History in the Making: Clown Summit & Vaudephone

Christopher Lueck
(Photo: Jim Moore)

[post 236] 

James Agee once wrote a famous book called Let Us Now Praise Famous Men, which was about tenant farmers who were in fact guys but certainly not famous, so I was going to title this post Let Us Now Praise Three Guys Who Aren't Famous Either but Should Be for All the Cool Work They do Promoting and Chronicling Clowns and Variety Artists — but that title was already taken.

The three guys in question are Christopher Lueck, Jim Moore, and Trav S.D. One of them I've never met, one I met three or four times, and the other I've known for 33 years and even performed with in a circus. Problem is I can't remember which is which. Yeah, just kidding. (I won't be that senile for another month or two.)

So let's start with Christopher Lueck, host of New York's monthly Downtown Clown Revue, now in its fifth season, and creator of the new instructional DVD Learn Slapstick: Get Physically Funny. That should keep Christopher busy enough, but he is also the mastermind behind Clown Summit, a series of audio interviews with contemporary clowns now in its second year. Last year's lineup featured informative chats with Chuck Sidlow & Mitch Freddes, Michael Christensen, Barry Lubin, Avner Eisenberg (Avner The Eccentric), John Gilkey, and David Kaye (Silly Billy).

This year's cavalcade of stars, which can be heard starting the day after tomorrow, is equally stellar:

• Joe Dieffenbacher (Clown Conservatory)
• Sue Morrison (Institute of Canadian Clowning)
• Jesse Dryden (Circus Smirkus)
• Ronlin Foreman (Dell’ Arte School)
• Priscilla Mooseburger (Mooseburger Camp)
• Jango Edwards (Nouveau Clown Institute)

And it's all free! Just go to the Clown Summit web site to register and you will receive a link via e-mail to listen to the interviews, which will be available for streaming for 24 hours each — one a day from January 30th through February 4th. If you miss them, or want these as a part of your permanent collection, all the contents will be available afterwards on a reasonably priced CD or downloadable e-book. What's not to like?

Jim Moore

Next up are Jim Moore (not his real name) and Trav S.D., and their new collaboration, Vaudephone. Jim is an old friend whose work has appeared frequently on this blog. A former mime and street performer, Jim is a master photographer who has been documenting the eccentric arts for over three decades, most recently for his excellent Vaude_Visuals blog. Now that he's retired from his day job, he's put this work into high gear, if not overdrive. As I've joked more than once, if they hold a clown show in New York City and Jim's not there, does it still make a sound?

Trav S.D.

Trav S.D. is equally nuts. He actually thought the world needed yet another book on vaudeville, and then proceeded to write a best-seller on the subject, No Applause—Just Throw Money: The Book That Made Vaudeville Famous. I've read and enjoyed it and will be including it in my upcoming series of posts on variety theatre, tentatively slotted in for late 2010. (Okay, so I'm a little behind schedule.) He also does dozens of other things, as indicated by the subtitle to his encyclopedic blog. Travalanche: Being a web log for the observations of actor, author, cartoonist, comedian, critic, director, humorist, journalist, master of ceremonies, performance artist, playwright, producer, publicist, public speaker, songwriter, and variety booker Trav S.D. 

Vaudephone is producing video documentation of contemporary variety performance. Its name and its value both harken back to the old Warner Brothers Vitaphone film shorts of the early 30s that preserved some vintage vaudeville acts for posterity. Here's their intro:

The Vaudephone revives the old concept of Vitaphone vaudeville for the Vimeo age, presenting today’s hottest variety acts in a simple and attractive format for the discerning audience member from the convenience of your computer. Look here each Tuesday for a new installment from now through early 2012. 

Jim and Trav S.D. have been running around town shooting video of a wide variety of variety acts, usually in a studio setting rather than in front of a live audience. What is lost in ambience and audience reaction is gained in proper lighting, crystal-clear audio, and optimal camera positioning. (It's very hard to get good video at a live show without extensive prep and some expensive equipment!)

I can remember when we all discovered video in the 70s. We liked having copies of our shows (even if we all looked green and blurry), but no one appearing in a festival would let their work be videotaped by others, out of fear of their material being stolen. Now it seems everyone wants to be on YouTube, but often the production values are quite low and do a disservice to the performers. The growing Vaudephone archive remedies all that, so let's hope they continue to produce these nuggets well beyond "early 2012."

Good work, all three of you, and here are those links again:
Clown Summit
Vaudephone

Leo: Off-the-Wall Physical Comedy

[post 235]

If you combined the physical contortions of Janik & Arnaut (post 231) with the loony inventiveness of Brooklyn's own Rube Goldberg (post 230), the result might be Leo, the unique one-man show playing at the Harold Clurman Theatre in New York through Feb. 5th.

I am writing about it now in the hope that some of you locals will get to see it before it closes, but the reality is that I am too pressed for time at the moment to write a review that would do it justice. Indeed, there have been dozens of shows that have come and gone and not gotten a mention on this blogopedia for that very same reason. This is my attempt to  overcome that all-or-nothing mentality — and get some sleep tonight. So I'll be brief rather than lengthily pseudo-profound...

An award-winning solo show performed by Tobias Wegner and directed by Daniel Briere, Leo literally stretches the boundaries of physical comedy. Stage left is a room where Wegner performs silently, though with a soundtrack; stage right is a (near) simultaneous, life-sized video of his performance — except it's rotated 90 degrees. When Wegner walks on the floor, the video shows him walking up the wall, etc. This could easily become a dumb gimmick, but he is amazingly adept at making his movements look natural when rotated a quarter turn, and his physical vocabulary is impressive. The results are often magical. As the piece progresses, his world grows, first with hand-drawn objects (he sketches a chair and then sits in it) and then projected animation.

from the New Yorker

The show is little more than an hour, and the question obviously arises as to whether or not the bizzaro world he conjures adds up to much of anything — such as the price of admission. It's a fair question, and one I hardly have time to debate here. It certainly worked enough for me, and if you're reading a physical comedy blogopedia, I'm guessing you'll find it well worth your time just for the sheer creativity. So like I said, go see it!

Good news: half-price tickets have been available on TDF and thru Theatermania.

Here's some video for you:



• Click here for the Leo home page.
• A video interview with Tobias on Jim Moore's VaudeVisuals blog.
• A rave review from Total Theatre.
• A mostly positive review from the NY Times
• A negative review from BroadwayWorld.com

I Told Ya So!

[post 234]
Here's the beginning of my post from 5 weeks ago...

And here's the front page of today's NY Times:


You can read the whole Times article here.

The Lady, the Tiger, or Mr. Noodle?

[post 233]
Brian Bernhard recently did a Facebook post sharing this funny Sesame Street Elmo's World video of Bill Irwin as Mr. Noodle. With the help of Mr. Wiggles and Leon Chesney, the milquetoast Noodle overcomes his inhibitions and embraces his inner hip-hop dancer. I especially like how Wiggles & Chesney wave their dance rhythm directly into Noodle's body.



Now if you just watched that, you no doubt noticed that whoever put this on YouTube cut off the ending. This of course left me wondering how I would have ended it, just like in 6th grade when we had to write our own climax to the short story, The Lady, or the Tiger? I was definitely leaning toward them getting on the bus, sitting quietly reading their Wall St. Journals, and never acknowledging their wild time together, not even making eye contact.

So, before going any further: what do you think? What's your ending? Because as it turns out there was another version online that did have the ending. Here are the final moments:

Hmm, guess I should try to think more positive thoughts....

Spectacle: An Online Journal of the Circus Arts

[post 232]

Ernest Albrecht, author of The New American Circus, has been getting the circus magazine Spectacle into print for the past fourteen years. In addition to publishing and editing duties, he has done much of the reporting for the magazine. It will not come as news to you that the circus does not get nearly the same respect in the United States as it does in Europe, so Mr. Albrecht's labor of love serves an important cultural function.

The bad news is that it is incredibly difficult sustaining a print journal aimed at a small target audience; I suspect it's not a question of not making enough money, but rather of not losing too much. The good news is that Spectacle is now an online magazine, and already has ad support from Ringing and Cirque du Soleil. The first issue is out, and you can read it here.

Grandma & Barry Lubin

Here are the contents of the first online issue:

• The Big Apple Circus’s Dream On
• The Big E. Super Circus with Bello Nock
• Disney On Ice. Dare to Dream
• Cirque Shanghai at NYC’s New Victory Theatre
• Traces in NYC
• Zarkana reconsidered.
• The Great American Circus at Atlantic City
• A Celebration at Circus Center
• Natalie Agee’s She Recognized My Magic
Feature: Barry Lubin and Grandma bid farewell to the Big Apple Circus
Book Review: Private Acts, The Acrobat Sublime by Harriet Heyman and photography by Acey Harper.

Scott & Muriel in the Big Apple Circus

And here's what's coming next:  "Within the next several weeks I will be traveling to Monte Carlo to review the festival there, after which I will go on to Paris to catch the Cirque de Demain festival and see the new productions of the Gruss and Bouglione families.  I will also be reviewing the spectacular Broadway musical Spider Man—Turn off the Dark and offering insights into the circus rigging that helps make it so spectacular.  In February, it will be time for Circus Sarasota. March brings The Greatest Show on Earth to my area of the country; I look forward to writing about its new production."

Current plans are to publish Spectacle monthly, which may seem ambitious but is clearly easier to do online than in print. I for one am already looking forward to future issues and I hope you will join me in wishing Ernest Albrecht the best of luck in this endeavor and a hearty thanks for all his hard work.

Best Contortion Act Ever: Janik & Arnaut

[post 231]

The typical contortion act — you know, with the platform and the mouthpiece and the 13-year-old girl doing a Marinelli bend — puts me to sleep. And then there's the snake dance of French performers Janik & Arnaut — Janine Janik (1931 - 1985) & Christian Arnaut (1912 - 2003). This isn't exactly physical comedy since they're not going for the laughs, but the partnering work is amazing: not just the unique positions, but the sinuous flow of the snake around the charmer's body. In most partner acrobatics, the base is muscling a lot of the moves; here, much of it is accomplished with little or no use of Arnaut's hands, much less his biceps; he guides more than he lifts.




Maybe it's all those magicians writing for my blogopedia, but I couldn't help think there could be a sharper ending, an illusion with Janik morphing back into the fake snake....

Thanks to Ophra Wolf for the link!

Brooklyn's Rube Goldberg

[post 230]

Rube Goldberg was an inventor and cartoonist born the same year as Max Linder (1883), which is to say a few years after Mack Sennett and a few years before Charlie Chaplin and Stan Laurel. He drew popular cartoons of elaborate gadgets that performed simple tasks in the most convoluted way imaginable.

Goldberg's eccentric approach to tackling life's everyday obstacles makes him a spiritual cousin to many of the silent film comedians, especially Buster Keaton. "Rube Goldberg machines" have continued to capture our imagination a century later, but I for one have never seen anything nearly as fantastic as the work of kinetic artist Joseph Herscher, as profiled in this cool video from the NY Times:



Although Herscher only makes himself a minor player in this machine drama, physical comedians do not hesitate to throw themselves into the action. Buster Keaton's movies are full of oddball inventions, such as these from The Electric House (1922):

But this is a comedy, so every invention of Keaton's must of course backfire in the second half of the movie. You can see for yourself by watching the whole movie online here, though I of course recommend treating yourself to a high-quality DVD. You deserve it!

Raging Debate on "The Artist"

[post 229]

I first previewed the new silent movie, The Artist, when it surfaced at the Cannes Film Festival in May, and then reviewed it when it opened in New York on Thanksgiving weekend, but now folks who know about these things are saying it might actually snatch the best-picture Oscar. We'll have to wait until January 24th for the nominations, but meanwhile The Artist has won best picture in Boston and San Francisco, copped six Golden Globe nominations, garnered four nominations from the Vancouver Film Critics Circle, and was named by the Producers Guild of America and the Houston Film Critics Society as one of the year's top 10 movies. As we get closer to the February 26th Academy Awards, money, reputations, and artistic correctness will all be at stake, so of course the opinions are flying!

The main criticism of The Artist is that it's sentimental fluff, a lot of fun if you like that sort of thing, but not a film of any significance. And of course the question then arises — and it is a fair question — can a silent movie ever really plumb the depths of our complex world without the use of words? Isn't Tree of Life profound and The Artist superficial?

Here's an exchange from the Movie Club section of the online magazine, Slate, which I found interesting enough to pass on to you. First up is a criticism by Dan Kois, talking about movies (see chart, below) that are difficult to watch but that you later find meaningful vs. enjoyable but forgettable flics:

Are there films that work in the reverse? Films that offer enjoyable viewing experiences, but then afterward provoke disdain? Of course! How about apparent Oscar front-runner The Artist, a charming piece of work that never tires, never bores, never in its 100 minutes stops tap-dancing for your smiles? As soon as it was over I was angry at myself for each chuckle I’d given the movie, and now, weeks later, it only provokes a shrug. This is what everyone is so crazy about? I don’t even mind that it’s a trifle—I like trifles! —but did it always have to go for the easiest joke, the simplest twist, the most obvious turn?

Coming right back at him is another Slate critic, Stephanie Zacharek, who said it better than I could have:

I think, as just the first round of Movie Club proves—as every full year of moviegoing proves—there are an infinite number of ways for movies to reach us, to sneak in through cracks we didn’t even know existed. If you have a house with cracks, you’ve got to seal them up. But for moviegoing, don’t seal the cracks! It’s how the light gets in, as Leonard Cohen said. Which leads me to something you said, Michael, about how both Melancholia and The Tree of Life were both made by directors who think cinematically, and my lack of warmth for TOL notwithstanding, you’re right. As you said, “Directors who don’t think cinematically sadly account for most of the movies we see all year.”


Which is why I really need to talk about The Artist, allegedly the Philistine’s choice for movie of the year. Because it’s not nearly as good as the great silents—it’s not Keaton, it’s not Murnau, it’s not Griffith. Because it’s a crowd-pleaser, a trifle, a soufflé of a movie with no overarching theme or purpose. Because it’s not as great as the buildup from Cannes led us to believe. Because Harvey Weinstein saw it and immediately thought, “I can make money off this.”


I’m afraid there are lots of reasons for not liking The Artist that actually have little or nothing to do with The Artist, and though that happens with lots of movies, I still find it troublesome. I love The Artist, as Dana said, “without disclaimers or shame.” I think shame is a useless construct when it comes to movies. (Disclaimers—well, we all need those once in a while.) In terms of cinematic thinking in 2011, Michel Hazanavicius trumps Terrence Malick. For one thing, he doesn’t need any “Oh, mother! Oh, father!” voice-overs, no shots of the sun peeping through tree branches, to make sure we’re feeling what we’re supposed to be feeling. And he’s relying on the grace of his actors, their way of moving, their subtle shifts in expression, to tell a story in purely visual terms. Not only is there no dialogue; there’s no expository dialogue, no overt explanation of why the lead character, Jean Dujardin’s George Valentin, is so resistant to talking pictures, which some of the movie’s detractors see as a flaw. For me, George Valentin lives in a mirror-universe where he foresees an actor in another universe (the real one), John Gilbert, drinking himself to death in 1936: The problem wasn’t that Gilbert’s voice wasn’t good enough for talkies (it was), but that filmmakers’ awkwardness in the new medium ended up reflecting badly on him, through little or no fault of his own. In other words, the fictional George Valentin had a premonition of something that happened in real life. Why wouldn’t he be afraid?


I love the economy and discipline of The Artist. Hazanavicius finds all he needs in the faces of his actors, Dujardin and Berenice Bejo. And I’m astonished by the effect the movie has had on audiences. I’ve seen it three times now, twice with a “real” audience (the first time, at Cannes, doesn’t count), and both times I’ve been amazed at how restless the audience is at the beginning—there’s that point where you expect the talking to kick in, and it just doesn’t—and how wrapped up they are by the end. I know, I know—just because lots of people love a movie doesn’t make it good. (The Dark Knight, anyone?) But I do think Hazanavicius and his actors have helped unlock the code of silent-film acting for many people, people who have always thought it was overdone or, at least, just too weird to understand. Film critics know all about silent film and silent-film acting, but who cares about us? As the writer Eileen Whitfield observed in her wonderful biography of Mary Pickford, Pickford: The Woman Who Made Hollywood, modern audiences often view silent movies as if they're trying to be talkies and failing, whereas they're really much closer to dance, a symbolic re-enactment. The Artist is all about faces and movement and the emotion that can be drawn out of those things together. To me, it’s elemental.

Here, here!

And two more morsels for you. That cool web site, Chaplin-Keaton-Lloyd Film Locations, has an excellent new post up about the shooting of The Artist. Check it out here. And here's wonderdog Uggie visiting the offices of the London Guardian newspaper:



And you can even read all about Uggie in this Daily Beast profile.

The Magician's Tale

[post 228]

I was just about to move on from the topic of magic (see three previous posts) when Billy Schultz sent me this article by Chloe Veltman from American Theatre magazine. Nothing about physical comedy, but a lot about magic as theatre.

You can read the whole article here.

Guest Post: "Physical Comedy in Magic—A Sampler" by Tanya Solomon

Photo: Linus Gelber

[post 227]
When I knew that Ben Robinson and Julian Olf would be contributing their writing on magic as guest posts, I asked my friend Tanya Solomon to recommend some good comedy magic to me. I've always had some interest in magic, but never pursued it and basically know very little. Tanya on the other hand is a veteran New York variety performer who combines all sorts of clowning, dance, and magic in her performances — plus she even works part-time in a magic store! When she came back to me with a thorough list of recommended videos, I thought it would be great if she would expand it into another guest post for the blogopedia. Take it away, Tanya (but don't make it vanish).... —jt
________________________________

Startling transformations. Hubris. Violations of logic and laws of nature. The basic elements of stage magic would seem to make it fertile soil for physical comedy.

And yet most "comedy magic" comes more from the standup comic tradition (Mac King, Harry Anderson, and David Williamson, to name a few funny ones). When physical comedy is used, it usually follows the narrative of the arrogant magician whose tricks fail and expose themselves. The classic act of this type is the late Carl Ballantine's:

Done well, by performers like Otto Wessely and Kohl & Co., this is great comedy. But when John gave me the chance to pick out some favorite funny magic, I decided to represent a less common type of act: one in which physical comedy is used and the magic (though not necessarily the magician!) is effective.

One of the greatest theatrical challenges in magic is getting around the "I can do something you can't" presentation. The mystery should be fun, not frustrating, for the audience. With that in mind, please note the variety of characters and situations of the magicians in these videos. Some (Voronin, Gartner) are powerful magi dealing with comeuppance. Buka is unable to predict or control his own magic. Tom Mullica is the victim of bizarre physical occurrences. And Tina Lenert's character isn't even a magician — which I find interesting, as she is the only woman in this lineup. (Women in magic are rare; women in comedy magic are almost non-existent.)  Her act is in the tradition of Cardini's — magical events befalling someone going about non-magical business. (See an analysis and video of Cardini in the previous post.)

And so, a sampler of physical comedy in magic:

 The hilariously diabolical Maestro Voronin will mesmerize you...no matter what befalls him in the process. Yevgeniy Voronin, from Ukraine, is featured in Teatro Zinzanni in San Francisco.

I don't know anything about this team, Roy Gartner & James, but I love their comedy relationship. And their magic.

Tom Mullica ran the Tom-Foolery, a magic bar in Atlanta, where he developed his famous acts. He had to quit smoking, but he kept the rubber face, and now performs a Red Skelton tribute in Branson.

The use of sound and rhythm by this fellow, Buka, is bizarre and unique, and his manipulations are impeccable. Funny stuff, but unfortunately an ethnic stereotype (Turkish?). Can't find any info on Buka except that he is Russian and lives in Romania...and that "buka" means "bogeyman" in Russian.

Tina Lenert takes a classic mime/clown bit and adds sleight of hand. This is her signature act, and probably the best-regarded use of mime technique in magic. (Raymond Crowe, the Australian "Unusualist", has an excellent DVD on the subject.)

Topper Martyn (1923-2004) had a long career as a comedy juggler and magician, including years in ice shows(!). The beginning of this video shows how he opened his "World's Third Worst Magician" act. In his book Topper's Mad Mad Magic — the best resource on comedy magic I've found so far — he lists the contents of his coat: "200 billiard balls, 1 cannonball, 10 wooden eggs, 8 folding dice, 2 giant rubber dice, 1 spring duck, 1 large spring snake, 6 small spring snakes, 300-500 playing cards, 1 string of flags, 50 coins, 1 rubber dove". Martyn commented, "Although I love to burlesque magic... there are no exposures in [my act]. The average audience is not interested in magic secrets; they love buffoonery, spectacle, action, and surprise."

Sylvester the Jester plays a "real live cartoon" character. His humor is a bit "nutty" for my taste, but he's incredibly inventive, and has created many effects.

Legend has it that Lou Jacobs himself told Charlie Frye to get out of Ringling's clown alley and hit the variety stage. Frye is a master juggler and magician, known for his "Eccentricks" instructional videos which teach skills with a physical comedy presentation. Here's a kinetic bit he does with linking rings and a floating bowling ball.





Because this is just a sampler, I'm going to skip over some better-known acts — the Banana Man, Steve Martin's Flydini, and Penn & Teller are among my favorites — and instead focus on a wonderful obscurity: "The Amazing Dr. Clutterhouse". No footage of this act is available, though tribute acts have been reported once in a while. My description comes from old magazines and a booklet published by Magic Inc.

In mid-20th century Chicago — then the capital of American magic — audiences were said to have wept and screamed at the antics of Dr. Clutterhouse, played by Elmer Gylleck, a hobbyist magician who created his original, ingenious props. Thunderous circus music played, and a bumbling gentleman in a walrus moustache and derby shuffled onstage. His wand escaped him, and ghosts and snakes flew from his briefcase, followed by revolver shots. Endless chaos ensued: an umbrella appeared in his pocket, an egg broke on him, a handkerchief refused to leave his hands. He tried to adjust his table, which collapsed further the more he tried to fix its rubbery legs. Clutterhouse shot the table dead. He couldn't control the massive amounts of paper and silk he pulled from his hat, and a rabbit's head kept popping out to mock his confusion. He put in a final colossal effort, was swallowed by a cloud of feathers, and pulled out a yard-long dead chicken. Finally, he produced two live rabbits, and exited, relieved. 


A final note: this selection is mostly limited to one branch of magic, manipulation (i.e. sleight of hand for stage), which just happens to be my favorite. Other categories, such as mentalism (mindreading) and closeup card tricks, don't lend themselves to physical comedy. But you might ask, why aren't large-scale illusions included? Well, it might be my taste (I don't like the Vegas style that goes with the big boxes by financial necessity).  Or, my perception that "comedy" in big illusion magic is limited to tired one-liners and sight gags might be correct.

At any rate, having scoured YouTube, these are the only illusion-scale performers who got my vote as being true physical comedy. Scott & Muriel, who call their work "slapstick magic," are currently performing in the Big Apple Circus.





But who knows...perhaps someone somewhere is hammering together a comedy illusion on the scale of the Hanlon Brothers. Maybe there's funding for it. Maybe there's even an audience! Vegas, anyone?