Halloween was the official opening of Criss Angel's and Cirque du Soleil's notoriously bad collaboration "Believe." I have been waiting until after Halloween to return to review what is officially titled: "Criss Angel's Believe." I see shows once a year. Though I was amazed at the resistance I got from Cirque to my returning to "Believe" for a new review. To be honest, waiting until after the first anniversary to return was an easy sell to me. Unless it is better, I really do not want to see that show again. I think the public is hip on what to expect at this point. "Believe," for its price range, is truly the worst show currently in Las Vegas.

Anyway, Las Vegas Sun writer Joe Brown found a bargain on tickets as well as a familiar but inferior show. His conclusion:

"... leads me to believe that Cirque is just letting 'Believe' lie there, hoping unwitting customers will forget the reviews, until someone comes up with a plausible, face-saving reason to shoot it in the head and replace it."

I sure hope Cirque is not that cynical. I have been told there are going to be many improvements arriving that will be completed come December or January-ish. Yet, my sense from those conversations was that some, if not most, of the improvements were already in the show and being fine-tuned. If so, Brown missed the improvements totally. The changes he noticed focused more on budget savings from what is missing this time out: fewer on stage in terms of aerialists, dancers and no live band. A cheaper show to mount (and, you thought you got a bargain on tickets!), and one that is even worse than before. As for Angel: 

"... the leading man, the show’s raison d’être, has gotten worse, if that can be imagined."

Not really, I can't imagine it. But anything is possible, I guess, if you believe, or something like that.

Photo credit: Sarah Gerke

Is it time for me to re-review the Criss Angel and Cirque collaboration "Believe" at Luxor?

I usually try to see every major show in the entertainment corridor once a year. This is not an iron rule, as some shows change more than others. But most shows change gradually as a year passes: Talent rotates, the cast changes or new material is added.

So, we are nearing the one-year anniversary of "Believe" and I approached Cirque about going back to see how they have changed the show during the last year. Cirque shows to begin with change more than most, because the talents of the acrobats, dancers, circus performers and aerialists can be so specific that new material is created for new arrivals. Also, the shows are constantly being adjusted in little ways by Cirque. The best example of this is "Zumanity" at New York, New York, that is now the best erotic show in town.

That was not true when it opened, with Cirque not really sure how to navigate the change between the implied sensuality of their other shows with the overt sexuality of "Zumanity." When it opened, I would have said that "Zumanity's" strength derived primarily from the weakness of the competition: Most of the other erotic shows in Vegas still feature topless chorus lines and skits ending in brief reveals and other cliches of the genre. Now, "Zumanity" is a legitimately strong show even in comparison to production shows that do not have an adult theme. 

A Cirque alumnae created "Le Reve," which was a horrible show when it opened, and also a tasteless one that will forever remain infamous for a scene in which a bunch of pregnant (actresses, of course) women were in unison dropped from ropes hung from the theater ceiling into a tank of water. But mostly "Le Reve" suffered from what literature professor Harold Bloom would call "the anxiety of influence" regarding "Le Reve's" roots in Cirque. Now, however, with more plot, a stronger sense of how to use the in-the-round theater and other changes introduced gradually the resemblance to Cirque shows is more one of genre than familiar but inferior duplication. "Le Reve," and I would never have guessed this when it opened, not only is a good show, but a show that does not feel at all like a Cirque show anymore.

Anyway, shortly after getting horrendous reviews upon opening a year ago next month, Cirque began its "fixation" process on "Believe." But how long does a show need to be fixated on?  In the past, Cirque has been very nonspecific, refusing to even offer me an estimate of a date for when the "fixation" process for "Believe" would be completed. And yet, each night audiences are still being asked to shell out money for tickets to what is one of the worst shows I have ever seen in Vegas. Or, at least that was the case when I saw the show almost a year ago. Now my review is nearly a year old and Cirque and Angel have been working for nearly 12 months at making the show better. I have been told there have been a lot of changes. And so I informed Cirque that I was ready to return to review the show again and was rebuffed, strongly. I would say the explanation was convoluted with an undertone of hostility. Here is part of the e-mail I got from a Cirque PR representative I have known for years:

In regards to "Believe," we are still in the midst of fixation. Because of new artistic platforms within Cirque du Soleil and also since we now have permanent productions in Asia, we have revised the "fixation" process by adjusting both the time-frames (schedule) of when we consider the process completed and the steps involved in the fixation process....

For "Believe" ... we are still in this gradual process and we will not be completed until the end of this year.  Being that you are a "friend of Cirque du Soleil" we ask that you respect the fixation process and wait until it is complete to re-review the show. 

You and I have always had a good working relationship, and I hope to continue on this path.

I have since been told that there was no threat meant by this person in this e-mail, and if I saw that otherwise, I misunderstood. Cirque has a good track record for telling the truth to me and I take them at their always-before been good word. As to being a friend of Cirque, I have given good reviews to "Mystere" and "O," which are among the best shows in Vegas. I think "KA" has the most amazing stage, and that is worth the entire show. "Love" is great for Beatles fans. I also like the community activism and many other activities that Cirque does for Las Vegas.

All that said, Cirque can be pretentious on stage and in the corporate culture. I am still laughing that their billionaire founder can't content himself with being labeled a space tourist like the other rich-guys-in-space, but has a self-appointed mission to benefit all humanity while up there. And, more seriously, I don't like moments like this when Cirque tends to be very controlling with media, with its hints of a punishment-and-rewards system. After this e-mail, I was offered, in a follow-up call (with a different PR person from Cirque), some access to their upcoming Elvis show on the Strip instead of reviewing "Believe" now. I said I would be happy to do both: review "Believe" and write about the Elvis show. I am not clear from the conversation if I will get that option from Cirque. But at the end of the day, I can't let those thoughts matter to me. Cirque will make whatever decisions are best for their company on who in the media gets access to the Elvis show as it is getting ready to open at CityCenter. I would like to be among the press who cover that, but if they want to go Nixon with friends and enemies lists that is something you can do as the most powerful and influential entertainment company in Vegas. 

But all the distractions aside, nothing has changed the bottom line. I was essentially again told in this follow-up phone conversation that there is still no firm date or even firm month for "fixation" to be complete for "Believe." Yet, Cirque is still charging audiences to see the show every night it is open. My inclination is to go see "Believe" in the next month to find out if Cirque and Criss Angel have been able to improve the show after a year. Could it now be like the other Cirque shows on the Strip, and worth your money? Then, if and when the "fixation" process is ever completed for "Believe," I can give the show yet another chance and if the changes are substantial, again post. We never run out of space here on the Internet.

So while regretting the possible loss of my "friend of Cirque" status, my loyalty has to be to the readers of the Buffet, and so let me end this by asking you again: Is it time to re-review "Believe" on the Buffet?

Criss Angel is trekking to Edwards Air Force Base for a stunt that's just plain tacky.  If this is intended as a tribute to the troops, it falls short. He'll walk over improvised explosive devices for his TV show.  But unlike soldiers who face real danger from explosives, Angel knows where the devices are, and he has a trick to keep from being hurt.  Robin Leach spoke to Angel about this trick:

"I’m going to try and avoid literally being blown up by an IED," an icily calm Angel said of the improvised explosive devices. "This is a life-or-death situation. It’s more dangerous than anything I’ve ever performed." Criss will perform the stunt his mother doesn't want him to attempt at Edwards Air Force Base.

Of course, this narrative is familiar now for season openers of Angel's "Mindfreak" cable series: Last year, it was an exploding building that was the most dangerous stunt Angel had ever attempted. 

Leach says: "Criss will use his psychic powers to tread gingerly over not one or two levels of incendiary devices but seven levels of lethal, explosive mines." Hey, if he really can detect IEDs with his psychic powers, he'd be more useful in combat zones.  We'd take one for the team and give up "Believe" at Luxor if it were for the good of the country.

As a side note, Angel is being sued by a young illusionist who says he contributed illusions to both Angel's television show and  DVD releases. According to the Las Vegas Sun, Jacob Spinney claims in his lawsuit that Angel's company did not make the proper royalty payments and further deducted a "performance fee"  from what Spinney was paid,  presumably for Angel using Spinney's work. When I sought a response to the lawsuit, Angel and his camp declined to comment.

In a profile by John Katsilometes in Las Vegas Weekly, Holly Madison, who opened in "Peepshow" on Monday, reflects for the first time on her breakup with Angel. Here is an excerpt of her conversation with Katsilometes, beginning with Madison addressing the reason the camera-friendly relationship ended:

"I think it happened because some people don’t want to be happy, and they always look for problems, even if there aren’t any. Some people don’t want to be happy, so they pick away at something until they find problems."

I ask Madison who takes responsibility for the decision to end the relationship. She fires back quickly, "I should have. But it wasn’t me. I would have done anything to make it work. He’s the one with the problem, not me."

Madison goes on in the profile to qualify her praise of "Believe" as being a biased product of love. There goes that advertisement blurb. I am supposed to interview Madison on Wednesday but have been told in advance she will refuse to answer any questions about Angel. I guess the Who was right: It's the singer not the song.

Meanwhile, all these distractions for Criss Angel may help keep real problem from being noticed: Cirque is offering no time line for implementing "fixation" needed on "Believe" and won't supply any details about possible  improvements.  Of course, diversions are part of any illusion. Angel knows this best. Or, as Madison claims he told her in the Weekly profile:

He says, ‘I was getting bad reviews, but on the day of my premiere when we were walking down the red carpet together, that’s all people wanted to talk about.’ So, he admits that.

Photo: Sarah Gerke

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly identified Angel's "Believe" at Luxor as part of the lawsuit instead of Angel's DVD releases. That error has been corrected.

In my usual duties cruising about the Web checking room rates at the various resorts, I noticed something odd about the final hotel package offer on the Luxor's promotion page. Unlike the six previous packages with names like "Girls Night Out" and "Guys Night Out," this package for a room deal was not hot-linked. Instead you had to call a phone number and then give the operator a magic promotional code to get the room rate quotes. Guess which package is the needlessly irritating one to book? Hint: The promotional code is "PCRISS." That's right, the offer -- heavy capitalization courtesy of Luxor -- is for  the "CRISS ANGEL Believe Package."

The package promises a "special room rate," indeed a "'screaming'" room rate. The casino, by the way, puts "screaming" in quotes (and, it turns out, for good reason -- you may actually scream at your "special room rate"). Buyers also get 50% off on the purchase of tickets to Angel's " Believe." But getting discounted tickets to "Believe" is not hard to do right now in Vegas. So it occurred to me that maybe the room rate was incredibly good. "Believe" maybe had become like a condo presentation: Suffer through the show and in exchange you get a great deal on rooms at Luxor. 

I was wrong. In fact, for the two days I picked at random to price-check at Luxor (April 8-9) enjoying the "CRISS ANGEL Believe Package" the room rate quoted by the operator at Luxor was only 1 penny less than the basic rate available on the website to any and all. Yes, I called twice to double check, I was so surprised. Suckers. Feel like screaming now?

Yes, one more  trick. The "CRISS ANGEL Believe Package special room rate" offer was literally one cent off ($59.99 vs. $60.00 on April 8). And that is only on one of the two nights; April 9 was identical to the basic room rate offered on the Luxor's site. And the "Believe" package on those nights puts you in an older "Pyramid" room, too.

Does the Luxor think Angel's fans are really, really thrifty or, well, stupid? (photo by Sarah Gerke)

So I received, sort of, an answer Tuesday to my question to Criss Angel's publicist, Steve Flynn, about whether Angel was buying used illusions from Lance Burton's warehouse for his Luxor show "Believe" or his "Mindfreak" television show?  According to Angel's rep:

"One of Criss' biggest influences in magic is Richiardi.  One of the illusions that Criss purchased was performed by Richiardi and his son on the 'Ed Sullivan Show,' of which Criss owns a tape.  Doug Henning later made a different incarnation of it and toured with it.  Lance Burton purchased that illusion from Doug Henning.

"A few weeks ago Lance informed Criss and a select few that he was clearing out his warehouse and included a list of illusions that he was planning to sell.  When Criss looked at the list he asked Lance if he could purchase two of the items, one of which was the Doug Henning incarnation of the Richiardi illusion. The other also performed in a Henning show called 'Merlin.'  Both of the items were signed by Lance 'To Criss'."

As fascinating as this provenance of the tricks is, did anyone else notice that the actual single and solitary question I had was not answered by Flynn: does Criss Angel intend to use these illusions in  "Believe" or on his television show?

In fact, this history of the illusions made that question even more interesting. As I noted Tuesday, Angel had promised "Believe" would be a show that totally reinvented magic on the Strip. So the possibility of recycling illusions that date back to the "Ed Sullivan Show" seems at odds with his public claims.

My goal, indeed, my agenda, was very straightforward: to sort out why Angel would want these functional illusions. I never expressed an interest in their history. But after avoiding answering the question, Angel's publicist started insulting my integrity, agenda and motives:

"I realize that this explanation probably just won't suffice for you because you've already slammed him for it in your article today.  Had you bothered to call me before you wrote your article I would have given you the above.  But why would you do that when slamming him is your only agenda?  As George Lucas said -- 'There are two types of people in the world, creators and destroyers' -- you choose to draw your own conclusion and put negative things about Criss in the world."

As for that part about calling Angel's publicist, he is being disingenuous.  I did e-mail him;  I was told he was in L.A. and had access to his e-mail. Also, I am sure Cirque du Soleil, his partner in "Believe," reached him with my question before writing me back. I posted on the Buffet the day after I heard back from Cirque.

And, actually, I have no conclusions; that was  why I asked my question. Again, I am curious why Angel would buy two illusions from Lance Burton that were described as functional and not collectors' items? Angel has repeatedly promised to do a magic show that does not rely on the tried and true of old magicians. 

But instead of answering my question about if Angel plans to use these illusions, I was given a long lecture about who owned the illusions. That is what magicians call misdirection, a couple of paragraphs implying these are collectors items while not directly contradicting my source that said they are not,  followed by a couple of gratuitous attacks on me, my methods and motives. Of course, the key is to distract the reader from ever noticing the question has been skillfully avoided.

And so I e-mailed again, trying to get an answer to my basic question: does Criss Angel intend to use these old illusions in either of his shows? This time, I got a one-sentence answer from Flynn:

"Quite frankly, if he intends to use them AT ALL, that's up to him and not for public consumption."

Isn't that interesting. For some reason the fact that Lance Burton signed the illusions to Angel is for public consumption. But if Angel intends to place old illusions into a show he is selling tickets to as a unique and cutting-edge experience is "not for public consumption."

And I still draw no conclusions. These illusions may never find any use in Angel's universe. Angel has his own warehouse. But isn't it strange the amount of self-righteousness and verbiage Flynn expended in the service of evading a simple question about two old illusions.

Photo credit: Sarah Gerke

When Criss Angel announced that he was partnering with Cirque for a production show at Luxor, he made big promises about the originality he was going to bring to the Vegas stage that raised expectations for his show to an extraordinary level. Angel's show, "Believe," would be, in Angel's words "an experience that redefines what magic is and what it can be."

That in fact is not what "Believe" turned out to be at all. As Mike Weatherford, the most experienced reviewer of the magic shows in the tourist corridor in Vegas, put it in writing about "Believe":

"The magic makes it painfully obvious that Angel is a showman whose gift was creating his persona, not anything new in his field. The dude's buff and tough enough -- hanging upside down over the audience in a straitjacket -- but the big illusions plod to predictable conclusions; dressed-up versions of the typical Vegas big-stage show."

So, now that the show is in Cirque's famed fixation process, I wondered if maybe we would finally be getting some of that redefining magic that we were promised at first. But I have not heard anything on that score. Instead, I was surprised to hear that Angel recently purchased two illusions from Lance Burton's warehouse, where the longtime headliner of the Monte Carlo stores his old tricks.

After confirming the purchase with Burton's people, I wondered whether the illusions in question would be considered collectors' items (very rare is the magician without a collection of vintage magic gear) or the sort of more contemporary functional illusions meant to still be used onstage by a working illusionist? I was told, by Burton's rep, the two tricks fell clearly into the latter category. So, why would a magician striving to transform magic onstage want to buy another magician's used stage illusions? And, Lance Burton, no insult intended, is hardly a major innovator in illusions. Burton is among the most talented magicians in the country or he would not be a Vegas headliner. He has a charming personality onstage combined with a fierce reputation for close hand magic. And, he uses all his strengths to create a fantastic old school magic show that you can take the kids along to enjoy. It is a fun show but very traditional, and Burton is hardly trying to redefine magic (as Angel announced to be his ambition). So, why would Burton's leftovers be valuable to Criss Angel, the self-proclaimed vanguard of illusionists?

A Cirque spokesperson explained the purchase of Burton's old illusions to me as follows in an e-mail:

"It is a fairly common practice for magicians to purchase illusions from one another for a variety of reasons, and at this time we have no idea if these illusions will be used in CRISS ANGEL Believe, Mindfreak or shelved for future."

Let me note again that "common practice" is exactly what Angel promised not to resort to in his show. The fact that these illusions might be in "Believe" or "Mindfreak" speaks volumes about the lack of fresh ideas running through Angel's camp these days. And, this explanation is a bit unsatisfactory as well. Is there another season of "Mindfreak" coming up that they might be needed for? And, if there is another season, is it plausible to think stage illusions could be made to work on television? Finally, Angel is at the start of a 10-year contract for "Believe," and so what future use could these illusions be shelved for?  His dance card is full for a decade. Buying stage illusions when you are trying to fix a stage show almost universally panned by critics and audiences suggests that these illusions might be options for "Believe." If so, that would be an embarrassing omission of failure by Angel, who, again, has always claimed his originality as one of his great virtues. Giving up that claim to use the tried-and-true illusions of Lance Burton may help the show be less an embarrassment, but only by making "Believe" a mediocrity, much more like other magic shows on the Strip only with a lot of dancing and a ridiculous and convoluted plot line. And, guys like Lance Burton have so much more stage experience and stage charisma than Angel, "Believe" will face a different sort of doom in that competition. So, will "Believe" go through fixation only to come out as a more traditional and less ambitious magic show? Will Angel wind up featuring another headliner's old illusions to pad out the spots where "Believe's" creative team have failed to find any of the new approaches once promised?

Cirque has sent me to Angel's camp for further information on Angel's purpose in acquiring Burton's old tricks. I am looking forward to the explanation. But it seems possible that Angel may now be abandoning his biggest illusion -- that "Believe" is an original show unlike any magic show seen before in Vegas. On the bright side, Lance Burton's tricks have always been impressive and so ultimately this might help the quality of "Believe" even if it does little to improve Angel's reputation for promising one thing and delivering another.

Photo: Sarah Gerke

So,  Criss Angel is back in the news and once again for his private life. His publicist has released a statement, which I dutifully share in its entirety: "Criss and Holly are no longer a couple. They remain very close friends and wish the very best for each other."  If you need to ask last names, then you have spent your time on Earth doing something more rewarding; so, good for you. The duo continue to share a publicist as they go into their separate futures, which I predict will involve each dating other low-level cable stars. Check back with me on that.

Meanwhile, I thought I would check in with Cirque to get some response to the discounting I have seen for Criss Angel's "Believe,"   mixed with rumors I have heard about the size of audiences at the show. Both contrast starkly with Angel's claims to have the best-selling show in Vegas. Here is Cirque's response to my request for information on how many tickets Believe is selling:

"Cirque du Soleil is a privately held company and all of our shows are performing close to our annual budgeted occupancy rates forecasted for the year.  The current economic climate is affecting all of Las Vegas and when needed we have participated in sales incentives to help promote our productions."

The fact that Cirque is a privately held company is meant to remind us that they are not obligated to release sales figures. Of course, this is a little precious as this response must be compared to earlier bragging that the show had enjoyed $5 million in pre-sales. Then, of course, truly brazen was Angel claiming not only sold-out shows every night but to having the best-selling show in all Vegas. Elton John's "Red Piano" (in a room with more seats and with more expensive tickets), which I attended recently, seemed pretty full. And I have never seen a discount anything for "Red Piano." Does Angel really think anyone believes (sorry) that his show was ever doing better?

I would be interested to know when the annual projected rates were, well, projected by Cirque? After the opening or before? And, obviously, discounting can only help so much as  "Believe" is now, at best, only "close" to hitting the mark of Cirque's own in-house projections, whenever they were made. Maybe one reason Angel has become press shy is that his bold claims, compared to the apparent reality of "Believe's" sales attendance, can't be reconciled in a video editing bay?

As a side note, Cirque is totally right about being a private company and therefore not needing to share their numbers with the press or, of course, through the press with their competitors. That is why I am having fun with Angel's earlier ridiculous claims that "Believe" was the best-selling show in Vegas.

Why?

How was it possible Angel could know, as he claimed on "Larry King" and elsewhere, that "Believe" was the best-selling show in Vegas when most of the other shows in town are also private companies? Of course, if he could know all those secret numbers, Angel would be such an amazing mentalist that he would probably have a show capable of filling all the seats at face value each night. Sadly, marketing can only get you so far. And,now they even have to go out and sell that seat Heidi used to sit in each performance. Oh, sorry, Holly.

Photo: Sarah Gerke

So the question for months has been will I or won't I interview Criss Angel? And the answer has been hard to come by. There were vacations. There was prodding necessary, and there were lags in response time.

As readers of the Buffet know, I loathed Angel's Cirque show at Luxor. I joined many other critics at being aghast at how badly "Believe" turned out. But Angel has a 10-year contract at the casino, and I wanted to do a Q&A with him that allowed him to address the show, the changes being made to it and how people should view it. I assured his personal publicist that as I was already on record as not liking the show, my goal would be to ask very general questions and let Angel take them any way he wanted in answering. I was not approaching Criss Angel like "Frost/Nixon." I honestly wanted to let the guy explain ways that "Believe" can be appreciated that have totally eluded me and give him a chance to plug the improvements being made. This blog is my opinion, but it is also the voices of Vegas. And I have always been happy to include Angel's voice among them as this blog's history indicates.

Keep in mind I review almost every show on the Strip and often have to deal with the social awkwardness of interviewing someone in a show to whom I have given a bad review. Usually they are professionals and they get that just because I don't like a show or wrote something they don't consider flattering, that is my job: Give honest opinions of shows and offer commentary on what happens in Vegas. So, for example, while I gave a less than stellar review to Donny and Marie, I expect to interview one of them soon. That is typical of how things work in Vegas. When you are performing for years in a place, a bad review on a blog is discussed for one day, but you still can use the medium to promote your show, and so you ignore the reviewer and talk directly to the audience. That is what I wanted to give Angel the opportunity to do. In fact, it is readers of this blog he is dissing more than he is me. Many of you have been defending his show. Anyway, having already experimented with some serious discounting, you would think, "Believe" could probably use the press.

Anyway, I finally was able to pry a difinitive answer from Angel's publicist, who said he must first talk it over with Criss. As I suspected, it appears the policy about no exclusive interviews proved a smokescreen for Angel's sensitive response to what I've written about him. According to his publicist:

"As far as Criss is concerned, the Q&A won't happen for a myriad of reasons. Mainly because I'm not happy with the shots you've taken at him in the past. Whatever assurance you can give against that happening in this story isn't enough to forget what has already happened."

In fact, nothing has happened except my reporting on his public behavior as well as offering my opinion of the quality of his show. In truth, I have been scrupulous of staying clear of the darker corners of the 'Net, where haters with nasty rumors lurk, and I have stayed out of his private life as much as possible for a man who shares a publicist with his girlfriend. (His marriage and divorce issues have gotten no attention from me as they have in tabloids.)  All I have done is hold a mirror up to Criss Angel's public behavior, and it seems he does not like the reflection.

You will note that the publicist, doing a good job, takes responsibility for the decision, but in fact he talked it over with Angel first and Angel is a self-confessed control freak and you pick the people to represent you who represent you the way you want. So let us assume the obvious: Angel and his publicist are in harmony about refusing to do a Q&A with me.

Compare this behavior to Penn & Teller, who finish each show by standing in the lobby of their Rio theater and talking to any customers who come up to them. Can a man who pretends to be run over by a steamroller and escape from exploding buildings really be so thin-skinned about words? And, I might add, accurate words or words that merely express my opinion. Never have any facts I have written about Angel been challenged by him. The truth is that I am amazed that of all the headliners in Vegas, Criss Angel would prove to be, dare I say, afraid of me?  Wasn't he supposed to be tough, cool, rock guy?

Anyway, this is a tiny town in that media, headliners and events are all concentrated on the Strip. So I am certain to see Angel in the next months at some event or on some red carpet. I wonder how far he will take things. On the red carpet, to avoid my questions will he hide behind his publicist literally as well as he has figuratively? Should I make a squawking chicken noise at the mindfreak whose mind I seem to have freaked out?

Photo: Sarah Gerke