31295005242952
31295005242952
by
THOMAS LEONARD COLWIN, B.A., M.A.
A DISSERTATION
IN
FINE ARTS
Approved
Accepted
August, 1987
30I
11
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION: MAGIC IN THE THEATRE 1
II. THEATRICAL ILLUSION 10
III. MAGICAL ILLUSION 24
IV. ILLUSION VERSUS ILLUSION 35
V. TRICK-WORK IN THE VAMPIRE PLAYS 44
VI. CONCLUSION: MAGIC FOR THE THEATRE 87
ENDNOTES 92
BIBLIOGRAPHY 102
APPENDIX 110
111
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION: MAGIC IN THE THEATRE
Other Resources
In addition to the materials which will be used to
elucidate the vampire plays themselves, two other
categories of references will be relied upon: theatrical
performance theory books and conjuring books. Many of the
former, unfortunately, were found to be essentially
redundant works in certain respects. From a multitude of
works, about a dozen were selected for use since they
seemed the most helpful. Of particular value in clarifying
a theory of theatrical illusion were The Theatrical
Response by Kenneth M. Cameron and Theodore J.C. Hoffman,
The Art of Play Production by John Dolman, Jr., and
Richard K. Knaub, and The Theory of Drama by Allardyce
Nicoll. These three works proved especially illuminating
for the matter at hand, and they will be quoted somewhat
at length in the following pages.
Texts on magic were another matter. Magic is, of
necessity, a fairly secretive art. Of the thousands of
works that have been written, only a relative few are
available to the general public in libraries or
8
bookstores. But even when the researcher avails himself
of the holdings in private collections and magic shops, he
discovers a rather disturbing fact: only a handful of
conjuring books deal in depth with magic performance
theory, and even fewer exist which discuss an analytical
approach to magical invention. On both counts fortune
prevailed for the writer of the present study. Our Magic
by Nevil Maskelyne and David Devant, Magic and Showmanship
by Henning Nelms, and especially The Trick Brain by Dariel
Fitzkee, have been invaluable. These three books are
bursting with ideas about conjuring theory and mechanics,
and they will serve as major resources here.
Only four dissertations have been found which deal
with a relationship between theatre and magic. Susan
McCosker's "Representative Performances of Stage Magic,
1650-1900" is a historical study outlining so-called
magic shows on the theatre stage. "Elizabethan Scenes of
Violence and the Problem of Their Staging," by Lee
Mitchell, provides some interesting food for thought, but
its thrust is not the same as this study's. Charles
Joseph Pecor's "The Magician on the American Stage, 1752-
1874," mentioned earlier, actually set the thesis of the
present work in motion with its suggestion that there is a
link between magical and theatrical methods. However,
Pecor only suggests the idea, and he does so within the
context of a dissertation which is principally a history.
Finally, Robert Schneideman's "Elizabethan Legerdemain and
Its Employment in the Drama" 12 is a fascinating study of
just what its title suggests. It comes the closest to
approximating the work at hand, but it is limited to
Elizabethan theatre and magic and does not go nearly as
far in making the kinds of connections which are being
attempted here.
No dissertations or published works have been found
which link magic and vampire plays. A single thesis on
the vampire theme exists, but it is a kind of literary
analysis. Many, many books and articles have been
published on the general topic of vampirism, but they
treat the theatre aspect cursorily at best and the
conjuring theme not at all. The total of all resources
found gives no reason to believe that the principal gist
of this dissertation is anything but new.
This study, therefore, will proceed to try to
accomplish its objectives as straightforwardly as it can.
The theories and techniques of theatrical illusion and
conjuring illusion will be examined and compared in order
to clarify their similarities and differences; Fitzkee's
method for magical invention will be introduced and
applied to the vampire play models; and the potential
usefulness of this approach will make itself evident as
the study proceeds.
Before moving ahead, a note of caution should be
sounded: as the success of magic relies on its secrets
being kept, this study has tried to avoid exposing
conjurors' secrets whenever possible. Of necessity, the
methods of some magic must be revealed in this
investigation, but anyone who desires to "learn all about
magic" would do better to look elsewhere. The study will
not provide any more exposure than is felt necessary to
the objective at hand. Hopefully, any serious reader
will be interested in the theory as presented here and
will realize that in learning any of the theory for use in
the legitimate theatre he has been welcomed into a
fellowship of another kind. Having thus become a sort of
guest in this fellowship, it is hoped that he will observe
the ethics of conjuring and use this knowledge only in the
best interests of both theatre and magic.
CHAPTER II
THEATRICAL ILLUSION
Modes of Response
Theatre artists obviously have a need for an
audience. They also have responsibilities to their
10
11
audiences, but those responsibilities can vary somewhat
depending on the artists' goals. In a broad sense, their
goal is to elicit a desired mode of response in the
audience. Perhaps most artists seek to create a stirring
illusion, but there are other kinds of possible responses.
The Theatrical Response, by Kenneth M. Cameron and
Theodore J.C. Hoffman, identifies three modes of audience
response: delusion, reality, and illusion. 13 There is a
close link between these modes of response and particular
styles of production, and this link invites a closer look
at this point.
Delusion response. Delusion is defined as "the
belief that whatever happens in a play is happening to
real people who are not actors but human beings whom one
observes." 14 Complete delusion, say Cameron and Hoffman,
seems next to impossible. Is it? To experience delusion
as a response, one must fully believe in the happenings on
the stage. One must see the actors as living, breathing,
human beings to whom the events of the play are actually
happening. This spectator sees the scenery not as
representing a given place, but as truly being that place,
be it garden, sitting room—or Dracula's crypt, for that
matter. For him the world on the stage is actual: truly
real.
It is difficult to imagine this delusion response
being brought about by other than the following: 1) in-
sanity—or as one writer puts it, "Were the audience
. . . to accept the fiction as actuality, it would then
have to be mad" ; (2) extreme ignorance or naivete, as in
young children, for instance; or (3) by the wholly
intentional actions of the artists. By definition
delusion requires deception. Mordecai Gorelik spoke of
theatre in just this manner. He described his approach
in the following way:
12
The illusory method is one which attempts,
fundamentally, to deceive the senses of the audience.
It tries to convince the spectator that the stage
events which he is witnessing are not really events on
the stage having a sequence planned by stage workers,
but that they are rather a series of natural or
phenomenal events unrelated to the stage and viewed by
spectators in the theatre as if by accident.
Clearly, Gorelik believed that audiences can be
manipulated into a state of total delusion where they be-
lieve that the people and occurrences on the stage are
actual. Although he wrote those words in 1940, they seem,
even for that time, anachronistic. In fact, his ideas
seem to align themselves most closely with the view of a
number of scenic artists of the nineteenth century. This
group of artists sought complete naturalism, and they
apparently felt that, rendered exactingly enough, their
creations could actually mislead audiences into believing
that the scenes were real. 17 It is a view which, today,
has few (if any) subscribers. Indeed, it is difficult, if
not impossible, to conceive of an audience in any era
truly being deceived by any element of production to the
point of actual delusion.
Reality response. The reality response mode, as
defined by Cameron and Hoffman, is a reaction which might
be most easily induced in so-called "presentational"
theatre. The dominant atmosphere—the prevailing
artistic intention, so to speak—of a presentational
production is one in which it is apparent to the audience
that the artists want them to be conscious of the present
reality of the performance. The extreme version of the
"reality" mode of response is defined as follows:
The sense that whatever is happening in the theatre is
happening, both to performer--as performer, not
character--and to the audience at the same time, and
that what happens need have no specific points of
contact with any other experience because it is
sufficient in itself.
13
An undiluted "reality"-type response will be brought
about in an audience which is fully conscious of the
"event" nature of the performance. With this response the
audience reacts with total awareness that the artistic
intention is to experience the immediacy--the "here-and-
nowness"--of the performance. Many less extreme degrees
of this response can, of course, be sought by the artist.
And there is no disagreement that a reality mode of
response is achievable, given a certain type of play or
performance. But the reality mode, by and large, must be
reserved for plays other than those of the "vampire play"
type. The vampire plays (along with the greater majority
of all "mainstream," non-experimental plays) belong in a
category which calls for a principally "illusion" mode of
response.
Illusion response. The illusion mode varies
considerably from either the delusion mode or the reality
mode. However, before proceeding it is at least
academically important to sort through some definitions.
The dictionary defines illusion as "the action of
deceiving . . . [or] the state or fact of being
intellectually deceived or misled." 19 Taken at face value
this would immediately call into question Cameron and
Hoffman's use of terminology, for the definition suggests
that delusion and illusion are virtually synonymous.
Therefore, in this instance it is vital to note the Latin
root of the word illusion: illusio, which means "to mock."
Among the definitions and synonyms of the word "mock" are
imitate, mimic, and copy; and among the definitions for
20
those words is the idea of resembling. It is important
to note the preceding discussion, for this distinction of
definitions is essential to a continued examination of
theatrical illusion and the illusion mode of response.
14
An audience which reacts in the illusion mode must
bring to the theatre a "willing suspension of
21
disbelief." The illusion mode rests on two premises:
(1) that the persons, events, and places on the stage are
clearly and logically not actual; and (2) that the
audience is fully aware of this pretense. In other
words, the spectators know that what is occurring on stage
is not actually real (indeed, it is make-believe), but
they accept the characters and events as a "perfect
rendering of recognizable experience . . . [depicted by]
human beings [who] are both actors and characters." 22
This view of theatrical illusion is most certainly
at odds with Mordecai Gorelik's. Clearly (despite using
the term "illusory" to identify his view), Gorelik
believed that an audience could be fully deceived.
Clearly, he subscribed to the idea that spectators could
be brought to a state of complete delusion by the artifice
of the stage. To argue that any average theatre audience
can be duped into actually accepting the fake is nonsense.
Conversely, to argue for a mode of response in which an
audience willingly accepts a kind of lie seems far more
acceptable to the logical mind. The following
presentation of viewpoints should lay to rest any qualms
about an illusion mode of response. Hopefully, the nature
of the theatrical illusion will be somewhat clarified as
well.
Attention
The remaining purpose of this chapter is to identify
the essential techniques which come into play to help
create the theatrical illusion. Having done so, the
elements of magical illusion can be discussed, and the two
types of illusion can be compared. It should be noted
that a multitude of techniques are certainly at work in a
theatrical performance. To examine them all likely would
require several volumes. The purpose here shall be
limited to techniques which coincide with those used in
magic and which are operative in the creation of both
theatrical and magical illusion. The single objective is
to establish a basis for comparison of the two.
Therefore, in briefly examining techniques used to create
theatrical illusion, the concentration here will be on the
nature of audience attention, and on emphasis (or focus),
in particular.
Earlier, it was established that the audience members
are willingly vicarious participants in the fraud of
theatre. They mentally allow "realities" to be created
which are obviously artificial. However, beyond that
point they may well become unwitting pawns beyond their
wildest imaginings. If the audience members are
unconsciously being manipulated--and there is strong
evidence that they are--then the theatrical illusion con-
tinues to thrive (at least in part) due to forces which
are outside of their conscious control.
18
Theory of attention. The root of this contention is
based principally on a theory of attention. This notion
is summarized by Dolman and Knaub as follows:
Psychologists do not agree upon the nature of
attention--or of consciousness--and they are hardly
likely to agree as long as some believe the body to be
a piece of soulless mechanism, responding
automatically to stimuli, whereas others believe it to
be controlled through consciousness by an immaterial
mind or soul. They do agree, however, upon a
practical distinction between two types of attention
that they call primary and secondary.
Primary attention is the automatic or involuntary
attention that we give to a strong external
stimulus--a bright flash of light, for instance, or a
loud noise, or a sudden slap on the back. The appeal
is concrete; that is, it is more or less directly in
terms of sense impressions, either real or suggested.
Primary attention involves no sense of effort, no
conscious intention, no exercise of will power.
Secondary attention is voluntary attention, the
sort that one gives to a difficult problem through a
sense of duty or by force of great concentration.
Whether or not there is such a thing as real will
power is, of course, the point in dispute, the
mechanists holding that what we mistake for will power
is but the reaction to the more remote stimuli in the
past experience of the individual; but there is
certainly a kind of attention in the giving of which
we are aware of conscious effort.
In the theatre very little dependence should be
placed upon secondary or voluntary attention. The
teacher or preacher may conceivably have a right to
expect his audience to attend by an effort of the
will, but the actor has no such right. The problem in
the theatre is how to gaiQA. hold, and control primary
or involuntary attention.
Distraction and monotony. If a play is to attract
and hold an audience's attention, then the chief enemies
of attention—namely, distraction and monotony 31 --must be
purposely avoided. "The audience must be led to see the
right things, to hear the right actor, to listen to the
19
right word." 32 If those involved with a production are
not constantly on the watch to put distractions to rest,
the chances are that they will occur, and the struggle to
retain control of the spectators' primary attention will
be lost.
A person has only to imagine an instance where the
audience is quite involved in a play, and suddenly a
misplaced broom is accidentally knocked over backstage.
The wooden broom handle strikes the wooden floor; the
sound reverberates through the floor and off the backstage
walls; and, probably, most eyes and ears in the auditorium
automatically turn in the direction of the distraction.
There is little doubt that this would be the case with
most observers. In those few moments, hours of rehearsals
and planning against distraction all go for nought, and
the entire struggle to manipulate attention must begin
again. Therefore, at all times, "there must be careful
planning, thorough rehearsal of both cast and stage crew,
and the most rigorous censorship of every single element
that might catch the primary attention of the audience and
lead it astray."
The clearest argument for calculating ways to avoid
monotony in production is the scientific fact that human
beings' attention spans are unbelievably short; therefore,
attention-getting (or, perhaps, attention-renewing)
gambits must continually be employed to maintain the hold
on primary attention. In a general fashion, methods for
accomplishing this might be categorized as visual, aural,
and emotional. While each will be discussed subsequently
as separate from the others, the usual case in actual
productions is that they rarely, if ever, operate
exclusive of the others. In fact, just the opposite is
probably true in most instances. A visual attention-
getting device might be used or reinforced with an aural
20
one, an emotional device with a visual one, an aural
device with visual and emotional ones, and so on. The
point is that these techniques, used properly, can be
powerful tools in capturing and renewing an audience's
involuntary attention.
Visual techniques. The visual methods of attracting
attention are: (1) simple, visual image; (2) physical
movement; and (3) control of light. Here, a simple,
visual image is defined as something such as an actor's
body position or a planned compositional arrangement of
several performers. Under the working definition, it
might also refer to a particular setting in and of itself.
In all three examples, though, these things are done with
the intent to manipulate attention. Perhaps the setting
manipulates the audience into wondering or anticipating
what will happen within that environment. Perhaps the
composition of bodies in space or the position of a single
actor is intended to strongly attract attention in a
visual way to create a particular emphasis on a character
or an idea being articulated.
Physical movement might be seen as an extension of
the simple, visual image. The static, visual picture, no
matter how strong and attention-getting, attracts
attention in a different way than a moving image. The
kinetic quality of calculated movement is one of the
strongest tools a director has to control attention
visually. All things being equal, "anything that moves
is more emphatic than things that are not moving." 35 And
something that is emphatic is likely to attract attention.
Among its most important reasons-for-being,
calculated or "imposed" movement has, as one of its
purposes, to attract the audience's attention to a
particular place. "If something unexpected by the
audience is to occur at a particular place on which their
21
attention has not been focused, the movement of the actor
to or past that place will draw their attention to the
desired area." This technique is referred to as
"leading the eye," and John Dolman calls it "perhaps the
most important trick for the ordinary stage director to
know. . . . [It] is so common that almost any well-
directed play [will display the use of this technique.]"^^
Kinetic composition, then, is a most effective method of
attracting an audience's attention to the right place at
the right time.
Lighting, properly used, can also work to attract and
direct an audience's attention. In simplest terms, a
viewer will generally look where the light is strongest or
brightest. The fact that light has the additional quality
of being able to move or change in a time continuum only
adds to the potential it has as an attention-getter.
There is little question that a final scene which contains
a poignant summary speech or tableau will likely be more
closely attended precisely because careful control and
kinetic change of lighting virtually demand that the
audience members do so. Lighting, along with simple,
visual image and physical movement are, indeed, useful and
potent visual tools for controlling attention.
Aural techniques. Aural techniques used to direct
attention can employ the elements of tempo, pitch, volume
and stress, either individually or in combination.
"[Auditory] emphasis is the directing of attention to
aspects of the auditory composition which are most
38
important at any given moment." Certainly the principal
use of auditory emphasis occurs in conjunction with the
words of the script. And the words of the script exist
chiefly to convey ideas. Utilization of tempo, pitch,
volume, and the like can certainly aid in drawing
attention in a more emphatic way to those significant
ideas.
22
However, sound can also work on a level which is
almost purely emotional. Human beings can be affected by
sound in a way which touches the baser, animal side of
themselves. No thought, no ideas (in the sense referred
to above) necessarily need be involved in order for
certain types of sound to significantly affect an audience
and capture their attention. The sound of the presumed
"train to eternity" called for in Dennis Smith's play.
Excursion Fare, is a good example. The playwright
describes it as the sound of a giant steam engine, " . . .
churring and thumping . . . like the heart beat of a great
beast crouched on the other side of the small doors." 39
Assuming this sound effect is properly produced, there is
little question that the audience's attention is virtually
overwhelmed by the aural presence of the train, and that
attention is based principally in the primary, animal
nerve center, not in the mind. Likewise, the piercing,
surprise scream offstage in a suspense story of some sort
can draw immediate attention. There is no need for the
audience to mentally consider the ramifications of that
abrupt, disturbing sound. Instead, properly done, the
scream might instantaneously produce a feeling of fright
in the viewers, and in doing so it may, indeed, work in a
powerful way to direct their attention where desired.
Even supposing that the audience left the theatre and then
realized how they had been unwitting dupes to a "cheap,
emotion-provoking trick," if they were honest they might
confess to having been manipulated completely by it.
Conclusion. It is clear that visual and aural
techniques, properly used, serve an important function in
controlling the involuntary attention of the audience.
Although scientifically unproveable, it seems clear that
involuntary attention is linked not to the intellect so
much as to some baser, perhaps more purely emotional, part
23
of each human being. By skillfully employing methods such
as those outlined above, the theatre's production
personnel have some very powerful tools to use in
controlling attention. That is probably as it should be,
for the audience willingly volunteered to believe in the
illusion onstage, and they can reasonably expect the
skills of the artists to partly take over in helping them
to continue their journey through that make-believe world
of the play. Knowledge of those techniques and their
purposeful incorporation into the production can certainly
go far in helping to make the theatrical illusion "real."
CHAPTER III
MAGICAL ILLUSION
24
25
are the extra ones which make the trick possible.
. . . The magician depends upon [that] faultiness
of human observation.
With those words Mulholland lays the groundwork for
discussing the true basis of magical illusion. As he
says, magic is not based on deception through quickness,
but rather on psychological deception. In magical
parlance the term for this is misdirection.
Misdirection
In simplest terms, misdirection can be defined as
manipulating the attention of the audience. Since the
magician's hands are not quicker than the spectators'
eyes, the magician must direct attention away from the
trickery which may be going on right before the spectators
and somehow get them to look elsewhere--where he wants
them to look. However, in more precise terms misdirection
involves more than simply directing the visual attention
of the audience. It involves more than distracting any of
the senses. The basis of completely effective
misdirection lies in the conjuror's ability to manipulate
the spectators' minds.
The two ideas are anything but mutually exclusive.
They depend upon one another, in fact. But, if the mind
of the viewer is not manipulated, no true and complete
magical illusion can possibly take place. After all, the
magician has committed himself to accomplishing impossible
feats for his audience. His audience, however, being
sensible and logical individuals all, knows that doing the
impossible is impossible. Logic dictates as much.
Granted, the average spectator will probably go along with
what he knows to be pretense in order to help maintain an
atmosphere of friendliness. Yet all the while he knows
that the magic is a mere charade; his logic tells him so.
26
Therefore, if the magician has any chance of creating a
true magical illusion, he will first and foremost have to
manipulate the minds of the spectators into a "state of
being intellectually deceived" (to use the dictionary
definition once more). In other words, the performer must
maneuver to create a climate where "the magic show takes
place ultimately in the spectator's head."^"'"
The focus of this procedure to manipulate the minds
of others in order to effect a complete magical illusion
is best described by Henry Hay in the following:
The central secret of conjuring (and of art and
literature and politics and economics) is a
manipulation of interest. (Not just of atten-
tion. . . . )
Not obvious but equally important is something
else—a point that nothing I've ever read about magic,
drama, advertising, or even psychology has made in so
many words:
Interest is not the same as attention. Attention
is a simple response to a stimuli--either to a loud
bang or (much more powerful) to a feeling of inter-
^ o U• • • •
. . . Interest is a sense of being involved in
some process, actual or potential. . . .
Interest is selective, an expenditure of energy by
the interested party. . . .
Attention you may compel briefly with a wham or a
bright light; it can be sustained only by interest.
Following this. Hay presents two related axioms:
(1) "Memory is an internally edited record of interest
(not of attention, much less of 'events')"; (2) "Percep-
tion. . . originates with the perceiver, not with the
object."^^
Jason Randal explains these axioms in this manner:
Perceptions . . . are influenced by the long term
memory, which suggests what should be important and
relevant. The data which eventually enters the memory
is a result of what stimulus the perceiver chose to
give his attentions [read: interest] to. The three
27
operations [perception, attention or interest, and
memory] are constantly supplying information, and
being supplied at almost the same instant.
The inference to be drawn from both writers' state-
ments is that unless the magician uses his knowledge that
the spectators' interest can and must be manipulated, he
can succeed in demonstrating only an amusing puzzle at
best. He certainly cannot create a true illusion. On the
other hand, if the magician actively employs his knowledge
of interest in such a way as to manipulate it to his
advantage, he can proceed to use more specific means to
achieve his desired end of creating an actual magical
illusion. Those means have been variously described by
magic theorists, and those articulated by Maskelyne and
Devant are as useful as any; they are distraction,
disguise, and simulation.45
Distraction. Distraction, probably the most commonly
used method of sensory misdirection, can be achieved
visually and aurally, the former being used most often.
The conjuror's adage that "when a magician has anything
'magical' to do, he should never look at what he is
AC.
Magical Effects
Having examined the principles of misdirection and
established how those principles come into play in
manipulating audience attention and interest, the study
must now look at the various magical effects that are
possible. Some of the methods of achieving those effects
will also be covered, as they are equally important to
this study.
In a general sense, all of magic can be divided into
three categories: manipulative, mental, and physical:
Manipulative Magic is that which depends upon what
is called "sleight-of-hand." In other words, it is a
form of jugglery.
Mental Magic is the branch comprising, mainly, the
various secret processes which a performer "works out
in his head," during his performance.
Physical Magic, by far the most extensive and most
important branch, includes those processes which
depend upon the use of mechanical appliances, or other
adaptations of the physical sciences in general.
In this study there will be no attempt to cover all
of these areas of magic. First of all, nothing has come
to light that would indicate the use of mental magic (as
defined above) in the legitimate theatre. Secondly,
although there are instances of manipulative magic being
used in plays, they are not found nearly as often as
instances of physical magic. Since the effects and
methods involved in manipulative magic are so often akin
to those done in physical magic, a lengthy discussion of
the former would be mostly redundant. For purposes of
this study, it will be sufficient here to limit the
examination to the effects and methods of physical magic.
32
Particular instances of manipulative magic used in the
vampire plays can be incorporated into the discussion of
the plays themselves.
Fitzkee's basic effects. This study is greatly
indebted to the work of Dariel Fitzkee for the
classifications of magic effects and methods. His book.
The Trick Brain, is undoubtedly the most thorough and
analytical work on the subject. The purpose of The Trick
Brain is to suggest a different, more scientific way for
magicians to invent magic tricks, but here it serves
equally well as a chief resource for a study of the trick-
work in the vampire plays.
The following are the basic effects, as identified by
Fitzkee, which apply to physical magic as it might be
required in a play:
l--Production (Appearance, creation,
multiplication)
2—Vanish (Disappearance, obliteration)
3--Transposition (Change in location)
4--Transformation (Change in appearance, character
or identity)
5--Penetration (One solid through another)
6—Restoration (Making the destroyed whole)
7--Animation (Movement imparted to the inanimate)
8—Antigravity (Levitation and change in weight)
9—Attraction (Mysterious adhesion)
10—Sympathetic Reaction (Sympathetic Response)
11—Invulnerability (Injury proof)
12--Physical anomaly . . . Exceptions or
contradictions to normal physical rules or
reactions.
The author goes on to mention other basic effects,
principally of a mental nature, and concludes: "I am
firmly convinced that more than ninety-nine per cent of
56
all tricks will fall within these classifications." Any
reader has only to read Fitzkee for himself to confirm the
careful and thorough scrutiny with which he undertook his
study. A reader can feel confident that the list of
33
effects will be more than sufficient to examine the trick-
work in vampire plays.
Fitzkee's mechanisms. Fitzkee's other summary
listing, however, is of even more value to the present
study, for it thoroughly itemizes the mechanisms available
to achieve a magic effect. The list is reproduced here in
abbreviated form, giving only those mechanisms which can
be identified as clearly being useful to creating a
physical magic effect in a play. Those mechanisms are as
follows:
1--Secret hiding places. . . .
3--Forms to simulate objects.
4—Detachable portions.
5--Pulled threads.
6--Movement through gravity or centrifugal force.
7--Revolving panels.
8--Secret compartments--fixed and movable.
9--Shell objects. [That is, an apparently solid
object which is actually just a shell or casing].
10--Interchangeable compartments.
ll--Conveyance, concealed by an accessory.
12--Access to nearby hiding places.
13--Covers blending with backgrounds.
14--Secret passageways.
15--Chemical reactions.
16—Optical illusions. . . .
18--Secret exchange. . . .
21--Expansibility [sic], compressibility and
collapsibility.
22--Movement through elastics, springs and other
power. . . .
24--0ptical projection. . . .
26--Duplicates. . . .
28—Substitution.
29--Invisible connections.
30--Concealed connections.
31--Concealed power.
32--Secret manipulation.
33--Magnetic attraction. . . .
36--Adhesion. . . .
46--Confederacy. . . .
54--Dual-identity construction.
34
It is interesting to note that several other
"mechanisms" listed by Fitzkee are those already discussed
under misdirection. In the end, however, it is not
important (except, perhaps, in a different academic
context) whether something like diverted attention or
disguise is classified as a technique of misdirection or
as a mechanism. That matter of semantics can be argued
elsewhere. What is important here is to recognize that
psychological misdirection and its related techniques are
employed side by side with mechanical principles to
achieve physical magic effects.
Conclusion. A mechanical operation by itself is of
little value in the performance of magic. A so-called
"self-working" magic trick, performed with no regard for
the necessary psychological manipulation of the
spectators, will succeed only in amusing the most
cooperative viewer and in making the viewer who was
skeptical in the beginning even more so at the end. To
reiterate, what is needed to create a true magical
illusion is a combination of crafty mechanical methods
coupled with a deep intent on the part of the conjuror to
create a psychological atmosphere which allows the
impossible to happen.
CHAPTER IV
ILLUSION VERSUS ILLUSION
Illusion--Theatrical
Earlier it was submitted that the term illusion has
somewhat different meanings depending upon whether one is
referring to theatre or magic. If the subject is
theatrical illusion, the crucial ingredient is conscious
awareness of the make-believe nature of the event. The
audience members agree, in effect, to sublimate their
natural skepticism and accept that make-believe; having
fulfilled their part of the contract, they then have every
35
36
right to expect that the artists will skillfully use every
technique at their command to create a powerfully
convincing illusion of actuality. They do not expect to
be convinced to the point of becoming deluded, but they do
expect the dramatic illusion to be persuasive enough to
prompt seemingly genuine emotional and mental responses
within themselves. Robert Corrigan provides an excellent
elaboration on this when he states:
. . . The theatre is a place where the ghosts we
carry with us all our lives are made present so that
we can experience them as if directly without having
to fear the consequences of that confrontation. The
"as if" is important [emphasis added]. In theatre, we
are always conscious that what's going on only appears
to be real. It is all an illusion. It is a
representation of reality, not reality itself. It
must be make-believe. Many events taking place on the
stage--even in the frothiest comedy--would at best be
anxiety-provoking and in most instances would be too
difficult to bear if we were dealing with them
directly. One of the most interesting characteristics
of theatre is that it continually draws our attention
to its own pretense and illusion. . . . The theatre
can speak the unspeakable and show that which should
not be shown because we are never allowed to forget we
are watching a play with players playing.
If one of theatre's main purposes, then, is to be a
kind of mirror of our existence, there is good reason to
argue that no aspect of theatre should be aimed at
deluding the audience. In fact, if one accepts Corrigan's
ideas, one finds a compelling reason for creating a kind
of illusion in the theatre which purposely seeks to make
all aware, at least subtly, of the pretense. To do
otherwise would be to defeat what is taken here to be one
of theatre's chief reasons-for-being.
37
Illusion--Magical
Conversely, the thrust of magical illusion is an
effort to totally deceive. That is a rather tall order
since "the audience at a play supplies willing credulity
[whereas] the conjuror's audience is deliberately
59
skeptical." Therefore, if a true magical illusion (as
opposed to just a "trick") is to be effected, the magician
must utterly deceive. The essence of magical illusion is
such that the most observant, most skeptical observer is
so thoroughly mystified that even he is led to conclude,
"It must be magic!" Has he been deluded to the point of
believing that he actually witnessed a supernatural
occurrence? To even suggest that would be both foolhardy
and presumptuous. Short of that, however, it is safe to
say that every spectator might be so utterly baffled as to
believe that an unexplainable mystery has been witnessed.
That is, after all, the ultimate goal of magical illusion.
Differences
Thus, the illusions in theatre and in magic are
different because they have different goals. The
objective of theatre is to arouse an audience by
presenting an illusion within the framework of mutually
agreed-upon rules. The spectators will accept even
difficult emotional experiences, but only so long as the
conventions of theatrical illusion allow them to do that
in a safe, vicarious way. The only rule in force in
creating magical illusion, however, is that the performer
must try to so completely control the spectators'
perceptions that they are left with no clue as to the
trickery. Despite themselves, they will be forced to
conclude that the illusion is unexplainable.
The motivations and activity of the theatre audience
assist in realizing theatrical illusion. They are
38
themselves active participants in the pretense. But the
magic audience experiences a magical illusion when the
performer uses mechanics, skill, and knowledge of
psychology to turn their natural "unwillingness" to be
deceived inside out. By doing so he changes a major
liability into his strongest ally, resulting in the
achievement of his goal--illusion by virtue of complete
deception.
Similarities
Beyond these differences, however, magic and theatre
are so closely related as to employ many identical methods
to achieve their particular ends. For example, a standard
directing text lists the following methods of creating
emphasis: body position, area of the stage, levels,
contrast, isolation, focus, line, triangles, scenic
fin
reinforcement, and lighting. A text on magic,
interestingly, lists the following factors to be
considered in controlling attention: center of interest,
focus of attention, performer's interest, pointing,
fii
contrast, movement, variety, and distraction. The two
lists are not identical, of course, but their similarities
are remarkable. The theatre text discusses techniques for
directing the attention of the audience; the magic text
cites methods of directing (and misdirecting) viewers'
attention. The ultimate goal of both magic and theatre is
to create illusions, in great part by employing identical
techniques to control attention.
Dolman and Knaub's text on play production makes this
point clear by presenting an example which refers to both
magic and theatre:
The extent to which it is possible to control and
direct attention is perhaps best illustrated by the
sleight-of-hand artist. Half the secret of his magic
lies in his ability to direct the attention of the
39
audience to the wrong place. By talking glibly and
looking with great apparent interest at his right hand
he practically compels his audience to look at that
hand, whereas he performs the essential part of his
trick with his left hand and nobody sees him do it. A
good magician employs for this purpose not only the
devices of the actor—speech, gesture, and facial
expression—but those of the stage director as well,
including position, movement, business, line, mass,
scenic effect, light, and shadow. The student of
stage directing who is not too sternly opposed to
trickery may learn from such performers a great many
facts about the psychology of attention that will
prove valuable in actual play production.
There are, then, these two types of illusion whose
ends are different but whose means are similar. And in
the vast array of dramatic literature are many plays--
vampire plays among them--which require that magical
effects happen as part of the story. What is the place of
magic in these plays? Should magical methods be used at
all--or used exclusively--to accomplish the effects?
Should theatrical trick-work be used at all--or used
exclusively? Are the mechanics of theatre effects and the
mechanics of magic really that different? If conjuring
techniques and actual conjuring illusions are done in the
course of a play, do they threaten to distract from the
essential focus--the play itself, or can they be used to
reinforce the dramatic action? These and many other
questions come to mind when considering productions of the
"vampire play" type. The remainder of this chapter will
seek to answer some of these questions.
44
45
play had an immense circulation and every morning Barba's
counter was freshly stocked with huge piles of the
72
duodecimo, which rapidly diminished during the day."
Less than two months passed before a loose translation
appeared across the English Channel and captured the
imagination of the British theatregoers.
James Robinson Planche, "who was to devote his life
to making the English theatre respectable and historically
accurate, began his career by practising the blackest of
magic in The Vampyre [sic]." 73 "The summer production
represents Planche's first attempt at Gothic drama, and
his second attempt (so far as we can determine) at the
74 , /
translation from the French." In the late 1800s Planche
gave an account of the production in his autobiography.
He wrote:
A more fortunate melodrama of mine, "The Vampire;
or the Bride of the Isles," was produced at the
Lyceum, or English Opera House, as it was then called
(August 9, 1820). Mr. Samuel James Arnold, the
proprietor and manager, had placed in my hands for
adaptation a French melodrama, entitled "Le Vampire,"
the scene of which"* was laid, with the usual
recklessness of French dramatists, in Scotland, where
the superstition never existed. I vainly endeavoured
to induce Mr. Arnold to let me change it to some place
in the east of Europe. He had set his heart on Scotch
music and dresses—the latter, by the way, were in
stock--laughed at my scruples, assured me that the
public would neither know nor care--and in those days
they certainly did not—and therefore there was
nothing left for me but to do my best with it.
The result was most satisfactory to the
management. The situations were novel and effective;
the music lively and popular; the cast strong,
comprising T.P. Cooke, who made a great hit in the
principal character, Harley, Bartley, Pearman, Mrs.
Chatterley, and Miss Love. The trap now so well known
as "the Vampire trap" was invented for this piece, and
the final disappearance of the Vampire caused quite a
sensation. The melodrama had a long run, was often
46
revived, and is to this day a stock piece in the
country. I had an opportunity many years afterwards,
however, to treat the same subject in a manner much
more satisfactory to myself, and, as it happened, in
the same theatre, under the same management; but of
that anon.
An 1820 edition of the play contains a so-called
"advertisement" which indicates that Planche was, indeed,
less than comfortable with the anomaly of a Scottish
vampire. It reads:
The Author must apologize to the Public for the
liberty which has been taken with a Levantic
Superstition, by transplanting it to the Scottish
Isles; but the unprecendented success of the French
Piece, entitled, "LE VAMPIRE," of which this Melo-
drama is a free translation, induced him to hazard
the same experiment, for the sake of the same dramatic
effect."^
Nonetheless, from the standpoint of theatre trick-work the
play is quite important historically, for it "introduced a
new form of trap to the stage and a new term to its
vocabulary." 77 That single invention makes a look at The
Vampire worthwhile.
Three versions of the play will be used in this
analysis. The first, and most informative, is the 1820
edition mentioned above. The city of publication is given
as Baltimore. The copy is obviously a stage manager-type
promptbook containing interleaved manuscript notes,
evidently in the hand of John B. Wright whose signature
and the date, "1843," are written on the first page. The
handwritten word, "Boston," on page eleven indicates it
might have been used in a Boston production of the play.
The second version to be used here is what seems to
be a more "commercial" publication, "printed from the
acting copy, with remarks, biographical and critical . . .
78
[and] . . . embellished with a fine engraving." Page
"A3" of the remarks bears a dated signature reading.
47
"Samuel D. Jones 16 March 42." The first page of the text
has the signature of Thomas Royce [?] crossed out.
Another signature appears below that, but it is
indecipherable. It is evident that the prompter's notes
are not in Jones' handwriting. Beyond that, it cannot be
determined whose handwriting it is. Overall, the
manuscript notes leave the impression that this production
of the play was not as technically elaborate as the
production for which the Wright script was used.
The third version of The Vampire appears in Michael
Kilgariff's book. The Golden Age of Melodrama.79 From the
way the dialogue has been abbreviated and from minor
changes in wording it is clear that Kilgariff drew upon a
copy of the script other than one of the ones already
mentioned. This rendition of the play has proved to be
the least helpful to the task at hand.
It is these three versions of The Vampire which will
be used to try to identify and reconstruct the effects
from the productions. As a matter of efficiency and
economy, some liberties have been taken in citing parts of
the play and the manuscript notes. Unless stated
otherwise, the printed portion of the text is taken from
Wright's copy since it appears similarly or identically in
all three versions. The prompters' notes from the Wright
and Smith copies have been interspersed in the following
citation, appearing where they belong in each of the
scripts.
80
The short "Introductory Vision" scene actually
contains the majority of the identifiable effects used in
the entire play. It reads as follows:
--"Slow curtain up"®""" [or] "very slow" ,-- . . . t o
slow Music, . . . the Interior of the Basaltic Caverns
of Staffa; at the extremity of which is a Chasm
opening to the Air.--"1/2 Dark. Blue Bottles. Moon
lighted."—The Moonlight streams through it, and
48
partially reveals a number of rude Sepulchres. .
(Music—The Spirit of the Air descends
through the Chasm, on a silvery Cloud, which
she leaves and advances. . . .
(They perform Magical Ceremonies to the
Symphony of the following Charm.)
87
88
goal of an effect in a magic performance. Where overall
performance is concerned, the attainment of this goal
rests fundamentally in the knowledge and studied
application of misdirection by distraction, disguise, and
simulation. The practiced theatrician, already having a
working knowledge of audience psychology within his own
realm, must study the psychological principles at work in
successful magic performances. If he is willing to do
this, it will not be long before he realizes just how
closely related they are to principles with which he is
already well-acquainted. By then applying the specific
psychological principles of misdirection to the staging of
the particular effects in the play, he will be well on his
way to creating successful magical illusion within the
context of the drama overall.
Although the performers and the director are
certainly involved in the doing of the effects before an
audience--and it is therefore imperative that they be as
educated as anyone in all of the principles of magic that
are operative in the effects—it is chiefly the
responsibility of the theatre technician to devise the
physical, mechanical methods of accomplishing those
effects. He is not limited to the same apparatus as that
employed in magic; indeed, it would be a mistake to
overlook the tools of his own trade to solve the effects
problems. However, if he looks only to answers within his
own area, he might not solve the problems as well as he
could if he were also to use the principles of magic.
Fitzkee, with little doubt, is correct when he states
that there are only forty-eight theoretical "appearance"
methods. The theatre technician is probably limited to
the very same forty-eight when trying to solve a magical
appearance problem in Dracula, for instance. If that is
true, the technician should be eager to embrace the
89
Fitzkee system of problem-solving, for it can serve as a
most useful "ready reference" when faced with devising a
solution to an effects problem.
The rationale for these contentions is as follows:
it is Fitzkee's assertion that there are probably only
nineteen basic effects in all of magic. If that is so,
then there are only nineteen basic magical effects that
are possible in a play. He argues that there are only
fifty-four theoretical mechanisms in all of magic. (That
is, in the general sense, he has been able to identify
only fifty-four basic ways to accomplish any or all of the
nineteen basic effects.) If his conclusion is accurate,
then any effect in the theatre also has only a maximum of
fifty-four mechanisms which might be used to accomplish
it. Therefore, the technician, like the magician, has a
finite number of theoretical ways to solve any given
trick-work problem. He may have more actual mechanical
ways than the magician to accomplish the effect, but they
still are only variations on the fifty-four mechanisms
identified by Fitzkee.
Will the theatre technician's own intelligence,
experience and creativity suffice to make him realize
every one of the avenues which should be explored in
pursuit of a problem's solution? Hopefully this study has
been persuasive enough to convince the technician that the
answer is a resounding "no." No theatre texts of any sort
provide such thorough lists of different directions to
explore for solutions to trick-work problems. The areas
which are normally discussed in theatre texts are not
analyzed in such a highly organized format as Fitzkee uses
to attack a problem. The most creative and intelligent
technician in the theatre probably can not consciously
recognize every one of the potential routes to a solution,
but he can use Fitzkee.
90
This writer will be the first to admit that the
language in The Trick Brain (or at least the language in
the portions reproduced in this study) seems somewhat
abstruse at first reading. However, once a reader
overcomes that minor hurdle and becomes more comfortable
with the language, the advantages of resorting to
assistance from Fitzkee quickly become self-evident. The
second half of this study has illustrated this many times
in the course of discussing the vampire plays. Various
approaches have been taken to show how a technician can
use Fitzkee—everything from showing how the book can help
the technician find a single, workable solution, to
suggesting the book's usefulness in evaluating the
relative effectiveness of a number of solutions, to
assessing the relative success of various effects in
historical models such as the vampire plays.
However, Fitzkee is only one resource from the world
of magic which can be used to improve the chances of
devising baffling trick-work for the theatre. Our Magic
and Magic and Showmanship have much to offer the theatre
person interested in discovering more about the
principles, techniques, and mechanical methods of his
close "cousin, " the magician. Once served with that
proper introduction to legerdemain, there are countless
other magic books whereby the theatre worker can gain
additional, useful knowledge.
It has been the principle contention of this study
that a knowledge of magic's methods can be invaluable in
helping the technician in the theatre to solve trick-work
problems. By now, however, it should be obvious that a
knowledge of conjuring can benefit any worker in the
theatre who is somehow involved in the staging of magical
effects. The actor or director who avails himself of the
insight to be gained from a study of magic will be
91
rewarded as much as the technician. The question is not
whether a magical effect's success is the responsibility
of the performer or the mechanic; rather, the question is
whether or not the principles of magic are understood and
properly applied. If they are, then any magical effect in
the theatre will be well on its way to success. Magic is
not the exclusive domain of those behind the scenes. It
is there for anyone interested in the art of illusion.
The theatrical illusion is an artificial world which
the audience allows itself to accept. The magical
illusion is a half-believed sense of conviction by the
audience that they have seen something that is impossible.
The realm of drama that is occupied by the vampire plays
and others of their kind is a world that demands the
magical. Whenever creativity, skill, and attention to the
needs of both theatrical illusion and magical illusion are
in evidence in their production, these plays will never go
too far astray. They will create for the audience a
satisfying experience in the theatre—and a magical one,
as well.
ENDNOTES
92
93
13
Kenneth M. Cameron and Theodore J.C. Hoffman, The
Theatrical Response (London: The Macmillan Co., 1969),
p. 11.
•'•^Ibid.
15
Bernard Beckerman, The Dynamics of Drama (New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 1970), p. 133.
Mordecai Gorelik, New Theatres for Old (New York:
E.P. Dutton & Co., 1962), p.27.
17
Richard Southern, The Seven Ages of the Theatre
(London: Faber & Faber, 1962), pp. 253-264.
18
Cameron, Theatrical Response, p. 11.
19
Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, 1963
ed., S.v. "illusion."
^^Ibid., S.v. "mock," "mimic," "copy."
21
Allardyce Nicoll, The Theory of Drama, new ed.,
rev. (London: George G. Harrap & Co., 1931; reissue. New
York: Benjamin Blom, 1966), p.35, citing Coleridge.
22
Cameron, Theatrical Response, p.11.
John Dolman, Jr. and Richard K. Knaub, The Art of
PaaProduction (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), p. 48.
^^Ibid., p.49.
^^Gilmor Brown and Alice Garwood, General Principles
of Play Direction (New York: Samuel French, 1936),
p. 137.
^^Brian Hansen, Theatre: The Dynamics of the Art
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1986), p. 5.
^^Nicoll, Theory of Drama, p. 35, quoting Coleridge,
"The Progress of Drama" (1918), in Literary Remains
(1836-39).
28
Nicoll, Theory of Drama, p. 35.
29
Hansen, Theatre, p. 17.
30
Dolman, Art of Play Production, pp. 154-155.
^•""Ibid., pp.156-157.
94
32
Cameron, Theatrical Response, p. 303.
33
Dolman, Art of Play Production, p. 157.
34
David Welker, Theatrical Direction: The Basic
Techniques (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1971), p. 107.
35
August W. Staub, Creating Theatre: The Art of
Theatrical Directing (New York: Harper & Row, 1973),
p. 194.
Brown, General Principles, p. 19.
37
Dolman, Art of Play Production, p. 165.
38
Staub, Creating Theatre, p. 219.
39
Dennis Smith, Excursion Fare (New York: Samuel
French, 1985), act II, p. 92, lines 18-20.
40
John Mulholland, John Mulholland's Book of Magic
(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1963), pp. 3-4.
41
Henry Hay, The Amateur Magician's Handbook, 3rd ed.
(New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., New American Library,
1972), p. 4.
^ Ibid., p. 2.
^^Ibid., p. 3.
44
Jason Randal, The Psychology of Deception (Why
Magic Works) (Venice, CA: Top Secret Productions, 1982),
p. 91.
Nevil Maskelyne and David Devant, Our Magic, 2nd
ed. (Berkeley Heights, NJ: Fleming Book Co., 1946),
p. 117.
^^Ibid., p. 118.
^"^Ibid., p. 119.
48
Blackstone Magic Show (New York: Columbia Artists
Management, 1978), p. 11 [?]. The title of the 1979
routine appears in a souvenir program obtained during
Blackstone, Jr.'s road tour. The account of the routine
is the writer's own, as witnessed in May, 1979.
49
Maskelyne, Our Magic, pp. 119-120.
95
^°Ibid., pp. 120-121.
^•'"Ibid., p. 123.
52
Distraction and disguise, while also used to help
accomplish "the pass," purposely have not been mentioned.
The description is intended to focus on the use of
simulation, and sufficient discussion of distraction and
disguise has taken place earlier.
53
Maskelyne, Our Magic, p. 123.
^^Ibid., p. 113.
55
Dariel Fitzroy [Dariel Fitzkee], The Trick Brain
(Oakland, CA: Magic Limited, 1976), pp.25, 28.
^^Ibid., p. 25.
^^Ibid., pp. 310-311.
58
Robert Corrigan, The World of the Theatre
(Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Co., 1979), p. 73.
59
Henning Nelms, Magic and Showmanship; A Handbook
for Conjurors (New York: Dover Pubications, 1969),
p. 133.
W. David Sievers, Directing for the Theatre, 2nd
ed. (Dubuque, lA: Wm. C. Brown Co., 1965), pp. 105-116.
Nelms, Magic and Showmanship, pp. 178-195.
62
Dolman, Art of Play Production, p. 163.
/TO
Pecor, "Magician on the American Stage."
Several examples of this will be cited in due
course. However, as the objective of this study is not to
establish whether the methodology of magic was adapted
from theatre or the other way around, the reader is asked
to allow the statement above (as well as examples to be
given later) to stand on its own. Although the mutual
influences of theatre and magic upon each other would be
an interesting area of investigation, the purpose of this
study is considerably different, and the writer asks that
this allowance be made.
65
See Appendix for a detailed example of Fitzkee's
approach to the invention of an effect. A study of the
appendix will help the reader to understand how Fitzkee's
96
system will be used in the problem-solving examples given
in the following chapter.
Maskelyne, Our Magic, pp. 60, 62.
^"^Ibid., pp. 60-61.
^^Ibid., pp. 62-63.
69
Nelms, Magic and Showmanship, p. 133.
70
James B. Twitchell, The Living Dead; A Study of the
Vampire in Romantic Literature (Durham, NC: Duke
University Press, 1981), pp. 112-113.
71
Summers, Vampire, Kith and Kin, p. 291.
*^^Ibid., p. 293.
73
George Rowel1, The Victorian Theatre, A Survey
(London: Oxford University Press, 1956), p. 45.
74Cleon Vernon Bennett, "James Robinson Planche:
/
Victorian Craftsman" (Ph.D. dissertation. University of
Wisconsin - Madison, 1971), p. 91.
75 /
James Robinson Planche, Recollections and
Reflections, rev. (London: Sampson Low, Martston, 1901;
reprint. New York: DaCapo Press, 1978), pp. 26-27.
Idem, The Vampire; or. The Bride of the Isles
(Baltimore: J. Robinson [?], 1820; New York: New York
Public Library microfilm, NCOF; prompter's copy, signed
"John B. Wright, 1843"), p. 3. Hereafter footnoted as
"Wright."
Rowell, Victorian Theatre, p. 45.
^®James Robinson PlanchI, The Vampire; or. The Bride
of the Isles (London: John Cumberland, [n.d.]; New York:
New York Public Library microfilm, NCOF p.v. 172;
prompter's copy, signed "Samuel D. Jones, 16 March 42"),
p. 2 [?]. Hereafter footnoted as "Jones."
7Q
Idem, The Vampire; or. The Bride of the Isles, in
Michael Kilgariff, The Golden Age of Melodrama (London:
Wolfe Publishing, 1974), pp. 64-88.
^°"Wright," p. 5.
97
81
Ibid., p. 5 interleaf. In the following passages
the prompters' notes appear in quotation marks and their
interpolation into the text of the script is indicated by
enclosing them in dashes.
®^"Jones," p. 13.
QO
°'^"Wright," p. 5 interleaf.
84
Ibid., p. 9 interleaf.
"Jones," p. 16.
®^"Wright," p. 9.
87
Ibid., p. 9 interleaf.
®®Ibid., pp. 5-9.
QQ
Ibid., p. 9 interleaf.
^^"Jones," p. 16.
91
Nelms, Magic and Showmanship, p. 28.
92
William Hazlitt, Criticisms and Dramatic Essays of
the English Stage (London: G. Routledge, 1851), pp. 138-
139.
93 /
Planche, Recollections, p. 159.
Q4
Percy Fitzgerald, The World Behind the Scenes
(London: n.p., 1881; reprint. New York: Benjamin Blom,
1972), p. 90.
^^Fitzkee, The Trick Brain, p. 276.
^^Ibid.
Q7
W.J. Lawrence, "Some Stage Effects: Their Growth
and History," The Gentleman's Magazine 265 (July-December
1888): 92.
QQ
Charles R. Paul, "An Annotated Translation:
Theatrical Machinery: Stage Scenery and Devices by George
Moynet" (Ph.D. dissertation. University of Southern
California, 1970), p. 337.
^^"Jones," p. 33.
100"Wright," p. 47.
98
101
Southern, "Trick-Work," p. 98.
102
J.P. Moynet, French Theatrical Production in the
Nineteenth Century, translated and augmented by Allan S.
Jackson and M. Glen Wilson, Marvin A. Carlson, ed.
(Binghamton, NY: State University of New York, 1976),
pp. 37, 39.
103
Fitzgerald, Behind the Scenes, pp. 55-56.
104^, ., r-o
Ibid., p. 58.
105
Alfred Emmet, "The Vampire Trap," Theatre Notebook
34:3 (1980), pp. 128-129.
Arthur Lennig, The Count: The Life and Films of
Bela 'Dracula' Lugosi (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons,
1974), pp. 63-64.
107
Daniel Farson. The Man Who Wrote Dracula (London:
Michael Joseph, 1975), p. 165.
108
Harry Ludlam, A Biography of Dracula; the Life
Story of Bram Stoker (London: W. Foulsham, 1962), pp.
156-157, 162.
1 OQ
Robert Cremer, Lugosi: The Man Behind the Cape
(Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1976), p. 100.
•^•'"^J. Brooks Atkinson, "Death of the Evil Monster,"
New York Times, 6 October 1927, p. 29.
^•^^Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston, Dracula;
the Vampire Play in Three Acts (New York: Samuel French,
1933).
•'"•'•^Ibid., p . 3.
•'••'"^Ibid., A c t I, p . 1 5 , line 3 0 .
•'••'•^Ibid., A c t I I , p . 5 0 , line 3 5 .
•'"•'•^Ibid., p . 90.
•'••'•^Ibid., p p . 3 5 , 4 5 .
•'••'•'^Ibid., p p . 8 9 - 9 0 .
•'••'•^Ibid., A c t I I , p . 5 0 , lines 2 9 - 3 5 .
•'••'•^Fitzkee, The Trick Brain, p p . 267-268.
99
120
Deane, Dracula, Act I, pp. 33-34.
121
''•^Ibid., p. 87.
122
Ibid., Act III, sc. 1, p. 71.
123
Deane, Dracula, Act II, p. 37, lines 34-38; p. 38,
lines 1-3.
•""^^Ibid.,. p. 78.
125
Cremer, Lugosi, p. 103.
126
Deane, Dracula, Act III, sc. 1, p. 57, lines 3-7.
127
'ibid.. Act III, sc. 1, p. 59, lines 12-13.
•"•^^Ibid., p . 8 8 .
129
Frank Vreeland in New York Telegram, 6 October
1927, quoted in Lennig, The Count, p. 68.
130
Deane, Dracula, p. 99.
131
Guy Jarret, Jarret Magic and Stagecraft, Technical
(n.p., 1936); republished with additional material by Jim
Steinmeyer (Chicago: Magic, Inc., 1981), p. 134.
132
Deane, Dracula, Act III, sc. 1, p. 70, lines 4-24.
133
Jarret, Magic, pp. 133-134.
134
Maskelyne and Devant, Our Magic, p. 62.
•'•^^Fitzkee, The Trick Brain, p. 262.
136
Steinmeyer writes: "[Author and magic expert]
Walter Gibson saw the original and offered the opinion
that the vanish was one of the most magical moments of the
theatre. Except for one thing. Seconds after the cape
was folded and Lugosi was gone, the trapdoor slammed shut
with a tremendous rumble. It was one of those moments
that Jarret himself would have cursed." (Jarret, Magic,
p. 134).
137
Bob Hall and David Richmond, The Passion of
Dracula (New York: Samuel French, 1979).
138
Howard Kissel, "Theatre: 'Dracula,'" Women's Wear
Daily. 21 October 1927, in New York Theatre Critics'
Reviews 38 (1977): 168.
100
139
Ted Tiller, Count Dracula (New York: Samuel
French, 1972).
140
Clive Barnes, "Jersey Children Get a Taste of Live
Acting," New York Times, 14 February 1976, p. 18.
141
Thomas Lask, "A Nip Here and There," New York
Times 17 February 1978, p. C2.
142
Hall, Passion, Act I, p. 17, line 30.
143
Tiller, Count Dracula, Act I, p. 44, line 6.
144
Hall, Passion, Act I, p. 61, lines 1, 10.
145
Deane, Dracula, p. 94.
147
Douglas Watt, "A New 'Dracula' to Neck With,"
Daily News (New York), 30 September 1977, in New York
Theatre Critics' Reviews 38 (1977): 152.
148
Howard Kissel, "The Passion of Dracula," Women's
Wear Daily, 30 September 1977, in New York Theatre
Critics' Reviews 38 (1977): 154.
149
Henry Ridgeley Evans, Magic and Its Professor (New
York: G.Routledge & Sons, [1902]), pp. 38-49.
150
Albert A. Hopkins, ed., Magic: Stage Illusions,
and Scientific Diversions, Including Trick Photography
(New York: Munn & Co., 1898; reprint ed. New York: Dover
Publications, 1976), p. 532.
•'•^•'•Tiller, Count Dracula, Act I, p. 36, lines 3-7.
•"•^^Ibid., Act II, p. 59, lines 4-9, 25-28.
•'•^^Ibid., pp. 118-119.
154
•^^''ibid., p. 119.
^^^Ibid., p. 141.
156
•^^°Ibid., p. 146.
IS^Ibid.
1 58
Tiller, Count Dracula, pp. 102-103, 126-128.
101
159
Deane, Dracula, pp. 103-105.
Richard Eder, "Theatre: 'Dracula,' Elegant But
Bloodless, on Broadway," New York Times, 21 October 1977,
in New York Theatre Critics' Reviews 38 (1977): 166.
Books
Beck, Calvin Thomas. Heroes of the Horrors. New York:
Collier Books, 1975.
Beckerman, Bernard. The Dynamics of Drama. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 1970.
Bentley, Eric, ed. The Theory of the Modern Stage. New
York: Penguin Books, 1968.
Booth, Michael R. Victorian Sepctacular Theatre, 1850-
1910. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981.
Boucicault, Dion. The Phantom. New York: Samuel French,
1856; New York: New York Public Library microfilm
copy, NCOF.
Brockett, Oscar G. History of the Theatre. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon, 1968.
Brown, Gilmor and Garwood, Alice. General Principles of
Play Direction. New York: Samuel French, 1936.
Cameron, Kenneth M. and Hoffman, Theodore J.C. The
Theatrical Response. London: Macmillan Co., 1969.
Carter, Margaret L. Shadow of a Shade: A Survey of
Vampirism in Literature. New York: Gorden Press,
1975.
Christopher, Milbourne. The Illustrated History of Magic.
New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1973.
. Panorama of Magic. New York: Dover
Publications, 1963.
Corrigan, Robert. The World of the Theatre. Glenview,
IL: Scott, Foresman & Co., 1979.
and Rosenberg, James L., eds. The Context and
Craft of Drama. Scranton, PA: Chandler Publishing,
1964.
102
103
Cremer, Robert. Lugosi: The Man Behind the Cape.
Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1976.
Deane, Hamilton and Balderston, John L. Dracula; The
Vampire Play in Three Acts. New York: Samuel
French, 1933.
Disher, M. Willson. Melodrama; Plots That Thrilled.
London: Rockliff, 1954.
Dolman, John, Jr. and Knaub, Richard K. The Art of Play
Production. New York: Harper & Row, 1973.
Farson, Daniel. The Man Who Wrote Dracula. London:
Michael Joseph, 1975.
Fergusson, Francis. The Idea of a Theatre. Garden City,
NY: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1954.
Fitzgerald, Percy. The World Behind the Scenes. London:
n.p., 1881; reprint ed., New York: Benjamin Blom,
1972.
Fitzroy, Dariel [Dariel Fitzkee]. The Trick Brain.
Oakland, CA: Magic Limited., 1976.
Frayling, Christopher, ed. The Vampyre; Lord Ruthwen to
Count Dracula. London: Victor Gollancz, 1978.
Gallaway, Marian. The Director in the Theatre. New York
Macmillan Co., 1963.
Gill, Robert. Magic as a Performing Art; A Bibliography
of Conjuring. London: Bowker, 1976.
Grimstead, David. Melodrama Unveiled. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1968.
Hall, Bob and Richmond, David. The Passion of Dracula.
New York: Samuel French, 1979.
Hamilton, Clayton. The Theory of the Theatre. New York:
Henry Holt & Co., 1939.
Hansen, Brian. Theatre: The Dynamics of the Art.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1986.
Hay, Henry. The Amateur Magician's Handbook. New York:
Thomas Y. Crowell, New American Library, 1972.
104
Hazlitt, William. Criticisms and Dramatic Essays of the
English Stage. London: G. Routledge, 1851.
Hodge, Francis. Play Directing: Analysis, Communication,
and Style, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall, 1982.
Hogan, Robert. Dion Boucicault. New York: Twayne, 1969.
Hopkins, Albert A., ed. Magic: Stage Illusions, and
Scientific Diversions, Including Trick Photography.
New York: Munn & Co., 1898; reprint ed.. New York:
Dover Publications, 1976.
Jarret, Guy. Jarret Magic and Stagecraft, Technical.
n.p., 1936; reprint ed. with additional material by
Jim Steinmeyer, Chicago: Magic, Inc., 1981.
Kozelka, Paul. Directing, The Theatre Student Series.
New York: Richard Rosen Press, 1968.
Krause, David, ed. Boucicault. n.p.: Dolman Press,
1964.
Lennig, Arthur. The Count: The Life and Films of Bela
'Dracula' Lugosi. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons,
1974.
Lewis, Angelo John [Professor Hoffmann]. Modern Magic.
London: George Routledge Sons, 1876; reprint ed..
New York: Dover Publications, 1978.
Ludlam, Harry. A Biography of Dracula; The Life Story of
Bram Stoker. London: W. Foulsham, 1962.
McNally, Raymond T. A Clutch of Vampires. Greenwich, CT:
New York Graphic Society, 1974.
and Florescu, Radu. In Search of Dracula
Greenwich, CT: New York Graphic Society, 1972.
Maskelyne, Nevil and Devant, David. Our Magic, 2nd ed.
Berkeley Heights, NJ: Fleming Book Co., 1946.
Morley, Henry. Journal of a London Playgoer. London:
Routledge & Sons, 1891.
Morrison, Hugh. Directing in the Theatre. New York:
Theatre Arts Books, 1973.
105
Moynet, J. P. French Theatrical Production in the
Nineteenth Century. Translated and augmented by
Allan S. Jackson and M. Glen Wilson, Marvin A.
Carlson, ed. Binghamton, NY: State University of
New York, 1976.
Mulholland, John. John Mulholland's Book of Magic. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1963.
Nelms, Henning. Magic and Showmanship. New York: Dover
Publications, 1969.
Nicoll, Allardyce. An Introduction to Dramatic Theory.
London: George G. Harrap & Co., 1931; reprint ed. as
The Theory of Drama. New York: Benjamin Blom, 1966.
Planche, James Robinson. Recollections and Reflections.
London: Sampson Low, Marston, 1901; reprint ed.. New
York: DaCapo Press, 1979.
The Vampire; or. The Bride of the Isles.
Baltimore: J. Robinson [?], 1820; New York: New
York Public Library microfilm, NCOF.
The Vampire; or. The Bride of the Isles
London: John Cumberland, [n.d.]; New York: New York
Public Library microfilm, NCOF.
The Vampire; or The Bride of the Isles. In The
Golden Age of Melodrama, pp. 64-88, by Michael
Kilgariff. London: Wolfe Publishing, 1974.
Randal, Jason. The Psychology of Deception (Why Magic
Works). Venice, CA: Top Secret Productions, 1982.
Riccardo, Martin V. Vampires Unearthed. New York:
Garland Publishing, 1983.
Ronay, Gabriel. The Truth About Dracula. New York:
Stein & Day, 1972.
Rowell, George. Victorian Dramatic Criticism. London:
Methum & Co., 1971.
The Victorian Theatre, A Survey. London:
Oxford University Press, 1956.
Seltzer, Daniel, ed. The Modern Theatre. Boston:
Little, Brown and Co., 1967.
106
Sievers, W. David. Directing for the Theatre, 2nd ed.
Dubuque, lA: William C. Brown Co., 1965.
Staub, August W. Creating Theatre: The Art of Theatrical
Directing. New York: Harper & Row, 1973.
Summers, Montague. The Vampire; His Kith and Kin.
London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1928.
Tiller, Ted. Count Dracula. New York: Samuel French,
1972.
Twitchell, James B. The Living Dead; A Study of the
Vampire in Romantic Literature. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press, 1981.
Walsh, Townsend. The Career of Dion Boucicault. New
York: Dunlap Society, 1915.
Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, 1963 ed.
Welker, David. Theatrical Direction: The Basic
Techniques. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1971.
Winter, Marian Hannah. The Theatre of Marvels. New York:
Benjamin Blom, 1962.
Wolf, Leonard. The Annotated Dracula. New York:
Clarkson N. Potter, 1975.
Wright, Dudley. Vampires and Vampirism. London: William
Rider & Son, 1924.
Journals
Emmet, Alfred. "The Vampire Trap." Theatre Notebook 34:3
(1980): 128-129.
Lawrence, W. J. "Some Stage Effects: Their Growth and
History." The Gentleman's Magazine 265 (July-Dec.
1888): 83-95.
Nichols, Harold J. "The Acting of Thomas Potter Cooke."
Nineteenth Century Theatre Research 5 (Autumn 1977):
73-84.
Southern, Richard. "Trick-Work in the English Nineteenth
Century Theatre." Life and Letters Today 21 (May
1939): 94-101.
107
Magazines
Ansen, David. "Dracula Lives!" Newsweek, October 31,
1977, pp. 74-75.
Baker, Henry B. "Theatrical Scenery and Effects."
Belgravia, February, 1875, pp. 209-212.
"Dracula." Theatre Magazine, December, 1927, p. 84.
Gussow, Mel. "Gorey Goes Batty." New York Times
Magazine, October 16, 1977, p. 41.
Hughes, Catharine. "Crow's Feet and Bat's Wings."
America, September 12, 1977, p. 334.
Kalem, T. E. "Kinky Count." Time, October 31, 1977,
p. 93.
Simon, John. "Dingbat." New York Magazine, November 7,
1977, p. 75.
White, Timothy. "Dracula; The Warmblooded Revival of the
Debonaire King of the Undead." Crawdaddy, June,
1978, pp. 26-33.
Newspapers
Atkinson, J. Brooks. "Death of the Evil Monster." New
York Times, 6 October 1927, sec. 29, p. 1.
Barnes, Clive. "Getting in on 'The Act.'" Times Saturday
Review (London), 19 November 1977, p. 13.
. "Jersey Children Get a Taste of Live Acting."
New York Times, 14 February 1976, sec. 19, p. 1.
Beaufort, John. "An Eerie 'Dracula.'" Christian Science
Monitor, 26 October 1977, in New York Theatre
Critics' Reviews, vol. 38, p. 169.
"Dracula." Variety, 25 October 1977, p. 83.
Eder, Richard. "Theatre: 'Dracula,' Elegant But
Bloodless, on Broadway." New York Times, 21 October
1977, in New York Theatre Critics' Reviews, vol. 38,
p. 166.
. "Theatre: Dracula Up in the Air." New York
Times, 30 September 1977, in New York Theatre
Critics' Reviews, vol. 38, pp. 152-3.
108
"English Opera House." Times (London), 9 August 1820,
p. 2.
Gottfried, Martin. "Comic Touches Bleed Dracula's Chilly
Charm." New York Post, 30 September 1977, in New
York Theatre Critics' Reviews, vol. 38, p. 153.
II f
Dracula' is Pure Escape, Great Fun." New
York Post, 21 October 1977, in New York Theatre
Critics' Reviews, vol. 38, pp. 167-8.
Kissel, Howard. "The Passion of Dracula." Women's Wear
Daily, 30 September 1977, in New York Theatre
Critics' Reviews, vol. 38, p. 154.
. "Theatre: Dracula." Women's Wear Daily, 21
October 1977, in New York Theatre Critics' Reviews,
vol. 38, p. 168.
"Little Theatre; 'Dracula.'" Times (London), 15 February
1927, p. 10.
"Princess's Theatre." Times (London), 16 June 1852, p. 6.
"Theatre of Illusion to Dazzle Jefferson." Daily
Jefferson County Union (Fort Atkinson, WI), 15
January 1987, p. 5.
"Two Plays in London Make Many Faint." New York Times, 11
March 1927, sec. 24, p. 3.
Watt, Douglas. "Langella is Count Dracula Down to the
Teeth." Daily News (New York), 21 October 1977, in
New York Theatre Critics' Reviews, vol. 38, p. 166.
"A New 'Dracula' to Neck With." Daily News
(New York), 30 September 1977, in New York Theatre
Critics' Reviews, vol. 38, p. 152.
Wilson, Edwin. "The Bloody Count Rises." Wall Street
Journal, 25 October 1977, in New York Theatre
Critics' Reviews, vol. 38, p. 169.
Dissertations
Bennett, Cleon Vernon. "James Robinson Planche:
Victorian Craftsman." Ph.D. dissertation. University
of Wisconsin—Madison, 1971.
109
Hubbell, Douglas K. "The 'Scientific American' and Its
'Supplement' as Sources of Information About Theatre
Technology." Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University,
1978.
Johnson, Raoul Fenton. "United States and British Patents
for Scenic and Lighting Devices for the Theatre from
1861 to 1915." Ph.D. dissertation. University of
Illinois (Urbana), 1966.
McCosker, Susan. "Representative Performances of Stage
Magic, 1650-1900." Ph.D. dissertation. New York
University, 1982.
Mitchell, Lee. "Elizabethan Scenes of Violence and the
Problem of Their Staging." Ph.D. dissertation.
Northwestern University, 1941.
Oliver, George B. "Changing Patterns of Spectacle on the
New York Stage (1850-1890)." Ph.D. dissertation,
Pennsylvania State University, 1956.
Paul, Charles R. "An Annotated Translation: Theatrical
Machinery: Stage Scenery and Devices by George
Moynet." Ph.D. disssertation. University of Southern
California, 1970.
Pecor, Charles Joseph. "The Magician On the American
Stage, 1752-1874." Ph.D. dissertation. University of
Georgia, 1978.
Schneideman, Robert Ivan. "Elizabethan Legerdemain and
Its Employment in the Drama, 1576-1642." Ph.D.
dissertation. Northwestern University, 1956.
Wedwick, Daryl Melvin. "U.S. and British Patents of
Scenic and Illusionistic Devices and Effects for the
Theatre, 1916-1970." Ph.D. dissertation. Bowling
Green State University, 1972.
Miscellaneous
Blackstone Magic Show, souvenir program. New York
Columbia Artists Management, 1978.
APPENDIX
THE FITZKEE SYSTEM
110
Ill
emphasis upon concealing the secret of the opera-
tion. . . .
But perhaps an indirect argument in favor of
abandonment of mechanical conceptions as the chief
factors in magic may be found in this work when the
various inventions are revealed to depend upon a
paltry nineteen general effects. These in turn are
accomplished through the use and re-use of but a few
methods, ingeniously disguised sometimes, it is
true. . . .
. . . Really, there are not many basic ways of
accomplishing a magical appearance.
Generally, a production, or an appearance, is an
effect in which the aspect to the spectator is the
materialization of something or someone. This
appearance may be either gradual or instantaneous. It
may take place out in the open, uncovered, or back of,
or within or beneath something. It is essential, of
course[,] that the effect be accomplished without
apparent reasonable physical causation.
As it appears to the spectator, the performer may
just be standing in sight and suddenly he may be seen
holding something, something which was not visible a
moment before. Or an object may become visible at a
place removed from the magician. Or the entertainer
may take something from a place previously shown
empty. . . .
Right at the start, in discussing appearances let
it be clearly realized that no magician can create
anything. Therefore, the subject of the eventual
production must be hidden somewhere. The problem,
then, becomes one of arranging a suitable hiding place
and devising a method of getting the subject from that
place of concealment to the place of production in
such a manner that the subject will seem to be
produced magically. It is a matter of concealing the
subject in a hiding place incorporated in the place of
production, or concealing its acquirement and
conveyance from a more or less removed place of
concealment.
112
Practically all of these productions are
accomplished through one or a combination or a
variation of a comparative few basic principles.
Fitzkee then spends the remainder of that chapter
discussing all possible methods of accomplishing an
appearance. Instead of duplicating his entire chapter at
this time, his summary of those methods is recreated here
in its entirety.
BASIC EFFECT No. 1
APPEARANCE OR PRODUCTION
Basic Methods
1--Subject taken from secret hiding place while
attention is diverted elsewhere.
2--Subject taken from secret hiding place after
appearance simulated by a form.
3--Subject taken from a secret hiding place after
appearance simulated by an attachable portion.
4--Subject brought from secret hiding place into
view, swiftly, by means of pulled thread.
5--Subject brought from secret hiding place into
view, swiftly, by means of elastic pull.
6--Subject brought from secret hiding place into
view, swiftly, by means of spring reel.
7--Subject brought into view from secret hiding
place by means of a guided movement, through
gravity or centrifugal force.
8—Subject brought into view by means of revolving
panel.
9—Subject taken from fixed secret compartment
built into place of production.
10--Subject taken from rotating, tipping, hanging
or other movable container built into place of
production.
11—Subject taken from secret compartment created
in place of production by means of reflection--
mirror, or transparent glass with light
control.
12--Subject taken from shell object.
13--Subject taken from one of two compartments