Broadcasts get an "entertainment only" disclaimer tag, required by the FCC.)

Magic, especially the more shamanic style of magic, has been a prime part of religious presentation since the advent of human society. No one group or sect holds an exclusive to this claim. Similarly, you will find use of said "technology" applied to either side ofthe praverbial fence e.g. during the Inquisition magic props were used to "Prove" witchcraft and similarly, anyone performing "miracles" (even as an amusement) risked being put to death for the very same reasons.

Yes, it is morally, ethically and socially WRONG for ministers of any faith to use a "come on" lure for bringing folks in under false pretenses, jsut to "sell" their message and brainwash young minds via the use of fear, guilt, etc. into "com'n to the lard." I grew up around tent revival preachers that did just this and used the classic bits of "faith healing" in order to "Prove" the supposed power of god... all of it for the sake of making a buck, NOT SAVING SOULS! I also recall going to Youth Rallies in the 70s where ministers used the old shock chairs as part of a comedy act pertaining to sin and sinners.

I have more than a score of reasons to loathe the misuse of propaganda based materials, psychological tricks, etc. employed by "The Church" as a whole. I'm also read enough to know that they aren't the only jerks doing it... have you been to a political rally lately? How about a self-esteem seminar? (Sorry Rex)

To contradict myself I will say that I've not only seen but helped several Christian performers in creating some very beautiful magic for their shows. There are many out there who are decent folk that don't misuse their program. They offer a simple, understated message and present a fun filled family oriented program that's free of all the BS about being saved, etc. In my book, these few are the exception and the style of performer other Christian Entertainers need to strive to be. The kind of people that wont allow what they do to be cheapened or used as fishing bait for the next catch of suckers.

[Bill Mullins]

Craig -- I appreciate that you feel strongly about the subject. I hope your future posts won't be so offensive as to refer to "being saved" as BS. If your beliefs don't run that way, fine. But it's hard to appreciate an argument for Christians to respect the art of magic from magicians who have so little respect for Christianity.

[Guest]

Hi Craig,
And I thought C.H. had an agenda. As someone, like yourself, who has cut up jackpots with the likes of Anton LaVey, I have tried to keep this topic in a balanced perspective, for understanding of all.

As said before, things religious groups once condemmed,(conjuring, sports events, TV/Radio,etc.) are sometimes later embraced by members of the same groups, because they are (depending on your point of view) more enlightened or opportunistic.
It is interesting that the most conservative groups, that do not, "want to be of this world",(Christian fundamentalists, pentecostals, Hasidim) have been the most eager and innovative in using
the "world's technology: The 2nd privately owned
radio station was Aimee Semple McPherson's, the first private satelite transponder was Pat Robertson's, and the Hasidim broadcast around the world, via satelite from Crown Heights, Brooklyn.

However, I have never seen a religious,(Christian) broadcast, use the "for entertainment only" disclaimer...psychic shows yes, evangelical, no. (Name one that does.)

Again, questions about the validity of religious beliefs, may belong in a different Forum, than this one.

It is astounding that this thread is approaching 100 posts! With just a few posters!
What is this?! Each ask what your true motivation is, and maybe we have spun this around enough....

[Jonathan Townsend]

Most of this thread has covered controversial uses of misdirection more than magic.

There are a few deep topics here, including the relationship of the magic to the performer, the performer discussing magic and/or faith with the audience, the relationship between the act, its message and its messenger, and the appropriateness of the intended message FOR the audience.

Even back in high school, the teachers and some of the students did not sit for distraction and impertinence in discussion.

Here we are, most of us long past high school, having trouble discussing our messages, themes and audience perspective.

There was a cute commercial for 'The incredible edible egg' that used a barehanded egg production. The egg itself went from healthy to bad=cholesterol to healthy again over the last decade. Interesting. I hope they bring back the commercial.

[Guest]

Good idea Jonathan. And your suggestion makes the point I would like to accent. Your thoughts about the trick were affected by the commercial and its "penetration" the marketing term for the effect of remembered message and duration.

The process of connecting advertising OR a trick to an idea is hard and sometimes beyond the average performer. That is why directorsand scriptwriters work with the best of magicians and actors.

But that process of making magic memorable to an audience can be disrupted actions that take the audience and performer away from the MAGIC.

And the process of making that happen is even harder to plan and execute than perform.

Rod Robison is a locally based evangelical -- who also is a darn good mentalist. Ethical too. He does not expose the tricks he does -- but carefully explains that show business and and performance skills are what help him permit you to transcend to a belief in the paranormal --- even if just for a minute.

His latest tape (and I believe he also delivers a sermon on this) is historical review of fraudulent spiritualism from the Fox sisters to today, Houdini's exposures of mediums and his (Rod's) biblical references as why he feel listerners should not
accept the paranormal without questioning. And it is presented in religious venues -- and advertised as such.

Rod, lecturing at the Magic Circle in London, I do not believe launched into the sermon. And I know he does not when working for corporations not religiously affiliated. His material is clean, sharp and very magical. In fact, I recently saw some information where Rod and Family Life Radio (I believe) were about to sponsor a tour of Christian Magicians to India to perform and spread the gospel. (The magicians are being charged $2500 for ecpenses.)

What is the process of bringing such a show together? I have not chatted with Rod in a while -- but I am sure that the magic will be top level and Rod will require (if he is producing and directing) the magicians exemplify their faith off and on stage -- while honoring the culture in which they appear. That work will have to be by direction, scripting and planning.

Hmm, so now how do you work a head chopper into such a show. A story exemplifying early martyrs acted through to
a gruesome French Gillotine (with the dropped head) and the acceptance of death over faith denial might be one way.

But, hypeing a cut off and restored head trick as a trick without that tyhpe of plot, or using the comedy approach -- then delivering a sermon -- to me -- demeans the magic -- and penetrates the audience with the idea that US magicians don't do magic without a lecture.

My process of approach -- what makes a head chopper magical. Well if it is a Lester Lake variety cutting the veggies and not the head -- the nervous comedy laughter of the audience and victim in aroused anxiety that SOMETHING could go wrong -- and the relief when it does not and proves a "magical penetration" has some plot problems. One is why would you use someone's neck in the first place??

A second -- is if you intend to slice someone's head off -- and fail -- what has motivated you to either save the person or have him/her emerged unharmed.

Another problem I try to consider -- is how does this trick entertain by enobling the "victim" withut demeaning the magician, victim or the magic?

Now, to my satisfaction - I have solved these questions to my liking with my use of Bill Shmeelk's very kool see through head chopper. And I make a social comment on TV infomercials at the same time.

The process of getting there included reading volumes not only about the head chopper in performance and other routines -- but the history of WHY the guillotine was introduced as a humane form of execution. I was looking at the psychology of the audience victim from his/her point of view (compare that with the terror of the French Revolution?) -- and then submitting the routine in performance a little at a time to my peers and coaches.

Eugene Burder and Jeff McBride gave me great feedback on what was right - and what they would do differently if I wanted to take it in one direction or another.

Performaces shaken down in regular restaurant/cabaret situations helped me -- along with John Kaplan -- shake out ways of making the "victim" a hero because he survived. AND MY MESSAGE about questioning corporate advertising claims --
since I am sponsored by Marie Antoinette Bakeries and Robespierre Legal Services --- ???

The process took a year -- but like my (now culturally incorrectly titled) Persian Torture Chamber -- it went through research not just on the trick -- deciding what could be said without preaching -- and then discussion with one of the trick's remaining inventors (thank you Sir William) --comments from US, Canadian Mexican and Belgian pros while discovering that audiences could be actively involved in the trick (thank you Reduced Shakespeare Company - London troup), has brought me a fun way of cutting a woman into six with meaning. That one only took two years (one year on the shelf) to get right.

Lessons on how to deliver a message of warmth can be found in both Kevin James and DC's snow -- but making a point about sharing the wisdom of age? It took Bar-mitzvah, school shows and finally fund raising shows over a year to work it out...and Eugene and Jeff originally felt there were things needing tweeking -- but tweek I have not, as the routine's message of sharing across generations -- comes across very well to woman in my audience --- while the men are still laughing at the Garden of Flowers routine preceeding. And even in the modern society -- I know it is wives and grandmas who make sure grandpa and daddy spend time with the kids.

So -- there is an idea of part of my process. There is an idea of how I think (do not know for sure) how Rod is putting together his Indian evangelical tour -- and advertising it. I know how he handles advertising locally and with agents. Keeps magic and religion caefully defined for the audience -- always clean and mystical.

How are the other respondentsin thisa thread -- or new people who have waded thriough the discourse -- handling the process of planning a show around the audiences needs and beliefs?????

GC

[Guest]

At this time, with the horrible beheading/murder of Americans and others, head-chopping routines may not be the right thing to present.

Wow...all this process, background, meaning, etc., makes me wonder who is doing most of the lecturing...C.H. or one of those awful Gospel magicians.
All this about "meaning" and what is behind it, reminds me of a parody of "American Bandstand", during "Rate-A-Record", a couple is asked what they thought about a song. The girl talks about the cultural, historical, theological meanings, and nunances of the song, and when Dick Clark asks for the boy's opinion, he says, "Well, I was going to say, it had a good beat and it was easy to dance to, but I think I'll just sit down."

Latest Score: Magicians who have said their show was discounted, turned down, canceled, received badly, because it was suspected they may be one of those U.S. (Christian?) magicians who might include some awful (Gospel?) message in their magic show: 0.
Come on you apathetic voters, confirm C.H.'s fears and be counted!

[Guest]

Diego I I find it interesting that you continue to treat an open discussion as a win - lose argument rather than discussing the thought process involved in the entertainment/messages we can bring to the public through thouightful performance.

Yes, I considered using the head chopper as an example provacative -- as well it should be. But then -- is cigarette magic still being practiced in California?????

I must remind you too -- this is a magical forum -- and I really want to see how many magicians are considering content, international market implications and uses of message magic as a communication tool.

If evangelists use the tool of magic for their message -- what is the result of that? And what is the message to the world of magic affacianados when/if a show is stopped for a sermon OR EVEN a long Amway message --that was not expected or made clear it was coming to the now seated and socially captive audience.

The audience knew from the moment they saw the traveling set and mall stage that the Keebler Elves magic show was there as a pusher -- of cookies.

Was the cookie connection well thought out -- and by what process was it put together? That would be a very simple way of looking at the more complex problem of propaganda magic I have proposed.

GC

[Guest]

The 101st post...may be one of the longest.
I have often said in this Forum, no one has/can win, this is a discussion. I have asked you to verify some of your claims and concerns.

Cigarette magic is all but gone...I remember watching the late Vic Kirk do his cig/act and realizing how rare that is to see that.
BUT, I just saw John Calvert do his WONDERFUL cig act, at The Magic Castle,(with disclaimers about the evils of smoking.) and he received a GREAT response...but that is John Calvert. I would be interested, is it more common back East? Perhaps in Europe/Asia?

To maybe top this off, it would be intersting to hear from a top Gospel magician, such as Kole, Snipes, Travis, etc., about some of this.

[Bill Palmer]

It's interesting to see how far afield this discussion has come -- to John Calvert's cigarette act, for example.

Calvert has used the disclaimer against smoking for at least 20 years that I know of, so it's not a recent thing.

Here is a minor point -- Diego, please correct me if I am wrong, but GC uses the word "propaganda," as we all do in English, in a negative connotation. But isn't the Spanish word for an advertisement or a commercial also "propaganda?"

Spanish is not one of my languages, so I can't verify this.

[Guest]

Welcome back from Collectors' Bill.

Not to be contentious, but I actually I use the word not in the negative connotation of the McCarthy era, but in the more catholic sense with the latin root -- propagation of an idea.

Having grown up Catholic and doing some charity work in Arizona through Catholic Community Services, I am much more likely to consider the meaning attached to the Society for the Propagation of the Faith.

Before McCarthy - when magic was fresh and unique because not a lot of overexposure of routines has been on TV -- another definitions may have stemmed from the folk explanation of propagations --

"Sort of like feeding a tree as it grows and owning a horse at the same time. Both useful, you feed the horse and get labor and nutritious manure for the tree -- which gives you apples and shade you and the horse can both enjoy while making more manure -- and tellin your neighbors about it to get their manureto grow more trees to sell apples." (Always thought my Uncle Johnie upstate New York was a little daft ---)

Bill --- I know you have put a lot of thought into some of your "message routines." Might you share some process of how you put the idea and trick together to add up to a "larger statemen?."

[Jonathan Townsend]

When do we get to discuss Plato and Galileo's use of "Wonder Words" in their published tracts?

Do the Keebler elves have a dental care facility in that tree?

How am I supposed to 'buy it' if I don't know what you are selling?

What's the difference between a good story and the right story for a performance? And for an audience?

[Guest]

Jonathan --

LOL on the first line,

It does evoke rememberance of Sesua Hiakowa's works in semantics though. The use of words is a powerful part of magic. How many times over the years do new magicians have to consider their use of the words "for my next trick?" Although I us Kentons advice on Wonder Words as part of the process of routining (usually much too little) I find the field of Neurolinguistics a little too new for a real academic codification for use.

Therapists, salesmen, priests and performers all know the powerful use of ritualistic words. In past times magicians would create words such as "Sim Sala Bim" to distance themselves from other words they felt would either stigmatize the act as being from "dark powers" or to get away from the (at the time) religious connotations of others.

The question of the Keebler dentist is exactly what I feel needs to be considered. What is the secondary reaction to our work?

My opinion is that as performers we fall mighty close to actors of old -- who had a lot of material that was bad -- and some that was good. Often the good stuff was banned in particular places because the authorities did not agree with the message. Sometimes when the message created unrest -- major clashes were fomented.

On the commercial level -- the Keebler shows were a fun, open advertisement for their product. Did those creators ever wonder if their show would evoke a reaction that would include dentistry? Or obesity? Should they have -- not in my opinion as they were very upfront that the show was tied in with their product and their advertising messages about the Keebler Elves on TV. The stage was draped with advertising and the audience option to attend or not was open and free.

On the question of "buy it." Very relevant in today's American consumer society --but possibly not as relevant in the rest of the world. Answering a question with a question then, is what was Arthur Miller "selling" in his work. I think of "The Crucible" as a message against unthought intolerance. He used the with burning mindset to comment on the McCarthy type of patriotic polltics as part of his craft.

And I do think that Doug Henning did try to demonstrate his beliefs in TM as part of his later work -- often referencing it. There was (and still is) in many quarters a question of whether TM is a religious belief, a religion, a meditative practice without the hallmarks of a "religion" or all/none of the above. My memory of those performances was being turned off by them -- I was there to see magic not to have my belief system changed.

Ah -- now the the crux of the performance of magic. The story.
As entertainers we get to see much more entertainment and propaganda product than any other people in the history of the earth. There are more media - than ever -- each with its own fluid grammar of communication.

The presentational performance and teaching of magic also has its own grammar and ethic. Sharpe, Buger, Tarbell, Fitzkee, Wilson and others have all taken various approaches to categorizng, performing and wiring about the craft as we know it today from a live performer's perspective during the dawn of this age on monsterous reach in mass communications.

When you consider "reach" in a marketing sense -- a live performance (unbroadcast) to a stadium audience of 50,000 people -- is a mere grain of sand dropping into a pond -- as compared to the rocks of growing internet reach, the boulders of cable TV or commercial radio, the monumental granite meteors of film -- and the planetoid sized commercial and TV effects upon the pond of humanity.

When we cross from live audience performing to performing in another medium -- the old theory held that the medium was there as the observer and broadcaster. Neutral at best. Marya Mannes and Marshal Mc Cluan opened a challenge to that theory with the hypothesis that the medium had not only become the message -- but were changing the societies in which they were being used by editorial control of the verey messages presented.

Bring that back now to the individual performer. We work from close-up 1-20 people at a time and use the intimacy of performance as a strength to "sell" the trick. If we work a message into the trick by thought and action it usually strengthens performance well beyong "look at me I can do tricks."

A friend of mine who makes a decent living as a close-up performer, however, recently discussed the reaction he was now running into. When we he become a "real magician." Exploring
what was meant (as this was his "real job") it boiled down to when would he appear on television to "make his bones."

His material - while it might play well in television -- is aimed at creating a sense of wonder in his spectators. He has about 15 "tricks" in his performance arsenal that leave room for update and variation in dialoque (a hate the term patter) and audience involvement. He records his performances with a little digital pocket thing -- and listens and revises according to the feedback. He would as soon eat glass and regurgitate fire asto perform for an audience with no feedback - and giving up his carefully personal material. He specializes in the magical grammar of intimate performance.

Franz Harrari years ago learned the grammar of stadium performance -- presentations to that 50,000 people of spectacular events the Romans at their most depraved could not have dreamed of being possible doing with actors coming out alive. He is superb working at that level and also understands much of the difficulty of translating that size spectacular into the relative intimacy of television with its small clusters of viewers not in a stadium. He also understands a a part of his consciousness that you can give various messages thruogh the performance and much of his work has been in helping performers in other disciplines do that by working (thoughtfully) the craft of magic and its tricks into their performace to a accent their messages.

Does David Coppefrield have message IN his performance. (This is something I have no doubt about about the evangelistic perfromers who stop the magic to give a sermon with the sermon being the message, not the performance.)

I can only speak by observation about Copperfield's -- but I would say -- youbetcha. The work on snow and flying go far beyond the magic into letting his audience go past curious wonder about how he did it -- into a receiving a message about tapping in to their own sense of wonder as they often best experienced it as a child will help them.

I believe too many magicians want to know about the Foy rig -- instead of the scripting of sense memory and strong references to childhood memory and literature (although some discount the comic book as literature and his "Superman"(TM) poses as unrealistic) he had to work on for years to make the routine powerful.

Let me stop here by asking you now to consider the magic audiences see in motion pictures and how motion pictures get their messages across to their "Jedi Knights." Even though in separate vehicles they explain the effects -- the audiences do not go for the effects -- but the story. If magicians hawk the effects as the show -- but switch into message -- how does that compare the the movie industry ?

Thanks for the questions in your message-- might I ask you to discuss your process in taking or excluiding those type of ideas into your show?

[JFox]

Since the topic of John Calvert and Head-Chopping routines was recently brought up on this thread (in reference to the recent horrible terrorist incident-video)...I attended the 11:15pm John Calvert Show at the Magic Castle last night. As soon as Mr. Calvert announced that he was "going to chop someone's head off"...two or three audience members immediately left the room. Not only is a motorized buzz-saw used in the routine - but,unfortunately,so is a SWORD. Obviously, this all brought things just a little bit too close to home with these spectators (and if any spectators hadn't thought of this - then, they surely did- once they noticed people walking out). I mentioned the "walk-outs" to one of the Castle's hosts, but he had heard of no previous negative reactions to the routine this week. Personally, I was not offended by the routine (this was the 3rd time I saw the Calvert Show this week!). However, it might have been more 'respectful' for him to substitute another routine at this time. But how does one tell a 93 year-old-living legend to perhaps re-think a routine he's done for decades?
Or would there be any reason for Calvert and any other magi to drop the head-choopers and guillotines at this time at all?

[Richard Kaufman]

That's a tough one ...

[Guest]

There is a natural clash between taste -- and application of performance when an occurance in the real world brings to mind the world's brutalities or tragic events.

But, I must commend both John Calvert for continuing his act -- as I do not think he has ever used it to promote the idea of real beheading -- and those who were sensitive enough to walk out because they were emotionally affected by the presentation. And maybe -- that too is a good way to bring to mind an idea that maybe too many magicians have discounted the power in their acts, props and presentation to make social statements within the art.

In January -- I asked Jay Marshall, Richard Kaufmann, Jamie Ian Swiss, Penn, Teller, Eugene Burger, Joe Stevens, Randi and others
if they had ever known a magician to present a political act -- as might have Will Rogers, Mort Sahl, Dick Gregory, George Carlin and others. None were thought of in known memory -- other than P&T's segment on the Bill of Rights and Flag Burning.

And -- how often have magicians quietly discussed the ethic of danger tricks for kids audiences -- or cutting up women in boxes as a means of entertainment vis-a-vis the cultural meanings -- as opposed to discussing potential lawsuits or misogenist inuendo in those trickss.

Every audience member has a right to walk out of a performance in this country. A few might because of their sensitivity to a current situation that is tragic or unpleasant. Others might walk out because the material may be viewed as bad taste at the moment or generally. But they are not the whole audience -- AND are strong enough to express their opinion against the social pressure to remain seated.

Scott -- in his earlier message -- referenced a discussion I had after hearing from Penn & Teller their take on the flap at WMS about 18 months ag0, and the joke/puzzle/message they were trying to convey to that audience. It was noted that the audience was forewarned offensive material was probably going to be presented, and indeed, the material was in bad taste for any general public audience -- but well within the rights of a performer to make as an artistic statement, particularly to an audience that had been notified offensive material might be presented. (Do we really need a movie rating system for magic?)

After reviewing the tapes after the show -- Penn was able to ascertain all of three audience members walked out of that performance.

So, John Calvert has the same number walk out at the Castle. Any regular restaurant worker has that number of spectators go to the men's room during a show every now and then -- as do nursing home performers. (I'll let the joke go on that one.) And that too, may be a comment on the show.

When I proposed this thread -- I was pointing out that in other countries -- the evangelists ARE treading over the bounds of taste AND ethics in my view -- IF they do not clearly pre-notify the audience that a SERMON is included outside of the context of the SHOW. BUT AS PART of the show using magic to explain their message is a perfectly acceptable artistic vehicle that in MOST cultures IS acceptable. To ignore this, in my opinion, creates a danger of labeling other magicians as "preachers" from America wo have a hidden agenda in getting you into the theater.

Let me put together another example -- let's say The Great Ballantine stops his act after (deliberately) "blowing" a trick -- and explains at length, that tis is how he feel about a particular politician who is always "blowing it". Then, after 7-8 minutes of the political diatribe -- Ballantine continues the act as usual.

Once that reputation got out -- I think it would be a danger to Ballantine's career as a magician, no? Now what if each magician stopped in the act, gave his religious or political views, then went on to a big magical finish AFTER the "sermon." What would that do to our craft in the AUDIENCES' perception?

BTW -- my Head Chopper -- the Wellington See Thru -- was scripted AFTER I had learned of the cultural sensitivities of the Laotian and Vietnamese communities to exposed blades at certain events. It is a send up of Television Infomercials for Kitchen equipment -- not a "danger to victim" presentation.
I am sure some people would even find that offensive WITHOUT the current situation, although in the vast minority.

I believe man's brutality to man is often due to lack of consideration of others values and culture -- and insensitive presentation of politically or religiously loaded messages in or around our performances. While we see message as part of our rights, improperly presented or presented out of magical context, foment much more than dissent.

It is my belief that we need to consider whether our script is much more than a reaction to today's news to be handled by taking danger tricks out because they are politically correct at the moment -- and we need to consider what the total presentation is supposed to say.

And, in my opinion, it is perfectly OK to say --" I have nothing to say but presentation of this trick because I find it interesting" -- as long as this is a conscious consideration as we go along.

Taste will always clash with someone else's opinion. Ethical promotion (something we even demand from DEALERS) and performance require consideration of message and whether or when we want to present it and how we promote it.