New Rules for Magicians 2021

•November 17, 2021 • 6 Comments

Back in what Billy McComb used to refer to as “Nineteen hundred and frozen to death,” one of my favorite places to work on new material was ‘The Horn’ in Santa Monica. This club was a gloriously eclectic little Californian nightclub boasting a house band and a widely divergent group of entertainers. If you managed to score one of the highly sought after performing slots, you never knew whether you’d be following an opera singer, a jazz musician, or a comedian. It was a splendid place to hone your craft.

Amongst the comedians who performed regularly at The Horn was David Letterman, who would walk to the club with his large sheepdog. The dog would remain tethered at the club’s door while David dashed in and performed a short set. Another comedian who graced the boards in this cradle of creativity was Bill Maher. The first time I met Bill was on an evening that I was acting as MC. I was in the green room discussing the running order with the club’s booker when I spotted an unfamiliar name. I asked the booker in I hoped a suitably quizzical manner, “What exactly is a Bill Maher?” At that moment, a short and somewhat crumpled chap walked through the door and, with a big smile, said, “I am, you %?@#$.” I have been a big fan of Bill ever since.

One of the features of Maher’s current late-night HBO series Real Time with Bill Maher is his ‘New Rules’ segment, during which he details new rules that should be mandatory for improving our quality of life in these changing times. So with my tongue firmly in my cheek in some cases but in deadly earnest in others, I  would like to present my list of New Rules For Magicians.  

New Rule #1  Realize that not everyone is fascinated by Houdini.

This may be the most controversial of my new rules, but I have to throw it into the mix. It has long been an article of faith that just by invoking the ‘Sainted” name of Harry Houdini, the interest of the non-magical world will be ignited like a Californian forest by an illegal campfire. This assumption has run its course and must now be replaced with a big MAYBE! Trust me, doing the Siberian Chain Escape and attempting to beat Houdini’s fastest time will not automatically result in the press beating a path to your door. 



New Rule #2.  Don’t treat your audience like idiots.

Your job is to deceive and the spectator’s job is to be deceived. There is no need to assume that an audience is comprised of morons just because they fulfill their half of the mutual bargain. Be grateful they know the rules. Let’s be honest, you might not want them to tell you how deceptive that deceptive base really is after they have seen four or five of them in the course of your show. Sometimes an audience is just being kind, so don’t ever get cocky about how smart you think you are.  Audiences are not idiots, so don’t ever treat them that way just because you have a few tricks up your sleeve. 

New Rule #3.  There is NO such thing as a semi-professional magician. 

I know many people are reading this thinking, “That is ridiculous, I am delighted with my semi-professional doctor,” and “That semi-pro airline pilot did a great job on my last flight.” However, there is no such thing as a semi-pro in magic. I am not saying that there aren’t some performers who only occasionally get paid for a show but are still very good at what they do. However, a professional magician makes his living performing or creating magic, and by doing so, he enters a different world governed by different laws. And no, working the Magic Castle once a year isn’t a real gig. Sorry.

New Rule #4. The amount of money you spent on a prop should not affect its running time in your show.

The audience doesn’t care if the new prop you just purchased cost you a king’s ransom; they are just interested in how much it intrigues and entertains them. Be ruthless in pruning your running time and never let cost be a factor in your consideration. If you spend a grand on a prop that achieves an effect in just 30 seconds, then don’t feel a need to make it play for 35 seconds unless you have added to the impact with those five seconds. The following rule is something of a companion piece to this one.

New Rule #5. Never “See how much time you can get out of a trick.” Instead, see how much you can get out of a routine in the least possible time.

Again and again, I hear performers use expressions such as, “I can get 15 minutes out of the egg bag.” Pardon me while I scream. The true goal of a strong entertainer is to tighten his performance and get every bit of impact from a routine in the least possible time. You can eventually say with pride,  “I’ve finally got my egg bag routine down to ten minutes,” if every one of those minutes is solid and vital entertainment. Look for the padding and then surgically remove it from your show; you will be a much better and more commercial performer.

New Rule #6  Try to remember what century in which you are living.

When you look at the design and nature of magic props, it isn’t difficult to guess when they were designed. The Victorian era is so clearly stamped on some props that they look like they were airlifted from the Egyptian Hall in one of those new-fangled H.G. Welles time machines. If you really must use outdated looking props, at the very least arrive at your gig in a classic model T Ford.

New Rule #7. If you aren’t Jeff McBride, there is no need to dress like Jeff McBride.

McBride is an outstanding performer and teacher of magic. Jeff has a truly unique approach, not only to his magic but also in his singular choices in costume and character. With his Kabuki style make-up, funky top hat, and eccentric sense of style, Jeff looks equal parts magical troubadour, steampunk visionary, exotic magician, and Asian warrior. It is a look that is all his own and is as unique as the man himself. I frequently bump into magicians who have learned much from Jeff’s invaluable lessons at his celebrated “Mystery School,” but quite a few of them seem to have borrowed liberally from his sartorial style as well. Sorry guys, but for the most part, you have to be Jeff to make it work. Learn Jeff’s lessons and then make them your own, beginning with developing your own personalized fashion style.

New Rule #8. Be original in your publicity material, or any seasoned booker will assume your show is just as unoriginal.

There is a tendency for magicians to see photos and publicity material that other performers are using on sites like Facebook. I’m sure there was a first person to stage an 8X10 with a fire wallet, but now it is pure cliché. The current trend is the photo revealing a hidden ace in his sleeve. This picture is another cute idea that has become another instant cliché. These pieces of press material are the first items a buyer usually sees of an act. He is also probably looking at many other performers’ publicity materials, so why not use something more original. Why would he think you are going to be different and unique if your photo isn’t? Even a good picture of the performer himself is unique and unsullied by overexposure.

The politics of being booked as a comedy magician.

•November 10, 2021 • 1 Comment

One of the very first things you learn when booking any comedy or variety multi-act gig is that as you start off in the opening slot. This is good and as it should be; you need to scope out the lay of the land, learn what to do, and have a place to make some mistakes where they won’t capsize the show. Since the death of vaudeville, the vast majority of variety bills have settled into being three-act formats. Just like any theatrical venture, three acts work very well just as it does in a play or movie. As you move into that middle spot a new dynamic enters the scene and we need to discuss it in some detail.

Comedy Club and other show bookers are very comfortable putting a comedy magician, or indeed any “variety” act, into that middle slot. Why not! This is a very natural way of splitting up the two comedians on a comedy club bill and creating a little variety, heck this is why we are called variety acts. However, once you accept that paradigm of magician as middle act, you have created a glass ceiling that can be tough to shatter. Bookers love to slot magicians into that easy safe slot. Once I felt comfortable and confident with the way my act was building on the comedy circuit, I refused to middle and only accepted headliner gigs. For me this was the smartest thing I could have done; let me tell you why.

What are the reasons for wanting to headline on a comedy club gig? Primarily you earn more money, sometimes a lot more money, get to perform a longer set, get the best room in the condo (the one with your own bathroom), receive better perks, and get a whole lot more respect. In the ‘80s if you were headlining in a club you were still working on your career, if you weren’t, then you were just marking time. Let me be clear about one thing, getting to middle in a show is probably the easiest gig in the world because you have way fewer pressures and a lot less responsibility. If you are working an “equal nations” gig and all the performers are receiving the same salary and performing equivalent sets with contemporaries, then you will find that any pro worth his salt will be fighting to see how early in the bill he can perform. Only the insecure or ego-dominated performer will want to close that bill, and the smart pro will be delighted to oblige them.

Of course, back in the wild west comedy club circuit in the 1980s, there were quite a few ground rules for a comedy magician to learn if he was going to assume the position of headliner and naturally assume that two comedians were going to open for him and let him swoop into the closing role. Primarily you had to prove that even without the magic you could be just as funny, or funnier, than your opening acts. One thing you could be fairly sure about when you were onstage closing a bill in a comedy club was that the other comedians were sitting in the greenroom bitching about the fact that a magician was heading in a comedy club. 

The heart of most club comedians’ beef with comedy magicians is that they can always jettison some of their comedy if the crowd were not responding and re-focus on the magic, and vice versa if the conditions made it more favorable. They look at this as akin to a form of cheating, I have always looked on it as a good career choice! In that decade plus that I headlined on the comedy circuit, I always began my show with a very fast magical sight gag designed to make fun of the traditional magician’s image. I then performed a faultless ten-minute comedy monologue that established that I could meet the opening acts head own in their own field. Only then would I launch into my comedy magic act. My show also built up to an actual highly effective finale that got a big applause based reaction. Comedians frequently just ended their set by looking at their watches and saying, “That’s my time,” and walking off stage. I wanted to get a reaction that the club owner would really hear back in his office where he was probably hitting on a cocktail waitress.

I was lucky enough to work in almost every geographical zone that had a comedy club. I never wanted to be a regional act, and that is another choice the performer can make for themself. I could work in Manhattan or Biloxi, Fairbanks, or Chicago. As long as you paid the right money, I was there! My most direct contemporaries in the comedy circuit were Paul Kozak, John Ferrentino, and the king of the genre, Amazing Johnathan. One thing that we all shared was a very universal appeal in our shows, and that isn’t something that happens, but something you need to work at day-by-day and show-by-show. I learned a great deal about what is funny by comparing audience reactions in different locations and then choosing material that worked everywhere. These were lessons that also yielded a great dividend in my corporate bookings.

Let’s get back to a more detailed look at my specific journey into the comedy club market when it was really flourishing in the ‘80s. Prior to that time I had been performing primarily on cruise ships, magic venues, and old-fashioned nightclubs such as The Playboy Club. Most of these gigs involved about 20-minutes sets, which were starting to seem a little too short to me, but on a ship at least you needed two different 20-minute sets. I had also appeared in an excellent review show in Lake Tahoe for Fredric Apcar, a top-notch Las Vegas producer. Apcar loved my show and repeatedly asked me to be a specialty act in one his shows, but the length of the set required was just 12-minutes which was way too little time for my taste. I also had a restless nature and really no desire to step into a long-term contract. I filled in for Fredric several times when his regular acts needed vacations; this was my first real casino work. However, to me, the concept of performing the same 12-minutes, twice a night for a year contract was the closest thing to living death that I could imagine. I always loved Billy McComb’s answer when someone asked him if he could do a ten-minute show. “Absolutely I can,” He would say, “now, in ten minutes I can either have a card selected and not find it, or find a card that no one selected. Which would you prefer?”

The comedy circuit offered me the perfect way to develop a 60-minute one-man show, which came in very useful as my corporate work began to arrive. Cruise bookings later began to change and rather than being a 20-minute part of a variety show they began to feature solo Headliner Shows where the entertainer performed his own 50-minute set. I will never regret my decision to work towards the long form with my show. In 1995 I began a five-year run in Las Vegas with my own one-man 65-minute show, I still had very serious reservations about a long run, but I was more than excited about taking a break from the road and spending more time with my wife and daughters. 


The Hidden Cost of Being a Magician.

•October 26, 2021 • Leave a Comment

Being a magician is by no means an inexpensive vocation. From those early days thumbing through catalogs and sending away postal orders, to visiting buying illusions with your very own American Express card, it was never a cheap hobby/business.

I wouldn’t care to guess how many times I have walked out of a magic store holding a paper bag between two fingers wondering what the hell inside it could weigh so little and cost so much!

I have boxes and boxes, shelves and shelves just stacked with magic props that I just had to have. Many of them used once, or not at all.    90% of the props that I actually use are contained in a couple of pilots cases inside a cupboard next to my “working outfit.”

There is another series of boxes and shelves that contain the other depository of items that represent what I like to call “The Hidden Cost of Being a Magician.” These are the outdated, non-functioning and often barely used electronic item, and leads, leads, leads, plugs, plugs, plugs that presumably once serviced them. There are coils of wires and leads ,apparently writhing, in the right light, that look to all intents and purpose like those snake pits in the final episodes of Cobra Kai on Netflix.

There is a Digital Tape Player, half a dozen MD player, strange little box like units, weird hubs, old phones, early digital players, cameras and god knows what else. There is one entire shelf of aging hard drives, and I am pretty sure none of them have cables with plugs that will interface with my MacBook Air, iPad, iPhone or iMac, …… and did I mention the leads? Leads, Leads, Leads it is like the wheat chorus in Woody Allen’s Love and Death. There are magician collectors who make a tidy sum of money as their purchases build into a Rickey Jay type collection. Not me, I am an accumulator, which is time and space filling, without much chance of anything being worth big bucks except by accident.

There is something about magicians that often manifests itself as technophiles. No, I am not talking about the current breed of lame and lazy-ass magicians who perform “electronic magic” or “iPhone tricks” that manage to avoid any actual magical skills. I am always amazed how many people are fooled by iPhone tricks. Of course, it is mostly magicians who are fooling themselves. They fail to realize that when they pull out a phone, that 95% of spectators realize that it is the phone who is doing the heavy lifting.

Magicians are hard wired to want the latest device to run their music, adjust their lights, and do everything else their hearts desire. I know this because I am one of them. My shelves and boxes of expensive and outdated props and tech gear attest to it.

It is very hard to throw away any of this stuff though because you never know when you are going to need irreparably crumpled silks, or a die box that is missing the die. Every now and then I want to check on one of my six previously indispensable Macs, hook it up to a 30 gig hard drive, and see if they contain the photos from my 1990 trip to Tokyo. The trouble is I can never find the right lead to plug everything in. While I have endless supply of leads they are never the right ones– kinda’ like a scene from Glengarry Glen Ross.

Well, enough of this rant, I have to return to Google and search…… Someone old me that Amazon now sells that floating/revolving music player that David Bowie had in The Man Who Fell To Earth. It is exactly the item needed to put my act into high gear.

I will illustrate this post some pictures of electronic paraphernalia that I found, and discarded, from a “Garage Box” that I was exploring this morning. Believe me they are the very tip of the iceberg, the entire iceberg could sink the iceberg!

“Yes, Time To Spoil.” The Bond obsessives’ roundtable. Spoiler Alert!!!!!!!!

•October 16, 2021 • Leave a Comment

I am excited to share the following discussion of the 25th James Bond Movie “No Time To Die.” However, as noted below by Mike Weatherford.


“Yes, Time to Spoil”

The Bond obsessives’ roundtable

The bland poster. The generic title. The tight-lipped interviews with Daniel Craig and the creative team. The new James Bond movie No Time to Die doesn’t spill the beans on how different it really is, and no one can talk about what they really want to talk about. Until, of course, they see it. Then they demand, “Can everyone else just see the dang thing so we can talk about it?”

Three of us Bond obsessives gave you a whole week. And now, we give you a spoiler warning or three. 

If you don’t care about James Bond at all, please don’t read this. Because we really embarrass ourselves.

If you plan to see the movie and haven’t, please don’t read this until you do. With major secrets just a few keystrokes away, the collective pop-culture media has done a pretty good job of not spoiling things, and we don’t want to be the first.

But for fellow fans who have let James Bond consume much of their lives since childhood, help yourself to a discussion from:


– Nick Lewin, venerable comedy-magician who is actually British, and has traveled the world over with a tricked-out briefcase; as close to Bond as he figures he can get without knowing how to fly a plane. At a very early age, Nick made his own From Russia With Love briefcase out of cardboard. It scared no one.




– Mike Weatherford, who arrived in Las Vegas in time to see Licence to Kill at the movie theater on Charleston and Decatur that’s long since bulldozed, and went on to write about shows until well after Spectre came out. (He also saw Die Another Day and Quantum of Solace with Nick.)



– Steve Bornfeld, who has written for every publication in town, some twice, and some, thrice. A lifelong   Bond-phile, his life is often shaken,  never stirring.  He can only fantasize about having pussy galore, and he looks awful in a tux (white, black or even that crushed velvet raspberry monstrosity Daniel Craig wore at the No Time to Die premiere). 



Mike: So this movie put a longtime critic (or at least a reviewer of acrobat shows) into an ironic position: Combing through the reviews, reading the opinions of others, to try to make sense of my mixed emotions about this one. 

Thinking about this  movie, I remember something once said about  the romantic misadventures of someone (ahem) in our circle of friends: “He tried too hard and not hard enough, all at the same time.” In this case, I feel like the movie obviously made an extremely radical decision. On the other hand — maybe to justify said decision? — I think it fell back on ‘callbacks’ and too much rehash of the other movies in the Craig cycle, all to convince us of what we know wasn’t true: that all five of his movies were a grand design from the beginning.

I’m not sure I felt the way I was supposed to at the end. So my question to you two: Do you feel like the ending was earned? Or contrived?


Nick: Well, I am still processing the movie. Having seen every Bond movie in the cinema since Dr. No, my commitment is very strong. I have also read every book, including each of the post- Fleming books. My days have been liberally sprinkled with comments that sound like I consider Bond a flesh-and-blood character. I am of course fully aware that this affectation is exactly that, an affectation.

Now to the movies. I totally agree that the decision to make a separate arc for the Daniel Craig movie cycle was piecemeal and random. It really wasn’t in the least bit convincing or logical. However, I never really looked for the series to be convincing  (on the conceptual level) or, least of all, logical! I did look for a continuation of the specific qualities I found so irresistible in the Bond character. This was largely achieved over the course of 25 movies and six Bonds; ups and downs, but overall it has been a good ride.

I thought that after a smashing start with Casino Royale the franchise had some fairly spotty moments that were totally redeemed by Daniel Craig’s performance. I thought that Quantum of Solace was rather underrated and Skyfall a little overrated.  Spectre was dwarfed by its opening Day of the Dead sequence and the rest was kinda flat. Bond and Blofeld are half-brothers? This didn’t play even if you saw a glancing sly reference to Star Wars! I have watched it another time on DVD, but it really didn’t stay in my mind or give me as much enjoyment as even low-level (Man With The Golden Gun)  Bond movies. I didn’t even remember the Madeleine Swan character.

Now on to, No Time To Die. It was a good movie and well made. I was enjoying it as we watched it, with the Cuba sequence a highlight. I was deeply surprised when Felix died. However, no one viewed the Bond movies to watch Felix Leiter! Many critics found the movie too long, which I personally didn’t, as the half-thought-out plot was popping along fast enough to keep me totally involved. I would have cut the last 20 minutes though. I really did not want to see the character killed because the actor playing him was leaving the franchise. It is like a sheet of glass, once broken it will never be put back together again. Whoever comes up next in the part has lost the continuity needed to retain my previous level of complicity with the series. I felt sad and somewhat betrayed by the end of the movie. They have lost my commitment and interest in the franchise.

To answer your question Commander Weatherford, I think it was totally contrived and absolutely not earned. This was the ending of 25 that Danny Boyle proposed, and had his screenwriter put on paper. The entire creative team thought it was a bad idea then, and I still do. A good part of the Bond mythos has been fractured. Bond does not die no matter what the odds, Michael and Barbara (the producers) confused the actor and the role. The actors are interchangeable but the character and qualities of Bond are carved in stone. If Lashana Lynch was an indication of where the franchise is heading then count me out. I would have been more forgiving if they had just let 007 retire to his Jamaican paradise. I lost John Prine last year and didn’t need to lose another hero this year. Since the franchise seems to be looking towards a more woke sensibility, maybe they should have let Bond die of COVID, dying of  ‘Freddie Mercury poisoning’  didn’t cut it for me. Over and out, other than to say I watched From Russia With Love again last night to see if it could still cast its spell and it did.


Steve: If you can’t stretch logic and flip the bird to continuity for 007, then what is the world coming to? There is enough emotionally overwrought entertainment in pop culture to get heart-invested in. I never needed Bond for that.  What I need him for is the absurd wow factor and the fantasy, even at my age as an old, decrepit but still childlike 64. (In that way, I’m still the kid whose parents once bought me a toy suitcase from From Russia with Love, complete with a slide-out rubber knife, but alas, no gold coins or capacity to explode. No gypsy babes, either). My main complaint from the start of Craig’s run is that it had no interest in good old fashioned,  no-strings adventure, with the possible exception of Skyfall, which seemed great until it wallowed in his oh-so-terrible upbringing in its 3rd act (only his under-the-ice fight scene redeemed all that). Craig was,  all in all, a good Bond, but saddled with too much backstory, which is perhaps why the death of his Bond, though it did originally shock me for its novelty and frankly, ballsiness, doesn’t now leave me shaken or stirred. 

To answer the question: Yes, within the needlessly emotional bubble they created in the Craig-verse, the death was earned.  It closes the self-contained arc it committed itself to and frankly,  makes it easier for the next series of films to pretend it didn’t happen and start again. With the death,  it feels like it validates the Craig era as an outlier, and as such, to exist separate from the bigger Bond-verse, without having to torture ourselves to square it within the larger ouevre. I am grateful, though,  that Craig kind of validated my favorite Bond actor after Connery, the criminally under-appreciated Timothy Dalton, who made the character grounded and serious — and really shined in small moments of genuine regret and rage, particularly in Licence to Kill —  but not so emotionally tumultuous that I had to give a damn about the operatic toll on his inner life.  Just save the day,  Jimbo. And have a little drink and a screw or two while you do it. James Bond will return.   


Mike: Thanks to Nick for giving the world the phrase “Freddie Mercury poisoning.” I think that’s going to catch on. The more I let the movie sink in — versus watching the credits slack-jawed, annoyingly repeating “The rumors were true!” over and over again — the more I agree with Steve that it worked, more or less, given the road they forced themselves to travel by making the Craig-verse a self-contained arc. Sounds like we all three agree that was forced and unnecessary, especially because it meant making this one a direct sequel to Spectre, which did a better job leaving a thread for ‘more Blofeld’ than it did for ‘more Madeleine.’ But if only because they talked Craig into doing another one, I think they had to go big or go home. Driving the DB5 into the sunset with the girl is the ending they already used in Spectre. Once the rumors that Danny Boyle bailed over the decision to kill off Bond (there seems to be confusion about whether he left because he did or didn’t agree), I spent too much pandemic time wondering, “Hmm. If that were to happen, what would be a satisfying way for that to happen?”

And that’s where all this still bothers me. You guys don’t pay as much attention to the Star Wars or Marvel movies as I do, but some people are pointing out the parallels to Robert Downey’s send-off in Infinity Wars. My favorite of the new Star Wars movies is the stand-alone entry, Rogue One, for which there will be no sequel because the heroine bravely stands on the beach facing her destiny, waiting for the final explosion. Sound familiar? If you’re going to do something like this, don’t do it just because two other hugely commercial franchises gave them a … license to kill.

I am, however, all for giving Craig the swansong he deserved. One thing I’m sure all three of us like to do is endlessly reshuffle our list ranking the movies in order. Mine changes every time, but I do know Casino Royale and Skyfall will always be in the top third of it — and that Craig’s other three — hmm, well, they will never fall into the bottom third. 

So, what now? Nick has already weighed in at least in part on this, but one more round from each of you (and we all three know it doesn’t have to be a martini). Is as Nick suggests, the franchise irreparably broken? And if so, was it broken on purpose? And is it time for us old guys to say goodbye and let that happen? Here’s what I mean by that: My main concern is that Jeff Bezos and others who stand to make money from these movies will try to reinvent him (or Lynch as ‘007’ but not Bond) in a way that appeals to young people for whom martinis and tuxes are no longer touchstones of sophistication. There’s a reason why those Fast and Furious movies are so popular, and one of them is that young people see themselves in the multicultural cast, the tattoos, and shaved heads.

Nick and I didn’t get a chance to discuss this, but Steve has heard my theory that perhaps No Time might be the swansong for producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson as well; that they may cash the check, surrender their role as caretakers of Bond as we’ve known him and let Bezos and Co. go hog wild and make Ariana Grande the next James Bond or whatever else they want to do.

Assuming that’s *not* the case though, they certainly seem to have painted themselves into a corner. It’s one thing to make Natalie Portman the new Thor – who wouldn’t want to see that? But reinventing Bond while still retaining the decades-long appeal of Bond? Hmm. As part of your thoughts on the future of the franchise, let me run these possibilities past you for comment and to see if you have any others.

— A transitional/stop-gap or spinoff series starring Lynch as the new 007, perhaps in a buddy team with Ana De Armas’ character. I don’t see this as replacing the Bond character as much as I see it testing the waters and buying the main series time. It was hard to give Lynch enough screen time in this one to make a fair decision, given the twin tasks of properly introducing Nomi (unfortunate name-share with Showgirls there)  while giving Bond himself a proper sendoff. But a huge strength of it would be retaining the continuity of Ralph Fiennes, Ben Wishaw, and Naomi Harris. Which would be hard to do if …

— They tried to pair a new Bond with that supporting cast. Just not sure how that would work, except for the popular fan theory that likens Bond to Dr. Who: M would tell the newcomer, “Using your real name would threaten your family, so you inherit the name and honorary title, James Bond.”

— They start all over, including a new supporting cast. (Ralph Fiennes is expensive, after all). Barbara and Michael have said in the past that Bond movies must always be present-day. But my vote for making this option work would be to take it back to the ‘60s, with the cool cars, outfits, and non-PC attitudes. (My only hope for this being anything but a daydream is that Anthony Horowitz’s continuation novels fall into the gaps between Fleming’s.)  


Nick:  I have a feeling that we are fairly likely to see a spin-off movie with Ana De Armas, and I guess that might be alright; I would certainly buy a ticket. I personally feel a real disconnect from the original franchise, and although I have a very negative reaction to the death of 007, I will definitely need to see what they do. I‘m pretty darn happy watching the James Bond channel on Pluto TV. 24/7 classic Bond movies still talk to me big time.

We haven’t discussed the rather blatant references to On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and George Lazenby. Why the hell is the” Craig Bond” weeping nostalgic over Diana Rigg,  being serenaded by Louis Armstrong’s great song, and even quoting “All the all the time in the world.” There were plenty of other musical and visual reference points to that early “one-off” movie.

IMHO, the current re-evaluation of the movie/Lazenby is a little too over the top. The movie was pretty good and Lazenby was alright. Incidentally, if you haven’t seen the Lazenby documentary “Becoming Bond” (currently on Netflix, I believe) it is required viewing. I got to spend a really great drunken evening with Lazenby organizing a bachelor party for our mutual friend Michael Sloan (creator of The Equalizer) and George had many even better stories of his Bond years. 


Mike: I think the classic quote from OHMSS was supposed to make us think it would take the predictable track and kill off Madeleine fairly early, clearing the way for ‘the next girl’?  (And the trailers furthering this by letting us think De Armas would be that next girl). And when that didn’t happen? Well, that’s one reason to see it again: I spent the rest of the movie thinking beyond what was happening in the moment and wanting to jump to the end: Now there’s only one more answer for these callbacks, and are they really gonna go there?

But yes, to the chagrin of the people next to us, Steve and I reacted out loud when both the Louis Armstrong and the title theme of OHMSS were played in the underscore. Armstrong’s song in the end credits was a wonderful touch. (The movie itself is up there in my ‘top third’ of the films, maybe it’s because it’s my favorite book. It does go on a bit, and  dubbed “Hillary” is an awful misstep, and it definitely lets its ‘60s fashions hang out in a way that’s maybe less cool than the Connery ones.) 


Nick: I am very fond of the OHMSS book also, one of the best in my opinion. There was a really awful “extended cut” of the movie that was created for its TV premiere. More skiing than a winter Olympics.  


Steve: With a little time and distance after absorbing everything No Time to Die did,  I am starting to resent it. It killed Felix. It killed Blofeld. It killed all of Spectre. It killed 007. Why not M,Q and Moneypenny too? Essentially, it killed off the totems of my youth, both minor and major. Did they need to remind me,  as an original member of the Bond-adoring generation,  that I am nearing my own death as well? Perhaps Bond is not built for this era. Actually,  neither am I, and that’s part of why I embrace him.

And yes, probably why he is destined for extinction. We are different types of dinosaurs, but dinosaurs nonetheless.  But he is not done yet and neither am I.  As long as baby boomer seniors dominate the landscape,  there is still a place at the movies for our heroes (and for our money at the box office)

But NTTD might have done more damage to the brand by giving it a death asterisk, an air of tragedy and mortality dragging it down. Invincibility was the fantasy. For a few hours we could all be invincible in his skin. After this flick, we are all doomed in his skin. We are not allowed our vicarious happiness. And when have we needed it more?

I don’t pretend to know how to bring him back,  except that we need a palate-cleanser — a rousing, drama-lite, kick-ass adventure with a great villain (maybe a female — Meryl? Charlize?) And an electric new actor as 007 in his career prime. And a selective memory regarding NTTD.  In a pandemic- ravaged,  hate-fueled world, I need more than the death of James Bond. I need the dude who lets me believe,  however fleetingly,  that I am invincible.


Nick: As a tiny afterthought, yes Steve, The dinosaur thing fits (and hurts,) maybe we are getting old, and maybe the world is too woke for Bond. Two weeks after the American premiere of NTTD the Rolling Stones announced that they would no longer play Brown Sugar in their live show because of its politically incorrect subject matter. The Rolling Stones made this decision!!!!! On a related note, their tour bus has had its left blinker on for the last three cities. Perhaps Jumping Jack can now only get up slowly. Personally, I am going to watch Dr. No again on pluto because I am convinced this is “No Time To Age.”




James Bond Will Return….


Choosing And Developing A Comedic Persona

•September 11, 2021 • 2 Comments

per·so·na | ˌpərˈsōnə |

noun (plural personas or personae | -ˈsōnē | )

The aspect of someone’s character that is presented to or perceived by others. A role or character adopted by an author, actor, etc. 

Magicians tend to prefer the fancier word persona when discussing their work; the comedy world seems happy to settle for the somewhat more down-to-earth word character. Comedians spend a lot of time working on their character. Which, trust me, has nothing to do with improving any of their ungentlemanly or lady-like traits. They are making sure they don’t sacrifice their performing persona just for a fast laugh. Consistency counts in comedy, and comedy is only real, then, when you are.  Once the audience thinks they know where you are coming from and who you are, the comedy takes on an extra dimension.

The first thing to do when exploring a potential persona, comedic or otherwise, for your act is to take a good look in the mirror. Try to intuit what an audience physically sees when they look at you; imagine you are seeing yourself for the first time. The persona you choose must work with what is, rather than what you would like to be the case. Do you look smooth and sophisticated or wild and zany? There are many steps and stages between these extremes. The more accurately you can analyze your physical attributes, the more precisely you can calibrate what new persona you can effectively embrace. 

You must zero in on one primary choice when deciding how to re-invent yourself as a comedy magician. Let’s take a look at this initial dividing of the stream.

1 Are you creating an entirely different performing persona for yourself, one who lives and performs by his own rules? You can create an exotic performer to highlight your material. In this area, one thinks of Ali Bongo and his frantic “Shriek of Araby” character stalking around the stage in a fez and curly slippers. Bongo, the performer, couldn’t be more different from his creator if he tried. The crazy antics of a Tommy Cooper or Amazing Johnathan or the mock pomposity of Johnny Thompson’s Warsaw Wizard are other examples of almost cartoon creations that amplify the laughs with their style. Please take a moment now to identify a few other performers who have created a theatrical persona to sell their work to the public.

2 The other way to address who will be in the driving seat performing your show is to take your own personality and then shape it and amend it a little. This method is very common and initially perhaps a slightly more straightforward technique. Comedy magicians who have taken their natural persona and amplified it to “showbiz” level include Billy McComb, Michael Finney, Mike Caveney, Fielding West, and many others. For most performers, this is possibly the straightforward path to follow.

It is pretty easy to divide comedians into these two basic modes with Andy Kaufman, Emo Philips, Bobcat Goldthwait, and Judy Tenuta heading up the performers on the number 1 option. Jerry Seinfeld, Jay Leno, Jim Gaffigan, and almost everyone else on the number 2 option. Of course, nothing in life is quite that easy to categorize, so let’s take a look at the all-important middle ground where the best answers are so often to found.

Some of the very best comedy magicians are a composite of both of these performing styles. They are onstage personalities who present a character close to their own but whose persona is much more easily identifiable to an audience. It is often quite tricky to spot where the actual person turns into the performing persona. Everyone who has spent any time with Mac King knows that his plaid suit and slightly hayseed character is a million miles from the guy who wears the suit. However, Mac has crafted a splendid blend between truth and fiction and, in this way, created a perfect vehicle for his performance. Mac took his Kentucky roots and used them to inform and illuminate his performing persona. 

Harry Anderson was doing great comedy magic long before “Harry The Hat” arrived on the scene. However, it is “Harry the Hat” who is primarily remembered by fans of his comedy magic show. When Harry first made a splash in LA as a performer, he dressed in a Steve Martin style white suit. Once he stopped borrowing his wardrobe from Steve, he was well on his way to developing and creating the look and style that would make him a unique performer. The result was one of magic’s slickest personas.

I reference Mac and Harry here very specifically because they are a perfect example of how a particular wardrobe style can establish their persona even before they say a single word. Think about Michael Finney’s larger than life brightly colored costumes or Jeff Hobson’s just this side of Liberace sartorial extravagance. If you can establish your performing persona simply by walking on stage, you are way ahead of the game. Penn & Teller created their own very specific “eccentrics in business suits” branding very early in their career and have never varied from that look since. 

Of course, there is a great deal more to creating a compelling performing persona than the clothes on your back. The important part of these examples is how they immediately demonstrate a powerful visual insight into the performer’s chosen onstage character. Creating the words and actions that flesh out all the important details that turn your character sketch into a full-scale portrait is a more complex process. The carefully chosen “Howdy” that prefaces Mac King’s act is a one-word salutation that reinforces his onstage persona so perfectly that it has almost become a catchphrase. On tiny details like this the construction of a modified persona is made organic and successful.

Let’s discuss how the average magician can create a persona that will move them forward and upward in their career. The keyword in that last sentence is create. There is no excuse for a performer to “borrow” another magician’s persona; to do so is lazy, dishonest, and extremely unlikely to succeed. It is bad enough to steal someone’s material, but there is no defense for stealing a performer’s carefully constructed stage persona.

Looking in the rearview mirror, I can recall quite a few highly innovative magicians who inspired an entire industry of “tribute acts.” Let’s kick off this list of originals with Siegfried & Roy, David Copperfield, Lance Burton, David Blaine, and Derren Brown. All these performers created something artistically and stylistically different, resulting in each of them inspiring magicians worldwide. Sadly, they also stimulated more than their fair share of bad “roadshows.” How can it be someone’s persona if they took it from somebody else?  Whoever first opined that “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery” was either sadly denuded or had a very dark sense of humor. 

I always enjoy comedy performers who have exotic alter egos, with Barry Humphries’ Sir Les Patterson and Martin Short’s Jiminy Glick at the very top of the list.  During the 70s and 80s, I created a whole series of magical alter egos and thoroughly enjoyed the freedom and learning experience it furnished me. There was my Punk Magician Nick Costello with his leopard-skin jacket and radically punk haircut. Nick Cosmos, the white lab coat wearing “Quantum Magician” from the future was fun too. Then there was my reggae magic show that featured me with my backup singers, the Conjurettes. While none of these radical reinterpretations of my fairly conventional performing persona were wildly successful commercially, they served a useful and ultimately rewarding purpose. By giving myself the freedom to explore such diverse personas, I discovered much about what I could and could not do on stage.

By the start of the 90s, I focused on my own personality and persona exclusively for my shows. However, I had added many different elements that I had discovered during my more experimental work. Each of my previous magical incarnations had particular energy, but since they had all emanated from me, each could be applied consciously to my “Nick Lewin” persona. This technique allowed me to sculpt a much more textured and dynamic performance; I was just being myself but even more so. I realize that my pathway in this was not necessarily one that would appeal to everyone, but I wanted to share it with my readers. I suspect I could have achieved much the same results just by meticulous observation and attention to detail, but then again, I thoroughly enjoyed discovering Nick Costello and his cohorts. 

Getting Creative About Comedy

•July 16, 2021 • Leave a Comment

This blog post contains my five golden rules about invoking the creative mode for your comedy magic show. It started life as part of my notes for a rather wonderful seminar our company sponsored about customizing magic, The seminar featured two of my favorite magicians David Regal and Ray Anderson discussing the creative process. The three of us had a really great discussion that was a smash with our invited roster of international guest. I later released it as a download. 

To pick up the download CLICK HERE

Currently, there is a wave of hobbyist magicians who feel the need to create “amazement” and “wonder” by mixing magic and storytelling to illuminate and enrich their spectators. This is an exceedingly tough thing to pull off if you perform with your eye on the prize of cold cash. It isn’t impossible, but it is very tough. Not too many lay audiences are looking to improve their lives and study philosophy by watching the Linking Rings. On the other hand, most people are pretty happy to add a laugh or two into their day. Never forget how many more people prefer to be amused rather than fooled.

Over the years, I have developed a general formula for creativity that I want to share with you. The four stages of creativity are; preparation, incubation, sudden insight, and manifestation. I have also added a rather crucial bonus stage, as you will see. I have painstakingly formulated this list over time, and I now swear by it. Of course, these steps are not uniquely specific to creating comedy, and you will quickly observe how smoothly these concepts apply to other kinds of magic.

Five Stages of Creativity.

Stage 1  Preparation. Gather facts, information, and existing ideas about your topic and think, think, think. Talk with other performers, read books, and do your research. Churn your ideas, looking at them in every way that comes to your mind, giving your imagination free rein to go where it will. If you are working on an entirely new routine, then see if someone has done something similar in the past, not to borrow ideas, but to make sure you follow a different path. The better the preparation, almost inevitably, the better the outcome is going to be. Remember the words of Thomas Edison, “Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration.” However, it is a little scary to think of someone this sweaty working so closely with electricity.

Stage 2  Incubation. Your goal is not going away, so while it’s percolating in your mind, you can play, sleep, and do things that relax you. You have planted the seeds, so now you need to wait for them to sprout. A little time is required for your unconscious mind to give you some input. Things have been set in motion, so now allow them a chance to roam around a little without trying to micromanage them. It is best if you allow all that preparation to settle into a definite plan of action. It can occur on its own; remove yourself from the equation, and don’t let your conscious mind interfere too much.  

Stage 3  Sudden Insight. “Eureka!” When you least expect it, illumination dawns. Historically you might be taking a bath or sitting under an apple tree, however, you won’t find the creative inspiration you were looking for; instead, it will find you. The surprise of this moment is a hallmark of discontinuity. At this point, it is imperative to write that insight down. Very often, when you get that first completed vision, it will come to you in a nicely packaged bundle. It may also disappear as quickly as it arrived, so write it down. I have often been amazed how that first incarnation of a joke or comedy routine hits your mind is the best one. Always trust the initial details you get, you can change or adapt them later if you want to, but if you don’t write them down, you will never have the means to refer back to them accurately. 

Stage 4  Manifestation. Verify, evaluate, and manifest what you’ve come up with. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing.” In other words, make a product of your insight and then put it into application. Add it to your show and start to fine-tune your ideas to ensure they become fully developed. I have always found that the first time I add a new “hunk” into the show, it goes very well; I think there is a certain adrenaline rush that kicks in with that initial debut. Often the second, third, and fourth attempts bear a lot less fruit. Don’t give up; this is how the creative process works, and eventually, you will find that new material clicks into place just when you least expect it. Don’t be afraid to keep working on a “bit” even when it is starting to feel a little like a losing battle. Sometimes changing a single word or adding a “beat” can make all the difference. Of course, if the material doesn’t start to work within a reasonable length of time, you may need to let it go. The performer who keep stuff in their shows because “This one is just for me…” are definitely on the slippery slope to being disrespectful to their audiences.

Stage 5  Desperation. Desperation is the mother of invention. When you need to get something done, creativity can swoop in like a hawk and save the day. There is nothing like having your back to the wall to keep your feet moving forward. The nice thing about the raw gnaw of acute desperation is how it can speed up the previous four stages. Let me give you a personal example of exactly how this can work out.

One afternoon in about 1981, I was sitting in our Los Angeles apartment practicing my double lift, and the phone rang. When I picked up the receiver, I found I was talking to the talent coordinator for the popular TV talk show “The John Davidson Show.” The booker told me they were filming a show the next day that was a tribute to the popular television series “Hill Street Blues.” Did I have a piece of magic that I could perform that would fit the show’s theme?

 I said, “Absolutely,” and locked in the booking me on the spot. I was, of course, lying and had NO idea what the heck routine I was going to be filming in less than 24 hours. However, if someone offers you a TV shot, your first duty is to say, “Yes,” and then work out the minor details later.

I had about 23 hours to develop a new routine that was good enough to present on national TV. It was my Desperation stage. Rather than panic, I did what I usually did; I opened up the Bible and meditatively read a chapter. In my case, the Bible was my well-thumbed copy of “McComb’s Magic: 25 Years Wiser.”  There was a half-page hidden inside dedicated to combining two standard tricks to develop something entirely new. Billy sketched out an idea about combining the Thumb Tie with the Card In Wallet. I decided that it was an excellent idea and that I might implement something along these lines. I had just passed my Preparation stage. I went into the kitchen, made a cup of tea, and drank it. This was my Incubation stage. I suddenly remembered that I had a pair of unused thumb cuffs stashed somewhere in my magic cupboard and that they were a distinctly police-friendly style of prop. This memory constituted my Sudden Insight stage. I drank another cup of tea and started rehearsing it, the next day I filmed it live, and everyone loved it! That was my Manifestation stage; if only everything in my performing life had gone this smoothly.

It is worth noting that these five stages did not play out in the numerical sequence I outlined earlier. It never pays to expect things to run precisely in the order you anticipate them to do; life doesn’t seem to play out that way. Desperation was the number one item on my agenda. As in all things creative, the golden key to making things go smoothly is a healthy dash of adaptability, combined with plenty of nerve. Within those 23 hours, I had not only filmed a TV show but also created a powerful piece of material that I have used with great success for the last forty years. I hope that I have given you some constructive real world advice about improving your magic. 

This version of my creativity check list was published in Vanish Magic Magazine. I have since totally rewritten it for my upcoming book on comedy magic. I thought this article was still worth sharing though on my blog.

Multiplying Bottles Master Class

•June 29, 2021 • 4 Comments

When I was a teenager I was lucky enough to study with the Legendary British magician Ken Brooke, Amongst the routine he taught me was his Multiplying Martini Routine. I learned it in about 10 half hour lessons, and after the last lesson Ken said to me, “Nicky, you now have a great closing trick for the rest of your life!” How right he was. After 50 years as a professional magician it remains one of the two routines that I use to close my show. Other magicians who have made this routine a centerpiece in their shows are performers as diverse as; Denny Haney, Tommy Cooper, Ron Wilson and Pop Haydn.

I released an excellent video teaching Ken’s powerhouse Multiplying Bottles routine. It also included the many discoveries and updates I have made over the years. I have frequently been asked to perform a real “hands on” and “bring your questions” Master Class to teach this classic effect. I always said, “Maybe sometime…” Well, I recently decided that NOW was the time.

If you are interested in learning exactly how to perform the world’s finest mini-illusion this is your chance.

Amongst other things, you will learn

1.     The exact routine, including the masterful table blueprint that makes the production of each bottle visible.

2.     The correct bottles to use for the routine, and the bottles that don’t work.

3.      All about suitable tables, and important tips on setting and striking the props.

4.     The all important timing and pacing that makes this routine such a reputation maker.

5.      Tricks that work as a perfect lead in to the Multiplying Bottles routine.

6.      How to pack and travel the props safely.

7.       Nick’s powerful updates to Ken’s classic routine that perfectly update the effect for today’s audiences.

8.      The correct way to handle the props in a convincing and natural way.

9.      The full patter needed to sell the effect. What to say and what not to say.

10.     The way to add an extra punch to the end of the effect.


If you are interested in attending one of these Zoom Master Classes, contact us and we will keep you up to speed on when the next session will be. Be aware that this class is only for people with a serious interest in learning this classic routine.  If you want to be a part of this unique learning experience us at for full details



Anatomy of a Joke

•May 30, 2021 • Leave a Comment

Comedy and magic are a splendid blend, and a little bit of humor makes every kind of magic more commercial and bookable in the real world. More people enjoy laughing and smiling than being fooled. A trick is the chief building block in a magic show, and a joke is the primary unit of measurement in any comedic situation. Let’s begin with a brief dictionary definition of a joke. 


1 A thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter, especially a story with a funny punchline: she was in a mood to tell jokes. A trick played on someone for fun.


1 Make jokes; talk humorously or flippantly: she could laugh and joke with her colleagues | [with direct speech]: “It’s OK, we’re not related,” she joked.

Joke. The dry dictionary definition always manages to wring out most of the vibrancy of the word with its clinical description. Let’s see if the dictionary’s long time playmate, the thesaurus, can paint a better portrait of the word. I am a big fan of the power of the thesaurus to shed better light on any situation. 


1 They were telling jokes: funny story, jest, witticism, quip; pun, play on words; informal gag, wisecrack, crack, one-liner, rib-tickler, knee-slapper, thigh-slapper, punchline, groaner.

2 Playing stupid jokes: trick, practical joke, prank, lark, stunt, hoax, jape; informal spoof.


1 She laughed and joked with the guests: tell jokes, crack jokes; jest, banter, quip; informal wisecrack, josh.

2 They didn’t realize you were only joking: fool, fool around, play a trick, play a practical joke, tease; informal kid, fun, pull (someone’s leg), pull/jerk/yank someone’s chain, make a monkey out of someone, put someone on.

Well, a few exciting new words jumped into the mix here. Let’s expand our current written vocabulary to include some of them. Witticism, pun, gag, one-liner, wisecrack, quip, banter, lark, stunt, trick, and punchline; Yes, we are entering territory now that resembles something bearing more resemblance to what goes on between a comedy magician and his audience.

If you include the aforementioned rib-ticklers, knee slappers, thigh slappers, and groaners, you are starting to get into a positively “Orbenesque” landscape. We will discuss Robert Orben in more detail on some future occasion. To say I have mixed feelings about his influence would be an understatement.

The Perfect Joke

My definition of a joke is “a completed statement, or insight, that amuses someone other than the person that makes it.”  In comedy circles, it is often asserted that old-time gagster Henny Youngman created the classic joke with his signature; “Take my wife, please!” There it is, an almost perfect joke lean, mean, and universal. In just four words or sixteen letters, there is;

1  a topic

2  a premise 

3  a setup

4  a punchline

1  my wife

2  sudden twist of meaning

3  “Take my wife…”

4  “…please!”

Henny’s one-liner is a perfect example of how great comedy is constructed. There is not a wasted letter. If there is one thing that I hold as primal in creating comedy, too many words spoil the joke. Having spent 11 years headlining in comedy clubs worldwide, I have watched many great comics scribbling in notebooks. Their neverending quest begins with finding original ideas to turn into material. Part two in the process is finding the ideal words to make them funny, and this primarily consists of cutting down the number of words by choosing the right ones. One thing I never saw in those 11 years was a comedian reading a joke book!

The bottom line is that any word that doesn’t move a joke forward is holding it back. There are certainly moments when adding specific details or color are an essential ingredient in contributing to the impact of a joke. However, since these words are, in essence, additional material, it is imperative to be exact and precise in applying them. Think of all the times a non-performer has told you a joke that would be “just perfect” for your act. The joke probably seemed to go on forever, and you guessed the punchline before the setup was halfway completed. Since I am primarily writing for magicians, let me put it this way: the words you use should be as sparing and carefully chosen as Dai Vernon’s finger movements were when he was performing a card routine.

Here are a few simple rules to assist in making a joke more successful to an audience. I should point out that in reality, there are no firm rules to follow in comedy any more than there are in magic. However, it is always a good thing to know what the “rules” are so you can break them when you want to. It takes serious performance time to know when old rules don’t apply to a new joke.

Five Golden Rules About Jokes

1 Do not use words that your audience does not understand. They will not appreciate your erudition—they are more likely to be slightly irritated, and this is not a good state of mind for laughing. Say what you mean and make it simple enough that everyone can understand the joke.

2 Know precisely what you are going to say and then say it in as few words as possible. While this approach doesn’t guarantee the audience will laugh, it certainly makes it more likely.

3 Don’t rush your punchline. Your audience must hear what you say and then have time to register why it is funny.  Equally important is to wait long enough after the punchline that people realize they were supposed to laugh.

4 Make the joke appropriate for the people to whom you are telling it. I personally don’t care if you use slightly risqué material but select the right material for the right crowd. Remember that it is impossible to “un-tell” a gag.

5 Be prepared to move along smoothly if nobody laughs at your joke. Now and then, even the most experienced performer tells a joke that doesn’t get any response. There is no reason for it; it just happens. Do not let it throw off your timing.

The Law Of Three

Many things in life seem to align with the slightly mystical law of three, and comedy is one of them. When you are putting together blocks, or hunks, of comedy, it is certainly worth putting them through the law of three filter. A single joke may be great, but it is merely a building block if you are constructing a comedy routine. If you find a topic and a funny joke; it is comedy tradition that you should attempt to turn that joke into a triad. It is strange but demonstrably true that two jokes are a tad too little, and four may be going to the well once too often.

Comedy is a little bit like riding a bicycle. Once you get started moving, you find your balance, and it becomes a lot easier to keep moving. The first joke gets them laughing, and the next two keep them laughing. Of course, all three jokes shouldn’t be constructed in the same manner or have identical premises. However, they can certainly be on the same topic.

An excellent exercise for a comedy magician is to search his act for single stand-alone jokes that are getting a good response and then see if there are two more laughs/jokes to add to the mix. There is a definite rhythm thing going on in comedy, and this is a great way to begin to explore it. Good magic has a definite rhythm also, and it is your job to integrate these two elements into one solid structure. You will learn a great deal by inserting these extra laughs. 

At first, don’t worry much about whether it is fully formed/structured jokes that you are adding. Maybe they are more of a comment or statement about that first joke that is the foundation of your new triad. Perhaps the second joke in the trilogy expands or amplifies the initial laugh. Maybe the third joke is something of a call back to the first. There are plenty of possible options here, and none are right or wrong as long as that initial laugh multiplies into three. As you become more accomplished at this process, you will find that third laugh may even become an applause point. 

This post is adapted from a chapter of a new book I am writing called “Serious About Funny.” I wanted to share a little taste of the book. I hope it gives you some interesting tips on the comedy magic scenario. 

If you are interested in learning more about the art of creating original comedy material, then you might also be interested in the video download of my recent ZoomCast “The Serious Side Of Funny” with Fielding West and Louie Foxx. It is a great 2 hour video that teaches you a great deal about mixing comedy and magic, and it cost a VERY reasonable $9:95.

To purchase it  CLICK HERE

The Magical Times Have ‘A Changed

•March 25, 2021 • Leave a Comment

In 1964 Bob Dylan presented the world with a new anthem, “The Times They Are A-Changin’.” Fifty-six years later here is an update especially for the magic world, the times they have a-changed. 2020 has been a very grueling year for everyone and a particularly turbulent one for my favorite magic club The Magic Castle. For most of the year, the Castle has been closed due to the COVID-19 virus. During this period the Magic Castle has also been facing a very stressful existential reappraisal of the new tenets of political correctness that are currently being embraced worldwide.

It is no exaggeration to say that the Magic Castle is fighting for its continued survival. As a long-term member that makes me very sad. I want to explore this situation and write a column that treats the Castle as a microcosm of what is happening (and not happening) in the magic world in general. The forces and issues at play here are just as relevant to the local IBM Ring that meets in a corner coffee shop.

Racism, sexism, misogyny, cultural appropriation, and sexual harassment are charges that are currently rocking the Magic Castle. These accusations have become even more complicated since the management seems to have denied and deliberately avoided dealing with them. A segment of our membership has rebelled and wants things to change radically. The club’s closure due to pandemic restrictions has created economic difficulties that make this time of self-appraisal even more difficult. This explosive mix was recently placed in a pressure-cooker when a lengthy article about the situation appeared in the Los Angeles Times and was subsequently reprinted extensively by other national news sources.

The recent LA Times story was one-sided and contains much that I felt was both unfortunate but inappropriate. I thought that it was a “hatchet job.” Both the timing and content of the story led me to this conclusion. I believe much of the damage the story could have caused the Castle has been deflected, with our club closed for the foreseeable future. Today’s urgent story becomes a faint memory with the non-stop barrage of stories that fuel the news media. This does not mean we shouldn’t examine the article’s implications.

At the heart of the Magic Castle situation is the mix of member and management problems that have come to light over the years. There is a very tricky borderline between workplace and performance place culture. However any instances of sexual harassment or racial discrimination are both legally and morally unacceptable. On Friday December 18th, in the wake of the LA Times story, the Magic Castle’s general manager Joseph Furlow resigned after his position became unsupportable. All the other pressing issues raised by members of our club are now being addressed by our excellent new Board Of Directors. I do not envy them their ongoing task but feel sure that they will do an excellent job in tough circumstances.

On one side of the spectrum are the members who resolutely maintain that they have never seen troublesome issues, and therefore they do not exist. I am fully aware that some extremely pressing problems exist. On the other side of the coin are members who have numerous concerns and want them taken care of NOW. Probably the truth, as it so often does, lies somewhere between the two. I have significant concerns that all these various issues can be dealt with correctly while the club is struggling. I am a big believer in the philosophy of choosing one’s battles.

A private club is a rather special beast. I think it is a huge mistake to judge a club by the action of any individual member. Nobody speaks for me other than me unless I say so. Paying one’s yearly dues doesn’t mean you own the club it merely gives you the privilege of being a member. We are duty-bound to respect the decisions of the two boards that we have elected to represent us. The massive attendance at the recent virtual Annual General Meeting indicates that members are taking a much closer look at the views held by our elected officials. This is a good thing. I also believe that a private club should remain private and problems contained within the confines of its membership.

Let me be clear, I am writing this column as someone who has been a practicing magician for 60-years, and a full-time professional for nearly 50-years. I say this not to impress my readers but to expose a colossal potential flaw in my authorship. When I discussed the idea for this column with my dear friend and magical ally Ray Anderson, he reminded me, “Be careful, whatever you say, you are an old white guy saying it!”  While impossible to deny, I don’t believe it completely invalidates my thoughts. I am, however, going to limit my comments to the performance of magic. There are many things that magicians can do to improve the way magic is viewed by the general public. Here are some of my ideas,

Much of the schism between magic and political correctness stems from magic’s innate reverence of the past. Reflect on the Victorian props, designs, and antique patter that are embraced by our community. I recently saw a magician describe a pair of slates as the kind used in schools! Is it any wonder that our ideas of acceptable behavior sometimes fail to meet current standards? Something of the adolescent nerd resides in most magicians. An old Billy McComb joke goes, “I told my father I want to be a magician when I grow up…” He said, “You can’t do both!” Not far from the truth!  When you blend both of these components then a wake-up call may be in order.

What was acceptable 25 or even 10 years ago may not justifiable today. Every performer needs to reassess the content of his show. I recently reviewed a video of my act that was filmed during my five-year engagement at a Las Vegas Casino. There were some moments that while acceptable at that time now made me cringe. I do not subscribe to the current extreme trend of judging a performer by the decisions and choices he made in the past. It is what he is currently doing that is relevant and important. Nothing can change the past. If a performer is learning from their mistakes, then they are heading in the right direction.

As far back as I can recall there has been a strong undercurrent of sexism and racism within the magic world. Magic has historically been regarded as “a guy thing,” largely because it was. Only comparatively recently has an increasing wave of women brought their fresh perspective to magic. Times have caught up with us, and unconscious inherited ism’s need to be reappraised and eliminated. My six-year old grandson was watching me on a recent episode of “Masters of Illusion” when his mom explained that the magician was sawing a woman in half. Zack responded, “Why would he want to do that?”  It seems like a good question. In honesty, most of the glaring problems within magic have improved significantly over the last 50 years. There is room for far more improvement, but deeply ingrained behavioral/psychological patterns can’t be re-imprinted overnight.

No magical topic receives more heated debate than what effects are acceptable to entertain today’s audiences. Every few months a flurry of exchanges erupt on social media about whether that old chestnut “The Baffling Bra” is tolerable performance material. The inevitable defense from some magicians is, “Yes, of course, it is OK, I have done the routine for years, and it still gets a good laugh.” No, it isn’t acceptable. This effect has long outlived its sell-by date; at the very best it shows the performer to be deeply out of touch. The mere fact that people laugh, and the assistant involved accepts it with good grace does NOT make it all right. I am not even going to address the response, “It works for me because I use a man instead of a woman.” Audiences are often very generous with laughter for magicians because — “Heck, they aren’t comedians they are magicians!”

Magicians performing outdated material often decry the current “trend” of political correctness and portentously imply they are fighting a sacred war on a dangerous new creeping social menace. They are probably just being lazy in resisting updating their shows into the present age. They are making magic, seem out of touch and outdated. Performers suffering from this particular derangement syndrome like to quote Jerry Seinfeld’s statement, “I will not perform for college audiences, because they are too politically correct.” I suspect the truth of that matter is that Seinfeld quite correctly perceives he might be too old, dated, and out of touch to get the reaction he feels he deserves from a youthful market. 

These thoughts are the tip of the iceberg of a massive topic. If you agree with me, I am pleased. If I said anything that pissed you off — I am happy about that too. There is no right or wrong in this debate, only participation.

Derek DelGaudio and David Blaine: In and Of Themselves.

•March 23, 2021 • 2 Comments

Magic as theater is a very hot topic recently. Derek DelGaudio’s recent Off-Broadway play “In And Of Itself” has been released in a video format on Hulu, and a much larger audience is finally seeing it. Now seems like a good time to look at how we can best blend theater and magic to create a compelling and workable synergy. We are on the edge of a new approach to magic that has both powerful potential and some definite possible pitfalls. Let’s begin by talking about Derek’s very successful production.

There is a saying that I like to quote “Movies are art, Theater is life, and Television is furniture!” While a little brash, there is much to ponder in that statement, and It flashed through my mind while I watched DelGaudio’s theatrical show repackaged as a TV movie. Maybe this sentiment was one reason I wasn’t quite as impressed by the presentation as I had hoped. “In And Of Itself” has achieved a cult following that is just this side of fanatical, and I can certainly see why. It is an exciting and thought provoking production that is a million miles from the average magic show. Maybe that is its most significant appeal to the (supposedly) more intellectual theater ticket buyer.

Derek’s play/movie was directed by industry heavyweight Frank Oz. I think Oz did a great job of adapting the work, and his decision to include montages of audience reactions from several different performances works exceptionally well. All the additional cinematic material is simple and effective. “In And Of Itself” is being viewed as an intense psychological event by many. It certainly seems to produce a formidable cathartic audience response, one seldom seen in a magical production. DelGaudio and Oz have taken magic and embellished it with a dramatic series of monologues, intense audience participation, and psychodramatic interludes. It has much of the power of a strong mentalism show and a theatrical séance skillfully entwined into the action. To say anything more about the show would be a disservice to future viewers.

One thing that ran through my mind while watching “In And Of Itself” was that we were going to see a great many magicians adding ten-minute monologues, personal revelations, and 20-second gazes into space into their act! This outcome is just as inevitable as was street magic becoming a trend after David Blaine introduced it in his 1997 TV special.  Doug Henning, Siegfried & Roy, and David Copperfield all created new paradigms in magic, but Blaine is the best comparison in this case. Blaine and DelGaudio achieve their impact in a deceptively simple manner.  They each have low-key stage personas that are very “non-magician” like, and their impact does not require stages filled with props, large illusions, or wild animals. Both performers project an exciting potential that “Something Else” may be going on beneath the surface. Whether DelGaudio can expand and develop his persona and performance sufficiently to achieve Blaine’s long-term achievements and success will be interesting to observe.

What makes DelGaudio and Blaine such an absorbing pair of performers is the way that each of them has grasped the powerful impact of how television’s reality programing has gripped the public’s attention and interest. The audience appeal of both entertainers is primarily based on watching how regular folk interact with their performance. This tactic allows the audience to remain one step remote from what is going on but also paradoxically enables them to become even more involved in the action. Initially, I thought that Blaine would primarily remain a TV performer. However, after recently seeing his large scale touring show, I was amazed at how successfully he had managed to expand his performance. Having seen most of the great full evening magic shows in the last forty years, I consider David Blaine to have the most powerful one of all. There is a genuine element of mystery to augment the magic, and his audience loves it.

Magic is currently in a minimalistic phase, with grand illusion in something of a commercial decline. Close-up and smaller scale magic has never been more accessible to large audiences. First-rate video amplification is now available at a very reasonable cost, and it has become quite a game changer. I strongly anticipate that this swing of the pendulum will be with us for a while before things return to an era of bigger is better. The influence of TV shows such as “America’s Got Talent” and “Penn & Teller: Fool Us” have introduced mainstream audiences to a whole new style of magic, and they seem to be enjoying what they see. Mentalism and card tricks are wowing lay audiences in a way that would have seemed incredible a decade ago.

There has been a seismic change in the goals of many professional magicians. It used to be standard fare to hear a magician talk of putting together a big traveling show and taking it to Las Vegas or other cities with massive casinos and large showrooms. However, as I know from personal experience, the travel, logistics, and general satisfaction of “taking your show on the road” is not quite as appealing as it once was. In the ten years that I have been writing stories for Vanish Magazine, I have increasingly heard performers set their sights on creating a personal theater or venue in their hometown or chosen location.

In essence, the custom showroom trend will lead to smaller showrooms with fewer seats and smaller stages. I suspect that many performers will choose to adopt a more “theatrical” dressing for their shows by including a storyline and narrative. Another trend in magic that is readily noticeable is magicians’ sharp increase in awareness of scripting, direction, motivation, persona, and other traditionally theatrical tools of the trade to polish their shows. It might not be a bad thing to look at a few of the potential pitfalls that may lay ahead in our magical future.

Robert-Houdin famously stated that “ A magician is an actor playing the part of a magician.” I have found this statement to be one that needs examining rather closely. Sometimes a magician is just someone who does a magic show, and often that is quite enough. Also, performing a magic show does not mean you are a capable actor as the skill sets are quite different.  Maybe you are better just perfecting your magic show rather than expanding your canvas into other fields. Most magicians are essentially “One-man bands” and tend to forget that an actor usually surrounds himself with a much larger support system. Let’s look at a few significant differences between being an actor in a play and a magician with a show.

A magic show requires meticulous pacing and content to make it successful. It also involves structure, but nothing like the traditional theatrical structure that supports a play or movie. Usually, the emotional interest for a theatrical production is based on the classic three-act format. Act one introduces the players and sets up the intended resolution for everyone involved. Act two mixes up the actions and creates tension by introducing obstacles that need overcoming. Act three resolves all the problems and leads to a grand finale. There are many variations on this basic theme, but you get the idea.

Many specialized people are needed to maintain the audience’s attention for the length of the play.  This team typically includes; writer, producer, director, lighting designer, costumer, and usually other actors. This team blends their talents to create an event that delivers a full theatrical punch. In a good production, all of these people are experts who excel in their craft. The lead actor may be the central character in the spotlight, but his success results from many combined talents.

I have seen many magicians attempt to be profound but only succeed in being precious. Adding theater to your show does not necessarily mean being deadly earnest and trying to use your magic to illuminate or enlighten your audience. Being heavy handed in your approach does not make something “serious” or “important.”  Putting on a costume does not create a persona any more than reciting patter is the same thing as creating an emotionally involved storyline. I have met many magicians who think they can do everything that David Blaine does, but I haven’t seen any who can duplicate the real Blaine magic. Derek DelGuadio and Frank Oz have also created a fascinating new approach to a magic show. I guess there is just a part of me worried about the Pandora’s Box they may have opened. 

%d bloggers like this: