My apologies for not coming back here so soon. No Dax, we do not collect memorabilia. A subculture of collectors of magic exists. Just today, a gentleman from NY, owner of Fantasma Magic ( you may be aware of this toy store, across from Madison Square Garden and Penn Station) inquired for a video of ours. One which we performed metamorphosis in Houdini's original trunk. He owns it now and displays it among his other Houdini collection. I guess I will send it...

Several collectors have been collecting several of our illusions, which we no longer perform. We both hated parting with these, but due to Jonathan's physical limitations, we have retired them and selling them is a way of making us move on...so we carefully chose our bidder...one that we know will appreciate the prop (and us) for it's history. Money had nothing to do with the sale. We certainly could have received more for two of the sales. We liked the buyer.

The backstage atmosphere is like any TV show or movie set...hurry up and wait! Bring a good book to read... Over 35,000 acts auditioned for this years show, so yes there were many standing in line.

I will answer you later Helice! Thank you for noticing this. I was in the middle of responding, almost finished, when I accidently hit the wrong key and erased my answer!! Now, I just have to take a break... Sort of like sewing and making a huge error, you have to come back later to the project.

I'm wondering if you've looked into or studied or something like that the history of where some of the illusions cam about. For instance, why sawing a women in half? Did it just seem like something new to try or does it maybe have some significance beyond that? Not that I'm thinking it's a perfectly legitimate and understandable desire of man or anything.

Helice and Cy_
Perfect! The women's perceived role in magic and the history of the sawing in half illusion go hand in hand. The sawing in half illusion was invented during the Victorian age...in England (most of these illusions were) by P.T Selbeit. Victorian women were expected to take their perspective role in society. This meant staying home, being submissive, virtuous, helpless, having no opinions (intelligent or not). It was no wonder their role on stage in magic (when large illusions like the sawing were invented and performed) was one of blind subserviance.

An illusion like the sawing in half is a better illusion if an innocent and frail young lady is cut in two. All the more "gasping"! The outcome wouldn't have been the same if a strong "knight" were cut in half... Who cares? Of course he can be put back together...he is indestructable....but not a young vulnerable Victorian female virgin. So these illusions were partly invented because of the role women had during that era.

Most of society moved on, women's roles changed..this can be seen looking at women's fashion changing over the years. Unfortunately it did not change much in magic..or at least it changed very slowly. Through out the early part to mid half of the last century, magicians toured with large shows, casts, musicians etc...on trains across America. Just like the Ringly Brother Circus. Women held the same role but in many cases, were given "credit" for their work... Houdini and Bess were a perfect example. Sevais Le Roy performed with Telma and Bosco...Moi Yo Miller starred right along side Dante.

Times changed and shows like this were not as affordable...and clubs became popular in the 50's 60's, from lounges to Vegas stages. The typical magician performed about 12 minutes or so in a longer running show. Siegfried and Roy's orginal Vegas show was about 15 minutes...

It was during the "end" of this era Jonathan and I began to perform. I was sort of a 70's rebel. When first introduced to magic...for the life of me I did not understand "why" women wore heeled dance shoes designed for dancing, when their work required them to move in small spaces and move fast in others??? So for me, off went the shoes...then the bra! For the life of me I had no idea why they hadn't thought of removing this stuff as it inhibited kinetic action. The results were great, combining my athletic skills with uninhibited movement, I was able to accomplish feats no other person in magic had done.

The 70's wasn't too much different than the 50's or 60's, magicians were performing in Vegas, clubs etc... There was one added bonus - disco! Disco was great in that "couples" performed dance, not singles.. Many discoteques across the USA added entertainment to their evening highlights....magic being one of them. This presented a perfect setting for our "partnership". We were easily accepted as partners rather than Jonathan and assistant. Of course, as actors, dancers we had not thought otherwise...but views and perception of roles sometimes need a kick in the b*tt!

Disco was a bit short lived... and magic continues to be perceived by many in the public as the magician and the assistant. I am not bothered by this at all. In fact, if that is the roles you are playing, then that is ok. In fact, if I were to do it again, I might work on reconstructing our performance so Jonathan was the headliner and I were his Moi Yo Miller. It doesn't surprise me in the least "Piers" the judge labeled me an assistant. He is British...and this is his preconceived idea of a magician.

I changed the title...as that particular segment is now public domain.

Thanks for the reply. Especially since it appears it wasn't too dumb of a question.

On your appearance, I did think "Piers" comment was inappropriate but, being a man, I better not say much more about that.

I did think (doing my best Ozzie) SHARON!'s comment was right on the mark. I forget exactly what it was but I thought it quite appropriate.

I also had the idea that women were hired by magicians in many cases because a. they were pretty and b. they tended to be smaller and more flexible than men and so were better able to perform the moves required in vanishes and sawings and box-piercings, etc.

So perhaps both feminism and show biz razzle-dazzle are the culprits.

Yes, usually women in magic are pretty. Moi Yoi Miller is considered one of the greatest beauties to ever grace Australia. The best women for a magic illusion is a woman about my size, 5' 4", small bones, but with enough volume to look big. People are always amazed at how small I really am, when on stage I look very large. Many women and men can't do this...but it's just genes and I am lucky. Flexibility is a plus, but too much flexibility is not good. Super flexible people tend to be weak, with poor muscle strength. In many of our illusions, I need strength more than I need flexibility.

Doug Henning, Siegfried, David Copperfield all performed as I do in their own illusions. It is better if a magician does this, because as an actor playing the role of a magician, he maintains control of the magic. Personally, I have always had a problem with magicians that saw a woman in half...one that then brings him out a table to perform card tricks??? Is she magical or not, or is she just helping him. As a couple our performance in strengthened by me being an equal partner. Copperfield uses women sparingly, and in his main illusions, he is the focus, he gets sawed in half, he gets pierced, etc. Siegfried has always had Roy who is able to get in illusions...as well as using Lynette who he made "special" by giving her a magical role.

Unfortunately Jonathan is too large. He is the right height, but he is too broad to be the subject of the illusion, so he has to command the stage in another way, and not loose me or he will be up sh*t creek!

Posting for Jim...


Magicians today seem mystified that thereıs so little presence of magic on
television. The days of the flashy magic television special are gone. David
Blaine and Criss Angel have a very different formula, which has managed to
grab a new audience. But you have to realize that in recent years, magic has
waned because there is no longer a fashion for variety. In the 1970s, there
was still a tradition of variety on television: Ed Sullivan, Carol Burnett,
The Hollywood Palace, and Dean Martin. Magic specials were variations on the
variety show format.

Today, variety survives only in some weird, genetically-altered, hybrid
form, part reality show, part game show, part freak show. ³Americaıs Got
Talent² is the weirdest example of this, a program that pretends to bring
variety back to television (or even more astonishingly, pretends to judge
³talent.²) These shows arenıt really in search of variety or talent, but
some narrative that will elicit tears, or cheers, or oohs and aahs from the
audience. The program propels itself forward in breathless expectation that
the next person stumbling out onto the stage will be a little girl, carrying
a teddy bear, with tears in her eyes. Sheıs an orphan. Sheıs been abused.
And now sheıs going to sing the aria from Madame Butterfly. Maestro, if you
pleaseŠ.

Our overseas readers might be surprised to read of the strange twists and
turns of American television. Last month, in the latest incarnation of
Americaıs Got Talent, we saw Jonathan and Charlotte Pendragon, competing
with their version of the famous Metamorphosis illusion.

I had to groan when, despite their expected picture-perfect presentation,
one of the judges wanted to see Jonathanıs scar from his recent surgery and
then gave them the thumbs-up with the remark, ³Youıve suffered for your
art.² Yes, first things first. Look for the sensational story, the
tearjerker, the oddity. Thatıs what this sort of variety has become. And
now, bring on the little girl with the teddy bear.

Back in the days of vaudeville, no one really cared if the juggler was an
alcoholic, or an abused child, or his wife just left him, or his legs hurt.
He walked onstage, he juggled for twelve minutes, and, if you liked him, you
paid for a ticket next time he appeared in town. Audiences were too busy
being entertained to worry about all the rest of that stuff.

When the comedian George Carlin died last month, one of his obituaries
mentioned a line from his performances. I think that he had it just right.
³If youıre born in this world, youıre given a ticket to the freak show. If
youıre born in America, youıre given a front seat.² I was recently talking
to a professional magician about Americaıs Got Talent and the treacherous
process of appearing on that show, how the crowd is encouraged to boo or
cheer, and how churlish remarks or casual dismissals are all part of the
³game.² I know that some magicians have wondered whether this was a good
showcase for The Pendragons who are, after all, a ground-breaking illusion
act and probably due more respect than, ³Show me your scar.²

But letıs be honest, a number of good, solid magicians have also negotiated
the stage on Americaıs Got Talent. Nathan Burton, Kevin James, and Bruce
Block, among others, have all held on for several weeks by the skin of their
teeth, and emerged with newfound recognition. And when youıre a performer,
you perform. You find the best venues, you chose the best material, and you
take your best shot. I remember talking to the late Alan Wakeling about the
magic doldrums in the 1950s, when he developed an act to work coffee houses
(not too different from our Starbuckıs franchises today). Not a great place
to work. Not great crowds. I donıt think Alan was crazy about working in
coffee houses. But performersŠperform!

At the same time, we have to recognize that magic wonıt really be back, in
force, until variety is back in the consciousness of the American public.
Right now weıre all sitting in the front row at the freak show, pretending
that weıre all watching something more sophisticated. Itıs the best we can
do under the circumstances. If you think my analogy is too harsh, I donıt
mean it to be. Remember that Al Flosso, one of the great, beloved magicians
of the last century, performed for many years at the sideshow at Coney
IslandŠ Literally. Performers perform.



-----------------------------------------
Jim Steinmeyer
JHS Productions, Inc.
Theatrical Illusion Design
-----------------------------------------

Jim, thanks for your comment. There has certainly been a lack of good variety shows in the past twenty years. The idea that they are now couched as reality shows says more about tv program execs than about the quality of the talent.

The frenetic cutting and highly edited scenes from most of the reality shows are played to the hilt, when in fact what such shows need are still cameras and full body shots that last more than 4 seconds, and fewer shots of an audience presumably liking or hating the act.

The art of shooting variety shows has been totally lost to the executive's delusion that people's attention span is that of a goldfish's.

And you're also right about the emotional manipulation, which is particularly cynical on a variety show. It's highly likely the Pendragons would not have been on AGT if they were just great magicians. They had to be great magicians + comeback from serious injury.

As television killed vaudeville, faked-up, manipulated reality shows posing as variety shows pretty much killed variety television.