Female Magician Magic Show in NYC July 30

[Maritess]

Hi Everyone!
Mention you're part of the Genii Forum and get the $12 special price, and please stop by after the show and say hello.

Yours in magic,
Maritess
-------------
-------------------
****PLEASE DO NOT BRING KIDS UNDER 18 TO THIS MAGIC SHOW, SOME ADULT TOPICS, SWEAR WORDS, ETC******
-------------------

THE MARITESS AND DARWIN GRYMOIRE: A Magic Show
at Dillons Supper Club with the Girliemagic Orchestra

The true life story of Maritess, one of the worlds few female magicians, whose success is due to the love and unlikely support of her racist and sexist mentor.

"Maritess is urban sophistication with an edge" ...New York Newsday

"With her street-smart stage presence, dazzling illusions, and great sense of humor, Maritess redefines magic for a hip new multicultural age."... David Henry Hwang

Dillons Supper Club
July 30th Friday 10:30 pm
Aug 27th Friday 10:30 pm
54th street between Broadway and 8th avenue.
Tickets available at the door or online at girliemagic@yahoo.com
$16 gen admission
$12 students and seniors with ID, and Dramatist Guild Members
$10 food or drink minimum.
http://www.dillonslounge.com/home.html
www.girliemagic.com

As the only female Asian Mentalist in history, and one of the few professional female magicians in the world, Maritess combines dramatic monologue with internationally award-winning sleight-of-hand, mind reading, and illusions. This true-life story tells of Zurbano's beginnings in the mean streets of Chicago, to the showrooms of Vegas, to the global stages of Asia and Europe, thanks to the unusual love and support of her womanizing and racist mentor, Las Vegas legendary magician Gary Darwin. Zurbano has become one of the worlds most renowned female magicians, and owes her success to her lifelong apprenticeship to Darwin, a recognized master in sleight-of-hand and invention. See her show performed with the Girliemagic Orchestra with cellist David Preiser and sexy conservatory trained pianist Fiona Lee. The sovereign nation of Mykronesia www.mykronesia.com is personally opening the show.

Maritess Zurbano has performed at every major casino in Las Vegas, and toured with her illusion show throughout Asia and Europe. She was nominated for competition in the Federacion Internacionale Des Societe Magique 2000, considered the Olympics of magic. Jane magazine, NHK Japan, Lifetime Television, VH1, Yolk Magazine, The Philippine News, and NYC Newsday love her show. She recently finished shooting a Magic TV special segment, with BBC London.

Visit her Website at www.girliemagic.com

What is a Grymoire?
A grymoire is a notebook used by wizards to document spells and incantations. It is his/her reference guide and diary of magical experiences. It is a personal record of one's growth in magic.

This play is written and performed by Maritess Zurbano

[Richard Kaufman]

This caught my eye:
"thanks to the unusual love and support of her womanizing and racist mentor, Las Vegas legendary magician Gary Darwin. Zurbano has become one of the worlds most renowned female magicians, and owes her success to her lifelong apprenticeship to Darwin, a recognized master in sleight-of-hand and invention."

[magicam]

Hi Maritess:

Are you in touch with Belinda Sinclair? She lives in NYC and is writing a history of female magicians. If you are not in touch with her, it sounds like your story would be a good one to tell her. If you don't know how to reach her, just grab my e-mail address from this board and send me an e-mail and I'll give you Belinda's contact info.

Best of luck with the show.

Clay

[Steve V]

Doesn't Brian Gillis (sp?) have a mental act with a partner who is Asian and a woman and thus qualified as an Asian Female Mentalist and making this other gal not the only one in history?
Steve V

[Pete Biro]

Just what we need "adult topics and swear words" in a magic show. Sheesh! :eek:

[Jim Maloney_dup1]

Originally posted by Pete Biro:
Just what we need "adult topics and swear words" in a magic show. Sheesh! :eek:

Why not, Pete?

-Jim

[Ken Becker]

ithink, more to the point, the question should be "WHY", not "WHY NOT". If you have to embellish your act with 'swear words', you may very well want to question your ability as an entertainer to entertain!

[Brian Marks]

The use of adult material is a perfect subject to use if you can use it entertainingly. There is no reason not to use it in appropiate situations. If you can be a magician whotalks about adult material with a point than its fine.

[Guest]

Including Sisuepahn is correct...an outstanding performer.

I don't know if the description of Gary Darwin is supposed to be a fictional charecter/storyline, or actually accurate, but unless I missed something,the "racist" Gary Darwin has always shown me and others nothing but a gracious, helpful, and encouraging manner.
A driving force and resource for magic, for over 3 decades.

[Jim Maloney_dup1]

Originally posted by Ken Becker:
ithink, more to the point, the question should be "WHY", not "WHY NOT". If you have to embellish your act with 'swear words', you may very well want to question your ability as an entertainer to entertain!

I'm not saying that she, or anyone "has to". I was just questioning Pete's implication that profanity has absolutely no place in magic. When used appropriately, I see no reason not to. In a show with a "racist and sexist" character, I can see plenty of justification for the use of profanity.

I think Brian got my point.

-Jim

[Tabman]

Diego Domingo points out:
I missed something,the "racist" Gary Darwin has always shown me and others nothing but a gracious, helpful, and encouraging manner.

i got to know gary pretty good when i was working in vegas last century and i didnt see this either. i'd hate to see him portrayed this way if its not true. does anyone know the back story???
-=tabman

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Maritess:
...and unlikely support of her racist and sexist mentor.

<- probably the reason for some of the language.

Good luck with the show. Makes sense that we would start seeing more 'backstage' shows about our craft.

[Pete Biro]

We don't NEED swear words in entertainment.

The pendulum has swung so far with "anything goes" that we are raising generations of thoughtless clods (male and female) that don't think offending anyone is bad.

You used to have to go to the circus to see tattooed people, now there are so many people with tatoos ALL OVER you just wonder what their motivation is.

[Jim Maloney_dup1]

Originally posted by Pete Biro:
We don't NEED swear words in entertainment.

We don't NEED playing cards either. Whether or not we SHOULD use them is another question.

When used appropriately, profanity is just another tool in the toolbox of an entertainer. Granted, there's a lot of misuse of profanity out there. Just go to any comedy club and you'll see many comics who use profanity simply because it gets and easy response. On the other hand, there are instances where it just works. Richard Pryor didn't NEED to swear. But it worked for him.

Take a movie like Good Will Hunting. The F word is used somewhere around 150 times in that script. To be honest, I barely noticed that until it was pointed out. The language in that movie fit the characters perfectly. It was justified and properly motivated. Should they have cleaned up the script (therefore giving a less accurate protrayal of the characters, IMO) simply because we don't NEED profanity in entertainment? The Academy didn't seem to think so. Best Original Screenplay, if I remember correctly.

I should point out that in my personal life, I very very rarely swear. Those who know me can attest to that. When I perform, I NEVER swear. Still, I see no reason to say that profanity should NEVER be used for any performer.

-Jim

[Guest]

I wonder if Gary knows about this accusation. Somebody should tell him.

I've spent only a few hours alone with the guy, so I wouldn't know. He never called me a beaner, but then, it's not immediately apparent. But he does have one of the most awesome magic libraries in the world, in addition to an incredible resume of ingenious thumbtip booklets. Not to mention some pretty mean moves in his repertoire. :eek:

[Pete Biro]

Are you comfortable with you sub teen and teen kids watching Good Will Hunting and Richard Pryor?

I really don't think it is necessary. It is a weakness in the writing skills.

Cheap laughs.

There is enough bad taste in the world, and there is no need to farther it.

Over and out... :mad:

[Jim Maloney_dup1]

Originally posted by Pete Biro:
Are you comfortable with you sub teen and teen kids watching Good Will Hunting and Richard Pryor?

I don't know many comedy clubs that let young kids in. Good Will Hunting had an "R" rating. Maritess's show has a disclaimer right at the top of the advertising that states in clear, obvious language not to bring anyone under 18 to the show. All examples mentioned above are ADULT shows, meant for ADULTS. Using children as an arguement is pointless because these shows are not aimed at children, and they children are not supposed to be allowed in to see these shows.

Many magicians complain that magic is generally pigeonholed as "children's entertainment". Is that your assessment, Pete? Do you think magic SHOULD be children's entertainment? Is there not a market for more adult oriented magic?

I really don't think it is necessary. It is a weakness in the writing skills.

Cheap laughs.

In many instances, yes, I agree. Read my post where I state that. However, I also said that in some instances it is NOT bad writing and that it IS justified. Are you arguing that the examples I mentioned above are not good entertainment?

-Jim

[Ken Becker]

Jim
Sorry, but I can't really agree with you that some writing is justified, (that is, if you are referring to foul language, i.e, swear words). Concerning adult entertainment, yes, that can be acceptable when presented with nuances, usually to something sexual, and double entendres are okay, and can be very humorous, or downright funny. But, I fail to see any situation where foul language is acceptable. Unfortunately, the use of foul language on stage and in films was meant to shock, and that is all passe because the younger generation were raised with it and no longer consider it shocking. That, being a given, there is still no reason to accept further degradation to our public entertainment and society. Some of our most successful and popular comedians on stage and in nightclubs never uttered a 'swear word'. They didn't need to. They were professional and talented, and the audiences loved them. They also had respect for them. I believe what Pete is referring to, and to which I agree, the use of such 'comedy' is a poor excuse for a performer who has no ability to entertain without using profanities.

Ken Becker

[Lynetta]

Being a female in magic who considers Gary Darwin a friend, I have to speak up and say what a kind and generous man he is. He is not a womanizer. He has only been helpful to me and to many other magicians I know, both male and female. Gary loves magic and loves passing on his knowledge. In today's society where few people are generous with their time and knowledge, those who are giving are often mistaken for those who want something in return. This is not Gary; he helps others and their advancement in the art of magic is all he wants in return.

Lynetta Welch
http://www.FabricManipulation.com

[Jim Maloney_dup1]

Originally posted by Ken Becker:
Some of our most successful and popular comedians on stage and in nightclubs never uttered a 'swear word'.

And some of our most successful and popular comedians on stage and in nightclubs don't have a problem using swear words. There are enough examples on both sides of the argument.

They were professional and talented, and the audiences loved them. They also had respect for them. I believe what Pete is referring to, and to which I agree, the use of such 'comedy' is a poor excuse for a performer who has no ability to entertain without using profanities.

That seems to imply that those who use profanity in their performances are not professional, not talented, and can't entertain without profanity. Would you say that Robin Williams isn't professional and isn't talented? Richard Pryor? George Carlin? What about Shakespeare's profanity?

And yes, there are other people like Jerry Seinfeld, Bill Cosby, etc. that prefer to work clean. That's their choice, as it is the choice of others to use blue material. All I'm saying is that there is no right or wrong here -- it can work either way.

Art, or so the saying goes, holds a mirror up to nature. Being that profanity is a part of life, it only makes sense that it should appear in some art. Just because YOU may not like it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done and that it isn't right for someone else.

Magic, movies, theater, music, or any kind of art, performing or otherwise is someone presenting their view of the world to others. IMO, to say that there are things that should or should not be included in art is to say that the views of some artists are not valid, or are wrong. Who are you (or I, or anyone) to say that someone's perspective on the world is invalid?

-Jim

"I hate a dirty joke, I do..
Unless it's old by someone who..
Knows how to tell it!"
-Groucho Marx, "Animal Crackers"

[Bill Duncan]

Originally posted by Ken Becker:
I can't really agree with you that some writing is justified, (that is, if you are referring to foul language, i.e, swear words).

Concerning adult entertainment, yes, that can be acceptable when presented with nuances, usually to something sexual, and double entendres are okay, and can be very humorous, or downright funny. But, I fail to see any situation where foul language is acceptable.

Ken,
We're getting a bit off topic here. Perhaps Richard can break off this thread into one on "blue material and related offenses" so that we don't stray too far from the original topic?

I have a hard time imagining a film like The Usual Suspects NOT being as foulmouthed as it is... and it would certainly suffer from being censored, as it did when I caught part of it on Turner's network. The film is violent, foul mouthed and ugly. And it's the best psychological drama I've ever seen (and Im a big Hitchcock fan so that's saying a lot.).

You can't have a gang of murdering thugs saying, "Flunk you, you melon farmer. *", if you expect anyone in the audience to take it seriously.

Your second comment seems to say that if it's a cheesy double entendre it's justified for the sake of a laugh, but if the screenwriter wants to be accurate in his depiction of certain members of society that's not OK?

[Warning tangent ahead]
A related topic which I find very interesting, is that so many of the comedians who never used foul language on stage were notoriously foul mouthed at their beloved Friars Club Roasts. I thought that morality was something you had with you at all times but apparently theres a time and a place for everything, and disgusting, scatological and sexually perverse (by almost anyones standards) foul-mouthed humor that wouldnt be allowed in 90% of the movies made today is fine if youre among friends, drunk and smoking a cigar.

But thats just my opinion.

* I swear on my word of honor that I am not making this up! I heard this on a censored broadcast of RepoMan a few years back on Turner.

[Bill Mullins]

Originally posted by Bill Duncan:
You can't have a gang of murdering thugs saying, "Flunk you, you melon farmer. *", if you expect anyone in the audience to take it seriously.

My favorite is the censored version of Brian De Palma's "Scarface".

The original is "This town is one big pu**y waiting to get fu***d." The revised is "This town is one big chicken waiting to get plucked." (all said with a cheesy Cuban accent).

[Glenn Farrington]

Some of you guys kill me...

Maritess, let me thank you for offering the kind gesture of discounting tickets to the magicians here on the forum.

Break a leg.

[Guest]

Actually the chicken line gets the same idea across...could see Paul Muni in the original "Scarface" saying something like that.

In a brief conversation, I asked Michael Medved, ("Hollywood vs. America") If certain charecters in "Goodfellas", (sociopathic career-criminals with 6th grade educations, from the hardscrapple areas of Brooklyn), could be imagined, NOT saying the "_" word. He said Jimmy Cagney played such a charecter in "White Heat", and was able to say the "_" 437 less times than "Goodfellas" did.
(They were counted?!)
Medved did acknowledge that the speech in "Goodfellas", probably/accurately reflected those depicted.

On a different note, Cosby once said he and some peers, did some ethinic jokes, but removed any ethinic references, and 95% of the time, got the same laughs/response.

[Guest]

For far, far too long, magicians have failed to make any significant progression in the performance of magic. In Showmanship For Magicians, Fitzkee lamented that magicians were still using table designs that were created at the turn of the century. Guess What? Magicians are still using these designs. Its time to think about change.

Jamy Ian Swiss once wrote, recalling an observation he made over a decade and a half ago, that with most magic acts, there is no sense of period. Such modes of performance are still so prevalent that they might be considered the norm. The majority of magicians, despite the fact that they may have different jokes, presentations, and even slightly different styles, look and feel like they are stemming from the same (and not a very distant) root. This uniformity of appearance is an issue that I believe is related to magicians maintaining, and therefore failing to break, the paradigm in which they perform. This paradigm is so old that it should have been taken off life support well over a decade ago, and thats a very modest estimate.

Magicians as a whole have accepted certain claims as truths, and have failed to both evaluate (i.e., examine the truth for any time) and reevaluate (i.e., examine the truth for the current time as opposed to the time in which the so-called truth was originally conceived) such long-held axioms. Magicians are all-too eager to quote Robert-Houdin, claiming, A conjurer is not a juggler; he is an actor playing the part of the magician How many of the magicians who make such statements have taken the time to examine the status of the actor, and the style of acting technique in 1868 France, when Robert-Houdin originally published his proclamation? How many of the people who make such statements have bothered to consider, or are even aware of, Orson Welles statement, in his interviews with Peter Bogdanovich, that magic and theatre have little to do with each other? My guess is that a handful have done either, and that you could count the number that have done both on one hand.

I cant really blame most magicians for not taking such steps, considering that, as Derren Brown observes (and surprisingly a great deal of people have not, considering the obvious nature of it), the magic community does not encourage change. Some of the posts in this thread make such observations all-too-apparent. Attempt to make changes to the status quo, and people respected in the magic community will tell you that such changes should not take place. Its time for the pardigm to shift.

Claims that profanity is the sign of weak writing are absurd. Using such logic, we are only left to conclude that The Godfather is a weak movie. In the example of The Godfather, as in many others, I would make the claim that the absence of profanity would result in a weaker script and a weaker movie. Similarly, Lenny Bruce wouldnt be what he was without bringing the issues and the language he did to his performances. He would have been much, much weaker without them.

The issue of profanity and adult material boils down to an issue of context. Some movies are rated R and some movies are not. Not every movie needs to be for every person. In the same way, not every magic performance needs to be for everyone. On a personal note, I have been watching R movies since around the time I was eight. I even owned video games where the characters shot each other. Im not violent, Im not a deadbeat, and Im not a criminal. Why? I was raised well by my parents. If a parent wants to censor something from his/her children, and I can definitely think of many things I think should be censored, then its up to the parent to do so. The job of the performer is not to be a parent.

Just because someone does something different than the way it was done a few decades ago, does not make that person weird, odd, or stupid. The times have changed, and people change with time. At least people coming back from a tattoo convention have something to show people. That certainly is not the case with most magic conventions and lectures that Ive attended.

For doing something as simple as working adult material and profanity into a show, something that would probably go unnoticed in most other forms of performance, I congratulate Maritess. At least its a step away from where weve been.

Its time for magicians to catch up with the times. Theyve been lagging behind way too long.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Aaron Shields:
For far, far too long, magicians have failed to make any significant progression in the performance of magic. ...The issue of profanity and adult material boils down to an issue of context.... The job of the performer is not to be a parent....Its time for magicians to catch up with the times. Theyve been lagging behind way too long.

Starting with a sweeping generality is about the same as throwing the baby out with the bath water, then polishing up the tub for display. Yes, I meant that analogy. However immature the readership, we are not infantile, and have not asked to be bathed.

Some magicians have been exploring the performance of magic in modern context.

Let's discuss issues of nostalgia at another time. This would be a lengthy discussion as there are historical, social, emotional and personal issues involved which give great latitude for cogent argument and examples.

How many people here watch South Park? Enjoyed the movie?

Pandering to nostalgia has its rewards. Eliciting the feeling of magic in contemporary context has its rewards as well. There is no conflict between these venues or markets.

All stories exist in frames. Choosing a frame for a story is just like choosing a frame for a picture. It's about content and context.

Semiotics anyone?

[Tabman]

Lynetta speaks out: Being a female in magic who considers Gary Darwin a friend. He is not a womanizer. He has only been helpful to me and to many other magicians I know, both male and female.

lynetta, thanks for chiming in because to me the real issue here is whether or not gary darwin is being defamed by being labeled a racist and womanizer in maritess advertising copy. -=tabman

[Guest]

Anyone bothered to ask Gary Darwin what he thinks?

Best, PSC

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by -=tabman:
...to me the real issue here is whether or not gary darwin is being defamed by being labeled a racist and womanizer in maritess advertising copy. -=tabman

To me that issue is more about how much she is going to dish onstage about the guy. Founded or unfounded... it's still gossip.

OR will we see the latest extension of Karen Findley's performance art ideas done in magic context? Is there a market yet for loud female sexist magicians?

Some inquiring minds want to know. Others just want to be reassured and given soporifics.

[Guest]

Jonathan,

You are entirely entitled to believe that magicians have adequately addressed the issue of performing magic in a modern context. I am, however, entirely entitled to disagree with you.
Considering the level of thought that has been put into performance in other fields, the thought that has gone into the performance of magic pales in comparison. Magicians, in my opinion, have only made baby steps, and have yet to make the necessary giant leap.

[Pete Biro]

Aaron... Magaicians HAVE MOVED WITH THE TIMES. The major pro's that is. Angel, Copperfield, Blaine, T.H.E.M., it is the amateur fool around do a trick or two for friends, or the birthday party guys/gals that are frozen in time.

Most of the pro close-up guys work pretty hip as well.

Those mentioined above, and many others, are "with it" and have stayed current.

[Guest]

I'm not denying that a handful of people have moved forward with the times, rather that the great majority have not. I would count many respected, professional magicians that I, personally, find to be out of date and a great bore to watch.

My main point is that magicians have largely failed to address issues of performance in intelligent discussion and scholarly print in a way that I think is adequate. The byproducts of such lack of attention result in discussions along the lines of: "Ok I don't agree with that." "I agree with it." It would be much more valuable, instead, for people to engage in research to understand how the issue has been examined in other contexts, and then attempt to apply that research to the context in which they are working. I'm not saying it'll be easy, but I think it's a step in the right direction.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Aaron Shields:
...that magicians have ... yet to make the necessary giant leap.

Some are, some have, some fly and some are walking. In any large group there will be those who are frozen in place, and many who will be looking and moving in other directions.

There is no collective unit called 'the magicians', or 'magicians'.

Even the wand wavers squabble over color of cape linings. The variation within groups is about as large as the variation between groups here, as is our nature, which I see as a good thing.

Of those who wish to move elsewhere, some may enjoy the 'walk with' and some may appreciate the 'walk before' style. You get to choose too.

Sweeping Jenny cleans no brooms.

[Erik Hemming]

Just tuned in....

No knowledge of, and therefore no opinion regarding the whole Darwin issue.

BUT...I want some of whatever heady stuff Townsend has got his mitts on. It seems to have cranked his level of discourse into the "Poetry" range. And I do love good poetry....

Amen, brother....

(And break a leg, Maritess. Wish I was in NYC.)

Gordo

[Guest]

Interesting in what is perceived as "forward" or "adult":
Siegfried and Roy noted it was the norm for revues/production shows in Las Vegas, to have topless, near naked dancers....but they felt it was a step forward and away from that 1950's cheesy look, to have them more clothed.
What was offensive,(nudity) to some, wasn't needed in S&R's show, as the public wanted to see THEM.
Is it needed? and why? An old-timer used to say, "If you need to either wave the flag, or go "blue", to get juice out of your audience,
then you are showing your weakness.

[magicam]

Some interesting exchanges here, probably altogether unintended by Maritess. :D

My two bits: I've seen some VERY funny acts with blue material, but usually I find that it would have been just as funny with a significant reduction in curse words. And I miss the "older," more subtle humor, with all the innuendo. Heck, even the Saturday morning cartoons had some very adult chuckles to offer. There is no doubt in my mind that people who write a lot of blue material into their acts are very talented, but I tend to apppreciate a little more those who can provide more subtle adult humor.

By the way, anent cursing and Glenn Farrington's good wishes to Maritess, I believe the French equivalent to "break a leg" in show biz is "trois fois merde" (sp?), which literallly translates to "three times [censored]." Can anybody confirm this? Would love to know the origin of the phrase if it is indeed the correct phrase.

Just my thoughts.

Clay

[Guest]

Originally posted by Jim Maloney:
In a show with a "racist and sexist" character, I can see plenty of justification for the use of profanity.

You say that, but that's because you haven't seen the show in question. I have. There was absolutely no need for the language, nor the incredibly disrespectful portrayal of Gary (whom Maritess professed to "love" in between swipes at him) and the parade of other rude male characters she "portrayed" (mind you, every one sounded and acted exactly alike) during the show.

The concept, that of an autobiography meets magic show, especially of a woman in a male-dominated field, has a lot of potential. For it to work, however, the audience has to care about the performer and her point of view. Nobody at the performance I went to cared about the show; in fact, it seemed that Maritess didn't even care, with the way she did the magic as, at times, almost throwaway bits between her "stories"

Unfortunately, this show features poorly done portrayals of characters that come across more as rants than as anecdotes, interweaved very weakly with equally poorly presented and executed magic (backpalms flashing all over the place, messing up "Flashback", and on and on).

There was no clear line between when Maritess was presenting as herself, and when she was performing as one of the "male pigs" (my paraphrase, not her words, per se) she was talking about.

And let's not talk about the opening act, performance artist/sovereign nation Mykronesia, who had a brilliant concept with tons of potential for humor, but dropped the ball on execution, and then went on more than twice as long as would have been well-advised even if she had perfectly executed the concept.

Add this in with a show that started an hour late, an inattentive waitstaff, and a mixed bag of desserts (the chocolate mousse cake was great, but the other desserts that those in my party ordered got very bad reviews), and you've got the recipe for a fun night of, "I can't get those three hours and that cash back!"

--Andy

P.S.-For full disclosure, Maritess and I have banged heads elsewhere in the past (in a private forum, hence why I am obligated to remain vague about it here), regarding disagreements with regards to appropriate language and attitudes regarding relations among females and males in this male-dominated field. As much as I disagreed with her/her actions then, I went to her show wanting to enjoy it. I truly wanted to think better of her after having actually seen her in her element, after watching her do her thing. I was truly disappointed when the show was over.

[MaxNY]

Frayed thread! I was going through my DVD archives and came up with two female magicians that made it to the "Merv" show.
---Judy Carter, started out with an accordion, told jokes, made a celrey stalk appear from under a handkerchief, and did the torn and restored newspaper.
---"Nikki" or "Nicky" was introduced as the "Mistress of Magic", and did shelf schtick.

[Guest]

Couple of points. First I haven't seen the show, and from feed back I've heard about it don't intend to
Regarding sexism and racism, it's been my life experience that those that use the terms with a broad brush, are often more guilty of it than those they accuse
Regardibng only female Asian mentalist. Brian Gillis and Barry Taylor both have Asian females in their mental presentations. And I'm not familiar with Asian females in Asia, but I'd imagine there are some. But the hyperbole of being the only one is excusable and not uncommon in show biz
Now as to scatalogical talk. Some of the funniest and most enttertaining performers I've ever seen were "filthy" The late Buddy Hackett, Pryor, Williams and more
But more often, it's used by new performers who don't have an act and use profanity and insults to make up for entertainment
from
Ford

[Glenn Farrington]

Clay,

More often said between professional dancers, but every now and then between actors...Merde (sh*t). Not the whole phrase you thought...just simply Merde. The rest of the entertainment world pretty much sticks with...break a leg.

As we all know saying good luck...jinx's the show.

I get this straight from the horses mouth, My wife...(ouch...she's going to love hearing me say that.) who spent 8 years on broadway as a dancer, singer and actress.