Columnist T.A. Waters
ON
THE WATERS FRONT a column of information and
opinion by T. A. Waters THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED
IN THIS COLUMN ARE THOSE OF THE WRITER, AND
MAY NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF
THE STEVENS MAGIC EMPORIUM OR GEMINI.
Column
Three: HOKEY POCUS
What
follows will of necessity be something of
a ramble -- but bear with me. As I was leafing
through the April issue of MAGIC, I came across
a letter from one Artie Kidwell, complaining
about how much skin Jinger Kalin had shown
on the March cover and in an interior photograph.
A cold fear gripped my heart as I realized
one of two things must have happened: either
my issue had been incomplete or damaged, or
brain-rot had finally set in -- because I
didn't remember seeing any such revealing
pictures. I checked the issue and looked at
the pictures of Jinger; I studied them very
carefully for quite some time, and I hope
you appreciate the thoroughness with which
I research this column. If anyone cares to
look, they'll see that the cover shot shows
about a two-inch wide strip of cleavage to
the belt line, and about a five-inch bit of
her lower thigh is exposed. In the picture
on page 43 we see a bit more leg and a glimpse
of bare shoulder... ...after recovering from
this meticulous study, I checked Mr. Kidwell's
return address to see just where in Kentucky
his monastery is located, but none was indicated.
Mr. Kidwell characterizes himself as an "old
toad" -- I dunno: we're told that toads, when
kissed by the right woman, can transform into
princes, but Kidwell seems so upset at the
sight of female flesh that he's unlikely to
let one get near enough -- so if toad he is,
toad he shall remain. Seriously: I read his
letter, looked at the photos, and thought
WHAT PLANET IS THIS GUY ON? Does he ever turn
on the TV, see Baywatch -- or NYPD Blue --
any of a couple of dozen night-time shows,
to say nothing of the soaps, ALL of which
show a lot of unclad bodies? Has he looked
at a cover of Cosmopolitan? Does he even see
the Sunday newspaper lingerie or bathing suit
ads? [Example: the 5/21 LA Times, p.5 -- a
full-color, full-page ad for The Broadway
department store. It features two attractive
women in bathing suits which, while conservative
by California standards, show a lot more skin
than suit; this in a Sunday paper with a readership
of millions, and not remotely unusual.] Does
Mr. Kidwell, in fact, see much of the contemporary
world at all? However, I am not picking on
Mr. Kidwell for his opinions on costuming
in magic; I am picking on him for something
ELSE he says in his letter. "Magic," he tells
us, "has always been entertainment for the
entire family." Really? Who found that out?
SOME magic has been "family entertainment"
-- and so have some movies, and books, and
songs, and dancing, and so on through every
other area of show business. Some has been
-- and a whole lot has NOT been. It would
not be unfair to say that the great majority
of work in most areas of entertainment has
dealt with romantic and sexual themes; even
murder and mayhem run a distant second. There's
a reason for this: for most of us, love in
its many aspects is the most important thing
in life -- and if love indeed makes the world
go round, then sex could be considered the
ball-bearings. Art reflects life, sometimes
magnifies it -- and the themes of love and
sex are at the core of much of art, and of
show business. In the real world of show business
(or the real world, period), the photos of
Jinger can be appreciated for her remarkable
beauty but the notion that they are too revealing
is laughable. By contemporary standards they
are positively demure. So why does Mr. Kidwell
-- who is probably not alone in his opinions
-- think sex shouldn't be a part of magic,
since it is a part of virtually every other
area of show business, from children's shows
(seen Xuxa?) to grand opera? Well, it's part
of a deeper problem -- a very serious problem
-- or I wouldn't be spending all this time
on it. Take out two playing cards -- let's
use the Queen of Hearts and the Joker. Put
them face-up on the table side by side. Now
angle the Queen slightly so that its corner
covers the Joker index; got it? Fine. With
this visual aid, imagine show business to
be the QH and magic to be the Joker: the area
where they overlap is about how much they
have in common. It seems to me that there's
magic -- and then there's all the rest of
show business, with very little crossover.
Why do I think this? Got a week? Well, let's
try. Much of my performing background is in
classical drama, primarily Shakespeare. Now
here is performance material in which the
dialogue does not change, the settings and
costumes vary not that much -- yet, if you
saw a production of OTHELLO in which I performed,
then fired up your handydandy TimeScanner
and looked at productions of that same play
from 30, 60, 90 years before -- you'd immediately
be able to tell that they were being performed
in different eras. In the same way, most of
us can look at a film, even a genre western,
and form a fairly accurate estimate of when
it was done, simply by looking at the style.
Let's take something more recent, but conservative:
country music. In the last dozen years, while
keeping to its tried-and-true themes, the
presentation and performance of country artists
has changed almost out of recognition. It's
the same with most areas of popular culture,
to a greater or lesser degree; they change
with the times. But not magic. Why not magic?
It seems that the answer is inherent in the
question -- and the answer is that MAGIC IS
NOT A PART OF POPULAR CULTURE. Rather, it's
a separate little world with its own species
(and subspecies) that, as in a lot of bad
science fiction, occasionally intersects with
the real (i.e., non-magic) world. Also as
in bad s-f, the results are usually not pleasant.
If this weren't true, then magicians would
think that they ARE a part of show business
-- and then, like every other aspiring performer,
they'd realize all the things they have to
learn to BE in show business. They'd understand
they have to learn voice control and projection,
stage movement, make-up -- the basics of any
kind of stage work. Then, of course, there's
lighting, and scripting and direction, and
music, analyzing performance space -- and
if they don't want to learn these things,
most of them arts in themselves, the performers
have to find and hire people who CAN do these
things -- if they want even a chance at any
kind of show business career. (I assume it
is understood by now that I am discussing
theatrical stage performance; close-up, trade
or corporate work is not directly relevant
to this discussion -- although there is some,
uh, bleed-through.) Magicians don't do this;
barring the (maybe) few dozen exceptions we
can all name (!), magicians somehow get the
idea that they're omniscient, and that purchase
of a Square Circle is a mystical transaction
that gives them all the knowledge they need.
In a way, they're right. It has long been
a belief of mine, admittedly untestable, that
if you found a singer or dancer or actor of
the competency-level of the AVERAGE PROFESSIONAL
magician, the singer/dancer/actor could NEVER
get hired; they wouldn't be good enough to
ever get work. So, yeah, that magician who
just bought the prop may be "good enough"
to get by, to get work -- but not good enough
to do magic any good. For those who are in
show business just for the money (and going
into performance work primarily as a way of
making money is as bizarre a notion as I can
imagine), magic is probably a pretty good
bet; after all, they won't be judged as though
they were in REAL show business. It is easy
to understand, finally, why so many people
in magic want it to REMAIN outside popular
culture -- because if it is brought into the
culture, it will be judged by the culture's
standards -- and they too will be judged by
those standards. This separation from popular
culture is what makes it possible for a magic
show to appear on Broadway in the 1980s and
have a reviewer congratulate the magician
for "...a wonderful re- creation of a hokey
old-time magic show." The reviewer never had
a notion that the performer thought he was
being contemporary. This is what makes it
possible for magic to be dismissed by so many
-- including people WITHIN it -- as only "family
entertainment" or "something for the kids."
This is what makes it possible for magic-oriented
nightclubs and showplaces to ALL be decorated
in the style of 100 to 100 years ago -- because,
after all, isn't that what magic is? A performance
art from a bygone time that has no relevance
to today? Ricky Jay was able to take his knowledge
of magic history and use it to enhance his
show as he educated his audience to the idea
that magic, performed by an artist, can indeed
be a living art -- and he stood the New York
theatrical world on its ear. Look through
his reviews: the only times you will see words
like "hokey" or phrases like "old-fashioned"
are to describe what it ISN'T. While some
of his presentations referenced magic's past,
the production reflected the values of contemporary
theater -- with the direction of David Mamet
and the lighting by Jules Fisher... ...but,
of course, when you think of the money Ricky
could have saved by doing the lighting and
direction himself, it was probably a tough
call...! Because of its relative rarity, magic
will never be a performance art of the prominence
of music and dance, and this is as it should
be; after all, how magical or mysterious can
something be if everyone does it? It would
be nice, however, if those who decide to go
into professional magic decide also to go
into professional show business, and realize
that when you've mastered the effect, that's
the first step, not the last. Professional
magic has in its ranks some performers who
can stand with the best from other performance
arts; I respect them, and love what they do
to show their audiences that magic is indeed
a worthy art of wonder. I just wish there
were more OF them -- and less of those who
think magic is all you need to know to be
a magician. There is, I suspect, no easy solution
to this problem; I do have some thoughts and
opinions about it, even less pleasant than
what you've just read -- and how surprised
are you? -- but I will save those for my NEXT
column. Anything else? Oh. Yes. Jinger, you
ARE beautiful. T. A. WATERS ADDENDUM: In the
May issue of MAGIC, following on the theme
of Mr. Kidwell's screed, is a letter from
a Mica Calfee, whose son, interested in magic,
received a subscription to the magazine; Calfee
didn't intend to give the son "...a girlie
magazine." The son, we're told, is 15 YEARS
OLD. My theory is that the kid wants to learn
magic so he can finally escape from the barrel
where he's been kept... ...but I could be
wrong.
TAW Copyright
(c) 1995 by T. A. Waters. All rights reserved.
