Freaking the Mind: Exploring the Rhetoric of Magic in Criss Angelâ€™s Mindfreak by Joseph Zompetti, Illinois State University
The art of magic has enjoyed increasing visibility and a resurgence of interest, as demonstrated by the rising popularity of magicians, such as David Blaine, Hans Klok, Franz Harary, David Copperfield, and the production of two major motion pictures within a single year â€“ The Prestige and The Illusionist.Â With his number one-rated cable television show and his recent ten-year contract for a major Vegas show with Cirque de Soleil at the Luxor, Criss Angel personifies the modern-day magician who is at the forefront of the magic renaissance.Â This paper attempts to examine the rhetorical potency of magic by analyzing the first season of Criss Angelâ€™s award-winning television show, Mindfreak.Â By using Kenneth Burkeâ€™s concepts of symbolic action and identification, this paper explores the symbolic, albeit persuasive, dimension to magic as exemplified by Criss Angel.
Â Conjurers try to convey the impossible. They attempt to convince the audience that their performance is â€œrealâ€ magic.Â In the end, the magician is performing, just as an actor or musician would do, in order to convince the audience that what they are doing is not only entertainment, but also substantive â€“ the illusionist wants us to believe and feel their act is occurring and is realistic.Â Although we know the â€œmagicâ€ on stage doesnâ€™t actually happen â€“ the assistant canâ€™t disappear and the levitation is not within the realm of possibility â€“ we still see, feel, and believe that what occurs on stage is real.Â That is the magicianâ€™s trade; it is the cornerstone of persuasion.Â We may think that sales persons, lawyers, and clerics are the masters of persuasion, but in â€œreality,â€ magicians are the foremost experts of persuasion.Â They not only entertain us, but they also reveal to us what is not real.Â They perform what we know is impossible.Â In effect, they sell us a bill of goods that we know we shouldnâ€™t buy; thus, magicâ€™s persuasive charm.Â According to Devant, a famous magician from the early 1900s, magic is â€œthe feeling that we have seen some natural law disturbedâ€ (p. 8). And as Aristotle remarked over 2,000 years ago, the â€œavailable means of persuasionâ€ is what we know as â€œrhetoricâ€ (Aristotle, p. 36). As a result, magicians are the modern rhetoricians, keen on persuading the rest of us that what is going on is really happening, when in actuality, the occurrence is nothing more than, literally, smoke and mirrors.
What may not seem so clear, however, is exactly how magic functions rhetorically.Â The magic â€œactâ€ may be nothing more than a simple sleight-of-hand or misdirection.Â Yet, many magic acts, or what Criss Angel calls â€œdemonstrations,â€ are much more involved.Â They may be combined with other acts to produce illusions or altered perceptions of reality.Â These acts, then, are an art form that require years of practice and study.Â Whether it is a basic card trick or a Vegas-style illusion, the demonstration bends how one views the world.
The art of magic has enjoyed increasing visibility and a resurgence of interest, as demonstrated by the rising popularity of magicians, such as David Blaine, Hans Klok, Franz Harary, David Copperfield, and the production of two major motion pictures within a single year â€“ The Prestige (Nolan, 2006) and The Illusionist (Burger, 2006).Â With his number one-rated cable television show and his recent ten-year contract for a major Vegas show with Cirque de Soleil at the Luxor, Criss Angel personifies the modern-day magician who is at the forefront of the magic renaissance.Â He even argues in the first episode of Mindfreak that â€œmagic today is not popular culture; Iâ€™m hoping to change that.Â Magic hasnâ€™t garnered the respect as music or film, so that is what Iâ€™m trying to do increase its visibility with pop cultureâ€ (Angel, 2005a).
This paper attempts to examine the rhetorical potency of magic by analyzing the first season of Criss Angelâ€™s award-winning television show, Mindfreak.Â In order to understand more clearly how the art of magic does this, I will use the Burkean concepts of symbolic action and identification to investigate how the meanings behind the symbols in magic function rhetorically.Â Since Burke remarks that â€œWords are the signs of things,â€ we shall investigate the signs behind the magic (Burke, 1966, p. 363).Â By looking at Mindfreak, I will focus on this connection between magic and rhetoric.
Review of Literature
The rhetorical dimension of magic has been relatively unexplored.Â In fact, most scholars have distanced themselves from studying magic because they deem it unsophisticated or non-academic.Â This distancing has its origins in antiquity.Â For example, the Hippocratic treatise, On the Sacred Disease, views magic as deceptive and contrasts it with the sacred principles of religion and piety (de Romilly, 1975, p. 27).Â The proclivity of associating magic more with religion and the occult than with the art of rhetoric is commonplace (Aune, 2003; Dunn, 2005; Kennedy, 1998; Oâ€™Keefe, 1982).Â In addition, Earle J. Coleman describes the lack of attention magic has received in most of the major disciplines, including psychology, sociology, history, and theatre (Coleman, 1987).Â Unfortunately, due to the inattention magic has received from the liberal arts, magic has been relatively unexplored as a serious art form.
Despite the sparse attention magic has received by scholars, some have discussed how magic and theatre have a strong relationship, especially since magic may be considered a performative art (Angel, 2007; Barnouw, 1981; Blaine, 2002; Fitzkee, 1944; Kennedy, 1998; Steinkraus, 1979).Â Furthermore, many have written about how magic is an art form, although its status as an â€œart formâ€ is not associated, necessarily, with any particular academic area of study (Coleman, 1987; Dawes, 1979; de Romilly, 1975; Steinmeyer, 2003; Taylor, 1979).Â Even Burke, in A Rhetoric of Motives, refers to magic as an â€œartâ€ (1969, p. 42).Â Although some consider magic to be an â€œartâ€ form, most scholars overlook magic as an important component worthy of study, much less as a valued communicative act.
William Covino (1992) discusses the relationship between symbols and magic since antiquity, especially their simultaneous marginalization by so-called scientific reasoning.Â Elsewhere, Covino argues that magic is rhetorical in the sense that it is mysterious and that language has magical qualities (1994; 2002).Â However, he provides little support, other than his own perspectives, on the meaning-formation of magical acts.Â Nor does he explore how magic utilizes persuasive symbols.Â In an earlier work, Covino suggests that magic and rhetoric are synonymous, especially since the â€œcongeniality of magic and technical rhetoric results from the real power of rhetoric to design and alter realityâ€ (Covino, 1991, p. 25).Â In other words, Covino argues that language use in society borrows from principles of magic, especially regarding the generative capacity of language to portray collective or social ideas.Â In the end, while Covino makes the argument that magic and rhetoric are related, he emphasizes the magic in language, rather than the other way around.
In extending the assumption that there is some connection between rhetoric and magic, John O. Ward (1988) does a worthwhile job of chronicling the meanings given to rhetoric and magic.Â Tracing the historicity of both magic and rhetoric from ancient Greece and Rome to the Middle Ages, Ward argues that at different times, rhetoric is associated with magic, and at other times, rhetoric is seen as technÈ‡.Â In other words, at particular moments, the influence of magic can be seen in the conception of rhetoric, while at other times, rhetoric appears divorced from magical inspiration as it is viewed as purely instrumental in nature.
Perhaps the most important examination of both rhetoric and magic for our purposes occurs in de Romillyâ€™s study, Magic and Rhetoric in Ancient Greece (1975).Â When examining The Gorgias and The Republic, de Romilly argues that rhetoric and magic are co-productive.Â In fact, she describes the relationship to the Greek concept of apatÈ‡:
ApatÈ‡, or illusion, is the aim of rhetoric. It is also the aim of magic, when the magician calls up phantoms and makes people believe in things that do not exist.Â That this is the very principle of rhetoric is obvious. An antilogy, where one speech opposes another, shows that it is possible to see in the same reality now one aspect and now another. Protagoras himself was proud of making the weak thesis strong, and the strong thesis weak. (p. 26-27)
While de Romilly sets up this relationship between magic and rhetoric, she does not expound on this argument (in fact, it only occurs in the span of two pages in the entire book), nor does she describe in any detail how magic has rhetorical implications or persuasive qualities.Â But, her reference of this relationship does help us by providing the foundation for analyzing the persuasive elements of magic.Â If magic and rhetoric share the concept of illusion in common, then we may begin our examination of Criss Angelâ€™s demonstrations as rhetorical acts.
Burke, Symbolic Action and Identification
Before examining Criss Angelâ€™s demonstrations to see what, if any, rhetorical connection exists with the art of magic, it will be helpful to briefly recall Kenneth Burkeâ€™s perspectives on symbolic action and identification.Â Burkeâ€™s important work on human symbol use centers on the foundation of how the meaning of language is not only shared among its users, but it also shapes the way those users think, feel, and express.Â Meaning, therefore, is central to the investigation of symbolic action (or the use of language) and identification (the manner and form taken to reach other symbol users).
For Burke, symbolic action deals with the way language reflects reality and shapes our perceptions of the world around us (Gusfield, 1989, p. 8).Â This happens, of course, because humans use language â€“ or the meaning ascribed to the symbols used in language â€“ to communicate their reality or perceptions of their world.Â The meaning of symbols is the focal point of all investigations into rhetorical acts (Gusfield, 1989, p. 6).Â Â In fact, according to Gusfield, who edited the important work entitled Kenneth Burke: On Symbols and Society, â€œLanguage cannot be separated from action because what the action means and what it is addressed to is symbolic in its content.Â Action cannot be separated from language because the situation within which the actor acts is defined and understood by the actor through the concepts available to him [sic]â€ (1989, p. 11).Â Thus, Burke provides important insight into how the use of symbols shapes our perceptions â€“ a key component to the art of magic.Â In terms of rhetoric, the meaning behind symbols is vital, since, as Burke describes, â€œWherever there is persuasion, there is rhetoric.Â And wherever there is â€˜meaning,â€™ there is â€˜persuasionâ€™â€ (1969, p. 172).
Additionally, Burke describes the process by which a symbol user attempts to reach, or persuade, other symbol users, or, for our purposes, an audience.Â Â Â When discussing identification, Burke writes â€œA is not identical with his [sic] colleague, B.Â But insofar as their interests are joined, A is identified with B.Â Or he may identify himself with B, even when their interests are not joined, if he assumes that they are, or is persuaded to believe so.Â Here are ambiguities of substance.Â In being identified with B, A is â€˜substantially oneâ€™ with a person other than himself.Â Yet at the same time he remains unique, an individual locus of motivesâ€Â (Emphasis in original, pp. 20-21).Â In other words, identification is a process that transcends persuasion, while it still uses persuasion to achieve its aim.Â Instead, identification is the moment when one person believes they fully share the perspective held by another.Â If I can convince my students to trust me as their instructor because I, too, was a student who sat in similar chairs they now sit in not too long ago, then I can identify with them and, perhaps more importantly for this example, they can identify with me.
To understand how magic functions rhetorically, we can use the concepts of symbolic action and identification to view how Criss Angelâ€™s demonstrations resonate, as texts, with his audience.Â Burke actually speaks to this relationship, although he does not mention symbolic action specifically:
â€¦one comes closer to the true state of affairs if one treats the socializing aspects of magic as a â€˜primitive rhetoricâ€™ than if one sees modern rhetoric simply as a â€˜survival of primitive magic.â€™Â For rhetoric is not rooted in any past condition of human society.Â It is rooted in an essential function of language itself, a function that is wholly realistic, and is continually born anew; the use of language as a symbolic means of inducing cooperation in beings that by nature respond to symbols (Emphasis in original, 1969, p. 43).
Furthermore, Burke briefly discusses the role of magic in a functional process of persuasion.Â Given magicâ€™s persuasive aspects, the process by which this persuasion occurs might be considered identification:
The term â€˜rhetoricâ€™ is no substitute for â€˜magic,â€™ â€˜witchcraft,â€™ â€˜socialization,â€™ â€˜communication,â€™ and so on.Â But the term rhetoric designates a function which is present in the areas variously covered by those other terms.Â And we are asking only that this function be recognized for what it is: a linguistic function by nature as realistic as a proverbâ€¦For it is essentially a realism of the act: moral, persuasive â€“ and acts are not â€˜trueâ€™ and â€˜falseâ€™ in the sense that the propositions of â€˜scientific realismâ€™ are.Â And however â€˜falseâ€™ the â€˜propositionsâ€™ of primitive magic may be, â€¦it is different with the peculiarly rhetorical ingredient in magic, involving ways of identification that contribute variously to social cohesion (Burke, 1969, p. 44).
Thus, both symbolic action and identification serve to frame magic as a uniquely rhetorical, albeit persuasive, communicative art.Â Burke argues that magic, as a time-tested art practiced by primitive humans, is premised on the basic structures of language for it to operate.Â By examining a textual case study, such as Criss Angelâ€™s Mindfreak, we should be able to see more clearly the rhetorical connection with magic.
Freakinâ€™ The Mind: Examining Mindfreak
Criss Angel is fond of saying â€œwhat you see is what you getâ€ (Angel, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2005h).Â This, of course, is a double entendre, meaning it can be understood in two different ways.Â On one hand, he could be saying that what we visibly see is what is real (i.e., what you see is what you get). But, on the other hand, he could also be saying that whatever occurs visibly is what should be believed, meaning that whatever tricks occur within our vision should resonate with cognition (i.e., what you see is what you get).Â In fact, as one of Criss Angelâ€™s consultants, Banachek, exclaims, â€œI think that people at home would be very surprised to find out that what they think might be illusion is actually reality, and what they think is reality, might actually be illusion.Â Criss is happy to blur that area, he wants people to wonder about what heâ€™s doing.Â Because that makes good magic.Â If youâ€™re asking questions, heâ€™s doing his jobâ€ (Angel, 2005h).Â In the end, Criss Angelâ€™s proclamation of â€œwhat you see is what you getâ€ is nothing more than a disclaimer for added trickery for the audience.
Of course, this essay is not about how Criss Angel performs his demonstrations.Â It is not a manual on revealing the secrets behind the tricks.Â Instead, this essay concerns itself with how Criss Angel uses his demonstrations to persuade his audience.Â In other words, it concerns itself with the rhetorical strategies used by Criss Angel to do the following: a) secure his audienceâ€™s attention, b) amaze his audience, and c) persuade his audience that his demonstrations are â€œmagic.â€Â In so doing, this essay intends to suggest that magic is rhetorical, albeit persuasive.Â Magic, as exemplified by Criss Angel, is rhetorical since it engages in symbolic action and identification.
According to Kenneth Burke, humans are â€œsymbol-using, symbol-making, and symbol-misusing animal[s]â€ (Burke, 1966, p. 6; 1969, p. 33, 109, 237).Â As humans, magicians are no different.Â In fact, because magicians need to both entertain and amaze audiences, they are, perhaps, the most profound examples of human symbol-users.Â With each trick, or demonstration, magicians use symbols to convey their intention and purpose â€“ namely, to mystify their audience.Â As such, Criss Angel does not disappoint.Â In numerous ways, he uses symbols â€“ both verbal and nonverbal â€“ to mystify his audiences.Â In this way, he uses symbolicity to enhance his magical prowess (Crable, 2003, p. 126).
In the different season one episodes of Mindfreak, Criss Angel displays numerous examples of symbolocity, or symbolic action.Â Whether through his explanations of his demonstrations or the demonstrations themselves, Criss Angel exemplifies the symbolicity of a rhetorical act.Â In essence, Criss Angel is trying to persuade his audiences that the demonstrations he engages in are real.Â As he is fond of saying, â€œWhat you see is what you getâ€ (Angel, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2005h).Â However, in many demonstrations, Angel fails to remind the audience that what they â€œsee is what they get,â€ nor does he accentuate the importance of such a philosophy in each instance.Â Nevertheless, whether stated explicitly or not, Criss Angelâ€™s demonstrations are typically viewed the way he presents them â€“ i.e., as what he does is what we get.Â This means, of course, that some of the demonstrations seen on television may not be a part of Angelâ€™s â€œwhat you see is what you getâ€ mantra.
Consequently, Criss Angel uses symbolic action to highlight his demonstrations.Â Symbolic action â€œis the creation (or recreation) of an identity that fits into a culture â€¦ symbolic action involves the creation of an integrated world view (or recreation of a culture) and finding a place in that system. Such an accomplishment allows one to â€˜feel at home,â€™ to size up situations, and to avoid epistemological crisis â€¦ symbolic action is any strategy for encompassing a situationâ€ (McKercher, 1993).Â As such, Criss Angel uses particular symbols in certain situations to provide a certain perspective.Â Usually, the perspective involves ordinary situations that perplex the mind.Â As Criss is fond of saying, I like â€œto blur the lines of reality and illusion, I wanted to do a demonstration that would prove that the laws of this physical world can be bent or even brokenâ€ (Angel, 2005h).
If symbolic action is how language shapes our realities and perceptions, then many of Crissâ€™s demonstrations do just that.Â For example, he uses symbolic action in episode two, â€œLevitation.â€Â It utilizes symbolicity, in part, because the idea of levitating connects with the audience.Â â€œThe notion of being lighter than air is something that has intrigued every human being for hundreds and hundreds of yearsâ€ (Kaufman, 2005a). Â As Criss says, â€œIâ€™m going to try to bug some people here in the parkâ€ and then he levitates himself in the park (2005b). One person in the audience says, â€œoh my God, how did he do that?â€Â The image of his levitation in a public setting creates the perception that he has mystical powers.Â There are no visible wires, no noticeable props, no apparent gimmicks.Â The demonstration appears real, although we know that there must be something to the trick.Â In fact, â€œItâ€™s something that the street audience, the people who are right there and if you were there youâ€™d see it too, take place in front of your very eyesâ€ (Cohn, 2005).
In another episode, â€œSuper Human,â€ Criss Angel engages in symbolic action by using symbolic images to create the perception that he has super-human strength. The finale demonstration has Criss lifting a taxi cab in Las Vegas.Â Before that, however, he asks several spectators on the street to line-up and consecutively push each other on the shoulders in an effort to push him over.Â Even with ten people (mostly burly men), they cannot push Criss over.Â One participant says, â€œItâ€™s like pushing a wallâ€ (Angel, 2005g).Â As he ambiguously explains the process, Criss says, â€œyour mind controls your body, and what doesnâ€™t make sense to some people makes sense to othersâ€ (Angel, 2005g).Â The image of him lifting a taxi also creates the perception that his super-human strength is a reality, hence symbolic action.Â Criss explains, â€œI wanted to accomplish something that lookedÂ to be completely impossible for someone with my weight to be able to do and hopefully that demonstration will inspire others to be able to fulfill their dreams that might seem impossible at that very momentâ€ (Angel, 2005g).Â This is important, as Criss indicates, since â€œIf you dream it, you can achieve it,â€ and later he says, â€œIâ€™m committed to do things that people donâ€™t think are possibleâ€ (Angel, 2005g).
Symbolic action, as has already been described, is a process by which we look at language to inform us of meanings laden within the linguistic code.Â In other words, it is the process we use to ascertain meaning in the complex symbol-using process.Â What we understand may or may not be a simple perceptual process of the conglomeration of signs.
As such, the symbolic action expressed in Criss Angelâ€™s demonstrations reveals that magic utilizes symbols.Â Whether it is words or nonverbal gestures, the magician incorporates symbols for his/her ultimate effect. Of course, the magician also needs to manipulate the audienceâ€™s perception of the symbolic context around them.Â As Criss Angel suggests, â€œAn illusion exploits the way you visually process somethingâ€ (Angel, 2007, p. 158). This is particularly true since magic is the â€œaudacious individual use of existing powerful symbolsâ€ (Oâ€™Keefe, 1982, p. 73). In other words, the symbols used in an illusion are merely a distraction so that the ultimate symbol(s) â€“ the climax of the illusion â€“ demonstrate the importance of a perception of reality.Â As Burke posits, â€œEven if any given terminology is a reflection of reality, by its very nature as a terminology it must be a selection of reality; and to this extent it must function as a deflection of realityâ€ (Burke, 1966, p. 45).Â Hence, magic, if done properly, is merely a deflection of reality, and, as such, is only a symbolic perception of oneâ€™s (i.e., audience memberâ€™s) conception of reality.
Criss Angel uses identification in the first episode in season one of Mindfreak. Criss, who seemingly is being burned on Freemont Street (one of the busiest streets in Las Vegas), lies down on the pavement after being burned for over 30 seconds, and then the body disappears and we see Criss as one of the aids who is using a fire extinguisher to put out the fire.Â He replaces the victim with the rescuer. As Criss states, â€œI like to play with what peopleâ€™s fears are; I like to confront those for people, and people have a fear of being burned aliveâ€ (2005a).
This is a sentiment that we hear as well in a later episode, called â€œBuilding Walk,â€ where Criss walks down 50 stories of the Aladdin hotel to confront the fear of heights (Angel, 2005h).
A second example of identification occurs in the fourth episode, entitled â€œSUV Nail Bed.â€Â The show, among other things, focuses on Criss lying on a bed of eight-inch nails while an SUV is slowly driven over him.Â During the commentary leading up to the stunt, Criss says, â€œI donâ€™t think of pain as most people would probably perceive it â€¦ Pain is beautiful thing, when you feel pain, you know youâ€™re aliveâ€ (Angel, 2005d).Â A little later he says, â€œPain is just something that you can overcomeâ€ (Angel, 2005d).Â The idea that he endures pain as a form of identifying with his audience seems apparent enough.Â Before the SUV demonstration, Criss approaches some folks on the street.Â He then swallows needles and thread and then pulls them out of his belly button.Â The crowd makes comments such as â€œoh my god,â€ â€œoh God thatâ€™s crazy,â€ â€œthat was nuts,â€ and â€œIâ€™m freaked outâ€ (Angel, 2005d).Â The perceived physical act of pulling needles through oneâ€™s flesh clearly illustrates the endurance of pain.Â Taking it to another level, the SUV nail demonstration heightens the perception of conquering pain.Â As Criss states toward the end of the show, â€œFailing equals death, so I have no margin for errorâ€ (Angel, 2005d).
In another episode, the â€œWine Barrel Escape,â€ Criss Angel is essentially paying an homage to Harry Houdini since he will be padlocked in a wine barrel several stories in the air. As he prepares for the demonstration, Criss Angel tells the audience that the water is too cold and his muscles couldnâ€™t function, so he asks for warmer water.Â Lance Burton, who is narrating this episode, says this â€œisnâ€™t the stunt to try when you donâ€™t have full control of your bodyâ€ (Burton, 2005). Â This all adds to the suspense of the demonstration.Â And, to add to the suspense even more, after they initially raise the wine barrel, they bring it down after Criss gave the â€œabortâ€ signal because, as he says, â€œa line got caughtâ€ which made his wrists get â€œcrushedâ€ (Angel, 2005c).Â Lance Burton says this is incredible because Criss Angel had the â€œpresence of mindâ€ to make the call (Burton, 2005). This helps the identification with the audience, as it did in Houdiniâ€™s day, because it resonates with the audienceâ€™s perception of fear.Â As Criss Angel states, â€œHoudini had this profound effect on people because he connected to them on an emotional levelâ€ (Angel, 2005c).Â As such, Criss Angel, too, impacts the audience on an emotional, albeit fearful, level.
In another episode, â€œBuried Alive,â€ Criss Angel is literally placed into a coffin and buried six-feet under.Â Criss remarks, â€œWeâ€™re going to actually have a POV camera in there so that people at home can actually experienceÂ what it feels like to be buried aliveâ€ (Angel, 2005e).Â Like his other shows, Criss portrays the conquering of basic fears.Â Scholars have documented that being buried alive is one of the most basic and dreaded of all fears (Bondeson, 2001). Â In this way, Criss Angel is identifying with his audience on a very primal level.Â As Banachek, a Mindfreak consultant and accomplished mentalist, remarks, â€œIf something goes wrong, heâ€™s definitely deadâ€ (Banachek, 2005a).Â Thus, the fear of dying, especially by being buried alive, triggers an emotional response from the audience.
In two different episodes â€“ â€œHellstromismâ€ and â€œBlindâ€ â€“ Criss Angel demonstrates that muscle and mind reading are crucial to everyday activities of a magician.Â In â€œHellstromism,â€ Criss needs to locate certain objects through the touch of a participant who knows where the objects exist.Â In â€œBlind,â€ Criss relies on Mandi Moore to help him drive a car blind-folded. Of course, he also asks her to think of a place in Los Angeles, without his knowledge, and he drives the car to that location.Â In â€œHellstromism,â€ Criss argues that â€œMuscle reading is basically the ability to actually determine whatâ€™s somebodyâ€™s thinking by the way their muscles are reactingâ€ (Angel, 2005f).Â Later in the episode, noted Mindfreak consultant and Criss Angel friend, Banachk suggests, â€œA mentalist is somebody who performs magic of the mind, we appear to be psychic, we appear to move objects, read peopleâ€™s minds, who really get into peopleâ€™s mindsâ€ (Banachek, 2005b, â€œPredictionâ€). As a result, as Banachek suggests in a different episode, â€œthe skill of getting into peopleâ€™s heads is tricky.Â Itâ€™s so hard, and he has a natural ability.Â Creating that vulnerable moment for people so that they really think youâ€™re getting into their head, allows you to truly get into their headsâ€ (Banachek, 2005c).Â Thus, Criss Angel uses his powers of mental manipulation to identify with his audience.Â By claiming to be able to read peopleâ€™s minds, Criss provides the perception that he has unique powers that enable him to understand the condition of other people.Â This is, perhaps, the quintessence of identification.
As in some of his other shows, Criss Angel uses his illusion of walking down 50 stories of the Aladdin hotel/casino as a demonstration of his ability to conquer another fear â€“ the fear of heights.Â In â€œBuilding Walk,â€ Criss literally is shown as walking down the building of the Aladdin.Â In one way, this is a form of identification because many people dream to walk up or down a building â€“ much like Spiderman.Â As Dale Hindman, the president of the Magic Castle, suggests, â€œCriss is doing what Harry Houdini did.Â Know that thatâ€™s what your audiences want, and then go after them with a vengeance and make it public, and do it better than the next guy.Â Harry Houdini did that all the timeâ€ (Hindman, 2005).Â On the other hand, Criss is identifying with his audience, yet again, by confronting a fear â€“ in this case, the fear of heights.Â According to Criss, â€œWith â€˜Building Walkâ€™ specifically, I try to address peopleâ€™s fears.Â What Iâ€™m trying to do is overcome other peopleâ€™s fears, and hopefully theyâ€™ll get the â€˜how the hell did he do thatâ€™ factor in thereâ€ (Angel, 2005h).Â In a related way, Richard Kaufman, the publisher of Genii magazine, argues, â€œmost people donâ€™t like to dangerous things themselves, but they like to watch other people do dangerous things.Â Thereâ€™s that aspect of voyeurism that people find intriguingâ€ (Kaufman, 2005b). Yet again, Criss is identifying with the audience because his demonstration deals with a common human fear.Â As he claims in the episode, â€œI think when you confront your fears, you grow as a person.Â People everyday donâ€™t live life to its fullest because theyâ€™re concerned about getting on planes, they canâ€™t get out of their house, they canâ€™t go on an elevator â€“ theyâ€™re so many things that people fear.Â So, for me if I can help one person to live their life to the fullest, that means a lot to meâ€ (Angel, 2005h).
Once again, in â€œBlind,â€ Criss Angel confronts peopleâ€™s fears of sensory deprivation.Â With taped coins around his eyes in addition to a solid black blindfold, Criss drives Mandi Mooreâ€™s care through Los Angeles to a destination of her choosing, but without his knowledge (Angel, 2005i).Â Luke Jermay, a Mindfreak consultant, argues, â€œI donâ€™t believe Criss is psychic; I believe heâ€™s a very skilled performer with a toolbox of techniques that he uses to produce the illusions that he doesâ€ (Jermay, 2005).Â Nevertheless, even if Criss Angel does not possess mystical powers, his ability to navigate through crisis situations, while appearing to be blind, yet again resonates with the audience who fears losing their own sight.Â In this way, Criss identifies with his audience, by means of his own magical demonstrations, in a way that signals his unique abilities that transcend the common personâ€™s basic fears.
As we have seen, Criss Angel attempts to draw his audience into his demonstrations.Â Whether it is in the street or on a more massive demonstration of an illusion, Criss Angel tries to bring his audience into his artistic creation.Â As Criss stipulates in his book, â€œWhen I perform, I use my power, my gifts, my art to help people escape from the ordinary into the world of the extraordinary.Â I have the power to help them forget their problems, if only for a few momentsâ€ (Angel, 2007, p. 149). The point, of course, is not only to identify with oneâ€™s audience, but also to connect with them on a basic, emotional level.Â Criss agues that he is able â€œto take people to places they would never otherwise experience.Â The emotional connection is like a passageway to a private world â€“ my private world.Â Fantasy and the great unknown have always fascinated people â€¦ The wonderment, the unexpected, the moment of â€˜wowâ€™ is something I live forâ€ (Angel, 2007, p. 126).Â Of course, the â€œamazementâ€ factor is only part of the equation.Â Criss Angel, undoubtedly, wants to â€œwowâ€ his audience.Â However, like most magicians, Criss Angel is also concerned with identifying with the audience in a special, unique way.Â For Angel, this connection entails a purpose that signifies that a single person can overcome a particular hardship.Â Much like Houdini, Criss Angel tries to overcome the constraints that many people feel that oppress them.Â In fact, as Criss argues, â€œI loved Houdiniâ€™s primary message. If I can get out of this situation, you can get out of yoursâ€ (Angel, 2007, p. 89). In this way, Criss Angel identifies with his audience in a very important way â€“ he exemplifies the ability to overcome hardship and tribulation.Â The capacity to conquer fears and fortitudes is a magicianâ€™s sign that he/she is able to transcend the average conundrum.Â As a result, they signify that anyone, including the common person, can overcome such difficulties themselves.
Criss Angel provides us a unique opportunity to see how magic and rhetoric intersect.Â While not revealing any of his magic secrets, this essay acknowledges Angelâ€™s hard work and unique magical abilities â€“ both on-screen and off.Â Furthermore, this paper identifies several different ways that magic is rhetorical.Â In some ways, the magical performance is magical in the way it is performed (Steinmeyer, 2003). In other ways, the words the magician uses while performing the act are important (Angel, 2007; Covino, 1992; Steinmeyer, 2003).Â In any case, the â€œtrickâ€ or â€œactâ€ itself in magic is persuasive since it captivates the audienceâ€™s attention and convinces them that the trick or act is part of reality.
What is illusion and what is â€œrealâ€ is open to debate.Â That is the magicianâ€™s trade â€“ to blur reality with illusion. According to Paul Draper, a former consultant to Criss Angelâ€™s Mindfreak, â€œMagicians provide physical and tangible representations of the miraculous that fools all of our senses. Audiences can take many meanings from this to fit their personal needs and beliefsâ€ (Draper, 2007).Â Thus, conjurerâ€™s use the skills of the trade to convince the audience that what is impossible is possible, what is unrealistic is real.
Given the paucity of studies that examine the intersection between rhetoric and magic, this paper treads new territory.Â It also provides an opportunity for those interested in the art of magic and the art of rhetoric to see how both can mutually reinforce the other.Â And this is really the beauty of a study like this â€“ both objects of analysis can reinforce the other.Â In essence, the rhetorical possibilities as well as the rhetorical prowess of magic can illuminate not only the essence of persuasion, but also the practical effects of symbolic influence.
Of course, much more investigation can occur regarding the relationship between magic and Burke.Â While Burke argues that that magic is, at least in some ways, rhetorical, he never goes so far as to suggest the manner or methods in which magic is rhetorical.Â However, for our purposes, Burke could prove to be instrumental in additional rhetorical studies.Â As he says, â€œBy the â€˜symbolicâ€™ or â€˜sympotmaticâ€™ nature of terms (in the strictly psychoanalytic sense) we mean their significance, not as defined in a sheerly lexical context (as in a dictionary) but as secretly infused with some â€˜repressedâ€™ or â€˜forgottenâ€™ context of situation that was in some way â€˜traumaticâ€™â€ (Burke, 1966, p. 359).Â We could argue that magic is one of those situations.Â At the very least, the performative art of magic could be the â€œnatureâ€ or â€œsituationâ€ of rhetorical action.Â In this way, Burke offers us the possibility of future research in the area of magic and rhetoric.
Based on Criss Angel, I believe we can make the argument that magic is rhetorical â€“ it uses symbols and images to frame our sense of reality based on illusion, it embraces symbols to identify with us as the audience, and it persuades us that what is occurring is real.Â What is central to this discussion is the intersection of image and meaning.Â While we havenâ€™t described in much detail the importance of message or meaning in this discussion, we cannot, nevertheless, overlook it.Â As Burke describes, â€œmeaning and symbol are not dependent as things on context; they are relations, not objects. Ignoring this point, seeing meaning and symbols as things ,has allowed cultural analysts to erect a distinction between symbolic structures and concrete structures; to differentiate religion, myth, art â€“ held to be “essentiallyâ€ symbolic forms â€“ from economics, politics, kinship, or everyday livingâ€ (Gusfield & Michalowicz, 1984, p. 418). Â This is even more pronounced when we see what David Devant â€“ the notable magician of the turn of the century of the 1900s â€“ argues that, â€œI regard a conjurer as a man who can hold the attention of his audience by telling them the most impossible fairy tales, and by persuading them into believing that those stories are true by illustrating them with his hands, or with any object that may be suitable for the purposeâ€ (Emphasis added, David Devant, quoted by Steinmeyer, 2003, p. 93).Â Therefore, the magician uses their talents to connect with the audience.Â In fact, it is crucial that the magician does so in order to relate to the audience in a manner that resonates with the audience in a key way to connect them with the acts on the stage or on television. In essence, then, â€œMagic is a social act whose medium is persuasive discourse, and so it must entail the complexities of social interaction, invention, communication, and compositionâ€ (Covino, 1992, p. 363).
While magic is rearing its ugly head in movies like The Prestige and The Illusionist, we also see its attraction in performing artists like David Blaine, Hans Klok, and Franz Harary.Â Of course, there is also Criss Angel.Â As Lance Burton suggests, â€œCriss [Angel] is going to be written in the history books as one of the great magicians in the 21st centuryâ€ (Lance Burton, 2005). This may be true, but any good magician or illusionist must understand their audience.Â Jim Steinmeyer, one of the most notable and respectable magic historians and trick architects, claims, â€œWhen magicians are good at their jobs, it is because they anticipate the way an audience thinks. They are able to suggest a series of clues that guide the audience to the deception. Great magicians donâ€™t leave the audienceâ€™s though patterns to chance; they depend on the audienceâ€™s bringing something to the table â€“ preconceptions or assumptions that can be naturally exploitedâ€ (Steinmeyer, 2003, p. 117). Therefore, the audience is key.Â And persuading the audience is central to a magicianâ€™s purpose.
Angel, C. (2005a). Burned alive. Mindfreak: Season One.Â A&E.
Angel, C. (2005b). Levitation. Mindfreak: Season One.Â A&E.
Angel, C. (2005c). Wine barrel escape. Mindfreak: Season One.Â A&E.
Angel, C. (2005d). SUV nail bed. Mindfreak: Season One.Â A&E.
Angel, C. (2005e). Buried alive. Mindfreak: Season One.Â A&E.
Angel, C. (2005f). Hellstromism. Mindfreak: Season One.Â A&E.
Angel, C. (2005g). Super human. Mindfreak: Season One.Â A&E.
Angel, C. (2005h). Building walk. Mindfreak: Season One.Â A&E.
Angel, C. (2005i). Blind. Mindfreak: Season One.Â A&E.
Angel, C. (2007). Mindfreak: Secret revelations.Â New York: Harper Collins.
Aristotle (1991). Aristotle on rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (edited and translated by G. A.
Kennedy). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Aune, J. A. (2003). Witchcraft as symbolic action in early Modern Europe and America.
Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 6, 765-777.
BanachekÂ (2005a).Â In Criss Angelâ€™s â€œBuried Alive.â€ Mindfreak: Season One.Â A&E.
BanachekÂ (2005b).Â In Criss Angelâ€™s â€œPrediction.â€ Mindfreak: Season One.Â A&E.
BanachekÂ (2005c).Â In Criss Angelâ€™s â€œBlind.â€ Mindfreak: Season One.Â A&E.
BanachekÂ (2005d).Â In Criss Angelâ€™s â€œBuilding Walk.â€ Mindfreak: Season One.Â A&E.
Barnouw, E. (1981). The magician and the cinema. New York: Oxford University Press.
Black, E. (1992). Rhetorical questions: Studies of public discourse. Chicago: University of
Blaine, D. (2002).Â Mysterious stranger: A book of magic.Â New York: Villard.
Bondeson, J. (2001). Buried alive: The terrifying history of our most primal fear. New York:Â Norton & Company.
Burger, Neil (director) (2006). The illusionist. Yari Film Group.
Burke, K.Â (1966). Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature, and method.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Burke, K.Â (1969). A rhetoric of motives.Â Berkeley: University of California Press.
Burton, L. (2005). In Criss Angelâ€™s â€œWine Barrel Escape.â€ Mindfreak: Season One.Â A&E.
Cohn, R. (2005). In Criss Angelâ€™s â€œLevitation.â€ Mindfreak: Season One.Â A&E.
Coleman, E. J. (1987). Magic: A Reference Guide. New York: Greenwood Press.
Covino, W. A. (1991). Magic, Literacy, and the National Enquirer.Â In Patricia Harkin and John
Schilb (Eds.), Contending with words: Composition and rhetoric in a postmodern age.Â New York: The Modern Language Association of America.
Covino, W. A. (1992). Magic and/as rhetoric: Outlines of a history of phantasy. JAC, 12.2,
available via Ebsco Academic Search Premier.
Covino, W. A. (1994). Magic, rhetoric, and literacy: An eccentric history of the composingÂ imagination. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Covino, W. A. (2002). The eternal return of magic-rhetoric: Carnak counts ballots.Â Rhetoric andÂ composition as intellectual work (ed. by Gary A. Olson). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Crable, B.Â (2006). Symbolizing motion: Burke’s dialectic and rhetoric of the body. RhetoricÂ Review, 22, 121-137.
Dawes, E. A (1979). The great illusionists. Secaucus, NJ: Chartwell Books.
de Romilly, J. (1975). Magic and rhetoric in ancient Greece. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Devant, D. (1909). Magic made easy. London: Cassell.
Draper, P. (2007, September 17). Personal Interview.
Dunn, P. (2005). Postmodern magic: The art of magic in the information age. St. Paul:
Fitzkee, D. (1944). The trick brain. San Rafael, CA: St. Raphael House.
Giobbi, R. (2007, April). Artistic magic. Genii: The conjurorsâ€™ magazine, 70, 20-23.
Gusfield, J. R., & Michalowica, J. (1984). Secular symbolism: Studies of ritual, ceremony, andÂ the symbolic order in modern life. Annual Review of Sociology, 10, 417-435.
Hindman, D.Â (2005). In Criss Angelâ€™s â€œBuilding Walk.â€ Mindfreak: Season One.Â A&E.
Jermay, L.Â (2005).Â In Criss Angelâ€™s â€œBlind.â€ Mindfreak: Season One.Â A&E.
Kaufman, R. (2005a). In Criss Angelâ€™s â€œLevitation.â€ Mindfreak: Season One.Â A&E.
Kaufman, R. (2005b).Â In Criss Angelâ€™s â€œBuilding Walk.â€ Mindfreak: Season One.Â A&E.
Kennedy, G. A. (1998). Comparative rhetoric: An historical and cross-cultural introduction.Â New York: Oxford University Press.
McKercher, P.Â Â (1993) Toward a systematic theory of symbolic action.Â Ph.D. dissertation.
University of British Columbia. Available online: http://people.ucsc.edu/~pmmckerc/D11.HTM.
Nolan, Christopher (director) (2006). The prestige.Â Newmarket Productions.
Oâ€™Keefe, D. L. (1982). Stolen lightning: The social theory of magic. New York: Continuum.
Ortiz, D. (2007, April). Designing miracles. Genii: The conjurorsâ€™ magazine, 70, 93-94.
Raven, M. (2007, November). Max Raven and the evolution of a mind reader. Genii: The
conjurorsâ€™ magazine, 70, 50-68.
Steinkraus, Warren E. (1979, October). The art of conjuring. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 13,Â 17-27.
Steinmeyer, J. (2003). Hiding the elephant: How magicians invented the impossible and learnedÂ to disappear. New York: Carroll & Graf.
Steinmeyer, J. (2007, November). Max Raven and the evolution of a mind reader. Genii: TheÂ conjurorsâ€™ magazine, 70, 50-68.
Taylor, A. (1979). Magic and English romanticism. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
Ward, J. O. (1988). Magic and rhetoric from antiquity to the renaissance: Some ruminations.Â Rhetorica, 6, 57-118.