Not enough magic in David Haig’s tense drama
Chichester Festival Theatre
⭑⭑⭑

Magic- the art of creating something believable that seems inexplicable. The magic of an illusionist like Houdini. The magic of spiritualism. The magic of actors creating real people. There are many kinds of magic explored and linked in David Haig‘s play Magic at Chichester Festival Theatre, about the time Sir Arthur Conan Doyle met Harry Houdini. The concept is genuinely interesting, and well acted. But is it magical theatre? I’m afraid not quite.
The play is about a search for truth (something even more urgent today than then, I suspect). Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes, and Houdini, the world’s greatest illusionist, form a friendship because both are genuinely interested in whether those they love live on after death. They both would like spiritualism to be the answer. Doyle, the creator Sherlock Holmes, turns out to be far more gullible than Houdini, who is cynical because he is well versed in the tricks of his own trade.
First a word about spiritualism. It was a religious movement, popular in the US and the UK, that gained a lot of traction after the First World War when people were grieving for dead sons, not to mention the many who died in the great Influenza outbreak of 1919. More than a simple belief in ghosts, spiritualists at the time thought that the spirits of people who die live on in the afterlife and can be contacted to guide or comfort us, through mediums. Already a spiritualist, Sir Arthur became an even more fervent believer after the loss of members of his family, in particular his beloved son Kingsley who was killed in the Great War. Houdini was devoted to his dead mother and dearly wished to be able to communicate with her.
It’s a drama loosely based on a true story. The true bit being that Doyle and Houdini formed a friendship back in the 1920s, based on mutual admiration and a common interest in the afterlife. In the play, it becomes strained because Doyle’s obession with spiritualism led him to refuse to believe evidence that magic did not exist (he was even convinced that some of Houdini’s tricks involved genuine dematerialisation). The illusionist showed an equally obsessive determination to expose fake mediums’ ruses. Unfortunately for their friendship, this included the medium who apparently united Doyle with his dead son, and the writer’s own wife who pretended to receive messages from beyond the grave. In real life, they became distant enemies but in the play their residual mutual admiration means they maintain a fractious friendship that adds a real tension to the drama. That’s a trick of the writer’s trade- conflict being the driver of great stories.
David Haig, who wrote the script, plays Doyle. Hadley Fraser is Houdini. The pair exude both warmth and grief. Haig plays Doyle as a good chap, who, as an ex-public schoolboy, has been taught to contain his complex emotions, but can’t hold back his enthusiasm and his desperation. One of the many tricks of his trade as an actor is a twinkly-eyed smile that he deploys to magical effect. Hadley Fraser is appropriately stocky, pugilistic, thin-skinned and burning with passion, much like a bulldog puppy.
Tricks of the trade
Jenna Augen and Claire Price provide sharp depictions of their highly supportive wives, Bess Houdini and Jean Conan Doyle. Although the humorous down-to-earth New Yorker and buttoned-up middle class Brit are in sharp contrast, they too form a friendship, and provide us with a useful break from the intensity of the main characters. Jade Williams is a suitably melodramatic medium.
There is poignancy to the play. It shows us the depths of grief and what it can do to us, be it heartbreak or obsession. So there is theatrical magic in the story of these two characters’ friendship, and that’s where David Haig’s script and Lucy Bailey‘s production scores. Where it goes wrong is when it tries to show us the magic of seances and illusions.
We can only imagine the spectacle and showmanship of Houdini’s shows. Trying to show us this on the limitations of a theatre budget is a mistake. We begin with Houdini performing one of his great escapes- he is suspended upside down while releasing himself from handcuffs. Far from causing my jaw to drop, all I could manage was a shrug. If he’d been in chains and underwater, then maybe… Similarly, near the end, he appears to walk through a brick wall, but of course it’s a piece of scenery, presumably made of wood not brick, and there isn’t time for the kind of buildup that Houdini would have given such a main event. Having said that, there are many lovely little touches, for example when Harry is sitting chatting and casually makes a playing card appear and disappear in his hand. Credit to illusion designer John Bullein.
A couple of seances are recreated, and are more comical than spine-tingling, Carrying them out partly in the dark simply left me in the dark as to how Doyle could fall for them.
Add to this, Chichester’s large thrust stage is set out with a proscenium arch at the back to remind us, that Houdini’s act and the seances, and indeed the play itself, are all theatre. Joanna Parker‘s design is lovely but again a low budget of four or five vaudeville showgirls moving lightweight scenery around doesn’t make for theatrical magic. I’m sad to say, it just looks half baked.
A difficult decision no doubt, but I think this intimate drama would have worked better in Chichester’s smaller Minerva Theatre.
Magic can be seen at Chichester Festival Theatre until 16 May 2026. Buy tickets directly from the theatre
Paul was given a review ticket by the theatre.
Click here to watch this review on the YouTube channel Theatre Reviews With Paul Seven




