(Close Window)
Topic: Do you consider David Blaine a bizarrist?
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Sep 15, 2003 10:28AM)
The stuff he does, does border on being bizarre...

I personally think he qualifies...

Do you?

:online:
Message: Posted by: Mark Rough (Sep 15, 2003 10:52AM)
I do think that he is bizarre alright. But hey, different strokes for different folks.

Mark
Message: Posted by: zeroG (Sep 15, 2003 11:04AM)
I don't mean to put a lable on bizarrist, but story-telling is a very important part of their art. So this being said my oppinion would be that David Copperfield is more of a bizarrist than David Blain. If there was more build up and a story that added meaning to D.B. pulling his heart out of his chest, I would consider it.
Or the short answer: no.
Message: Posted by: The Curator (Sep 15, 2003 11:21AM)
I agree with zeroG, the storytelling approach is an important factor in bizarre magic. Definitively, not.
Message: Posted by: Necromancer (Sep 15, 2003 11:26AM)
Unlike ZeroG, I don't think that all bizarre magick is verbally oriented storytelling magic. In my mind, it is character-based performance that seeks not to generally amuse, but to hit people on an emotional level. And this, I believe Blaine often accomplishes.
Message: Posted by: montz (Sep 15, 2003 12:33PM)
Definitely a bizarrist, in my opinion... In that people are coming to the conclusion that he can genuinely perform the effects he does.

In my opinion,

Liam
Message: Posted by: Caleb Strange (Sep 15, 2003 03:42PM)
Interesting question, Pakar, and I think the answer lies depends on how you define the term 'bizarrist'.

Although I generally work at the story-telling end of the spectrum, I agree with Neil that 'character based performances, that seek not to generally amuse, but to hit people on an emotional level' must also be considered bizarre magic. I also recognise, along with montz, that much bizarre magic seems unnervingly real; that at its heart can lurk a delicious, disturbing ambiguity.

So yep. I do think of Blaine as a bizarrist. And, unlike some magicians, I enjoy his work very much.

However, I don't think the snappy TV format that he works in particularly suits bizarre magic, but then dwindling audience attention spans are the bane of all bizarrists. And, I'd like to see him expand the range of his material, and, occasionally, be a bit more innovative.

But do I wish I had just a fraction of the following: his weird charisma; his powerfully unnerving presence; his keen eye for publicity stunts?

You betcha!

Regards,

Caleb Strange.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Sep 16, 2003 04:25AM)
Ah... I see... Thanks for your opinions everyone...

:online:
Message: Posted by: Anabelle (Sep 16, 2003 05:58PM)
Some of what he does is for sure bizarre in my opinion.

Anabelle :giving:
Message: Posted by: daminfell (Sep 16, 2003 06:20PM)
I'll have to agree with montz on this. The first time I saw David Blaine he certainly had me questioning what I had seen.
Message: Posted by: dpe666 (Sep 16, 2003 11:31PM)
I think Blaine is a magician who does not know what he wants to be. One minute he is doing "String From Stomach" the next he is doing some "Endurance Test", and the next minute he is doing "Cig Through Quarter" and "pick a card and I will find it effects". Acting like a stoned freak and doing card tricks does not make you a bizarrist. :devilish:
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Sep 17, 2003 07:14AM)
dpe666 wrote...

"Acting like a stoned freak and doing card tricks does not make you a bizarrist."

Well, if THAT doesn't qualify as being "bizarre" then I don't know what does! :rotf:

Well... to each his own...


:online:
Message: Posted by: hackmonkey (Sep 17, 2003 09:58AM)
Dpe666 I think it took David a while to 'find' himself. He did the regular 'pick a card' effects on his first special as well as the 'cig-thru-coin'. I think he did the string from stomach on his second special and by the last two specials the card tricks had nearly dissapeared. I think in Vertigo he didn't do any card or coin stuff.

When David first came out I wasn't a big fan, but after hearing so many 'lay-people' talk about him as if he was supernatural, and have my friends ask me if he did real magic I began to change my mind. I hadn't heard people talk about magic in such awed tones since Geller's early days. Also after meeting him a few times and chatting with him I feel he is a nice guy who genuinley loves magic.
Message: Posted by: Ellen Kotzin (Sep 17, 2003 04:48PM)
I think he is figuring out an identity. He is 'bizarre' in my book--freaky at the most..but not BIZARRE in magic. I think his choice of "tricks" or stunts can be considered a whole new category. Perhaps "crazy stunt magician" or who knows.

Anyway--I don't think he is in the same category as BIZARRE magic. :realnerdy:

Ellen
Message: Posted by: Chad Sanborn (Sep 18, 2003 04:39PM)
I am not a big fan of the terms we use to describe the various types of magic done today. Bizarre, Mentalism, Mental Magic, Stage Magic, Illusions, Parlor Magic,etc... They all have the same roots and all showcase things that are outside the known laws of physics.

The one thing that really seperates how the effects are percieved, are the performers who display them.

We as magicians,(mentalists, bizarrists, etc.) seperate the effects into categories and convey those categories to our audiences. It is us who set boundaries as to what effect fits into what category. And it is us who make it a point to keep those categories seperate.

I think that part of David's appeal is that he is able to mix the categories and blurr the lines of what we would call 'magic and mentalism'.

I think what Hackmonkey said about laypeople thinking he was supernatural only emphasizes this point. He does not define himself as a magician, mentalist, bizarrist, and as a result, does not define what category his effects fit into. Thus giving him an enviable position to pick and choose from ALL of them.

Something to think about.

Chad
Message: Posted by: Jordini (Sep 21, 2003 10:57PM)
I must say, the diamond up the nose and out the eye trick was quite well done. I do this trick with watermelon seeds, airsoft gun bullets, and other small things, but I don't know how he did it with a borrowed diamond.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Oct 3, 2003 09:29AM)
I have to agree with you there Chad... :online:
Message: Posted by: Lee Darrow (Oct 3, 2003 10:03AM)
Well, he describes HIMSELF as a PERFORMANCE ARTIST.

That qualifies as bizarre, but I'm not sure it fits into the generally accepted definition that we, as magicians, have of a bizarrist.

But I remember someone doing a really strange routine with a fish and three hands at an Invocational many years ago. It was bizarre, but not occult in orientation - and it was a SILENT act, done to music, IIRC.

Just my 2 cent's worth.

Lee Darrow, C.Ht.
Message: Posted by: Peter Marucci (Oct 4, 2003 04:26AM)
I don't know if Blaine quite qualifies as a bizarrist.

But I would certainly say that his fans are bizarre!
Message: Posted by: teejay (Oct 5, 2003 05:10AM)
[quote]
On 2003-09-15 16:42, Caleb Strange wrote:
Interesting question, Pakar, and I think the answer lies depends on how you define the term 'bizarrist'.
Although I generally work at the story-telling end of the spectrum, I agree with Neil that 'character based performances, that seek not to generally amuse, but to hit people on an emotional level' must also be considered bizarre magic. I also recognise, along with montz, that much bizarre magic seems unnervingly real; that at its heart can lurk a delicious, disturbing ambiguity.
So yep. I do think of Blaine as a bizarrist. And, unlike some magicians, I enjoy his work very much.
However, I don't think the snappy TV format that he works in particularly suits bizarre magic, but then dwindling audience attention spans are the bane of all bizarrists. And, I'd like to see him expand the range of his material, and, occasionally, be a bit more innovative.

But do I wish I had just a fraction of the following: his weird charisma; his powerfully unnerving presence; his keen eye for publicity stunts?

You betcha!

Regards,

Caleb Strange.
[/quote]
Caleb
You are spot on
Forum members can quite rightly argue if he is 'Bizarre' or not.
His audiences know he is
:rotf:
Message: Posted by: Luis Sirgado (Oct 5, 2003 08:53AM)
For me David Blaine is a Faquir, not a magician, being in a pillar, being frozen into ice, and living for 44 days in a pexiglas box without eating, is faquir stuff, not magicians stuff


:band:
Message: Posted by: cepillo (Oct 6, 2003 10:13PM)
I think he is just a showman , not a bizarrist.
Message: Posted by: shrink (Oct 7, 2003 07:14PM)
Blaines latest stunt is pretty Bizarre if you ask me: I can't beleive anyone would care whether he stays in the box or not. And reportedly he is getting a cool 5 million for hanging about. I like David Blaine but this latest stunt is pretty dull and I do have sympathy for some of his critics here in the Uk when they point out people are starving and living in cardboard boxes within a stone's throw away.

I think he got it wrong this time and his endurance stunts are pretty boring in general. He should get back to performing magic.

A newspaper showed pics of him today with an empty crisp packet on the floor of his box... :dance:
Message: Posted by: J.Warrens (Oct 17, 2003 06:06AM)
Greetings!
I agree with Mr.Marucci.
The funny thing is he is world famous and very well off financially. I bet you, he (D.Blaine) finds it bizzare that magicians are having these discussions!
One thing's for sure: If I were Mr.Blaine, I certainly wouldn't care what any magicians had to say!
Cheers,
J.Warrens