Ricky Jay LIVE on the Tube.

[Guest]

If it was a documentary, as Richard states, the inclusion of the clip in question (a) without a disclaimer (if it was an acting exercise) or (b) depicting Jay's real personality (if it wasn't an act) seems odd. Would be nice to see the whole enchilada to better judge the context of the clip.

[Dustin Stinett]

Originally posted by Richard Hatch:
giving a private performance (my favorite segment of the show, really wonderful). It is unfortunate that this segment is the only one that gets remembered...

My guess you are speaking of the card effect using the Japanese Films as a theme. And I agree: This is a fantastic performance of a card trick and it is typical Ricky Jay. (And he really is an aficionado of Japanese films.)

Clay, isnt the segment title A Well Constructed Drama enough of a disclaimer to tell you that it is a constructed (fabricated versus spontaneous) drama (a performance versus a meltdown)?

Dustin

PS: Has anyone noticed that the clip is gone from the site?

[jerry lazar]

ARGH, not only is it gone, but so is another dailymotion RJ clip I saw this morn and intended to share here... RJ's cups and balls ... BUT there is another fantastic RJ clip still there -- Triumph with aces (as a poker deal). Dare I jinx it by posting URL? ... Quick: http://www.dailymotion.com/visited/sear ... _ricky-jay

In trying to find the other one, I stumbled across Larry Jennings cups/balls:
http://www.dailymotion.com/visited/sear ... cups-balls

... and a Racherbaumer/Marlo session circa '73:
http://www.dailymotion.com/Magic-Gollum ... cherbaumer

... and clips of Lennart Green, Manuel Muerte, Lance Burton, Fred Kaps, Rene Levand, and more... (use site's search engine)...

And I still haven't finished exploring YouTube!
Go! Enjoy!...

[Ian Kendall]

Was that Tony Giorgio presenting the Jennings clip?

Take care, Ian

[Guest]

Originally posted by DustinStinett:
Clay, isnt the segment title A Well Constructed Drama enough of a disclaimer to tell you that it is a constructed (fabricated versus spontaneous) drama (a performance versus a meltdown)?

That's a decent point, Dustin, but how do you know the title preceded the event? Are you sure that the "act" was created beforehand? Or could it be that the intensity of the [genuine] interaction was so compelling that the filmmakers just had to put it in the documentary and, because of how negative people could find it, the title was added to suggest that it was an act? Are you prepared to argue that Jay's behavior was so out of character that it had to be an act?

CHS

P.S. Is drama necessarily a performance? Is there no such thing as real life drama?

[added by the edit button]

DS, I have a few more moments, so Ill parse what you wrote a little bit, but will observe first that what you wrote doesnt at all prove your point (although I still think its a decent point). The construction can indeed be spontaneous, and can simply refer to the dynamic of the interaction itself. Things/events are constructed all the time without premeditation, e.g., a news interview, a painting, a telephone conversation, a scrabble game, the Winchester Mystery House. And as I suggested in my PS, drama certainly does not equal performance a real-life meltdown can be exemplary drama, especially if, as you argue, conflict is the sole element that defines drama.

Let me phrase it this way: if it was part of a documentary, it seems more in keeping with general notions of a documentary that the producers showed Jay losing his cool, rather than include an original art piece to demonstrate his acting abilities.

[Dustin Stinett]

I understand your point, but I have an advantage: Its clear you have not seen the show so you cannot speak from the point of context, which is where I am coming from. I also think its fair to say that we both have a bias in regard to Ricky Jays multifaceted character. That is to say that while we agree on some aspects of it, we disagree on others. As you have pointed out in the past, no amount of argument between us is likely to change such subjective points of view.

Dustin

[Guest]

Mr. Lazar! Thanks very much for those links!

It is such a rare treat to see a Ricky Jay clip, particularly one without uncomfortable-histrionics and controversy. :D

[By the way, can anyone confirm or deny that trick was actually part of his "52 Assistants" show? I saw that only once, 1/3 of the world away (at the Old Vic in London, I am gratified to say) 8 years ago; thus it seems familiar, but my once vice-like memory is beginning to slip...]

[Guest]

Mr. Kendall, that WAS Tony Giorgio--and he seems to be dominating the airwaves lately: I recently saw him in episodes of "Charlie's Angels" and "Hawaii Five-O" as well.

He was well-cast as one of those guys you wouldn't want to rile..."Yessir Mr. Giorgio! What ever you want! Is there anything else, Sir?" :D [The old castor oil smile at all times.]

[Dustin Stinett]

Dave,

No, that's not part of 52 Assistants. However, he did perform it on his "Learned Pigs" TV show.

Dustin

[Guest]

Originally posted by DustinStinett:
... I have an advantage: Its clear you have not seen the show so you cannot speak from the point of context, which is where I am coming from. ... As you have pointed out in the past, no amount of argument between us is likely to change such subjective points of view.

Dearest Dustin, why is context important for what I've written? Please explain. And you haven't responded to my questions (a few of which were rhetorical, but nonetheless ripe for the picking if they're that weak).

At least don't dodge this simple question: Are you prepared to argue that Jay's behavior was so out of character that it had to be an act?

If you didn't want a debate, Dustin, you shouldn't have stepped in, bro. ;) And you know Im exercising restraint here.

[Richard Kaufman]

The debate will never be resolved on this issue because the parties involved have nothing to say on the issue.

[Dustin Stinett]

Clay,

You admitted that you need to see the whole enchilada to better judge the context of the clip. When taken into context with the entire show, the viewer knows that it is staged and not a real meltdown that the producers slipped in and then misled their viewers into believing it was just an act. So context is important in this case because what you are suggesting is just silly, particularly since you have no foundation to make such a comment. But thats not your fault: You have not had the benefit of having seen the show (as I have) which gives the piece its context.

By extension then, context is also important to the segment title: A Well Constructed Drama. Going in, knowing that what we (the viewer) is seeing from RJ is not real (though the volunteers are not aware of that fact), the words constructed and drama take on the meanings I attached to them in my post. Even the unscripted reactions from the volunteers are what were expected, thus sticking to the structurethe constructionof the scene. I wholeheartedly agree that construction and drama can have the meanings you applied to them, just not in this case because of context.

And no, I cannot say that its out of character for him because I have never seen him that angry (though I have seen him upset). So that said (and Im saying this as a person who has trained in method acting), its quite possible that RJ was simply calling on his own experience to help create this art piece.

Yes, its a documentary in which we see snippets of Jays talents as a juggler, singer, scholar, and consultant, so why not acting?

Dustin (and his Jones)

[Guest]

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
The debate will never be resolved on this issue because the parties involved have nothing to say on the issue.

... or because those who know the parties involved have nothing to say on the issue - and those who know the parties who know the parties involved aren't talking either.

Sometimes well-considered politics prevails over truth.

[added by 1/27/07 edit]

Originally posted by DustinStinett:
You admitted that you need to see the whole enchilada to better judge the context of the clip.

No, I wrote that it would be nice to see the whole enchilada... If you carefully read what Ive written on this thread, nothing Ive said requires viewing the rest of the documentary.

Originally posted by DustinStinett:
... context is important in this case because what you are suggesting is just silly, particularly since you have no foundation to make such a comment...

Posing questions does not equal statements of fact/opinion. If the only leg up you can offer is the fact that you saw the whole documentary, thats a pretty poor foundation for the strength of the claims you are making. Or perhaps you know some things but dont feel you can discuss them publicly after all, theres already been a ton of subtext to the pretext of discussing the context here ... :confused: :sleep: :D

As between me and Dustin, Ill settle the debate now: based on what I know (but cannot discuss), there is virtually no doubt in my mind that it was not an acting exercise.

[Guest]

The first guy wasn't a mark.

The first guy was a shill.

[Guest]

Isn't a shill typically used one way or another as a "convincer" for the other players? What other players? He was alone in the room with RJ at the time.

I won't get into whether RJ was acting or not, or whether the directors preceded the clip with the "Drama" title as planned, or after the fact to save an otherwise unusable clip. Either way, I enjoyed seeing him handle all the different aspects of the routine and his "anger" worked well to give him an out when the player wasn't cooperating.