"Where humor is concerned there are no standards -
no one can say what is good or bad, although
you can be sure that everyone will."
--John Kenneth Galbraith(1908 - 2006)
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Time to Think Christmas
It is time for me to start thinking of Christmas and my annual Christmas card. Every one of the past few years I’ve written a poem and hand-made a book for it. I only send a few out (20-30) and only to a special few people. Last year was a tough year for ideas and this year doesn't look any better. I got to get to work.
Here is the first one from 2002, inspired by the great work of Edward Gorey
The Horripiláre Family Christmas
A is for ALICE, frigid cold and all soaking wet,
Should’ve stayed home and shopped by internet.
B is for BRAM, who waged war aside his G.I. Joe,
‘Til the toy land mine decided to blow.
C is for CAROL, who wished for a blue party dress,
Instead, she was crushed in her new wine press.
D is for DANIELLE, who tried to straighten the pine wreath,
When out jumped a bat with monstrous teeth.
E is for EDMUND, who went up the chimney to greet St. Nick,
And was smothered when the smoke got too thick.
F is for FELIX, from all manner of toy could he take a pick,
But, he vanished himself with his new magic trick.
G is for GRANDPA, who gives the holiday toast,
Even though last year he turned into a ghost.
H is for HORTENSE, who ate all the fruitcake,
It took an extra large coffin to complete the wake.
I is for IGNATIUS, who could have tried to walk, run or jog,
Rather than drive after drinking the spiked eggnog.
J is for JANICE, whose dolly seemed, oh, so real,
Fittingly, she fed her an arsenic meal.
K is for KRIS KRINGLE known over the world as Santa Claus,
Until eight mad reindeer taught him who’s the boss.
L is for LESTER, who waited for a kiss under the mistletoe,
And failed to hear them all call, “Look out below!”
M is for MARGARET, now trapped under the ice,
Her new pink skates did fit perfectly nice.
N is for NAOMI, who made cards full of Christmas greeting
But could not stop the paper cuts from bleeding.
O is for OSCAR, who wanted a friend for his lone guppy.
Alas, what he got was one rabid puppy.
P is for PRUDENCE, who tried to fix a broken ornament,
But inhaled way too much model cement.
Q is for QUINCY, poisoned by licking bad envelope glue.
Yes, I think I saw that on Seinfeld too.
R is for REGINALD, who got a patriotic American flag,
But preferred to play in the plastic bag.
S is for SIDNEY, who held onto the string so tight
And was carried away by his new box kite.
T is for TAYLOR, though the warnings were clearly plain,
Somehow got run over by his own toy train.
U is for UMA and her best friend URIAH,
Both died of boredom during Handel’s Messiah.
V is for VANETTA impaled on a Harry Potter broom,
And now encased in an oddly shaped tomb.
W is for WENDY, who was smashed under a gift,
She had not quite the strength to safely lift.
X is for XAVIER, who couldn’t wait to go out and play,
And promptly was hit by a runaway sleigh.
Y is for YOLANDA, Please try not to stare.
She hung herself by the chimney with care.
Z is for ZACHARY, who would survive to his surprise and shame.
For want of a happy ending, the author gladly takes the blame.
Here is the first one from 2002, inspired by the great work of Edward Gorey
The Horripiláre Family Christmas
A is for ALICE, frigid cold and all soaking wet,
Should’ve stayed home and shopped by internet.
B is for BRAM, who waged war aside his G.I. Joe,
‘Til the toy land mine decided to blow.
C is for CAROL, who wished for a blue party dress,
Instead, she was crushed in her new wine press.
D is for DANIELLE, who tried to straighten the pine wreath,
When out jumped a bat with monstrous teeth.
E is for EDMUND, who went up the chimney to greet St. Nick,
And was smothered when the smoke got too thick.
F is for FELIX, from all manner of toy could he take a pick,
But, he vanished himself with his new magic trick.
G is for GRANDPA, who gives the holiday toast,
Even though last year he turned into a ghost.
H is for HORTENSE, who ate all the fruitcake,
It took an extra large coffin to complete the wake.
I is for IGNATIUS, who could have tried to walk, run or jog,
Rather than drive after drinking the spiked eggnog.
J is for JANICE, whose dolly seemed, oh, so real,
Fittingly, she fed her an arsenic meal.
K is for KRIS KRINGLE known over the world as Santa Claus,
Until eight mad reindeer taught him who’s the boss.
L is for LESTER, who waited for a kiss under the mistletoe,
And failed to hear them all call, “Look out below!”
M is for MARGARET, now trapped under the ice,
Her new pink skates did fit perfectly nice.
N is for NAOMI, who made cards full of Christmas greeting
But could not stop the paper cuts from bleeding.
O is for OSCAR, who wanted a friend for his lone guppy.
Alas, what he got was one rabid puppy.
P is for PRUDENCE, who tried to fix a broken ornament,
But inhaled way too much model cement.
Q is for QUINCY, poisoned by licking bad envelope glue.
Yes, I think I saw that on Seinfeld too.
R is for REGINALD, who got a patriotic American flag,
But preferred to play in the plastic bag.
S is for SIDNEY, who held onto the string so tight
And was carried away by his new box kite.
T is for TAYLOR, though the warnings were clearly plain,
Somehow got run over by his own toy train.
U is for UMA and her best friend URIAH,
Both died of boredom during Handel’s Messiah.
V is for VANETTA impaled on a Harry Potter broom,
And now encased in an oddly shaped tomb.
W is for WENDY, who was smashed under a gift,
She had not quite the strength to safely lift.
X is for XAVIER, who couldn’t wait to go out and play,
And promptly was hit by a runaway sleigh.
Y is for YOLANDA, Please try not to stare.
She hung herself by the chimney with care.
Z is for ZACHARY, who would survive to his surprise and shame.
For want of a happy ending, the author gladly takes the blame.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Paul Fleming, Magician, Economist, Communist(?)
The first hint of wrong was an article in the Chicago Tribune on September 3, 1946. The headline, “REVEAL ARMY TEACHES SOAK THE RICH IDEAS,” chilled the cold war conservatives to their wallets. The article follows: “An economic philosophy, embracing a cradle to the grave security financed largely by oppressive taxation of large estates and personal incomes, is being taught to men and women of the military services wherever the United States Armed Forces institute has set up a course in economics.”
The New York Times added, “ARMY COURSE SAID TO AID COMMUNISM.” Chicagoan and president of the National Small Businessmen’s Association, De Witt Emery accused the army of teaching Communism. He further called for an investigation of the “spineless, appeasing State Department,” and that it be “purged” of “radicals, Communists, and fellow travelers.”
The book, Economics: Principles and Problems, published in 1937 was the work of Paul F. Gemmill and Ralph H. Blodgett. Gemmill, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Blodgett a professor at the University of Illinois. Gemmill was a magician.
“BARE RED LINKS OF MAGICIAN IN ARMY TEXT QUIZ”
Chicago Tribune, October 6, 1946
“Paul F. Gemmill, magician and economist...is listed by the house committee on un-American activities as a defender of communism and sponsor of communist front organizations.” The article then lists several petitions that Prof. Gemmill signed including, a petition sponsored by the American Committee for Democracy and Intellectual Freedom demanding that the house committee on un-American activities be discontinued. In a move worthy of a current administration, the house committee described the former as a communist front operating among college teachers and professors.
Paul F. Gemmill was born May 30, 1889. Inspired by the great magicians of the day, he took up magic at a young age performing professionally by the age of seventeen. In 1909, Eugene Laurant hired Paul as an assistant. That was not Paul’s first choice; he wanted to work with another magician, his real idol, Karl Germain. Germain, Paul felt, was the best of all the magicians. A year later, Paul got his wish. He assisted Germain for four years and developed a life-long friendship with the master.
He toured as “James,” the assistant and as “star” under several names, Karl Germain, Paul Germain, and Paul Fleming. Germain lent him props and permitted him to use the Germain promotional materials, with slight alterations. Paul split time between performing and school. He was as good of a student as he was a magician and earned the respect of Germain. Karl, himself, being a hyphenate, magician-lawyer.
The textbook in question happened to be a standard text used in over 100 colleges and universities such as Notre Dame, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Cornell, Dartmouth, Stanford, Duke, and Vanderbilt. The criticisms were based on that they (Gemmill and Blodgett) advocated progressive income and inheritance taxation. Hardly a novel idea. Yet, it was banned by the army.
In those times, after the war, many people in many professions were caught by the red paranoia. Education and entertainment made for easy targets. Few survived unscarred. On any side.
Paul Gemmill continued, writing several other books. He died on December 30, 1976. His brush with “infamy” hardly spoken of in the magic community. He was a great magician.
That is all we needed to know.
The New York Times added, “ARMY COURSE SAID TO AID COMMUNISM.” Chicagoan and president of the National Small Businessmen’s Association, De Witt Emery accused the army of teaching Communism. He further called for an investigation of the “spineless, appeasing State Department,” and that it be “purged” of “radicals, Communists, and fellow travelers.”
The book, Economics: Principles and Problems, published in 1937 was the work of Paul F. Gemmill and Ralph H. Blodgett. Gemmill, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Blodgett a professor at the University of Illinois. Gemmill was a magician.
“BARE RED LINKS OF MAGICIAN IN ARMY TEXT QUIZ”
Chicago Tribune, October 6, 1946
“Paul F. Gemmill, magician and economist...is listed by the house committee on un-American activities as a defender of communism and sponsor of communist front organizations.” The article then lists several petitions that Prof. Gemmill signed including, a petition sponsored by the American Committee for Democracy and Intellectual Freedom demanding that the house committee on un-American activities be discontinued. In a move worthy of a current administration, the house committee described the former as a communist front operating among college teachers and professors.
Paul F. Gemmill was born May 30, 1889. Inspired by the great magicians of the day, he took up magic at a young age performing professionally by the age of seventeen. In 1909, Eugene Laurant hired Paul as an assistant. That was not Paul’s first choice; he wanted to work with another magician, his real idol, Karl Germain. Germain, Paul felt, was the best of all the magicians. A year later, Paul got his wish. He assisted Germain for four years and developed a life-long friendship with the master.
He toured as “James,” the assistant and as “star” under several names, Karl Germain, Paul Germain, and Paul Fleming. Germain lent him props and permitted him to use the Germain promotional materials, with slight alterations. Paul split time between performing and school. He was as good of a student as he was a magician and earned the respect of Germain. Karl, himself, being a hyphenate, magician-lawyer.
The textbook in question happened to be a standard text used in over 100 colleges and universities such as Notre Dame, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Cornell, Dartmouth, Stanford, Duke, and Vanderbilt. The criticisms were based on that they (Gemmill and Blodgett) advocated progressive income and inheritance taxation. Hardly a novel idea. Yet, it was banned by the army.
In those times, after the war, many people in many professions were caught by the red paranoia. Education and entertainment made for easy targets. Few survived unscarred. On any side.
Paul Gemmill continued, writing several other books. He died on December 30, 1976. His brush with “infamy” hardly spoken of in the magic community. He was a great magician.
That is all we needed to know.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Revenge of The Last Sideshow
I thought I was done, but here is a link to an article on our favorite subject.
Step Right Up, Ladies and Gents, to See the End of an Oddity - New York Times
or
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/13/us/13album.html?_r=3&ref=us&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Step Right Up, Ladies and Gents, to See the End of an Oddity - New York Times
or
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/13/us/13album.html?_r=3&ref=us&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Quote Me
"The profession of magician is one of the most perilous
and arduous specializations of the imagination. On the one hand, there
is the hostility of God and the police to be guarded against; on the other,
it is as difficult as music, as deep as poetry, as ingenious as stagecraft,
as nervous as the manufacture of high explosives, and
as delicate as the trade in narcotics."
--William Bolitho (1890–1930), British author
Thursday, November 09, 2006
The Four Rs
I'm in my late 30s, not that old. From this perspective at least. As a young child I heard about the importance of the three Rs. Of course in this form, reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic, while charming, are hardly helpful to a developing child. Yet, we can't argue with the importance of all three. With two, writing and reading, I excelled. Arithmetic, I didn't. Funny, because I use math much more than I ever thought I would and am forcing myself to be better at it.
For argument, here are 4 Rs for successful magic:
Rehearsal
Re-examine
Refine
Rewrite
And lets add a fifth.....Repeat
In fact, they are just not for magic tricks.
For argument, here are 4 Rs for successful magic:
Rehearsal
Re-examine
Refine
Rewrite
And lets add a fifth.....Repeat
In fact, they are just not for magic tricks.
Monday, November 06, 2006
The Last Sideshow? Final(ly)
Developing a show is a delicate alchemical process. A pinch of this. A dash of that. The formula is deceptively difficult to disinter. The variables so numerous, the combinations so exotic, and the blends so varied, there is no universal panacea. Yet, just as the alchemists were forced to follow a few immutable rules of nature, so must we performers do the same. To disobey is to create poison.
But there are different levels of poisoning, we ingest poisons every day. Most cause little to no damage, a few we embrace willingly. A show can be good or bad for many reasons: script, timing, emotional temperature, lighting, effects (choice of magic tricks, gags, etc.), costume, diction, acting, set design, price, marketing/promotion, or blocking. This list is just a broad overview.
You may even question some of these things, but the one wrong note could damage everything. There were two magic movies out this summer, The Illusionist and The Prestige. I liked both. Yet, while The Prestige may offer a better overall film, I liked The Illusionist better. Why? I believe it is because the two magicians in The Prestige were so loathsome I didn’t want either to have a happy ending. You might ask how marketing and promotion could damage a show, but perform the right show for the wrong audience and prepare to close early.
At this point, you are wondering what is this have to do with the wonderful sideshow previously described on this blog. I just want to remind my dear readers that developing a show is an art, not a science. It can happen by accident. It can happen by conscious choices. It can be great or it can suck. Sometimes it all comes together, sometimes it doesn’t. You might as well give your best try. A little honest self-examination goes a long way.
The problem is the show of our beloved sideshow doesn’t look honestly at itself.
I wanted it to be good. I dreamed it would be good. It is not good.
What frustrates me is that the mistakes are basic.
Step One, the personalities:
All the performers in the show are likable. That is the first hurdle. I made some specific critical remarks during my earlier narrative. The biggest problem is the worst talker is right up front, Prof. Chumley. He speaks with no energy, no excitement. He cannot hold the audience’s interest and get out the information he needs to get out. None of the inside performers are served by the sound system, which sucks.
Step Two, the script and blocking:
The words, when understood, don’t service the audience or the actions. There are several illusions in the show: Spidora, Headless Woman, Serpentina, the Four-legged Girl. These hoary old illusions are lame. It is especially confusing to the audience because the illusions are presented as real. They are not. If the audience could understand (or stand) the opening remarks, they would not have these confusions. If the illusions were presented with historical information in their individual introductions, there is no problem. I believe they might be more interesting if the audience knew their context. I had a customer in my store who loved Ricky Jay’s 52 assistants show. He said that is was special because not only is the magic good, but you also learn something.
The second problem here is the blocking. The main stage is fine, but the side stages are well below the standing audience’s line of sight. The first couple of rows can see the rest cannot. The wonderful fire manipulation act of Madam Tea-Lee is marred because no one can see it. Sometimes the lack of direction causes the audience not to know where to look.
Step Three, the effects:
Perhaps we are not shocked anymore. Have the “reality” shows on TV ruined that? The danger effects in the show elicit a “ho-hum” from the audience. The tension of these thrillers does not exist. Some of this can be cured by proper blocking. When Prof. Chumley pounds the ice pick into his nose, he does it straight on. Instead, he should turn to the side or tilt his head down so the audience can see the ice pick’s journey into his face.
Nobody ever proves the Bed of Nails and the Sword Ladder is dangerous. Drop an apple on the fuckin’ thing, will ya’? Show us why we should care that you are doing what you do. Most of the illusions shown suffer from not being performed with the most basic of plot.
The guillotine never worked properly. BJ juggled knives and in every show dropped them.
Sideshow SideNote:
Let’s face it. Reading the various books on the sideshow gave me a romantic notion of the great sideshow performer, weaving a web of words to captivate and con their loving audience. The outside talkers do that. I have to put the performers in perspective. If they were any good, they wouldn’t be in the sideshow. I am sure a few fall through the cracks, a very few. I say this, all the while thinking I want to perform in the sideshow, but do it better. I know I can.
Step Four, the time:
Twelve acts. Thirty minutes. Slightly over two minutes an act. There is no time to properly present the individual acts. The show is destroyed in the process. The audience is cheated. The audience is disappointed.
It appears the presenters of the show do not care about their audience past getting their tickets at the door. Half the acts, presented well, would make a happier audience. Even P.T. Barnum knew to give the audience more than their money’s worth without cutting corners. Cutting corners cuts satisfaction.
In the old days of the sideshow these corners were not cut. When the Headless Lady was presented, all sorts scientific apparatus surrounded her. Today, a few ill-fitting pipes.
Why has the sideshow died? Forgetting what makes a show; they cut out their own art and amputated themselves to death.
But there are different levels of poisoning, we ingest poisons every day. Most cause little to no damage, a few we embrace willingly. A show can be good or bad for many reasons: script, timing, emotional temperature, lighting, effects (choice of magic tricks, gags, etc.), costume, diction, acting, set design, price, marketing/promotion, or blocking. This list is just a broad overview.
You may even question some of these things, but the one wrong note could damage everything. There were two magic movies out this summer, The Illusionist and The Prestige. I liked both. Yet, while The Prestige may offer a better overall film, I liked The Illusionist better. Why? I believe it is because the two magicians in The Prestige were so loathsome I didn’t want either to have a happy ending. You might ask how marketing and promotion could damage a show, but perform the right show for the wrong audience and prepare to close early.
At this point, you are wondering what is this have to do with the wonderful sideshow previously described on this blog. I just want to remind my dear readers that developing a show is an art, not a science. It can happen by accident. It can happen by conscious choices. It can be great or it can suck. Sometimes it all comes together, sometimes it doesn’t. You might as well give your best try. A little honest self-examination goes a long way.
The problem is the show of our beloved sideshow doesn’t look honestly at itself.
I wanted it to be good. I dreamed it would be good. It is not good.
What frustrates me is that the mistakes are basic.
Step One, the personalities:
All the performers in the show are likable. That is the first hurdle. I made some specific critical remarks during my earlier narrative. The biggest problem is the worst talker is right up front, Prof. Chumley. He speaks with no energy, no excitement. He cannot hold the audience’s interest and get out the information he needs to get out. None of the inside performers are served by the sound system, which sucks.
Step Two, the script and blocking:
The words, when understood, don’t service the audience or the actions. There are several illusions in the show: Spidora, Headless Woman, Serpentina, the Four-legged Girl. These hoary old illusions are lame. It is especially confusing to the audience because the illusions are presented as real. They are not. If the audience could understand (or stand) the opening remarks, they would not have these confusions. If the illusions were presented with historical information in their individual introductions, there is no problem. I believe they might be more interesting if the audience knew their context. I had a customer in my store who loved Ricky Jay’s 52 assistants show. He said that is was special because not only is the magic good, but you also learn something.
The second problem here is the blocking. The main stage is fine, but the side stages are well below the standing audience’s line of sight. The first couple of rows can see the rest cannot. The wonderful fire manipulation act of Madam Tea-Lee is marred because no one can see it. Sometimes the lack of direction causes the audience not to know where to look.
Step Three, the effects:
Perhaps we are not shocked anymore. Have the “reality” shows on TV ruined that? The danger effects in the show elicit a “ho-hum” from the audience. The tension of these thrillers does not exist. Some of this can be cured by proper blocking. When Prof. Chumley pounds the ice pick into his nose, he does it straight on. Instead, he should turn to the side or tilt his head down so the audience can see the ice pick’s journey into his face.
Nobody ever proves the Bed of Nails and the Sword Ladder is dangerous. Drop an apple on the fuckin’ thing, will ya’? Show us why we should care that you are doing what you do. Most of the illusions shown suffer from not being performed with the most basic of plot.
The guillotine never worked properly. BJ juggled knives and in every show dropped them.
Sideshow SideNote:
Let’s face it. Reading the various books on the sideshow gave me a romantic notion of the great sideshow performer, weaving a web of words to captivate and con their loving audience. The outside talkers do that. I have to put the performers in perspective. If they were any good, they wouldn’t be in the sideshow. I am sure a few fall through the cracks, a very few. I say this, all the while thinking I want to perform in the sideshow, but do it better. I know I can.
Step Four, the time:
Twelve acts. Thirty minutes. Slightly over two minutes an act. There is no time to properly present the individual acts. The show is destroyed in the process. The audience is cheated. The audience is disappointed.
It appears the presenters of the show do not care about their audience past getting their tickets at the door. Half the acts, presented well, would make a happier audience. Even P.T. Barnum knew to give the audience more than their money’s worth without cutting corners. Cutting corners cuts satisfaction.
In the old days of the sideshow these corners were not cut. When the Headless Lady was presented, all sorts scientific apparatus surrounded her. Today, a few ill-fitting pipes.
Why has the sideshow died? Forgetting what makes a show; they cut out their own art and amputated themselves to death.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)