[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
rise to sources of
distraction; which, as we have seen, should be most carefully avoided, so far
as may be
possible.
Here again the importance of Rule 2 is shown. Whatever details a performer
may
wish or require to introduce, these should all be subjected to most intent con-
sideration, from
a spectator's point of view. The supreme question must always be:---"What
impression will
the introduction of this detail produce upon the mind of an ordinary specta-
tor?" No matter
how agreeable or even necessary to the performer may be the inclusion of
that detail, he
should always endeavor to understand how it will strike his audience. Such
understanding is
by no means easy to acquire. It can come only with experience and constant
practice. This is
a case wherein it is impossible to "try it on the dog." The performer must, in
the first
instance, form his own conclusions. Nobody else can do much to help him in
arriving at a
decision. Above all, he must have the courage of his convictions, and must
boldly take the
course which his own reasoning faculties and his own experience dictate.
In saying this, of course, we are assuming that the performer understands the
fundamental principles of his art, and is not just making a blind guess at the
thing. The man
who has no accurate knowledge (and who, therefore, works entirely in the
dark) can scarcely
be said to have the right to form any conclusion whatever. But when a magi-
cian understands
his art, he should never allow his own reasoned convictions to be over-ruled
by people who
know little or nothing of the subject. Stated in a practical form, the point is
this. Persons
attending a rehearsal (whether they are employees, friends or what not)
can never represent a
normal audience
. Their opinions can form no guide to the views of the average spectator.
From the very circumstances of the case, that is clearly impossible. Should
any of those
persons, however, have an amount of knowledge and experience comparable
with that
possessed by the performer, that person's opinion may be regarded as having
some weight.
But, even then, the performer must not be guided by mere opinion. He must
demand
adequate reason for any conclusion he may be urged to adopt. In short, given
the possession
of real knowledge, he himself must be the final arbiter of his own procedure.
Once a
presentation has been submitted to public criticism, it is easy enough to see
wherein
improvement is needed. And, as a matter of fact, there is always found some
minor detail
which requires modification. But in the hands of a true artist, no production
ever needs
serious revision after being presented to the public. That is one of the nume-
rous directions
wherein a true artist "scores."
Given sufficient time and unrestricted opportunity for public representation,
anybody
can eventually make his production a success; more or less qualified by repe-
ated failure, in
public, on previous occasions. That is to say, in the hands of a duffer, a "ma-
gical act" may be
rendered presentable probably by the time it has become hopelessly discredi-
ted and, in the
normal course of events, should be entirely worn out. The artist who knows
"the rules of the
game" and therefore understands how to make his productions approximately
perfect in the
first instance, certainly has an advantage, the value of which is very difficult
to over-
estimate.
In dealing with such questions, the performer can have no better guidance
than that to
be derived from the principles of consistency. And in all points of detail, one
may be fairly
confident that, if each action, process and so forth, is appropriate to the gene-
ral scheme, and
does not detract from the final effect, there is little fear of producing an unde-
sirable
impression. The general rule may be stated thus:
(6) Let every accessory and incidental detail be kept well "within the pictu-
re," and in
harmony with the general impression which is intended to be conveyed.
For example, we shall suppose that the presentation is intended to convey the
idea of
a more or less serious reproduction of some legendary marvel, -say of a me-
dieval English
origin. In that case, everything said, done, and used, should harmonize with
the ideas
generally associated with that period in English history. So far as possible, e-
verything should
be archaeologically correct. Anachronisms should be studiously avoided. All-
usions to
modern times and moder n incidents, phrases of modern origin, appliances of
modern pattern,
should all be rigidly excluded. The general "atmosphere" of the presentation
should convey
the idea of glancing backward through the pages of history and dwelling, in
imagination,
among scenes that have long since passed away.
That is obviously the rational course to pursue, in the case of a serious repro-
duction
of medieval mysticism. When, however the intention is to give merely a hu-
morous
representation or parody of ancient tradition, the requirements are altogether
different. In
such circumstances, the more anachronisms one can introduce, the more in-
consistencies of
sentiment and usage one can perpetrate, the greater the contrasts of time and
place one can
suggest, the better will be the result. But even here the principles of consis-
tency require to be
observed. The presentation should be rendered
consistently inconsistent
. The performer must
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]