Magic History
BRISAVIARY
I am interested in magic history. I have been coming here for a few
months. I see maybe 3 posts a month at the most that have anything to do with
magic history. I see unrelated cross posts from alt.magic, magic dealer ads,
posting from the folks interested in "magick" (OOOH BOOGIE BOOGIE) weird
alternative medical treatments, but almost nothing on magic history. I have
read about magic history for about 30 years, have a small magic history history
collection, a few Houdini items, several Thurston items and some other stuff.
I'm just wondering if anyone wants to post anything about magic history. I'd
love to discuss it. I love to argue (I'm not a big Houdini fan, which causes
a lot of arguements). To make a long whine shor,t ANYONE INTERESTED IN MAGIC
HISTORY?
Greg
Mgcman814
Just curious.
When attempting to persuade the snake to swallow its own tail you must first
secretly dip the tail in chocolate- Paul Harris
markbal...@mindspring.com
To see interesting post you must post interesting things. Why don't you
start a post. Chastising people for not keeping you entertained is not the
way to go.
Kind of like going to a dance and standing against the wall complaining
nobody wants to dance with me.
--
Mark Byrne
markbal...@mindspring.com
http://markballoonguy.home.mindspring.com
"Bad to the Balloon"
BRISAVIARY <brisa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000510231050...@ng-cn1.aol.com...
DEANALAN08
there are a lot of people who just want to get on peoples nerves by acting
juvenille.
Please inquire about anything history related and you are sure to get a good
deal of responces. Neamde and Compars are usually the first to respond and
they have extensive knowledge of magic history.
I look forward to your posts.
DeanAlan
Compars
Welcome! I know what you mean. This newsgroup has unfortunately degenerated
from what it was. I am always happy to talk about the history of magic. My
particular interest is the Herrmann family.
I understand your feeling about Houdini. He played a very important part of
our history, but he is greatly over exaggerated in many ways. And please, all
you Houdini buffs I am not denigrating Houdini. I just feel that there are so
many forgotten heroes out there that need to be brought into the light of day.
Feel free to contact me.
All the Best,
James Hamilton
San Francisco, Ca
Compars
Compars
Good subject for a discussion. However, why do you apparently admire Houdini
so much? What are your reasons?
This is how good discussions get started and we all learn from one another.
See my post to Greg. I feel that Houdini is quite often over hyped. This
opinion does not take away from his impact on magic though.
Looking forward to your posts.
NEAMDE
questions you might have about the history of magic...or to engage in an online
discussion about the same.
All my best,
Michael Edwards
Houdini 26
Kevin Connolly
(Always buying, selling and accepting donations of overhyped Harry Houdini
material.)
>Subject: Re: Magic History
>From: com...@aol.com (Compars)
>Date: 5/11/00 12:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20000511123551...@ng-ba1.aol.com>
DEANALAN08
You say you think Houdini is over hyped. I am forever a fan of Houdini's. In
my early days the only books I could find out magic were about Houdini. As the
years passed I have read some wonderful stories about Houdini. I love to read
Vernon's comments on him. Vernon couldn't stand the fact that Houdini was
thought of in such high regard. He also felt Houdini was a poor magician. I
recall reading an account years ago about Tarbell and Houdini. Apparently
Tarbell had just taught Houdini the SNOWSTORM Effect. Without any practice
Houdini proceeds to present it in his show and unsuccessfully. Hmmmmm, perhaps
Vernon was right. I am NOT a Houdini Basher however. I find his drive, his
determination, his dedication to be awe inspiring. His ability to change his
image from Escape Artist, to Film Star, to Debunker, to whatever is
fascinating. I also enjoy the fact that as the years pass more and more 'dirt'
is dug up on Houdini. The Silverman book has some wonderfully juicey details
on an apparent love affair.
OK, maybe he is over hyped, but Houdini the man did much to promote magic when
he was alive, and even more since he has passed on. His name will always be
magic in the minds of the lay people. And they think of him not as an
egotistical little man, but as the Champion of all Magicians. And when one is
compared to Houdini by lay people it's really quite a compliment in that
context.
Dean Alan
markbal...@mindspring.com
DEANALAN08 <deana...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000511115950...@ng-mb1.aol.com...
> Yes there are a lot of us sincerely interested in magic history. And
sadly
> there are a lot of people who just want to get on peoples nerves by acting
> juvenille.
Sorry if you thought my comment was juvenile, but the key to any club
whether real or virtual is to participate. If you would care to do a search
my postings I have practiced what I speak of.
My opinion of the post was he wanted someone to start an interesting post so
he may comment about it. I in turn challenged him to start one himself.
From what I understand Houdini was and is terribly overrated. One hell of a
marketer though, if he had lived longer (and was so inclined) he might have
been able to be president, except for that silly law about being a citizen.
Mgcman814
itis synomonous(sp?sorry no dictionary on hand) with magic. When you mention
magic, most people invairably connect it with the Houdini name.
AS far as i am concerned he was more of an escape artist than magician, but he
also combined the two arts into what people now associate with magic. The Meta
was really nothing more than a played up escape...using magic. Not to take away
from the trunk, it is a classic and probably will be for a very long time.
He was a pioneer in showmanship and a master at promotions.
Anyway, that's about all my feeble mind can come up with for the moment.
DEANALAN08
have worded it better. I didn't mean that YOU were acting juvenille, I meant
that there are OTHERS on here that act that way and make a mess
alt.magic.history because of their actions.
It was NOT directed at you.
Dean
markbal...@mindspring.com
magic?
DEANALAN08 <deana...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000512093045...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
Bob & Martha Vera
I take exception with your acceptance of the supposition that Houdini was
"terribly overrated".
He is remembered by the general public as the most famous magician of all
time. Implicitly, he is remembered as the best magician of all time. Your
statement implicitly suggests a certain "stupidity" of the general public.
(Afterall, they, the lay audience, do not know what good magic is.) If magic
is an art, then the art is in the performance. Noone could deny that Houdini
must have been one heck of a performer.
It almost seems as though magicians - one of the most egotistical groups I
have known - keep trying to one up eachother while destroying that which is
making their art marketable. It is as if magicians do not realize that it is
the likes of Keller, Houdini, Blackstone, Thurston, Copperfield, Burton, the
Pendragons, P&T, &c &c, that make the lay audience want to see them (other
magicians) in person.
At a recent convention show I saw one magician downplay - critically -
Copperfield. While the remark brought a stream of laughter from the
audience, I wondered if the magician would ever make that comment to a non
lay audience. The answer is an obvious "NO", or at least it had better be.
The phrase that pays is: "Do not speak ill of your brother".
Just my two pennies.
Bob
Blackplm
Curtis have a lot to do with his image in pop culture today. As far as his
performances go, the interview in Magic magazine with Jay Marshall a few months
ago, where he relates seeing Houdini speaks volumes.
>At a recent convention show I saw one magician downplay - critically -
>Copperfield. While the remark brought a stream of laughter from the
>audience, I wondered if the magician would ever make that comment to a non
>lay audience. The answer is an obvious "NO", or at least it had better be.
>The phrase that pays is: "Do not speak ill of your brother".
Yes that always looks bad in a public forum, regardless of how true it is.
Greg
markbal...@mindspring.com
Bob & Martha Vera <g...@olg.com> wrote in message
news:8frfcv$gcc$1...@nnrp-corp.news.cais.net...
> Mark,
>
> I take exception with your acceptance of the supposition that Houdini was
> "terribly overrated".
>
> He is remembered by the general public as the most famous magician of all
> time. Implicitly, he is remembered as the best magician of all time.
Remembered is the key. Historical footage is limited and at the time film
was in it's infancy. I have spoke to many people who infact have seen
Houdini perform. (Florida being the gateway to heaven). The reaction is the
same. People remember Houdini's press but not the man or the performance.
Granted most of these people were very young when they saw Houdini, but if
you follow Michael Ammar's ideas of making magic memorable, you will notice
people will refer to only items in his show that were on posters. Not once
have I had anyone mention anything other than the water torture escape.
I have asked about other effects Houdini could have performed, ie. Card
manipulations, spirit effects, watch in a loaf of bread. Not one is
remembered, in fact the common responce is "But he was very good!" This is
similar to the type of response you would get from someone who says they
were at Woodstock. Ask them anything specific they cannot answer (of course
they may have been stoned out of their mind!) but everyone had a great time
Man!
Same senerio with different magicians, Blackstone Sr. people remember his
kind and gentle manner with kids and the rabbit he gave away.
>Your statement implicitly suggests a certain "stupidity" of the general
public.
> (Afterall, they, the lay audience, do not know what good magic is.) If
magic
> is an art, then the art is in the performance. Noone could deny that
Houdini
> must have been one heck of a performer.
This is the same general public that made Barnum millions by everyone coming
to look at half a dried up fish and a monkey sewn together. I am not saying
the they didn't know good magic, but everyone in that day (and today) buy
into packages and believe something to be good "because they read it was
supposed to be".
> It almost seems as though magicians - one of the most egotistical groups I
> have known - keep trying to one up eachother while destroying that which
is
> making their art marketable. It is as if magicians do not realize that it
is
> the likes of Keller, Houdini, Blackstone, Thurston, Copperfield, Burton,
the
> Pendragons, P&T, &c &c, that make the lay audience want to see them (other
> magicians) in person.
Generalizing are we? Proffessionally I try to never put down the image of
other magicians, however in a discussion forum I will give my opinion.
Public as this may be it is a specialized group here. You might want to stop
talking to magicians.
> At a recent convention show I saw one magician downplay - critically -
> Copperfield. While the remark brought a stream of laughter from the
> audience, I wondered if the magician would ever make that comment to a non
> lay audience. The answer is an obvious "NO", or at least it had better
be.
> The phrase that pays is: "Do not speak ill of your brother".
My point exactly.
> Just my two pennies.
>
> Bob
Why is a quarter considered two bits?
Steve Burton
magicians. If you want to split hairs about his ability or
lack thereof that is your prerogative but Houdini's legacy will
live for centuries no matter how many magicians consider
themselves his equal or better. If we look at the facts of his life and work
you find a dedicated artist
who created an image that stood the test of time. I'm proud to be a member of
the same profession that counts him as a member.
Take care,
Steve
Rex Steven Sikes
Steve Burton wrote:
--
----------------------------------------------
The Ultimate 10-Day NLP Education: May 21-June 1, 2000
The Ultimate 10-Day Modeling Course: August 20-31, 2000
contact: tr...@idea-seminars.com
We Publish Every Single Student Evaluation!
http://www.idea-seminars.com
Visit our NEW ONLINE STORE!!!!
Join NLPOnline: at http://www.onelist.com/group/NLPOnline
markbal...@mindspring.com
This is not an I hate Houdini thread. Not once have I said Houdini wasn't
dedicated, nor did I say he wasn't a good performer. My contention is the
legend is much bigger than the man. His career is similar to Daniel Boone.
Daniel Boone was a real person did Daniel do everything the legend says?
Highly doubt it, is it based in truth? Probably yes.
Since America is a relatively new country, its want for folklore hero is
strong. Folklore hero create a sense of unity for a country and/or a
culture.
Funny how I have seen vintage footage of Houdini and I have seen footage of
Charlie Chaplin. Same era, who comes across the screen better? Marketer or
Entertainer you decide.
--
Mark Byrne
markbal...@mindspring.com
http://markballoonguy.home.mindspring.com
"Bad to the Balloon"
Steve Burton <steb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000517013803...@ng-fb1.aol.com...
Rex Steven Sikes
I have to admit I had not read the previous notes by you or
anyone else. Just dropped in and concurred with Steve.
So since I don't know what went before it isn't appropriate
for me to disagree or agree. I do however agree with your
proposition that 'legend' is an important consideration. Seems
that Houdini (brilliant entertainer mind he was) contributed
greatly to his own legend and helping it to survive long after
his untimely demise. In that sense I do think he is an
incredible showman.
As an actor compared to Chaplin his acting talents don't
compare. As a showman enabling his name to become a household
word he does seem incredible. And legend and myth is every bit
important in making that happen. That he is mythified is part
of his own making is an example of his shrewdness.
That others have contributed to that myth (through
misunderstanding the 'historical man' or by whatever means) is
both accidental and probably part of the name making legendary
machinery set in place by a savvy entertainer.
Only my opinion. The legend is bigger than the man - and that
doesn't detract from the man at all.
I enjoyed both of your points and wish you both all the best!
Warmest regards,
Rex
Rex Steven Sikes
I like your words here. If more of us in the entertainment industry took your
comments to heart and knew how to accomplish this - we could become legends
ourselves.
Find out how legends are created in popular culture and work your career to do
just that and then....
the sky is the limit.
Enjoy!
rex
markbal...@mindspring.com wrote:
snipped
>
>Since America is a relatively new country, its want for folklore hero is
strong. >Folklore hero create a sense of unity for a country and/or a culture.<
>
--
Wazuma
>Funny how I have seen vintage footage of Houdini and I have seen footage of
>Charlie Chaplin. Same era, who comes across the screen better?
Your point is terminally flawed. Film was Chaplin's medium. For Houdini, it was
alien territory.
markbal...@mindspring.com
First he takes a classic name David Copperfield, a well known book by
Charles Dickens that few people have read.
(Houdini lifts the name of a French magician who has been dead a few years.
In a country few people have seen Robert Houdin, but may have heard of him)
Before VCRs and Cable TV Copperfield made a name for himself by doing the
seemingly impossible. Even today I have people come up to me and say can you
make the statue of liberty disappear? This is a direct reference to DC. I
will either give a silly answer (not from here in Florida OR have you seen
it lately?) BUT more often than not, I will ask if they witnessed that
illusion. Most say no. They just heard about it.
As magicians we have seen Franz Hararry (SP Sorry) vanish the Sphinx, space
shuttle, and an island in Hawaii. None are that impressive. Why? DC did it
first and he vanished a cornerstone of Americana. (Okay she from France, but
you know what I mean) Who doesn't have a family member that speaks of
glowing terms of the first time they saw Miss Liberty.
I have enjoyed performances of DC, a big fan? NOT. However I can separate
the marketing from the stage persona.
Someone mentioned there is not correlation between Chaplin and Houdini. I
beg to differ. In that day Chaplin played stage as well as film. Both were
big draws. The acting in films was very similar to vaudeville stage. Of
course Chaplin was playing comedy and Houdini might have been trying to play
it serious, in that instance both look humorous due to the nature of the
film techniques.
Whether Houdini was a great magician I still think the evidence is
circumstantial. A marketer, spin doctor, comeback artist, escape artist & a
spiritual debunker he has my vote.
That is my story & I am sticking to it,
--
Mark Byrne
markbal...@mindspring.com
http://markballoonguy.home.mindspring.com
"Bad to the Balloon"
Rex Steven Sikes <r...@idea-seminars.com> wrote in message
news:39234068$0$26...@news.execpc.com...
Wazuma
>Someone mentioned there is not correlation between Chaplin and Houdini. I
>beg to differ. In that day Chaplin played stage as well as film. Both were
>big draws. The acting in films was very similar to vaudeville stage.
I was that someone. I did not state that there "is not a correlation between
Chaplin and Houdini." I wrote that it was pointless to compare their work in
film, a medium that Chaplin understood and Houdini did not.
Yes, Chaplin also worked on stage. But your statement that "The acting in films
was very similar to vaudeville stage" is ill informed.
markbal...@mindspring.com
I say someone because I really don't know what to call you, "Wazuma?"
An insightful name, as in up your wazuma? Never the less if you care to
discuss the attributes of Houdini vs. Chaplin, I am game.
This was my statement in entirety as it referred to your post:
"Someone mentioned there is not a correlation between Chaplin and Houdini. I
beg to differ. In that day Chaplin played stage as well as film. Both were
big draws. The acting in films was very similar to vaudeville stage. Of
course Chaplin was playing comedy and Houdini might have been trying to play
it serious, in that instance both look humorous due to the nature of the
film techniques."
In what way am I "ill informed" there was 2 basic forms of performance then
film & stage. Most performers did both. I fact they were paid extra to do a
set before their film. These were followed by parties and autograph
signings.
If Houdini did infact play his magic seriously. (Is there evidence of his
performing other than some bad films and peoples broken memories) where are
his scripts, notes on stage direction? Funny how we know exactly how a
William Shakespeare play went everthough it is over 500 years old.
Most magician go by one film done in 1950 by Tony Curtis and base Houdini
whole career upon it.
BTW in any debate forum if you just say "your ill informed" and don't back
up your statement with facts or supposition, you infact are the ill informed
one.
Open for debate,
--
Mark Byrne
markbal...@mindspring.com
http://markballoonguy.home.mindspring.com
"Bad to the Balloon"
Wazuma <waz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000518192531...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
Compars
What as pleasant surprise to see all the excellent posts resulting in this
thread.
I certainly have no animosity towards Houdini, he did much for magic. His
place in magic was secured by his aggressiveness and desire to see himself in
print. This is not a bad trait, he did it extremely well. I have talked to
many old timers when I was a youngster regarding Houdini and none of them had
much positive things to say about the quality of Houdini's magic performances.
With the recent publication of so many fine biographies of our forgotten
heroes, we are able to see how many truly fine magicians there were in
Houdini's time and before. Alexander Herrmann was just as well known to
the public in his day as Houdini was and is now known. Alexander had the
misfortune to die just before the century changed and was soon relegated to the
position of one of those antique magicians of the last century, now two
centuries ago! The rapidly changing technologies of the 20th Century helped
Houdini solidify his position in the minds of the public. I have found several
references to Herrmann's name being a synonym for magic, he just didn't make
the dictionary. Many of Houdini's publicity stunts were direct copies of
Herrmann. (I don't mean escapes, but doing stunts in public) Herrmann
continually kept his name before the public. He was a magician twenty-four
hours a day.
All the Best,
James Hamilton
Compars
Compars
Jesse Lasky, who along with Cecil B. DeMille and Samuel L. Goldfish (Goldwyn)
produced the "The Squaw Man" and became the god-fathers of the movie industry
also directed of some of Houdini's movies. In his autobiography, "I Blow My
Own Horn," he said that Houdini's best acting was done locked in a trunk at the
bottom of the river.
Wazuma
vaudeville stage."
This is simply not true. For one thing, on a vaude stage the performer had the
option of talking. Also, a large percentage of variety performers (e.g.,
Houdini) did not work "fourth wall."
You write that "Most performers did both [vaudeville and film]. I[n] fact they
were paid extra to do a set before their film. These were followed by parties
and autograph
signings."
This is nonsense, and underscores my contention that you are ill informed.
In fact, most of the prominent actors who worked in early film did not come
from vaudeville, but rather from "legit" theater, where fourth wall was the
norm.
Film is a very different medium than live stage performance, and during the
early silent period the filmic "vocabulary" was just beginning to be
understood. Techniques such as dissolves and wipes, close-ups, pans and tilts
were still in their exploratory phase. Chaplin understood the medium; Houdini
did not. Thus, is it simply unfair to compare their work in that medium as if
they had equivalent backgrounds.
You bring up the difference between comic and dramatic performance, which has
nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
You also bring up the fanciful George Pal movie bio of Houdini starring Tony
Curtis, as if it had any bearing on this discussion. It does not.
You suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about, because I have not cited
references. I'm not interested in doing your homework for you, but I'll be glad
to offer some recommendations. Where do you wish to begin your historical
studies: theater, vaudeville, film, Chaplin, Houdini?
markbal...@mindspring.com
Instead of throwing mud of academic ability, maybe we could stick to the
original content of the thread.
I don't (me, myself & I) think Houdini was as great of a performer as the
general populous believes him to be. I support this statement by saying the
following:
A) there is very little historical footage of a "Great" Houdini performance.
B) Anyone I have talked to who has seen a Houdini performance (and I have
spoken to many) were either too young at the time to remember anything other
than they were there OR re-iterated the press and poster material and
remember nothing else of the performance. In other words they bought the
spin.
C) Houdini has transcended time by becoming a folklore hero.
D) Houdini was a master of the press, as was Barnum. It was an age of fool
the masses. And the public loved it.
Wazuma <waz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000523014855...@ng-fl1.aol.com...
> You repeat your statement that "The acting in films was very similar to
> vaudeville stage."
>
> This is simply not true. For one thing, on a vaude stage the performer had
the
> option of talking. Also, a large percentage of variety performers (e.g.,
> Houdini) did not work "fourth wall."
Working or breaking the fourth wall? For the lurkers this means doing an
aside to the audience (talking directly to the audience, also referred to a
internal dialog. you know the scene freezes and the actor goes into a
monolog, like I just did) Magician frequently talk directly to the audience
even to include audience participation. Are you saying Houdini did or did
not talk to the audience?
> You write that "Most performers did both [vaudeville and film]. I[n] fact
they
> were paid extra to do a set before their film. These were followed by
parties
> and autograph
> signings."
>
> This is nonsense, and underscores my contention that you are ill informed.
I guess all those PBS & A&E specials are wrong too. Promotion is promotion
like book signings actors would frequently travel with their films to
promote it. In later years this became cumbersome to do, actors would only
do opening nights in places like Hollywood and New York. Much like today. A
direct reference for you to see in print: Charlie Chaplin My life in
Pictures, page 27 note the poster in the corner. It has Charlie Chaplin
performing stage act with a film as one of the five features of the
production. BTW what is a human Salamander?
> In fact, most of the prominent actors who worked in early film did not
come
> from vaudeville, but rather from "legit" theater, where fourth wall was
the
> norm.
You mean Chaplin (Vaudeville) Buster Keaton (Vaudeville) Keystone Cops
(Vaudeville) Laurel & Hardy (Vaudeville) Fatty Arbuckle (Vaudeville) Max
Linder (A French comedian, le Vaudeville) Mary Picford (Stage) Mabel Normand
(Stage)
In this analogy, I would say most males actors came from Vaudeville
background while most female actors came from a theater background. Usually
if female came from a vaudeville stage she would have to change her name to
be considered a "real" actress. Not always, but usually.
> Film is a very different medium than live stage performance, and during
the
> early silent period the filmic "vocabulary" was just beginning to be
> understood. Techniques such as dissolves and wipes, close-ups, pans and
tilts
> were still in their exploratory phase. Chaplin understood the medium;
Houdini
> did not. Thus, is it simply unfair to compare their work in that medium as
if
> they had equivalent backgrounds.
If Houdini was the consummate performer everyone says he was why couldn't he
figure out this medium? Let see Copperfield has, Lance Burton has, Mac King
has. Looks like support of my argument that Houdini wasn't that great of a
performer.
> You bring up the difference between comic and dramatic performance, which
has
> nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
Sorry just a clarifying point that I though might help to support your
argument. I gave you a door you choose not to take it. Since early film was
considered more of a novelty and not an artform, it looked very comedic in
presentation.
> You also bring up the fanciful George Pal movie bio of Houdini starring
Tony
> Curtis, as if it had any bearing on this discussion. It does not.
Contrar, Most magician (and the public) have seen the movie and base the
whole Houdini myth upon it.
> You suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about, because I have not
cited
> references. I'm not interested in doing your homework for you, but I'll be
glad
> to offer some recommendations. Where do you wish to begin your historical
> studies: theater, vaudeville, film, Chaplin, Houdini?
I am not asking you to be my teacher. I ask that if you are going to
contradict some one you should be able to back any statement you make. I
find your reference to theater, vaudeville, film Chaplin, & Houdini vague
and sarcastic at best.
It does amaze me that one statement could spur a 20 post discussion. My
original statement was:
"From what I understand Houdini was and is terribly overrated. One hell of a
marketer though, if he had lived longer (and was so inclined) he might have
been able to be president, except for that silly law about being a citizen."
This I made after someone else made reference to the fact there is no action
here on alt.magic history and he liked to argue about Houdini. I simply
agreed to that.
If you want to disagree with me fine, but this can be done in a civil
manner.
--
Mark Byrne
(note the use of a real name, not afraid to use my real in a discussion
virtual or real)
Houdini 26
Although I don't agree with most of what you sate below, I do agree with
you about people using their names in a post. If I read a post and it has some
sort of nickname signed at the bottom or not at all, I usually just click to
the next post. I figure no name, no brain. Just my opinion.
Kevin Connolly
>markbal...@mindspring.com
>Date: 5/23/00 10:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8ge63d$p4i$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>
Wazuma
"Instead of throwing mud of academic ability, maybe we could stick to the
original content of the thread."
You then go on to reiterate the original statement that you don't believe
Houdini's performance skills measured up to his hype.
My comments did not dispute this opinion. I merely observed that the subsequent
comparison of Houdini and Chaplin used to bolster the assertion was based on a
faulty premise. You replies have not changed that observation.
I'm sorry if being corrected gets you riled. I'd suggest making fewer sweeping
statements. You mention that Chaplin did some gigs in which he combined filmed
work with live performance, and extrapolate from this that this is something
"most performers did."
You toss in an irrelevant question: "BTW what is a human Salamander?" I presume
this is meant to test my knowledge of vaudeville. What would you like me to do,
congratulate you for having read Ricky Jay's _Learned Pigs & Fireproof Women_?
You ask, "If Houdini was the consummate performer everyone says he was why
couldn't he figure out this medium? Let see Copperfield has, Lance Burton has,
Mac King has. Looks like support of my argument that Houdini wasn't that great
of a performer."
Now you're being silly. No one that I know of has (let alone "everyone") says
Houdini was a "consummate performer." And, even if that claim were being made,
why would it have anything to do with working in a new and different medium?
Chaplin was arguably a consummate performer, but I'm unaware of his having
figured out the radio medium.
Copperfield has appeared in one film, _Terror Train_, in which he wasn't very
good. Lance Burton has never done a film. (He acted in an episode of a TV
action series; different medium.) Mac King has never done a film. So, while
superlative things can be said about these three performers' understanding of
both live and television interfaces, there's no reason to think that any of
them understands film.
You accuse me of throwing mud, but if you offer arguments that are as muddy as
this, you need no extra supply from me.
You sign off: "Mark Byrne (note the use of a real name, not afraid to use my
real in a discussion virtual or real)"
Well, it's been amusing.
Sincerely,
Max Maven (also not afraid to use my real name in a discussion)
markbal...@mindspring.com
In science when hard evidence is not available comparative analysis is used.
Correlations are drawn by "if this was like that .... then?" A good
scientist will defend his view point until statistical or plausible
information says other wise.
My point of view which you and others have said is well taken; even though
many don't agree with it. You point out that my comparison between Chaplin &
Houdini is flawed. What would you use to support a statement like mine? The
evidence of Houdini's greatness is memories, news articles, and film clips.
What would you use for comparative analysis? My goal for being on-line is to
learn and to help others to learn. To be able to reach other magicians and
expand our art. When the cornerstone of our magical mythology is a man whom
had just good press, what does that say about us?
> I'm sorry if being corrected gets you riled. I'd suggest making fewer
sweeping
> statements. You mention that Chaplin did some gigs in which he combined
filmed
> work with live performance, and extrapolate from this that this is
something
> "most performers did."
I wasn't riled just giving back what I getting. Personally I don't like to
correspond with factious people, I think it is rude, however I can
understand why you use a pseudonym, people wouldn't talk to you the same.
They may resort to hero (or villain worship).<GRIN> My info that other film
stars toured came from the Chaplin Book and some A&E specials, do you have
info to the contrary? If so what.
> You toss in an irrelevant question: "BTW what is a human Salamander?" I
presume
> this is meant to test my knowledge of vaudeville. What would you like me
to do,
> congratulate you for having read Ricky Jay's _Learned Pigs & Fireproof
Women_?
Presume nothing, if you choose to look up the book reference I thought you
might find it of interest. That is all. I haven't read Ricky Jay's book.
There are many book in my library that have nothing to do with magic.
> You ask, "If Houdini was the consummate performer everyone says he was why
> couldn't he figure out this medium? Let see Copperfield has, Lance Burton
has,
> Mac King has. Looks like support of my argument that Houdini wasn't that
great
> of a performer."
>
> Now you're being silly. No one that I know of has (let alone "everyone")
says
> Houdini was a "consummate performer." And, even if that claim were being
made,
Have you not read the other posts? People here think Houdini invented sliced
bread. What evidence would you use to support Houdini's greatness? Or his
not so greatness? Isn't a great performer great no matter what? The original
statement others made was Houdini was the greatest magician ever.
Steve Burton said:
"There is no question that Houdini was one of the world's greatest
magicians. "
How would you compare Houdini to Herrmann, Devant or Thurston?
> why would it have anything to do with working in a new and different
medium?
> Chaplin was arguably a consummate performer, but I'm unaware of his having
> figured out the radio medium.
I sure Chaplin had been on the radio, as to him being another Edgar Bergen,
I doubt it. But I bet he did well in an interview.
> Copperfield has appeared in one film, _Terror Train_, in which he wasn't
very
> good. Lance Burton has never done a film. (He acted in an episode of a TV
> action series; different medium.) Mac King has never done a film. So,
while
> superlative things can be said about these three performers' understanding
of
> both live and television interfaces, there's no reason to think that any
of
> them understands film.
By film I include television, I know where you come from they are
considered different animals. That would be like comparing you Mork & Mindy
appearances with Worlds Greatest Magic.
My comparison is between the 3D and the 2D. Also a person's one and only
television performance or a single appearance is not up for comparison, but
a career or series of it. Houdini started his own film company and starred
in his own films. He must have noticed it wasn't working, and quit. I
conceded that Chaplin's sheer volume of work (creating many films as 4 to 5
per month) is not the best barometer, but it does make my original statement
work. Houdini wasn't a great performer. He didn't come across the screen.
> You accuse me of throwing mud, but if you offer arguments that are as
muddy as
> this, you need no extra supply from me.
>
> You sign off: "Mark Byrne (note the use of a real name, not afraid to use
my
> real in a discussion virtual or real)"
>
> Well, it's been amusing.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Max Maven (also not afraid to use my real name in a discussion)
Interesting when you shake the tree who falls out. Thanks for the debate.
--
Mark Byrne
markbal...@mindspring.com
http://markballoonguy.home.mindspring.com
"Bad to the Balloon"
BTW I use Phil Goldstein's pulling the bubble off the 260 in my act. Thanks
Clive Court
reputations,
and their ability to play the media of their era. The period from the
beginnings of
the popular penny press, the telegraph, the telephone, right through the birth
of the movies and radio to the beginning of World War I was a fabulous period
for
visual performers, circuses, western shows,etc. The war depleted human,
physical,
and financial resources and the entertainment business had changed for ever.
Live
vaudeville, circuses and touring magicians,etc. began to decline as the
entertainment
business morphed from live to recorded with the rise of the cheaper, mass
electronic
media. It never really recovered until fairly recently and it's still a
struggle but the
electronic media are going through the same problems the movie industry hit in
the
fifties with the rise of television. The movie industry reinvented itself using
the
new media and keeping ahead of the game by constantly improving their production
and marketing techniques. If you want to make a major impact today, your
thinking
has to be right up there with them. Houdini and Chaplin were great
showmen--Houdini
knew how to electrify an audience--Chaplin understood how to create memorable
images. For today's performers, the key factor is to understand your audience.
In
the theatre (live or film) you are working to a group audience sitting together
in the dark.
In television you're working to get a reaction from one or more people on a
sofa. So
a personality that works well on TV or radio does not always work well in the
theatre
or large live venues (arenas). It takes real craftsmanship to move almost
seamlessly
between the different mediums. And the "hype"? Well, no matter medium you are
working in, you still need to "fill the seats"---ignore that skill and you can
be sure of failure. Copperfield and Blaine have their fingers on the pulse--and
very good advisors.
The Funslinger
It's Not the Wand--It's The Magic!
markbal...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Finally an ally!!
> Thanks Compars!
>
> --
> Mark Byrne
> markbal...@mindspring.com
> http://markballoonguy.home.mindspring.com
> "Bad to the Balloon"
> Compars <com...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000520005159...@ng-cm1.aol.com...