Well, here they are. The most discussed, denounced and damned articles regarding magic and magicians to make an appearance in many a moon. All three of the reproduced articles were put together by the same writer, and made their bows in Variety, a weekly trade paper for theatrics and professional thespians. After the review of the Heckscher Theatre show came out, hell started to pop around the magical emporiums and the resultant language would have shucked a green coconut at forty paces. Rumors flew like humming bird wings in a hurry and for a time it looked as though a lynching party was the only solution.
So, as The Jinx is often wont to do, we are laying the whole thing out to air, and for all who care to read and make comment. Regardless of what you may have heard, these are the facts in the case, and my reason for republishing the articles is to get a consensus of opinion from as many magi as possible as to whether they are good or bad for magic and magicians, and your own definite reasons for the opinion.
The articles and reviews were written by a member of the S.A.M. with a paid up card. He paid to see the shows reviewed as Variety does not have a pass. He is on the staff of Variety to review shows and write articles for the trade publication. When I talked to him about his views on what he wrote, he defended them as unbiased and honest reviews from the practical and box office outlook. He cited the other vaude and theatre reviews contained in Variety and The Billboard by country scattered critics to show his criticisms were written with the same unbiased attitude. He stood on a critic’s right to review any show or performance where an admission fee is charged and anyone with the price may enter. He said that although the Heckscher show was a benefit performance, every performer except one received money.
On the other hand, magicians reviewed are up in arms. They say that the articles are the work of a ‘sorehead’ whose magical ability has become irreparably null and void. That such reviews are a bad thing because the magus will lose a lot of work, Variety being a trade paper for agents and managers. They question this fellow’s right to be a critic and reason that he cannot have the layman’s viewpoint. What I want are scattered opinions of both amateurs and professionals on the writeups. If it can be shown he’s wrong and taking advantage of his position to put across poisoned arrows, let it be done. Every copy of The Jinx containing remarks for and against will be mailed to the Variety editor. I’ll give up a page next month to such opinions, but be sure and make them short and containing definite reasons.
If reviews are to be sugary and always flowery, that’s one thing. If they should be honest and unbiased, with the faults brought out for assimilation, it is something else again. If amateurs on the same bill with professionals should not be reviewed in the same light, then that point should be made clear and adhered to.
I’ve been advised not to print these articles and spread the alleged bad reports. However, that wouldn’t stop them and we’ll get an answer to the question of “WHEN IS A REVIEW NOT A REVIEW ?“
Leave a Reply