Note : These opinions refer to the much discussed Variety article and review on magic and magicians which was reproduced in the last issue of The Jinx. We asked readers for their opinions as to whether such articles are good or bad for magic, and why. The views expressed are not to be taken as necessarily being our own.
Dear Ted : (1) A paper has a right to print anything it feels like. (2) A member of the Society who knowingly and willingly publicly “pans” a fellow member or his act is not worthy of membership in such society. He is a friend, provided he tells the performer and fellow member that “if you will change so and so, the act will be better” — he is not a friend if he injures his fellow member’s chances of further work. (3) Many magicians require the truth being told about them — even the worst of them do not deserve a blasting criticism in print. (4) No one knows definitely who wrote the review in Variety that caused all the trouble. The Greatest Magician of all said “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” — so let’s be more kind to our fellow man.
Julien J. Proskauer
Dear Theo : A volume could be written on the review situation in Variety. My how squarely the writer does hit the nail on the head ! It is a bitter pill for the amateur and semi-professional to swallow, but good medicine nevertheless. From the angle of the showman or person who depends on box office receipts the writer is certainly right. It is true that 99% of us ape the originals and never creates anything of our own. There are too many copy cats among us, and the best magicians of today are the fellows who live to themselves and are independent of all magical societies.
Wallace, The Magician
If I were an agent, or manager of a theatre, and read any of that critic’s articles, I wouldn’t hire a magician. If the critic weren’t a magician himself his criticism might be right from his point of view, but being a magician and member of the society, I don’t think a criticism from him could be fair to magicians.
Fred Rothenberg
A reviewer is only doing his job properly by calling them as he sees them (assuming the paper allows him to do so), so he should not be blamed for that. Of course, the writer of the March 3rd article didn’t have to review the benefit show but, if such performances would generally be a commercial failure, he did a service in pointing this out. Some of the acts will naturally like the criticism but, if it’s true, it is to their benefit to eliminate weak spots and get up to date. In the March 24th review, the writer makes amends to some extent by acknowledging at the start that magic is having a revival, particularly in night clubs. This sufficiently dispels the bad impressions which bookers might have picked up by reading the first article. The man certainly knows his magi, and all Jinx readers should thank you for reproducing his “Inside Stuff”.
Tom Bowyer
The review is only what is to be expected from an S.A.M. member. Past experience has shown that the society is not sincere in its enforcing of its own expose rules, so how can one expect a member to be loyal to magic and magicians.
Tom Worthington
Variety’s critic has the right perspective on magic and magicians. It is too bad that magicians who disagree with him cannot stop dealing seconds long enough to step back a few feet and view the scene as it really appears. Magic is being ruined today by performers who have not learned that showmanship is more important than sleight of hand. The way they use their feet while standing before an audience is more important than the way they use their hands. When a person gives me helpful advice (an efficiency expert would charge plenty for it) I thank him instead of asking the world if it was ethical for him to do so.
Bertram Adams
In my opinion, they were written by one desirous of furthering his own ambitions with no thought for those whom he might injure by his biased and unfounded statements. One may attempt to justify these acts by using the worn out argument “It is only his personal opinion”, but such a defense is unavailable to one who writes for a purveyor of news and does not attach his name to the writings. The publisher must of necessity be charged with the contents of these articles and must realize that unfair reviews will not do his circulation any good. The conscience of the author must be bothering him for he knows deep in his heart that his pessimism and general attitude towards magic is unfounded and unfair. And then may I ask “what are his qualifications to judge others ? Who is he to judge ?”
Jacob L. Steisel
I have no comment to make.
Dunninger
It was a mean and unwarranted attack by a man whose own magic show is an expose. If he checked up on himself he’d find that most of the things he says are wrong with magicians are but a description of his own faults.
Max Holden
Maybe these articles will slightly awaken one or two of that most smug group in the world magicians. If it does — it will accomplish a great deed that was probably not given a thought while writing. I wonder how many — members would pale, tremble and maybe even miss one meeting in order to check up on their own presentation, should they read an honest review in — pages. But of course, such a thing could never happen in —. So thank God for Variety and your reproducing of the articles.
Orville Meyer
What magicians have needed most is the realization that they must be of interest to the public and cease worrying about fooling other magicians. As for the reviews, “the truth always hurts”, so from the yells that have gone up, there must have been a good deal of pain.
Yachandee
“I’ll write you a letter about it.”
John Mulholland
(P.S. No letter. Editor.)
Who ever heard of a benefit performance being reviewed other than by way of acknowledging the services of the performers ? The S.A.M. Heckscher Theatre show is an annual function for the Ernst Hospital Fund. Expenditures are kept to a minimum because all committee work is gratis. Many performers work gratis and others merely get expenses to cover the cost of transporting their equipment and incidentals. The article in Variety was a scurrilous attack in which the audience, performers, and magicians in general were derided, criticized, and ridiculed in a most crude and unethical manner. I believe this was unfair and unjust to those who gave themselves for a single benefit performance in which the stage equipment was far from ideal and proper rehearsals almost impossible. THE END RESULT OF SUCH REVIEWS, WILL SERVE ONLY TO HURT THE HOSPITAL FUND BY CAUSING QUALIFIED PERFORMERS TO BE WARY OF DONATING THEIR SERVICES TO ANY S.A.M. BENEFIT IN THE FUTURE. I further learned that no one was invited to review the show. This contemptible blow to professional prestige coupled with undoubted economic injury to a group of entertainers donating their services to a worthy cause by a self-appointed and totally unnecessary reviewer, is not only an odoriferous incident, but I believe, libelous. I would advise the performers who may sustain any economic losses thru this cowardly unexpected assault, to get legal advice. I firmly believe, that no reputable critic or reviewer would ever review a benefit performance. It simply is not done ! And did you notice that all other reviews on that page were initialed, but the article in question was unsigned as if the writer was subconsciously ashamed of its contents. I think it’s a scurvy trick. What do you think ?
Dr Jacob Daley
I want to speak first about the performances given by magical societies. From time to time public or semi-public programs are put on by these groups. I believe that these so-called magic shows, when witnessed by outside audiences do more to harm magic as an art and to magicians who practise professionally than is generally believed. The magic that is seen on these occasions is often of a very poor quality, and is generally badly presented. I have every right to say this because I have on numerous occasions been part and parcel of these shows, and more than that I have arranged many magic programs in the last 20 years. In New York City it has been somewhat different. At the Annual Show of the Parent Assembly of the S.A.M. a serious effort is made to secure the best professional talent available, but even with this talent, the shows do not measure up to my idea of what a real magic show could and ought to be. Professional magicians, in spite of their disdain for the amateurs, also at times prove to be “flops”.
Sam Margules
In The Sphinx, July 1936, The Future of Magic.
Leave a Reply