Posted on June 23, 2005
Filed Under General | 3 Comments
According to one of my favorite web sites, the Internet Movie Database, the plot to the motion picture, The Aristocrats, is described as:
One hundred superstar comedians tell the same very, VERY dirty, filthy joke–one shared privately by comics since Vaudeville.
An article in today’s New York Times puts it this way:
How do you sell a movie about the dirtiest joke ever told?
Note to reader: None of the good parts of the joke will be told during the course of this article. Or in any of the ads. Or in the trailer. In fact, much of the content of the movie, a documentary called “The Aristocrats,” is basically unrepeatable in just about any mainstream public forum.
Which is the essence of the problem.
In the Times article, Penn is quotes as saying,
“There is no violence or hostility of any kind” in “The Aristocrats,” explained Penn Jillette, an executive producer of the film, who is better known as half of the magic act Penn and Teller. “We want to say: ‘We have 150 really funny human beings in the back of a room making each other laugh, but they’re going to be swearing, and if you don’t want to hear swearing, you better not come in.’ “
Priceless. Absolutely priceless.
And this should put to bed the question of how one can outdo a Showtime series called, Bullshit.
ADDED 7/11/2005: It is becoming readily apparent to me that “The Aristocrats” is not going to suffer the same fate as did “The Blair Witch Project” — which is to say, it appears to me many people still aren’t getting the joke. Which, naturally, makes the joke even funnier. This may become the Mobius Strip movie of the decade.
Posted on June 21, 2005
Filed Under General | 4 Comments
Yes, I know, old news. But I’ll bet you didn’t know he bends bicycles, too. (Thanks to Red Ferret.)
As an aside — and I’m not sure I should even mention this — but don’t you find more than a passing resemblance between Uri and Gerry McCambridge? Hey, I’m just asking.
Posted on June 8, 2005
Filed Under General | 3 Comments
One of the lovely benefits of (occasionally) writing in this blog is the email it generates. Not a lot of email, mind you. But what there is of it is usually very interesting, when it’s not amusing. Sometimes it’s both. Recently I received two emails basically asking the same thing: why did I (or anyone) get into magic, and how can they get into magic, too. (Well, that and, “Do you know the real name of the man called The Professor?” To which I always reply, “Russell Johnson, why do you want to know?”)
Magic is a wonderful thing. Those who actually perform magic for others know this instantly. (Others suspect it as truth, and that’s what generates some of the email I get.) There’s something about creating that instant of astonishment/disbelief/rip-in-the-fabric of the space-time-continuum. You get the picture, I’m sure.
I mentioned a few days ago that David Regal was offering a stellar deal on his two-volume set, “Constant Fooling.” And, since I hadn’t added those to the library here at Casa Escamoteurettes, I decided to take advantage of it. The books arrived Saturday and I only had a moment to leaf through them, but this quote stood out immediately:
“I have the bug. For me, magic — a salute to the subversion of order in the universe — is one of the few things in the world that makes sense.
“Everyone needs to temporarily remove themselves from concerns, and lose themselves in activities and rituals designed to do just that. That’s why there are storytellers, plays, films, books, spectator sports, religions, and fortunes in fortune cookies. That’s why there are performances of magic. Magic tells people there are possibilities, and one would be hard-pressed to find a more compelling message than that. The need to put reality on hold is so basic, some of the largest corporations on the planet exist simply to distract and amuse.”
Despite what anyone might tell you, doing a magic trick perfectly isn’t terribly difficult. This is not rocket science. Look at much of what makes up the long and distinguished line of Tenyo tricks (hello, Angelo) and that, alone, proves my point. If that’s not enough, a good Ultra Mental routine certainly will. This is why I harp on the difference between magic trick and magic effect; the trick is what you do; the effect is why you do it.
Performing magic, on the other hand, is a beast of an entirely different stripe. It’s one thing to technically (perfectly) perform a magic trick, and quite another to stop time in its tracks and bend reality back onto itself. The difference between a perfectly executed magic trick and actually doing magic is the difference between an audience member saying, “Hmmm, that’s…interesting.” and an audience member staring at you for a second or two before blurting out, “No. F*****g. Way.” (I’ve long believed that the level and amount of profanity uttered after I perform a trick may not be the best, but it is the most accurate barometer of how well it played.)
To put it another way, one thing happens in the hands, the other between the ears. (Since all wonder occurs between the ears, maybe you can better understand my deep, abiding passion for mentalism.) It takes a lot of practice to “get it right” — and that practice includes doing it lots or lots of times, observing the reactions, and adjusting the routining to get the best reaction. That takes quite an investment.
Why do magicians do magic?
On the surface, it’s a simple question. In reality — an interesting word to use, given the subject matter — the answer is as varied as the people who perform. Many people are convinced down to the marrow of their bones that magic is the Great Equalizer; geeks who couldn’t get a chick to give them the time of day turn to magic to get the chicks. Except that here on planet earth that, apparently, only works for Jay Sankey.
Many of the people with whom I’ve had this conversation explain that they learned their first trick and eagerly, if nervously, performed it for someone they knew. Then came the experience of their audience’s reaction to the trick. As a result, they became hooked on magic like nobody’s business. It’s a story that’s repeated over and over. It’s seeing a person’s reaction that’s the real magic. Crack needs a glass pipe, a dealer, and an unending supply of money; magic just needs and audience of one. (In the spirit of full disclosure I must admit that magic needs an unending supply of money, too. You have been warned.)
In my world, I perform for the reaction. (Well, I perform for the money, too.) For me — and I suspect it’s the same for lots of close-up performers — doing magic is like a little boy running up to his parent with a gift he just can’t wait to see opened. You spend what may seem to others as an inordinate amount of time wrapping it just so, but seeing it opened… That’s as close to the feeling as I can explain. When you learn to perform magic as opposed to doing tricks, it’s like giving someone a gift. And it’s the expression once the package is fully opened that you live for.
Experience it once and it’s like Hotel California; you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave. Magicians — many magicians I know personally — go through waves where they have to put the wand down, even if for a little while, for whatever the reason. Not everyone performs magic 100% of the time. Most performers have other things going on called “a life” that includes family and work and other hobbies. Eventually, though, magic calls again. And you answer. And it’s like you’ve never been gone. That’s magic.
Posted on June 2, 2005
Filed Under General | 2 Comments
Jeff Jarvis makes a point I think might be relevant to some people in our bizarre little corner of the word. In today’s post Outboxed, Jarvis points out that Robert Greenwald is asking for contributors for his next movie, “Wal-Mart: The high Cost of Low Price”
Greenwald says about his project:
“WAL-MART: The High Cost of Low Price takes the viewer on a deeply personal journey into the everyday lives of families struggling to fight goliath. From a small business owner in the Midwest to a preacher in California, from workers in Florida to a poet in Mexico, dozens of film crews on three continents bring the intensely personal stories of an assault on families and American values.”
I think you get the picture.
Walmart is positioned by some as a behemoth, wholly unstoppable as it leaves carnage in its wake. But last month’s Business 2.0 magazine article, “How to Beat Wal-Mart,” shows exactly that. And in each case, the “how to” is serving the market.
In his post, Jeff Jarvis notes:
“By the way, I hate shopping in Walmart — the place scares me viscerally — but I don’t think it’s evil just because it’s big. I also have — stupidly, perhaps — avoided buying Walmart stock because I believe that in the history of retail — see department store chains of the past and see most any consumer electronics chain — there has always been a tipping point when a chain gets too big. Will that day come for Walmart? I think it will tip of its own weight. That’s just a guess but that’s why I don’t think Walmart (or Clear Channel or Microsoft) is an evil empire that needs to be toppled. The market takes care of that. “
That’s the great thing about a free market society; the market takes care of itself. If the market prefers one product or service over another, it’s not necessarily that the market is stupid or ill informed. It very well could be they are perfectly informed and have made up their mind what it is they prefer.
A product or service does not self-sustain; it requires voluntary support from human beings who make judgements about the value of that product or service. The interesting thing about people, though, is you generally cannot bend them against their will. Attempting to do so often has the complete opposite effect you may be trying for.
The market takes care of itself.
Now, whether you agree with the market is another thing entirely.
Posted on June 1, 2005
Filed Under General | 2 Comments
I wanted to make mention of a new blog in the Escamoteurettes blogroll: Great Scott! It’s Magic! — Scott Guinn’s blog.
Like many folks in magic, I got to know Scott back in his Magic Cafe days. That led to us discussing and my subsequently purchasing from him the exclusive rights to seven of his books:
“Great Scott! It’s Card Magic!”,
“Great Scott! It’s Coin Magic!”,
“Great Scott! It’s More Magic!”,
“You’ll Be Pleasantly Surprised!”,
“Magishing My Way”,
“Profiles in Coinage”, and
“Great Scott! It’s Show Business!”
— as well as his DVD, “Great Scott! It’s Magic!“.
The books are in various stages of being re-typeset and/or printed (I’ll post a note when they are available), but the DVD is still available for just $29 shipped USPS Priority Mail (to US addresses, overseas a little more.) Details here.
Obviously I enjoy reading Scott’s stuff (“I liked it so much, I bought the company.“), so I am happy to point you to his new blog. He’s working on some new projects; you can get the details there.
Posted on June 1, 2005
Filed Under General | Leave a Comment
Down in Lou´siana where the black trees grow
Live a voodoo lady named Marie Laveau.
She got a black cat tooth and a mojo bone,
And anyone wouldn´t leave her alone.
She go GREEEEEEEEEEEE…
Another man done gone.She live in a swamp in a hollow log
With a one-eyed snake and a three-legged dog.
She got a bent bony body and stringy hair,
And if she ever seen you messin´ round there,
She go GREEEEEEEEEEEE…
Another man done gone.
Shel Silverstein sure knew how to write ‘em. Those are the beginning lyrics to the Shel Silverstein and Baxter Taylor penned hit for Bobby Bare, “Marie Laveau.”
Growing up in the New Orleans area, we kids were made well aware of Marie Laveau. As soon as we were able, we made pilgrimages to the gravesite to gawk at living proof she actually existed. (As if any kid would ever doubt the veracity of his parents…) Notice the “x” marks on the tomb; they are put there for good luck. (Things are a-changing, though, and not everyone is happy about that.)
Since I know one of the three of you regular readers is deeply interested in bizarre magick, I thought I’d mention New Orleans’ Times Picayune newspaper ran a story on Marie written by TP staff writer Lynne Jensen.
Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
Posted on June 1, 2005
Filed Under General | 1 Comment
Now that I have your attention, this is from Boing Boing this morning:
James Randi’s letter from Doug Henning is stolen and on eBay
Joseph sez, “Here’s a letter I (and others on the JREF mailing list) got from James Randi concerning a letter Doug Henning wrote to him which Randi states was stolen and is currently for sale on eBay:”Item #6535581498 now being offered for sale on eBay is a letter written and sent to me by Doug Henning in 1983. At that time, I lived in Rumson, New Jersey. Until I saw it on eBay a few days ago, I thought it was still in my Henning file, but it apparently was stolen from me sometime after 1995, when I last referred to it.
If any of you have heard scuttlebutt about this item, I’d like to hear from you. I cannot discover who offered it for sale, but I assure you I treasured it highly.James Randi.
The eBay auction is here. Anyone with information on this should contact Randi.
Update 6/1/2005 2:30 p.m.:
When contacted with a copy of the Randi mailing list note, the seller responded (in the Ask the Seller section of the auction):
“Yes, thank you, Mr. Randi’s public posting about the letter has made its way to many hundreds (or thousands) of his followers. As we stated to Mr. Randi early on, we would not bow to extortion or pressures or threats as we are not even the owner of this letter, we are a bonded, licensed Trading Assistant selling it under written contract for the ex-wife of Mr. Randi’s foster son and former assistant. Our understanding is that the letter came to be in this person’s possession much longer ago than Mr. Randi states, the client says she believes it came to her ex-husband in the 1980s. Regardless, Mr. Randi’s claim that the letter was stolen is contradicted by our client’s written statement and contract. His attempts to extort the item from us using public embarassment were completely inappropriate and not appreciated. Mr. Randi was informed that a proper police report would start the ball rolling towards resolution but that report just arrived yesterday May 31st.”
Update 6/2/2005 8:00 a.m.:
Well, the seller ended the eBay auction, using the “The seller ended this listing early because the item is no longer available for sale.” option.
This is the message the seller left:
“To the many individuals who either bid on this item or contacted us–this letter was the property of the ex-spouse to Mr. Randi’s foster son and former assistant. The ex-spouse believed the item was lawfully hers and brought it to us for listing. Mr. Randi asked us to give it back and we informed him to provide a police report first and we would give that document to our client. Instead of handling this professionally, he implied to the public that the item was stolen when in fact it appears the letter was acquired by his foster son when they were together. It appears that Mr. Randi felt the letter valuable after the death of Mr. Henning and he now takes the position that the letter was stolen but he did not file a police report until this Tuesday, some 10 or 5 years after his alleged “theft” (depending upon whether you believe his email or his police report.) Mr. Randi chose to air this laundry out in the public instead of doing the right thing and simply allowing the matter to take its course which would have been resolved amicably between the parties. We never end any listing until all facts are verified and the police report was not given to us until after he sent out a bunch of emails and even spammed our bidders in violation of eBay policy. We asked Mr. Randi to handle the matter through proper channels and he did it is “own” ostentatious way. The client, after hearing of Mr. Randi’s issue with the sale of this letter had agreed to return it to Mr. Randi, even though his claims were a stretch and any possibility of a legal claim were far past any statute of limitations. We feel sorry for both parties because the client had a valuable item she believes was hers to sell and Mr. Randi wanted something person back, but his actions and the way in which he hurt our reputation in the public to try and pressure us to simply return the item was reprehensible. We have a high reputation for honesty and fair dealing and Mr. Randi made it seem as though we simply were fencing this “hot” property. The matter was much more complex than that and we deserved better treatment from Mr. Randi.”
Update 6/3/2005 10:30 p.m.:
…and they lived happily ever after.
(Thanks Dustin.)
Powered by FireStats