I have no comment to make. Dunninger f-.WiHHKS'tt ™~—

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 »•¡HHHHHHHHt ___________

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 ttif-iHKHHHHHt —~"

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 iHHHHKHKt-tt* ~""""—

"I'll write you a letter about it."

John Mulholland


Wo 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 Emst 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 OP 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 wen» 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 viant 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 audience« do more to ham 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 Margulea in The Sphinx, July 1936, The Future of MagicT"

Modem Mai

0 0

Post a comment