magician as an actor

[Tarotist]

This daft thread has the potential of going on as long as that other equally daft thread about Erdnase! Anyway, my own super power memory has a vague recollection that Harry Lorayne mentioned something appertaining to acting in one of his books. I think it must have been one of his earlier books since I never did read any of his later ones. I shall check and report back later.

As for Ricky Jay I am pretty sure he was a competent magician way before he became an actor. Besides even if he didn't I bet he never went to acting school anyway. Untrained actors are usually the best ones, particularly when doing magic. The trained ones are overloud and artificial. And far too tightly scripted. They think they are acting in Hamlet instead of doing the cut and restored rope.

[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"

[Tom Stone]

These techniques of a "trained actor" are modern. Stanislavsky's "System" dates to the early 20th century, and Strasberg and Adler and "the Method" all follow that.
Does that mean that the people who performed plays and early movies before then were not "actors"?

Modern acting use modern techniques. It is the same with most fields, modern dentistry doesn't use medieval techniques.
There's always been acting techniques. Commedia dell’arte. German naturalism, Greek Drama... I don't know which techniques were modern in Paris in 1860, but I know that 200 years earlier, Molière made the commedia dell’arte techniques popular in France. It is not a very good argument to pretend that acting didn't exist as a discipline 170 years ago, when we all know that the acting techniques of the ancient Greek theatre evolved and flourished already 2700 years ago.

I have no idea what Robert-Houdin meant with his statement - it sounds a bit nuts even by the standards of that era. If I would guess, he probably didn't know what an actor's work, in his era, consisted of. Maybe he just meant "Don't make it into a skill demonstration", but muddled it up by bringing in disciplines he knew nothing about.

But if you are acting, then you are an actor.

Yes! Those who are practitioners of the discipline Acting, are actors. Those who take their first steps in the discipline in junior high school plays might become actors, or amateur actors.
Learning to mask your own movements so that one movement gets mistaken for another movement, like we do in magic, is a whole other discipline. You can study professional acting for 50 years and your Linking Rings will still look like crap, if you don't mask your own movements in the ways that are unique to our field - because the skills are not transferable; it is two different disciplines.

[Tom Stone]

It seems to me this argument is less about method and more about ego - the conspiracy of the professional against the laity.

No, it is about not redefining established terms and make them worthless and pointless. Words do mean things.

Because most magicians are bad magicians doesn’t make them not magicians. Because most magicians are bad actors doesn’t make them not actors.

I don't agree with the claim that most magicians are bad. Most magicians might not be world class, but the average level these days is pretty high. When I visit magic conventions, I happily walk around to watch people sessioning, and I rarely see anything that is outright bad. Sure, the performance techniques and misdirection techniques are occasionally somewhat lacking, but that's probably due to the depressing lack of litterature in those areas, that it is about poor workmanship. But in general, it is decent work that is displayed.

But, for the sake of argment, let's assume most magicians are bad magicians.
And true, being bad magicians doesn’t make them not magicians - because they are clearly trying to do the discipline Magic.
But it is not true to say that most magicians are bad actors - they are not actors at all. The reason magicians who aren't acting shouldn't be called actors, is because they are not trying to do the discipline Acting.
To see acting done badly, you need to visit amateur theatre after they've get new members.

[Tom Stone]

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.

[Q. Kumber]

Let's go back to the ubiquitous Jean Eugene Robert-Houdin. Unless we have a spiritualist who can contact him directly we will have to rely on all the recorded evidence from Houdin's writings, contemporary reports and writings, and all research done since to answer these questions:

1. How many years did Houdin spend studying acting?
2. What plays did he appear in?
3. What actors did he associate with.
4. Did he give acting lessons in his spare time?

Can any of the historians help us with answers?

[Tarotist]

I agree with most of what Tom says except his statement that most magicians are not bad. I think and have always thought that most magicians are horrific! Horrendous in fact! I have seen very, very few good ones in my life.

[Edward Pungot]

I maybe mis-remembering this, but I recall (maybe it was in Genii) of Orson Welles saying that close-up magicians were more akin to storytellers and stage magicians more like actors.

Stage magic more to theater.
Close-up magic more to storytelling.

[Bob Coyne]

So much of this boils down to what sense of the terms you choose to use and how you apply them. Acting can either be the canonical field-of-study or "discipline of acting" that Tom refers to. But at a more fundamental level, it is just the activity of playing a part in a theatrical or other performance. A high school student performing in the school play is certainly playing a part. And while they're doing that they are acting.

However, the term "actor" (vs "acting") generally refers to a specific profession and practitioner of the associated discipline versus just a person who engages in acting (playing a part). Much as a "teacher" is a profession in addition to just one engaged in teaching. So, although both a tutor or a coach engage in teaching, you wouldn't typically call them teachers since the exact type of teaching and techniques involved are different and more specific. However, in other contexts "actor" just means one who is playing a part in a performance, and the profession is not implied. For example, you might refer to the same student as a good or bad actor, depending on the performance. Similarly Houdin establishes the context when he says that a magician is an actor playing the part of a magician.

It remains an interesting question as to what techniques overlap or not. A magician's "acting" involves not just adopting the role of a magician (even if mostly as a conceit) but also requires hiding what they're doing, masking one action with another as Tom points out. This is still acting, though not part of the grab-bag of things a dramatic actor needs to be concerned with. So it's no surprise that it's not in the standard "discipline of acting." And on the other side of the coin, acting on queue w/r other actors and adopting a totally different persona ("becoming" your part) are not things a magician typically needs to do. Though there's a spectrum, and someone like Cardini is also acting in that more dramatic/theatrical sense.

[Jonathan Townsend]

To help keep things productive and civil - let's presume the reader wishes to understand the perspective of others, and has access to a dictionary, the internet for items linked via URL...

Inquiring minds want to know:

What do you mean by actor? And from that, how would someone look at their work to get a sense of "training"?

*** For those who need a non-sequitor inconclusion to avoid serious discussion: Shirley, one who has had lessons, taken direction in professional theatre, also keeps a few acquaintances amused by producing odd objects from their coats at social occasions. Shirley won't deny her SAG and SAM memberships. Will you?

[katterfelt0]

So much of this boils down to what sense of the terms you choose to use and how you apply them.

Bob, this is one of the most cogent posts I've seen in this thread.

[Tom Stone]

So much of this boils down to what sense of the terms you choose to use and how you apply them.

It boils down to whether you want helpful advice that actually can further you along in your evolution and carreer, or if you want a nice-sounding apothegm that is void of content.
Claiming our discipline is another discipline will in part give the wrong idea about the other discipline, and the wrong idea about our own discipline.

[Tarotist]

I think all Robert Houdin was trying to say that if you do magic you need to do a bit of incidental acting when performing. And that is quite right. You do! However, I am quite sure he didn't mean that you have to be a professional actor that has to spend hours of rehearsing and years of study. He just meant you have to do some minor acting the way every human being does in normal life. You do some acting but you are not an "ACTOR".

[Jonathan Townsend]

He was writing a little about words associated with magicians. Suggesting "escomateur" and "prestidgitator" are insufficient to cover the wide range of wonder inducing items magicians perform.

The rest of the fuss is "interesting" for other reasons. R-H even addresses this when mentioning "prestiges"

[Bob Coyne]

So much of this boils down to what sense of the terms you choose to use and how you apply them.

It boils down to whether you want helpful advice that actually can further you along in your evolution and career, or if you want a nice-sounding apothegm that is void of content.
Claiming our discipline is another discipline will in part give the wrong idea about the other discipline, and the wrong idea about our own discipline.

Houdin's formulation is a concise and insightful definition of what a magician is. And it's clearly true...if you just give the word "actor" the proper breathing room. He's not giving advice on how to become a magician (other than his larger point that magic is more than juggling). And he's not equating the type of acting done by magicians with that done by traditional actors (even if there's sometimes overlap). He's simply saying that the magician is acting out a part, that of a magician. In fact, the most interesting things in this thread are on the similarities and differences in acting techniques that you and others have pointed out. The dogged insistence that acting is only one thing is what's vacuous and void of content.

[Tom Stone]

He's simply saying that the magician is acting out a part, that of a magician.

What do that even mean? At best, it is self-referential and tautological; "pretend that you are yourself" - at worst, it direct you to define yourself according to other disciplines of fiction, like fantasy litterature; "pretend that you are Merlin, Saruman, Randall Flagg or Ged", as if cosplaying fictional characters with pointless powers would be better.

Houdin's formulation is a concise and insightful definition of what a magician is. And it's clearly true...if you just give the word "actor" the proper breathing room.

We know what "actors" are and what they do. There are actors in the gossip press every day. They are on TV and Netflix every day. There are an abundance of award shows for them. There's at least one acting school or class in every town in the whole western world. Outside this thread, there is no confusion to what an actor is, neither among professionals nor laypeople.
So if we are actors, how come that clowning techniques are so much more applicable and so much easier to adapt than acting techniques?

But ok, Let's say you're correct - what happens next?
Let's say you're a teenager and that you attended a show at Chicago Magic Lounge two years ago, and that you now desire to become as good as the magicians you saw that night.
You've seen a few subpar Youtube tutorials. An old uncle remember he was into magic as a kid, and donate a few old, badly built props to you. You found Bruce Elliott's "Magic As A Hobby" in the local library. You have no idea what misdirection is, your sleights suck... and you're wondering why your magic doesn't get the reactions that the magicians in the show got? What are you missing? What unknown compound can fill the gap between what you are and what you want to be? How to proceed?
...Then someone tells you "You know, being a magician is actually to be an actor!" Let's assume you believe that person. What will your next step be?

[Bob Coyne]

Tom, you're taking words too literally and uni-dimensionally. When Houdin says "a MAGICIAN is an actor playing the part of a MAGICIAN", he's using two different senses of the word MAGICIAN. So it's NOT tautological. In fact that bit of wordplay is a large part of what makes the quote memorable and interesting.

I really think there's little disagreement here if you just acknowledge that words have different related senses and that they shift based on context. People do that all the time.

[Tom Stone]

Tom, you're taking words too literally and uni-dimensionally. When Houdin says "a MAGICIAN is an actor playing the part of a MAGICIAN", he's using two different senses of the word MAGICIAN. So it's NOT tautological. In fact that bit of wordplay is a large part of what makes the quote memorable and interesting.

I know Robert-Houdin didn't mean it tautological, but if not tautological, then what other "magician" do it refer to? The fantasy litterature kind?

I really think there's little disagreement here if you just acknowledge that words have different related senses and that they shift based on context. People do that all the time.

True. But the context is usually the same within each context. Two engineers talking about conveyor belt separation methods usually have the same definition of "methods". Two painters might use the term "method" in a completely different way than both engineers and laypeople.
In the same fashion, performers within the dramatic arts use terms related to their fields a tad more exactly than what a layperson would.

[Dave Le Fevre]

When Houdin says "a MAGICIAN is an actor playing the part of a MAGICIAN", he's using two different senses of the word MAGICIAN

I assume that he means "a conjuror is an actor playing the part of a magician"?

[Bob Coyne]

When Houdin says "a MAGICIAN is an actor playing the part of a MAGICIAN", he's using two different senses of the word MAGICIAN

I assume that he means "a conjuror is an actor playing the part of a magician"?

Yes, though "conjuror" can also imply doing real magic. I think "prestidigitator" might best describe a magician as performer. Though prestidigitator implies sleight of hand (fast fingers) vs mechanical or mental magic. I can't think of a single unambiguous term that covers everything what we mean by magician that also excludes real magic/wizardry.

[katterfelt0]

I can't think of a single unambiguous term that covers everything what we mean by magician that also excludes real magic/wizardry.

"magical entertainer"?

[Bill Mullins]

I can't think of a single unambiguous term that covers everything what we mean by magician that also excludes real magic/wizardry.

Which is exactly the same problem Robert-Houdin was dealing with, thus his essay.
(and given that Robert-Houdin specifically said that the words available didn't exactly describe what he was talking about, Tom, it doesn't make sense for you or anyone else to act as if the words have a clear meaning that we should all understand.)

It may be useful to read Professor Hoffmann's translation.

And in the May 2010 issue of Genii, Roberto Giobbi has an excellent essay on the quote in question and what it means to him. I don't agree with everything he says, but he's an excellent writer and his words may help clarify one's thoughts on the subject.

If I were to try and rewrite the original quote in words that I think convey his meaning, but are more resistant to ambiguity and aggressive intentional missing-of-the-point, I would try:

A conjuror is an actor playing the part of a magician ==

A [person who does sleight-of-hand magic at an accomplished level] [embodies some of the qualities of, in that he is playing a role] an actor playing the part of [a person who is able to perform supernatural magic].

[Richard Kaufman]

Not necessarily sleight of hand required.

[Edward Pungot]

I can't think of a single unambiguous term that covers everything what we mean by magician that also excludes real magic/wizardry.

"magical entertainer"?

Mystery Entertainers/Performers

[Tom Stone]

real magic/wizardry.

supernatural magic

I have no idea what any of that means. What I perform is real and tangible. I can show and describe it in the most minute detail. Do you maybe mean fictional magic/wizardry, like Harry Potter, Randall Flagg et cetera? Or do you mean we should be more like faith-healers, spirit mediums and the like?

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?

[Brad Jeffers]

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 clever question.

As real magic and wizardry does not exist, there can be no examples of these to be replicated in any magic act, contemporary or otherwise.

So the answer to the above question is none.

Although real magic and wizardry does not exist in the world, it does exist in our imaginations. We imagine how something would look if real magic were possible and that is what we try to present in the best way we can.

That is what we "pretend to do".

That is our art.

What I perform is real and tangible. I can show and describe it in the most minute detail

Of course. It could not be otherwise.

It's true for everything.

When Channing Pollock would toss a dove into the air and cause it to transform into a white silk ... well ... that was real, and tangible, and describable, and explainable ...

But man, it sure looked like real magic!

[Richard Kaufman]

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.

[Bill Mullins]

Not necessarily sleight of hand required.

No, it could be apparatus-based, or mental magic, or other forms of conjuring. But in the context of what was said by Robert-Houdin immediately prior to the statement, "sleight of hand" made the most sense.

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.

(and it boggles my mind that this far into the discussion, the distinction between "our" kind of magic and the kind of magic that Samantha Stevens and Harry Potter and Sabrina the Teenaged Witch supposedly did is not clear.)

[Jonathan Townsend]

It helps to read the text. The author uses the terms magie simulee, physique amusante, escomatage, magie blance, prestidigitation

La magie simulee -> simulated magic -> magic as understood in social context -> magic exists in this discussion even if only in stories (or "elsewhere" ahem )

Trusting Lewis's translation

THE art of pretended magic, variously known as White Magic, Conjuring, Natural Magic, and Prestidigitation, dates from the remotest antiquity. The Egyptians, the Chaldees, the Ethiopians, and the Persians have each boasted many experts in this mysterious art. Jannes and Jambres, the magicians of Pharaoh, who ventured to compete with the miracles of Moses; Hermes Trismegistus, the originator of Hermetic science; Zamalxis, the Scythian magician, who after his death was worshiped as a god; Zoroaster, the reformer of the Magi; and in later times the philosopher Agrippa, the enchanter Merlin, and the necromancer Paracelsus, are the most celebrated magicians (I had all but said "conjurors") whose names have been handed down to us by tradition.

A word of caution to young readers; It is beyond naive to imagine the ancient Romans were actually using pebbles for the cups trick.

Perhaps this century we will also get to discuss the coin sleights "the twist", "the pinch", and "the slide" ?

[Paco Nagata]

I can't think of a single unambiguous term that covers everything what we mean by magician that also excludes real magic/wizardry.

"magical entertainer"?

Mystery Entertainers/Performers

If you want to know what you are, ask the audience.
No matter how good you are at performing magic and how good your magical effect is, if the audience say you did a trick, you did a trick (you are an illusionist). If they say you did (real) magic, you did (real) magic (you are a magician, or a conjuror, or whatever...). If they say you are a silly guy, you are a silly guy...

You can consider yourself whatever you want, but what you really are or do (did) is what the audience say.

"Magic does not happens in the hands of the magician, but in the mind of spectators."
Hugard

[Tom Stone]

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?

[Richard Kaufman]

In fact, pebbles were the main type of "ball" used for Cups and Balls for centuries.

[Bill Mullins]

So you contend that those tricks are interpreted by the audience of today to be expressions of actual supernatural powers?

No, I contend that the whole point of doing magic tricks is to simulate doing things which cannot be done.

Consider Richard Ross playing with rings on stage, and Alexander Koblikov playing with rings on stage. Both manipulate props. One is a magician, the other is a juggler. The important difference between them is that Ross appears to do things that are physically impossible, while Koblikov does things that are amazing in their difficulty and artistry, but are obviously possible if you put in the work.

[Jonathan Townsend]

In fact, pebbles were the main type of "ball" used for Cups and Balls for centuries.

Where does this information come from? Back then they knew about wax, cork, and bread. Also, the oft cited comic writers from Rome were not performers or trying to offer how-to of our craft.

Okay back to arguing about a line from Robert-Houdin's book taken out of context.

[Tom Stone]

So you contend that those tricks are interpreted by the audience of today to be expressions of actual supernatural powers?

No, I contend that the whole point of doing magic tricks is to simulate doing things which cannot be done.

Consider Richard Ross playing with rings on stage, and Alexander Koblikov playing with rings on stage. Both manipulate props. One is a magician, the other is a juggler. The important difference between them is that Ross appears to do things that are physically impossible, while Koblikov does things that are amazing in their difficulty and artistry, but are obviously possible if you put in the work.

You are contradicting yourself. "Things which cannot be done" and "supernatural" are not synonymous. The latter is an explanation. A valid explanation if you believe in supernatural matters, an unwelcome explanation for those who are rational, but an explanation all the same. If a staunch believer in the supernatural say "that's impossible", it means that the supernatural is rejected as an explanation.

Considering how influential Richard Ross was with his routine, the effort he put into its construction, and the exactness of his movements, I don't think it is an accurate description to say that he was "playing with rings on stage". I've only seen Alexander Koblikov juggling balls, but I highly doubt he play much with the rings on stage.
Both do things that appear physically impossible, and as everyone can see, both are obviously possible.
The important difference between them is that they work within different disciplines.

[Richard Kaufman]

In fact, pebbles were the main type of "ball" used for Cups and Balls for centuries.

Where does this information come from? Back then they knew about wax, cork, and bread. Also, the oft cited comic writers from Rome were not performers or trying to offer how-to of our craft.

Okay back to arguing about a line from Robert-Houdin's book taken out of context.

It's quoted in the writings of the ancient Greeks.

[Andres Reynoso]

"You are a magnificent actor, who can not call himself a prestidigitator, a title beneath a man of your talent" - letter from Juliette Bisson to Houdini. Cited in A magician among the spirits, page 168

[Jonathan Townsend]

It's quoted in the writings of the ancient Greeks.

I know of one reference from ancient Greece, but he's not explaining or teaching. Do you have others?
Alciphron of Athens via his letters https://topostext.org/work/494

§ 2.17 Napaeus to Creniades:
...A man came forward with a three-legged table. On this he placed three little cups, under which he hid some little round white pebbles, such as we find on the bank of a torrent. At one time he put them separately, one under each cup; at another time he showed them, all together, under one cup; then he made them disappear from the cups, I don't know how, and showed them, the next moment, in his mouth. After this he swallowed them, called some of the spectators on to the platform, and pulled out of their nose, head, and ears the pebbles which he ended by juggling away altogether. What a clever thief the man must be...

source: Alciphron, Letters (Books 1,3), from Alciphron, Literally and Completely Translated From the Greek, with Introduction and Notes, Athens: Privately Printed for the Athenian Society; 1896; a text in the public domain nobly put on line by Elfinspell.

He was writing humor. The Roman stoic Seneca was also writing "moral epistles" - which is where we find the "harmless quibbles" lines about the magician with his cup and dice - also not explaining or teaching our craft.

The magician is not a historian so much as a storyteller who invents what serves his craft and audience.

[Paco Nagata]

"Things which cannot be done" and "supernatural" are not synonymous. The latter is an explanation. A valid explanation if you believe in supernatural matters, an unwelcome explanation for those who are rational, but an explanation all the same. If a staunch believer in the supernatural say "that's impossible", it means that the supernatural is rejected as an explanation.

Well, then, "Things which cannot be done" could be also an explanation for those who believe in magic, right?
An impossible thing can be explained as well by magic!
Anything could be an explanation as long as one believe in anything. Anyone is free to believe in anything to explain everything, but magicians write books because all of them can only believe that the explanation is neither magical nor supernatural.

[Topovich]

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.