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.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 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???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.
<- probably the reason for some of the language.Originally posted by Maritess:
...and unlikely support of her racist and sexist mentor.
We don't NEED playing cards either. Whether or not we SHOULD use them is another question.Originally posted by Pete Biro:
We don't NEED swear words in entertainment.
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.Originally posted by Pete Biro:
Are you comfortable with you sub teen and teen kids watching Good Will Hunting and Richard Pryor?
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?I really don't think it is necessary. It is a weakness in the writing skills.
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.Originally posted by Ken Becker:
Some of our most successful and popular comedians on stage and in nightclubs never uttered a 'swear word'.
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?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,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.
My favorite is the censored version of Brian De Palma's "Scarface".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.
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.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.
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. -=tabmanLynetta 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.
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.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
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.Originally posted by Aaron Shields:
...that magicians have ... yet to make the necessary giant leap.
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.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.