magician as an actor

[Tom Stone]

Well, then, "Things which cannot be done" could be also an explanation for those who believe in magic, right?

No. Those who believe in magic would say "Yes, this can be done!".

Point being, we are our own discipline. We don't turn into Alexander Koblikov when we don't act. We don't turn into Ian McKellen if we drop our tricks.
We are not actors, we are not acting. We are, in general, not pretending to be supernatural, faithhealers, spirit mediums or fantasy wizards.
Our audiences doesn't see anything supernatural, or anything that transcends the laws of nature. Ask them. Approach any layperson, show any random Youtube magic clip, and ask "Is it your sincere belief that this person have supernatural powers? Is this person an avatar of God?" and the answer will be "No!". Because that is not who we are, not who we claim to be, and not who we pretend to be.
In our best performances, our audience know that we are exponents of the discipline "magic". They expect to see unexpected things happening, and they expect the titilating sensation of being in the gap between what they know can't happen and what they see happening.

We have loads of tricks and routines that lack overt theatrical aspects, and still get great reactions, and that is a fact that is completely ignored by the "...is an actor" model. That model is lacking and need to be replaced with something that doesn't ignore the reality and the facts.

Read about the psychology behind why people enjoy horror movies and rollercoasters - it is to large degree to experience the sensation of being in danger, without actually being in danger. It is not unreasonable to assume that something similar is true for magic, but in the place of danger, we have something else. It might be the experience of going a bit insane, without actually going insane? A safe way to experience mild psychosis? A safe way to experience conflicting stimuli. A safe way to discover and explore cognitive dissonance, in the simultaneous acceptance of two mutually exclusive realitites "This can't happen!" and "This can happen!".

[Paco Nagata]

Well, then, "Things which cannot be done" could be also an explanation for those who believe in magic, right?

No. Those who believe in magic would say "Yes, this can be done!".

To me, that would be a contradition; if it can be done, it can't be magic, but a regular thing...

Anyway, that's just part of my silly "paradox theory." Magic as a paradox:
How can you feel the experience of magic if you believe in what you are seeing?
To feel the magic one would have not to believe in it! Otherwise, believing in it would be an explanation; not exactly magic.
Magic, to be magic, must be incredible; not credible.

I have received all kind of comments from this theory:
"You don't even know what you're saying!"
"That's a wonderful theory!"
"You are crazy!"
"That's interesting"
"Don't waste my time."
"What?!"
.
.
.
You can choose your favourite one, or add another one to the list...

The following is the original extract from page 202 of my amateur book (written in 2014):

"[...] We can conclude that the Art of Magic is show magic, but not do magic, since it’s impossible. Do magic is quite different to show magic. Magicians cannot do magic, but can show it as an art called Magic. The aim of the magician is not exactly to make believe in magic, but to make viewers wish to believe in magic, which is very different. The reason why magic does not exist is not because I say so or because nobody says so, but because it’s a paradox, and paradoxes are incompatible with reality, in fact for that reason we get amazed when we "see" magic.[...]"

[Richard Kaufman]

I wouldn't quote Harry Lorayne in this conversation. He was anything but an "actor."

[Jack Shalom]

The audience knows that the actor is not really a man who eats human livers with a bottle of chianti; he acts as if he were for the entertainment of an audience.

The audience knows that the magician is not really a man who can make people levitate; s/he acts as if s/he were for the entertainment of an audience.

This business of using one's body and voice to act [i]as if[/] has been around as Tom points out for over 2700 years. Why wouldn't a magician be curious and want to learn something about the business s/he is employed in--the business of "as if."

Where is the literature for magicians about how to use the body, voice and stage presence? Where is the literature for magicians on how to communicate with an audience? Where is the literature for magicians on how to tell a lie convincingly? Where is the literature for magicians on how to handle a prop so that it has some meaning? Where is the literature for magicians on how to "be natural"? And conversely where is the literature for magicians to play someone different from an idealized version of themselves?

Very very rare in the magic literature. Maybe .001% of it. That's what comes of not seeing stage magic as a tradition that comes out of a long history of human endeavor to act "as if." And that's why most magicians are not very good.

To call an actor a magician is not to say all actors are magicians; but it is to say all magicians are actors and have an enormous amount to learn from the acting literature, which includes so much of what Tom has already mentioned: improv, clowning, Physical Theater, commedia dell 'arte, pantomime, and on and on. Look at the curriculum of any well thought of acting conservatory -- these classes are all part of the training. Acting is not just naturalism in the service of a naturalistic script as some here try to limit it to.

I don't expect Channing Pollock to be able to have played Shakespeare, just as I don't expect a playwright to have the ability to encompass all the other forms of writing. But Pollock played a wonderful idealized version of himself with stage presence who was able to communicate with an audience, acting "as if" he could perform actions which are not otherwise possible in the known world. Without acting skills he could not do that. That does not mean that therefore he could now go out and act any part, any more than John Wayne could put on a pair of tights and play Romeo. Tom may not think he's playing a part onstage, but of course he is, and I assume he knows that. He is heightening some parts of his personality and diminishing others onstage for a particular reason. For the magicians who are not aware of that, they never have a chance to refine that aspect of their performance, maybe the most important--their stage personality. People with acting training immediately are aware of issues like this.

This view that magic is a separate discipline cut off from notions of acting which have existed for a very long time is what perpetuates the "Get a better trick and I'll be a better magician" mentality. Magicians are a very particular kind of actor, and there are many things to learn that are peculiar to that subset of acting, but an actor nevertheless. Otherwise, s/he's just a guy or gal doing tricks.

[Tarotist]

Aha! I was right! I have now found the Harry Lorayne reference. It was in the foreword to Close Up Card Magic. I can't be bothered writing out the entire paragraph and I think it is worth searching it out for yourselves. I shall merely quote the first sentence of the paragraph. It says, "A good magician should be a good actor"

Here's the full paragraph from Harry Lorayne.

Exactly!. That is the type of acting I am talking about. And probably the type that Robert Houdin was talking about. You don't have to go to drama school for that kind of acting.

[Tom Stone]

To me, that would be a contradition; if it can be done, it can't be magic, but a regular thing...

I don't see the contradiction. If you believe in magic, then it is a regular thing to do what others say can't be done. If you believe in magic and suddenly see a levitating cow, you don't go "That's impossible!" - you go "That's completely normal. This is very possible."

[Tom Stone]

To call an actor a magician is not to say all actors are magicians; but it is to say all magicians are actors and have an enormous amount to learn from the acting literature

I simply can't understand this line of thinking.
To say "all magicians are actors" is a statement about the status quo, about our contemporary world. It is not a statement about how magicians might benefit from learning a bit more about acting, or a claim that magicians should become actors - it is to look around and see the state of contemporary magic, and come to the conclusion "Allt these people are already actors!".
What would be the point of reading acting literature from a different discipline, when we all apparently became authentic actors just by reading magic books and downloading magic videos?

I've read some acting literature, and I have yet to see any "enormous amount" that would be useful to magicians.
There are a few sections of Viola Spolin's "Improvisation for the Theatre" that have been useful. I didn't find anything useful at all in Keith Johnstone's "Impro", but I would say that the sequel "Impro for Storytellers" is filled to the brim with useful stuff - would almost want to call it required reading. Besides that, there have been nothing. Most of the drama stuff that I have found useful have instead come from books on scriptwriting - a whole other discipline.

[Joe Lyons]

That does not mean that therefore he could now go out and act any part, any more than John Wayne could put on a pair of tights and play Romeo.

I give you a comic playing the part of a professor, playing the part of an actor, playing the part of a Scottish general, playing the part of a murderer.

[Jonathan Townsend]

I'd be interested in reading what Neil Patrick Harris or Jason Alexander have to say about performing magic on occasion and playing a part which involves performing magic. I have a hunch they are not so likely to rant about precious thespian training and may offer insights we can use to grow our skills.

Most here don't presume to read play scripts, take direction, or perform in dramatic theatrical context. So let's not confuse Robert-Houdin's advice passed on to us ( as his sons did not want to continue in magic ) with the sort of thing we might get from a director or drama coach today.

[Topovich]

I wouldn't quote Harry Lorayne in this conversation. He was anything but an "actor."

What do you mean exactly by him being anything but an "actor"?

[JHostler]

To have a cogent discussion about whether magicians "are" or "should be" "actors," those involved in the discussion need to clearly define their terms - and preferably adopt the same definitions. To debate the terms themselves is an entirely different matter. So far, there is precious little "cogency" in what could otherwise be a valuable conversation... nor is it even clear precisely what some of y'all are arguing (or to what end).

One could perhaps start with the following: "Behaving truthfully under imaginary circumstances."

[Richard Kaufman]

I wouldn't quote Harry Lorayne in this conversation. He was anything but an "actor."

What do you mean exactly by him being anything but an "actor"?

That he is not in any sense an actor. Was replying to Mark Lewis's post.

[Tarotist]

He isn't an ACTOR. He is an actor. Every good magician has to be an actor. But NOT a professional actor who has studied the subject for hours on end and went for theatrical training so much so that when they perform the cut and restored rope they think they are performing Hamlet. I have seen it so often it makes me cringe. After they perform I ask them if they have had theatrical training and they proudly puff out their chests and confirm it. They don't realise I am not paying them a compliment. They are overloud and artificial and don't talk like a normal human being. Worst of all they talk in a scripted manner which they have obviously learned by rote. Every single word in place like a bloody robot. I have seen a lot of this on that Penn and Teller show. The only person who doesn't talk like that on the show is Penn himself!

Not that I have a cynical nature of course.

[Jack Shalom]

One could perhaps start with the following: "Behaving truthfully under imaginary circumstances."

Yes, that was Stanislavski's formulation of the concept of acting; we more commonly call that "pretending." But alas that is exactly the formulation that has been rejected by some here on the thread, so I doubt we'll get agreement on that.

[Jonathan Townsend]

@Tarotist, yes agreed that is sad. Impression of an anamatronic magician? There is something about audience dynamics which is missing in those cut and dried recitals. Though, had they been taught Hamlet; they would have learned

let your own discretion
be your tutor: suit the action to the word, the
word to the action; with this special o’erstep not
the modesty of nature...to hold, as ’twere, the
mirror up to nature; to show virtue her own feature,
scorn her own image, and the very age and body of
the time his form and pressure

i.e. what Elliot and Vernon advised: appear natural.

[DennisLisi]

The definition of "acting" is (as Brad pointed out) very broad. It can be anything from a kid in a school play to a subtle performance by Anthony Hopkins. So the rudimentary element is representing a natural act on stage.

And that is Houdin's point. Your purpose is to look and behave naturally. This being a teacher's advice. Which of course would be unnecessary if everyone who called himself a magician already did it.

You may define "magical performance" narrowly, based in what a typical prestidigitator does, or you may refine it according to what it could or should be.

[DennisLisi]

The definition of "acting" is (as Brad pointed out) very broad. It can be anything from a kid in a school play to a subtle performance by Anthony Hopkins. So the rudimentary element is representing a natural act on stage.

And that is Robert-Houdin's point. Your purpose is to look and behave naturally. This being a teacher's advice. Which of course would be unnecessary if everyone who called himself a magician already did it.

You may define "magical performance" narrowly, based on what a typical prestidigitator does, or you may refine it according to what it could or should be.

[Brad Henderson]

Tom. You will forgive me when I say that one guy you know that no one has ever heard of is hardly the authority I’m going to rely on in this discussion.

No, I know. You don't rely on any authority than yourself.
People who have studied acting at Scenskolan and have run their own theatre companies can't possibly measure up to your level of expertise.
People like Richard who've studied acting at the Stella Adler Conservatory, or my gf who studied acting in Belfast, can't possibly know what acting is - only you do.
I did amateur theatre for a few years, and even wrote and directed my own amateur theatre play, and have frequently taken acting and theatre improvisation classes through the years. Since I've done enough acting to know that I'm lousy at it, one might assume that I would know when I apply acting techniques in my work and when I don't - but apparently I know nothing about my own work, only you know.
2700 years of theatre history is nothing compared to your vast knowledge, right? Only you know what acting is - not those who actually practiced it.

But unless they are actually transcending they laws of nature - they are putting on an act. They are acting.

"Putting on an act" isn't Acting - it is an idiom that means to behave or speak in a false or artificial way, often to deceive.
And what is this "transcending the laws of nature" that you keep talking about? Magic have been my full-time profession since 32 years back, and I have never transcended any laws of nature, I have never claimed to transcend any laws of nature, and I have never pretended to transcend any laws of nature.... First of all, what would be the point of that? Most people doesn't even know what the laws of nature are. My Quantum Logic routine is the only routine I do that touches upon the laws of nature, and it doesn't transcend anything, rather it is a fictional macro illustration within the laws of nature. Besides that, I don't refer to the laws of nature at all. I don't act and I don't pretend. I do. I use my skills and my discipline to the best of my abilities, and then I'll let the audience make what they want out of it, without interrupting them or telling them how to interpret it. Pretending is something you only do as a beginner, before you learnt any real techniques, and it is not very convincing.

Love the appeal to authority.

You made my point for me. a bad magician is still
A magician. A bad actor is still an actor.

As you aren’t doing what you claim to be, and are presenting a character of someone who can do things they can’t do, you are acting. Even if doing it badly or even if you aren’t aware you are doing it.

A child in a play is acting, even if they don’t know the names you just dropped everywhere.

Did you think that would impress us?

[Brad Henderson]

And Pollock was not acting.
But when he did try to act (in several Italian films) he was terrible! Could not act worth a damn, yet he was a great magician with a very strong persona and charisma.

Was he not acting or was his acting limited to only certain types of roles?

[Brad Henderson]

What examples of "real magic/wizardry" and "supernatural magic" do you see in contemporary magic, that makes it motivated to say that it is what we magicians pretend to do?

A magician purports to pass one steel ring through another. He obviously cannot do that; the laws of physics prevent it. If a person could actually do that, it would take supernatural powers.

Likewise to cause a birdcage to completely vanish. Or to make a dove appear from the folds of a silk handkerchief. Or to saw a woman in half and restore her.

In many tricks (most?) a magician appears to do something that, if he could really do it, would require supernatural powers.

Agreed, those examples are authentic examples of stage conjuring. So you contend that those tricks are interpreted by the audience of today to be expressions of actual supernatural powers? That is what you see when you attend a magic show - loads of laypeople falling to their knees in awe of being in the prescence of someone who can transcend the laws of nature?
Or that is what you want it to be? That we should apply better acting techniques to ensure that the audience doesn't think they watch fiction, so that they believe that what they see actually is happening for real - so that they fall to their knees in awe of being in the prescence of someone who can transcend the laws of nature? Is that the case here? It isn't enough to merely do a performance - instead, we should be starting religious personality cults?

Do you think people in audiences really believe that the man in a half mask really lives in the bowels of the theater and is in love with a singer he teaches from afar?

Do you think audiences really believe that there is a giant bear like creature who lived in a galaxy far far away that was part of a mission to battle the evil side of the force?

Those things don’t exist. The audience knows they don’t exist. But actors use their skills so that for the moment the audience can feel like those things are happening.

Just like we do when we link the rings together

And yes, audiences DO believe people can read minds. And when they leave my shows, they DO believe I did the things they undeniably experienced.

If your audiences don’t - maybe try acting?!?!?

[Brad Henderson]

I'd be interested in reading what Neil Patrick Harris or Jason Alexander have to say about performing magic on occasion and playing a part which involves performing magic. I have a hunch they are not so likely to rant about precious thespian training and may offer insights we can use to grow our skills.

Most here don't presume to read play scripts, take direction, or perform in dramatic theatrical context. So let's not confuse Robert-Houdin's advice passed on to us ( as his sons did not want to continue in magic ) with the sort of thing we might get from a director or drama coach today.

Jason created a great act that did very well because he approached it from the point of view of an actor. He knew who he was - or more specifically, what the audience thought who we was. If you saw the act you saw him actually doing the things he was claiming he was doing - you saw him reading body language, not just listening for rattles. He spoke about how he approached the act at a magic live. I think he would agree that his success - especially as quickly as it came - was because he had his extensive background as an actor.

Similarly, I will never forget watching NPH present Palagenesia at a history conference. It was a magic play, and his acting chops (along with Leavitt’s) made all the difference in the world. I can’t imagine any of the finger flingers who eschew these ideas being able to pull off anything close. Sure that’s a specialized type of magic act, but lots of magicians present story and character/narrative driven pieces

[Tarotist]

When I do close up magic I am acting all the time. But not TRAINED acting which is the worst possible type of acting you can use when doing magic. It is so bloody artificial. I act as if I am forgetful, I act if I want to make it look as if the trick has gone wrong, I act as if I am a nice person which I most certainly am not, I act all humble and confused. However none of this is unnatural trained acting. It is natural acting based on a few of my natural characteristics but not all of them.
Here is an example of what I am talking about. So called "magicians" won't like it but then they don't get 7 million views in 5 days like this did.
https://www.tiktok.com/@lifescrazy25/vi ... _webapp=v1

[Jack Shalom]

Mark, what you are railing against isn't TRAINED acting, but BAD TRAINED acting. There's a world of difference between the two. GOOD TRAINED actors will have you believing the trick went wrong, and the coin is really in the other hand. And that they--unlike David Copperfield--really had a grandfather who taught them that trick.

It is possible to be convincing in these areas without acting training, through experience and natural talent. But so many have neither. Personally, it's why I can't watch Copperfield's performances no matter how good his magic may be.

[Tarotist]

Mark, what you are railing against isn't TRAINED acting, but BAD TRAINED acting. There's a world of difference between the two. GOOD TRAINED actors will have you believing the trick went wrong, and the coin is really in the other hand. And that they--unlike David Copperfield--really had a grandfather who taught them that trick.

It is possible to be convincing in these areas without acting training, through experience and natural talent. But so many have neither. Personally, it's why I can't watch Copperfield's performances no matter how good his magic may be.

Well, nobody would accuse Orson Welles of being a bad trained actor. He was also a brilliant conversationalist. However I don't think his expertise in trained acting did him any good as a magician since I found his performances less than exciting. As for David Copperfield he has been very successful so he must have done something right. Oddly enough when I watch him I get a bit of a vibe that he may well have taken acting lessons. I think it would be greatly amusing if this was actually the case and your reaction to it!

Anyway. I will explain to you the root of my aversion to trained acting and the artificiality thereof. When I was 18 years old I suffered a crippling shyness so I took a public speaking course in order to get over it. If you do what you fear to do you can overcome the fears. Anyway, the training insisted on a lack of artificiality and trained gestures and tricks of the theatre. It insisted that you should not learn things off by heart like a scripted actor and just be your natural self and speak from the heart. Sure you have main headings to your talk but on no account learn things by rote. You speak around those headings like a normal human being.

I have applied this to my magic and I believe it is the best way of going about it. Very, very few of the top magicians have studied acting and I think they are better off not doing so. I suspect it hinders rather than helps. Perhaps this is why I have detested that awful Henning Nelms book but I will leave that aside for the moment as it may just be a personal bias. I don't know of any successful magicians who have studied acting but I suppose there must be a few. However, I would argue that they succeeded in spite of their acting training rather than because of it.

[Tarotist]

That reminds me! The infamous Jolly Roger (Roger Blakiston) got thrown out of drama school and went on to become a very successful children's entertainer. He is a disgracefully unscripted performer. I suspect that if he had succeeded in Drama School he would now be a starving actor instead of a successful professional magician.

[Jolly Roger]

I see that people are talking about me, which is never a bad thing I suppose. I am not sure what to make of Tarotist's comments. I would agree that I am somewhat unscripted, which has served me well over the years, as I have found some scripted performers to be terribly dull. Not all, naturally. I also am not sure that I am infamous, but then again, maybe I am, which can sometimes be a bonus in life!! Anyhow, I would agree with you that I am indeed terribly busy, both as a children's entertainer, adult comedy magician, and in recent years, as successful and prolific poet, having just published my fifth book, River of Rhyme. All my books are available on Amazon. Just type in the name Roger Blakiston. I am now making them into audio books, where my acting training is no doubt helping!! JR

[Jolly Roger]

I have just seen that the post I just made was my 300th. on this wonderful forum, which is terribly exciting, and a trifle spooky!! JR

[Tarotist]

I do see you repeating yourself Roger. No doubt that is the sort of thing that actors do when they forget their lines. Another reason not to study acting.

Anyway, I am glad you are here. It might liven things up somewhat. I do find this place a little dreary on occasion. Rather intellectual mind you compared to that dreadful Facebook place

[DennisLisi]

I don't know why this topic is so contentious. Unless certain magicians just don't want the standards of Presentation to be raised. Perhaps they fear that they will have to compete with "real actors" who perform magic. They've tried, and they just can't do it.

It would be vain of me to say what EVEN THEY already know. That of course, magicians are playing a role. Most of us patterned our performances (at least in part) on those of our "heroes", our ROLE MODELS. Any time you mimic someone else, you are acting.

And if you strictly perform a trick, without any theatrical guile whatsoever, I would argue that you are not a magician, but merely a demonstrator of tricks.

It is wrong to suggest that "acting" has rules that don't apply to magicians. There are no rules. Therefore, it cannot be "ruled out". A film director might one day ask you to play yourself in a movie. What do you suppose he will require of you? He'll say, "just do your act". Proving beyond doubt, that there is no distinction between being a magician, and playing the part of one.

[Jolly Roger]

I do see you repeating yourself Roger. No doubt that is the sort of thing that actors do when they forget their lines. Another reason not to study acting.

Anyway, I am glad you are here. It might liven things up somewhat. I do find this place a little dreary on occasion. Rather intellectual mind you compared to that dreadful Facebook place

Yes.............Facebook does leave a lot to be desired. Maybe you should try Tik-Tok! You would fit right in there.

[Tarotist]

I do see you repeating yourself Roger. No doubt that is the sort of thing that actors do when they forget their lines. Another reason not to study acting.

Anyway, I am glad you are here. It might liven things up somewhat. I do find this place a little dreary on occasion. Rather intellectual mind you compared to that dreadful Facebook place

Yes.............Facebook does leave a lot to be desired. Maybe you should try Tik-Tok! You would fit right in there.

I am indeed going to investigate TikTok even if I still haven't figured out how to spell it. In fact I am going to investigate it right now. There was a new video posted there last night and overnight I saw to my astonishment a million views. It is probably two million now. Of course my wondrous svengali video had 18 million views this morning. It must be a lot more now.

Oh sorry........I got carried away. We were talking about acting weren't we? Or at least somebody was. Tell us, as a former actor who was thrown out of drama school do you think a magician should be a trained actor? Are there any benefits to it?

[Jolly Roger]

Ofcourse a drama school/acting training is a great advantage to performing magic. So many skilled magicians seem unable to project their personality beyond the footlights, and some don't even know how to walk on a stage. The actual performance of the tricks is really the least important thing. Stage presence is paramount.

[DennisLisi]

I do see you repeating yourself Roger. No doubt that is the sort of thing that actors do when they forget their lines. Another reason not to study acting.

Anyway, I am glad you are here. It might liven things up somewhat. I do find this place a little dreary on occasion. Rather intellectual mind you compared to that dreadful Facebook place

Yes.............Facebook does leave a lot to be desired. Maybe you should try Tik-Tok! You would fit right in there.

I am indeed going to investigate TikTok even if I still haven't figured out how to spell it. In fact I am going to investigate it right now. There was a new video posted there last night and overnight I saw to my astonishment a million views. It is probably two million now. Of course my wondrous svengali video had 18 million views this morning. It must be a lot more now.

Oh sorry........I got carried away. We were talking about acting weren't we? Or at least somebody was. Tell us, as a former actor who was thrown out of drama school do you think a magician should be a trained actor? Are there any benefits to it?

Your smashing success on Tiktok has got me interested. At least enough to read a few articles.

I understand the difficulty of profiting from it as a resident of Canada, but have you considered contacting whoever uploaded the video(s)? He or she might be interested in forming a partnership to sell merch. Better yet, books!

https://www.shopify.com/blog/make-merch-tiktok

[Tarotist]

Thank you for the link. In actual fact the uploader was nice enough to start a Go Fund campaign for me and it did raise some money. Here is the relevant link: https://www.gofundme.com/f/fundraiser-f ... mark-lewis

However, the biggest surprise is that the videos (and now there are several of them) have brought in revenue from an unexpected source. I haven't booked a single show from them but I keep getting calls for psychic readings even though I didn't mention readings even once in the videos.

Anyway thank you for your interest and I shall look into your suggestions. Right now however I am getting vibes that we had better get back to talking about acting even though Robert Houdin who started all this fuss wasn't talking about bloody acting in the first place!

[Tarotist]

I was going to stop talking about my TicTok videos but I am now in a state of irritation. I expect heckling from silly kids in the comment section of TicTok although there hasn't actually been any. I have never been heckled in public by a magician before. I couldn't believe my eyes when someone asked how I did my tricks and Jason Ladayne replied "He spent $4 on a trick deck". He has tons and tons of videos himself on TicTok but all of them put together would not add up to the 18 million views I got from one video. Jealousy is rampant among magicians but I expected better than that from him.

[Tarotist]

Anyway to get back to the subject under discussion it has occurred to me that there is no evidence of Robert Houdin ever attending drama school! In fact there is utterly no record of him ever taking acting lessons. Magicians have always taken his quote out of context and he wasn't referring to acting in the first place. He was not a trained actor and his reference was merely a figure of speech in passing and he would be surprised at all the fuss about it.

[DennisLisi]

Anyway to get back to the subject under discussion it has occurred to me that there is no evidence of Robert Houdin ever attending drama school! In fact there is utterly no record of him ever taking acting lessons. Magicians have always taken his quote out of context and he wasn't referring to acting in the first place. He was not a trained actor and his reference was merely a figure of speech in passing and he would be surprised at all the fuss about it.

I think the problem in this discussion derives from a lot of people's idea that "acting" is a mysterious thing that they can't personally comprehend (or master). As in ANY ART, the finest examples are amazing, but the average is quite simple.

Most actors are no better at "acting" than magicians. They merely look the part, wear a costume and/or makeup, and speak their lines (or improvise) clearly enough for the audience to hear them.

They are stiff, awkward and unconvincing. Only a small percentage are good enough to be credible performers. But that doesn't matter to the audience, because most folks aren't theatre critics.

You are right to say that Robert-Houdin did not mean that magicians ought to bother with "motivation" and "pathos', but he surely meant that they should learn the basic graces of an actor. Which are really all that the typical stage performer needs in order to get by.

[Tom Stone]

Anyway to get back to the subject under discussion it has occurred to me that there is no evidence of Robert Houdin ever attending drama school! In fact there is utterly no record of him ever taking acting lessons. Magicians have always taken his quote out of context and he wasn't referring to acting in the first place. He was not a trained actor and his reference was merely a figure of speech in passing and he would be surprised at all the fuss about it.

Considering he was trained and educated as a watchmaker, and his first real magic gig was when he was 40 years old, it would make a lot more sense if he had said "a magician is a watchmaker pretending to be a magician". That would at least be congruent with what is known about his work. As far as I can tell, there's never been anyone talking about his supposedly remarkable acting skills... and he's quite known for the idea of performing as a normal dude in regular evening clothes, instead of dressing in the stage costume of whatever people then envisioned a fictional magician would look like.

[Tom Stone]

I think the problem in this discussion derives from a lot of people's idea that "acting" is a mysterious thing that they can't personally comprehend (or master).

I would say the opposite.
Acting isn't very mysterious at all. It is craft for which there are training and educations. It is a known and established profession that make use of certain skills. That's all.

The problem, as I see it, is that a lot of people here doesn't want to recognize acting as a legitimate profession, and think of it as merely pretending on the same level as a child.
Then there are others who for unknown reasons have elevated acting to something more than what it is, while having weird feelings of inferiority regarding our own field, and who desperately want to aspire to this imaginary 'greatness' they think acting have, by pretending there's no differences at all between our fields.

[Jack Shalom]

From Robert-Houdin's The Secrets of Conjuring and Magic:

"7. Although all one says during the course of a performance is--not to mince the matter--a a tissue of falsehoods, the performer must sufficiently enter into the part he plays to himself believe in the reality of his fictitious statements. This belief on his own part will infallibly carry a like conviction to the minds of spectators."

Almost as good a description of acting as Hamlet's.