|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 [Next] | ||||||||||
Cyberqat Inner circle You can tell I work on the net from my 2209 Posts |
Quote:
Probably because it is still an "impossible" object penetration with a hint of danger that lends it drama. Quote:
I know that most magicians think it is funny to place spectators in uncomfortable situations in the attempt to get laughs, but what does that say about us? Does that make us the kind of person others would want to be around? Straw man if you are talking to me, as I said almost exactly the opposite.
It is always darkest just before you are eaten by a grue.
|
|||||||||
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-11-08 08:31, Potty the Pirate wrote: So your argument is that since David didn't list all the tricks that are flawed, we shouldn't consider his list for any items that might be flawed. Your logic is impenetrable. Quote:
Apparently you don't know how stereotypes work. Effects don't create anything, but they are imbued with meaning as defined by their previous use - by magicians - who have forever linked them with negative connotations. Again - there is a man standing in a tux and hat in a living room. The floor is littered with silk scarves. In one hand he holds rings, in another feather flowers. There is a guillotine behind him - what do we think about this person? I know what hollywood thinks. I know what cartoonists think. I know what the media thinks - because each of these has used this imagery to convey a desperate, hackneyed, socially inept character. The tricks didn't create the stereotype. We did. But now the link is made. you advocate closing one's eyes and pretending it's not there. David suggests we merely recognize that these props have associations and deal with them. Quote:
You keep on about the change bag and guillotine. If you have decided that a hat, plastic bag, other other similar recepticle, which does exactly the same as a change bag, is not a change bag, then you're really arguing against the whole original article. No. I'm not. Not at all. For example, David is very clear that the use of out dated and unfamiliar objects should be updated. Color changing CDs will soon be as irrelevant as color changing records. The change bag, in it's day, was clever. It was a familiar device (the use of which in a magician's show was actually kind of funny) that accomplished something secret. The dove pan and coffee vases used to resemble contemporary housewares (of the 1800's). No one is suggesting not to produce birds or transform cotton into coffee - only that the props should resemble normal items if you intend on being a magician, as opposed to someone who just bought a bunch of tricks. Quote:
In other words, Terry Seabrooke's barbed wire Linking Rings are NOT linking rings. Now your being absurd. They are still the linking rings because anyone who looks at them - even a layman - knows they are a linking ring. There are not nor ever were intended to be a stealth object, disguised as something familiar. Further, I would say that I don't think barbing rings adds anything to the effect except for perhaps being an inside gag for magicians. What do the add or how do they inform the question, "what is this trick about?" Short answer is, they don't. Quote:
And if someone wears a bright pink tail coat and matching top hat, they're not "top hat and tails" because they're not black and traditional. And what about the whole genre of silk magic? If I used a different type of cloth, would that become acceptable? Wow, David's essay really got you riled up. Now your just spouting nonsense. Changing the color of a thing does not change the thing. A green change bag is no better than a red one. However, dropping a bill into a pencil holder from which you just emptied a bunch of pens does change the thing. Why do magicians wear tuxes? Do you know? At times it seems like you know very little of our art's history, Potty. There is a very good reason magicians wore tuxes. Is that reason still valid? Quote:
So this is all really about YOU. I thought so. You glanced at David's post, saw some tricks that you did, and got all defensive. But here you get to the truth: "film the proceedings as I proceed to "humiliate" one of the gentlemen present. But, it's all done in harmless fun, and the hapless victim is usually only too happy to play along " 1) your routine is essentially about humiliating someone. Of course, so is everyone elses. So, I don't see how this does anything put prove my point. Do modern audiences enjoy being humiliated or seeing their friends so? Would you want to spend time with someone who was known to "humiliate" others for his own ends? Hey - some people are jerks. What can I say. 2) USUALLY happy to play along - which means, they aren't always. Is it worth it? Because even if the one guy plays along, what does the other guy think. Is he a "usually" or is he just happy he wasn't chosen. And getting someone to "play along" seems a far cry from having people wanting to be a participant in your experience. But hey, you take what you can get, right? Quote:
If it's true that you have really seen so many shows, and your standards are really so high, then indeed, you are expressing a rather arrogant notion that the World is full of hacks, and there are only a handful of worthy magicians. Arrogant, because it is, simply, wrong. Of course, the Penn and Teller's of the World will be rare, but that doesn't mean that there aren't thousands of quality performers out there in the trenches. I find it incredible that anyone who is really working the very high end of our market would be so ignorant. And what about the agencies who supply magicians for cruise ships? Their standards are much lower than yours? Or for resorts, hotels and holiday camps? For public events? Do you believe that all these other agencies are happy with hacks, and you employ only an elite few can really entertain? Wow - you really excel about drawing conclusions that are based on nothing. First, I am not an agency. I produce and design events. Many of those events involve magic and magicians. Not an agency. But thanks for playing. and yes, you say there are thousands of great magicians. I disagree. Was at a fair this summer. They had a magician. He was awful. But he killed the time and the kids were diverted. Do you want to be a magician or a babysitter? They both pay. Quote:
On 2010-11-08 09:59, Potty the Pirate wrote: Ok, so we've established you don't know a lot about history and logic, let's move on to math. The world doesn't divide in halves. A bell curve is a better analogy. Most of the hacks will make up the majority of the middle. At one end are the terribly awful, at the other the truly wonderful. What is the distribution? I would say you are far too kind. Take the yellow pages or a magic convention. Randomly throw a lasso around any 10 people. Ask them to do a trick. (Or call up ten random names in the phone book from around any state and ask them to perform a show.) How many of them can do a trick at all? Or do a show beginning to end without error? How many of their shows will actually deceive adults? How many will engage adults? How many will be doing standard material in standard ways? How many will be doing novel (if not original) material? How many will move their audiences and be remembered by name for years? Oh - I'm curious, where in David's essay does he claim it has anything to do with being hack? I can't even find that word in the text. did you actually read it or just stop when you saw he listed tricks you do? For the record, I would rather have a hack act who knows his lines, is socially presentable, and has chosen strong material over someone whose original ideas are half baked and presented poorly. But the number of magicians who can do 60 minutes of material simply adequately is far less than the number of people who have "kid shows, trade shows, and web design" printed on their business cards. Viva la change bag! |
|||||||||
Potty the Pirate Inner circle 4632 Posts |
You have your opinion of what David's article says, and that's just fine. But to answer a few of your points; the stereotype you describe - magician standing in front room, etc - will only actually BE a steretype IF the performer behaves in a stereotypical manner. Perhaps his entire show has nothing to do with Linking Rings, or the set around him? But, if the scene was just as you described, one could only assume that the performer WANTS this stereotypical image for his performance. As I say, this still doesn't imply that the act has to be a stereotype. Also, you're hung up on the "crappy magician" stereotype - but the image you describe is just a stereotype magician, not neccessarily a bad magician. Sometimes the guy in top hat and tails makes miracles happen, and is a GOOD magician.
You really don't understand that many adults ENJOY being the centre of attention, and "ritually humiliated"? I thought you claimed to understand audiences! Again, I wonder just where you have seen all these magic shows you speak of? Yes, it's a familiar plot, because this is what people want. I guess you don't watch TV? There are gameshows by the dozen which humiliate people. Folks are CLAMOURING to appear on these shows. The World is NOT lacking in eager participants, and a GOOD entertainer will have NO PROBLEM in finding willing accomplices, and in gauging exactly how far he can go with any particular individual. Here is the kind of reaction you can get from the "humiliated assistants"; this is part of an email I received a couple of months back: "....thank you for making our holiday.....our son Dylan really enjoyed both of your shows on the way to France and on the return journey. You pulled me out of the audience for the human puppet, as a prize you gave me the cow balloon. Many many thanks again for making our holiday." Yes, the man who was made fun of in front of a big audience wrote to say "thank you". It sounds to me as if you've never really witnessed this eager participation at magic shows, even in those magicians you consider to meet your standards? Well, it happens all the time at magic shows around the World. You are just unaware of it. You say: "Ok, so we've established you don't know a lot about history and logic, let's move on to math." How about first, you learn English - the word "arbitrary" means "depending on choice or discretion, selected at random". I did say the numbers I chose were arbitrary. I think it's probably unfair to call 50% of the full-time magicians in the World "hacks". There are a lot of poor magicians, but I think the majority are part-time, or amateur. Those who perform hundreds of shows a year normally (but not always) develop a good rapport, engaging show, and eventually deliver a great end-product. If you think of the number of cruise ships in the World - each has a magician once or twice a month, on average - then there are already thousands of magicians working at sea, let alone at all the thousands of holiday destinations. Sure, some of the cheaper cruise lines might employ hacks, but do you think it's likely that a bunch of hacks perform on the hundreds of 5 star and 5 star+ cruise ships? Or at the thousands of Sheraton, Hilton, Hyatt, Intercontinental Hotels and other resorts? Plenty of these guys will perform the Andersen Paper Tear, or a silk routine of some kind. Many shows I've seen also have a female assistant, with choreographed scenes including silks. Perhaps this is a stereotype, but I consider it "timeless"...and certainly entertaining. I've torn your argument open at both ends, but still you cling to the remnants of an opinion you thought was beyond question. The real reason for this rather pointless debate, is that the original article was so badly flawed - indeed, a bad piece of writing. The theme could so easily have been hilariously funny, struck a chord with all performers, and contain no prejudices or screams of dissent. We all understand the sinking feeling when one sees another hack pull out a bunch of clattering rings. If this had been described from the point of view of the author, as a comedy narrative, I think the points David was trying to make would have been much clearer, and far less open to question. A well-written article would have left the conclusions to the reader, instead of stuffing them down the throat. But between him and TT, you've just gone and insulted half the World's Magicians, in an attempt to justify what is, at the end of the day, a poor piece of journalistic pap. My opinion |
|||||||||
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
Oh potty,
First, I don't have opinions about what david's essay means. I know. Why? Because he is a very good friend with whom I have worked on hundreds of projects because he has an incredibly discerning eye. When I was putting together an event for a private party over new years eve in st Barth and arranging a show for the leading figures in the Russian space program outside of Moscow, he was my right hand man. I say this for two reasons : 1. Because you enjoy patting yourself on the back, I wanted you to see how easy it is for others to do it too and 2. To let you know that I have discussed each of these points with David and am not expressing my opinion of his work. Once again, you say things based on nothing. Must be a pirate thing. Second, my issue is not with your arbitrary number of fifty percent but with the notion that deviations occur in clumps as opposed to a bell curve. If you are going to get all 'mathy' at least do the correct operations even if you guess at the value of the variables. Third, if a performer wants to do an ironic act, then he is aware of the signals he is giving off. But just look at most magicians promos - you know, the working pros. It is obvious they are un aware of the images and associated connotations with which they conjure that fact remains, when Hollywood wants to portray a schmo he is a tux wearing magician with scarves flowers and a head chopper. You can put you fingers in your ears and cover your eye, but it's not going away. That's what the vast majority of people think. And while you have yet to present o e substantive piece of evidence or logic to discredit my arguments, you have at least gotten to the heart of the matter. You believe it is ok to humiliate people onstage for your own ends. If you want your work to take magic on the direction of reality tv, where people are used in order to fill time and sell cheeseburgers, that's cool. I can even respect someone who is honest about their intentions. But that doesn't mean that what they are doing is good for magic or presents them (or their fellow man) in a respectable light. But hey man, whatever floats your boat, right? Arrrr |
|||||||||
Potty the Pirate Inner circle 4632 Posts |
OK, so now I think you've explained yourself more clearly. You have an interest in the "high-end" market, right? Your standards are set very high to match the expectations of your clients. You have a poor opinion of most entertainers, because they don't meet your standards. You want "classy" acts that don't bring themselves down to the level of the working man (who constitutes the largest part of the World audience for magic). You don't want a show that mirrors and suggests contemporary reality shows? That's all very well. But, to look down at other entertainers - yes - those workers without who there could be no stars to shine brightest - is arrogant. In my experience, those who have this attitude don't last long in the entertainment industry. Remember that most great performers weren't always great, and most have strong affections with folks who are in the trenches.
And, I STILL have to question the fact that you presumably believe that companies like Royal Caribbean would employ hack magicians? I happen to know that they are extremely proud of their shows and theatrical productions, and that goes right to the top of the company. They find hundreds of magicians who meet their standards. Not good enough for you? By the way, you really don't want me to get "all mathy".....logic, philosophy and maths were my majors.....but why be obtuse and pretend you don't understand what I was saying? The answer is clear: because you have no answer. :) Posted: Nov 9, 2010 3:11pm By the way, you evidently don't know: Russians would LOVE the Guillotine Illusion. These folks are full of bravado and macho ideas. This is JUST the kind of thing that would get the vodka flowing, and the atmosphere suitably charged. I wonder what you offered them instead? |
|||||||||
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
Oh potty.
The royal carribean employs hundreds of magicians? Really? Hundreds? You're cute. And while I do work for some very high end clients, I do not believe in giving the working man anything but the best. Sure tv and movies play to the lowest common denominator. Taco bell makes a lot of money too. Clearly that's all you care about. Whatever it takes to get the money. It's cool man, it is. I think it's callous and rude to humiliate another human being, but it's your show. Having said that, I love a clever insult comic. But an insult comic doesn't set expectations that will effect every other comic the audience sees. Not true with magic You keep playing dress up and singing songs. I'll do what I can to convince adults that magic is a worthy art form for intelligent human beings to pursue. I'll work to over come their reluctance to help because they have seen their peers paraded around on stage for the amusement of others. Keep using change bags. It will make it easier for me to deceive them using - well, anything else b And when you ask a member of Russian parliment to do a funny walk onstage in front of his peers, drop me a line from Siberia. Ha ha. I kid. You won't make it out of the room. |
|||||||||
Potty the Pirate Inner circle 4632 Posts |
OK, I'll carry on performing for real modern audiences, who DO like to watch, and take part in the show. Your audiences consist of reluctant folks who don't like to get up on stage. You don't like "game show" or "reality show" style performances. Perhaps you should consider, from your castle in the air, that these are the some of the most popular shows on TV. You don't believe in "dressing up" or "singing songs".....that's your choice. Whatever show I'm performing, I ALWAYS wear a "costume" of some kind. And, yes, I almost always include songs in my shows. The modern audiences I encounter are kinda fond of music. And I, along with many, many other magicians, don't have the audience management problems you talk of.
"I'll do what I can to convince adults that magic is a worthy art form for intelligent human beings to pursue." You go ahead. I'll stick to being an entertainer, thanks. My audiences go away asking each other how on Earth that guy did those things.....and talking about how hilarious it was to see various audience members involved in the action. It's very worthy that you would like them to go away thinking: "Hmmm.....magic IS a worthy and intelligent art form." Horses for courses. Potty |
|||||||||
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
Do pirates learn logic?
You CAN elevate one's perception of magic as an art while entertaining. They are not mutually exclusive. Humiliation and artistic elevation ,however, are. Arrrrr |
|||||||||
Potty the Pirate Inner circle 4632 Posts |
TT wrote: "The royal carribean employs hundreds of magicians? Really?
Hundreds? You're cute." Of course, I can't give you an exact figure. But, RC currently operates 22 ships, with passenger capacities of 2500+. Every one of these ships has a headline show about 5 nights a week, often with a supporting act. (All shows are presented twice, one for each seating of dinner). This makes over 100 headline shows a week, plus supporting acts, not to mention the vast numbers of other entertainers they employ for lounge and deck work, house band, dancers, and of course, the BIG spectacular shows that are "resident" on the ship. When I worked for RC, they usually had a magician once or twice a month; and many of the magicians would only work one or two contracts a year with RC. This meant every ship would see about seven or eight different magicians every year. I'll let you do the rest of the math. And, don't forget, this is just ONE cruise line of many. You have really latched onto my use of the word "humiliation"; yet, I have been quite clear that this is done in an ENTERTAINING way. In other words, it's an ACT, and the audience, as well as those helping on stage, are absolutely aware of that. Those entertainers who just call up audience members, and then can't create a good bit of banter, and plain boring. Having a bit of fun, making wisecracks, and hopefully getting your audience member to answer back, works very well. It always has done, and is a staple of the stage entertainer. Whilst sticking a spike through someone's hand is GENUINELY humiliating, turning a spectator into a puppet, andhaving him act out various absurdities, is MOCK humiliation. Same with the guillotine, and same with many routines I've witnessed. Of course, the spectator is NOT really humilited, nor does he EVER feel so. As I've explained before. But, you don't believe that's possible, even though I quoted a comment sent from just such a spectator. It IS all down to the performer, to make his stage helpers feel comfortable, whilst creating the EFFECT of mild humiliation. There, is that clearer now? Doubt it, as you have ignored or dismissed every logical argument I've proposed. :) |
|||||||||
Potty the Pirate Inner circle 4632 Posts |
Here's a presentation idea that you'll almost certainly detest, TT:
Performer introduces the "Jeremy Vile Show", "Choprah Show", or whatever else he might have come up with. Four couples are invited up from the audience. After introducing his guests, the performer asks for personal gripes the couples have about each other. Naturally, considerable audience management skills are required to tread on sensitive areas like this. As the spectators complain about things their other halves have done, the audience are encouraged to cheer or boo the various antics and reactions that follow. The "worst offender" is chosen (a man), and discovers he must face a punishment. This is when the guillotine is revealed. Partner is allowed to release the blade, etc. This is loosely based on my presentation. Of course, it IS a stereotype - but merely the parody of a modern one, the daytime chat show. It's highly interactive, and lots of fun. It can also be played more or less aggresively, depending on the audience. Above all, the routine is commercial, and one that works in the modern day. Whether or not this represents "artistic elevation" is another matter. I don't get paid to do that. I'm paid to entertain. Potty |
|||||||||
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
Youve been very clear
You think humiliating an audience member is entertaining. We get it Viva la change bag! |
|||||||||
Potty the Pirate Inner circle 4632 Posts |
Yes, I get it- you can't answer any of my rebuttals with a coherent argument. Apparently, you don't believe that genuinely endangering audience members is humiliating - as you say it's "up to them" if performers want to do it. But, you see comedy banter and play-acting as truly humiliating.
I'm curious how you believe performers should interact with their audience helpers? Should they be all demure and "yes sir, no sir"? Should they be polite and genteel, and simply confuddle the spectator with their amazing skills? Is it OK to spike someone's hand, as long as the performer was nice to them, and it was just unlucky that an accident occurred? Though I can never condone genuinely dangerous stunts, the choice to include "dangerous" magic or "on-the-edge" patter, is down to the performer, the style of performance, and of course, the audience that he will be facing. There are SO many performers who use caustic dialogue and wisecracks with their audience helpers. Are you now trying to say that this, too, is fundamentally flawed? Do I need to add this to David's list, if I want to elevate the perception of magic as an art? Well, there's no hope for me. If only I had tunnel vision, I'd see only some idealistic show that was full of innovation and astonishment, in which I would deliver a perfectly-choreographed demonstration of my absolute and undeniable skills. Instead, here I am, thinking up routines that entertain modern audiences, and are relevant but irreverent, funny but sometimes awkwardly so, amazing to watch, whilst constantly allowing the performer to step back from the action, and let others be the stars of the show. What am I thinking? |
|||||||||
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
Learn to read, Pirate.
Show me one argument you have made. You have made none. Your posts boil down to - "I, and others, get booked doing this nonsense and making magic look like a diversion for children and retards, so there." It boils down to intent. If you WANT to look like a tool, then please, look like a tool. Just do it intentionally. Know that when you wear your tux in a family restaurant, and when you pull scarves out of tubes, you are playing into every schmoo stereotype of a magician that exists. You can still do it, just embrace it as your character. The problem is most magicians have never once thought what it is they are actually saying to their audiences. To wit: If there is to be drama in a guillotine routine, then the audience must believe there is danger. So, you are essentially saying "I am putting you in harms way and there is a risk that you will get hurt." That IS the message - or, you must confess, there is no drama. How is that different than actually putting them in harms way? The audience has no idea? For the record, I do NOT think it is good for magic or one's insurance premiums to endanger spectators. Consequently, I do not believe it is good for magic to pretend you are going to endanger spectators. But you DO! And you are not alone. Many others do - so much so that one, two, Three days ago I saw . . . You get the idea. Now, if somebody wants to make putting people at risk "their thing" and they do so intentionally, I have to respect that. And so would you, because there is no difference in the feeling the volunteer gets when he THINKS he is in danger, whether that threat is real or (unbeknownst to him) not. And if an magician or comic wants to be rude - then he should BE rude, so fully and completely rude that everyone who sees him (or her) knows they are the rude magician. But how many do that? Instead we see guys and gals throw out the occasional stupid line and people think "what a jerk." it fails as an intentional performance choice - they just look like a jerk. So, let me do YOUR work for you and spell out what you are saying: If you do magic with records, it says you have no clue what decade it is. If you are wearing a tux, unless you are at a black tie affair, it says you have no understanding of social conventions or fashion. If you use a change bag, it says that you bought your props at a magic store (and apparently not a very good one) and that if they had the bag they could do it too. If you make people dance like puppets and do funny walks, it says that you don't care about their feelings, that getting the laugh is more important to you than their dignity, and that you think it's ok to boss people around and make them do things they wouldn't do without being bullied or pressured into it. If you use a guillotine, it says that either you intend to put the audience in harms way OR you you are going to waste their time with a bunch of nonsense because you know everyone knows there is no risk, so there is no point. Now if your character is a behind the times, fashion troll, who likes to insult people by making them his pawns, and threatens them with harm while making them humiliate themselves in front of their peers for his own sick amusement - then that could be hilarious - if done intentionally. But as none of the people who use these things ARE playing that character - it's just sad. It's ok Potty. You've chosen your plank. Walk away, son. Walk away. |
|||||||||
Mr. Mystoffelees Inner circle I haven't changed anyone's opinion in 3623 Posts |
[ To wit: If there is to be drama in a guillotine routine, then the audience must believe there is danger. So, you are essentially saying "I am putting you in harms way and there is a risk that you will get hurt." ]
When I go to roller derby or a pro wrestling match, I allow myself to feel danger that, in the cool light of day, I know is an illusion. I really don't want those people who are entertaining me to get hurt. When I go to a bull-riding competition, I trust that the athleticism and experience of the riders will see them thru a tough ride. I rather trust that is how it will come down, because I really don't want those riders who are entertaining me to get hurt. When I see a magic guillotine act, I get caught up in a similar frission, knowing deep down the magician is unlikely to really kill the spec- I mean with the big "G" we are not talking mere danger- we are talking death- kept at bay by magic. Perhaps it is just me, because I can watch a James Bond movie, knowing Jimbo must survive and win in the end, and still bite every nail to the quick... Jim
Also known, when doing rope magic, as "Cordini"
|
|||||||||
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
Wasn't it Houdini who commented that part of the draw is the secret hope to be there in case he dies?
I used to pal around with one of the WWE promoters. I got to hang backstage and saw all of the guys (and girls!!!) up close and in person. I stood next to his son has the wrestlers got into his face and talked about ripping his head off and showing it to his mom.(btw, they loved his mom.) These men can be scary. REALLY scary. Heck, one time the guy next to me yelled something inappropriate to one Steve Austin and he thought it came from me. He got into my face and I nearly crapped myself. Is that what you want your audiences to feel? Now - let me say this again - if it is, then more power to you. But I don't think many magicians ever even think - what does my audience feel? Why bother - they are just props anyway, right? The problem with your position is that every person involved in the endeavors you list are part of the show. They are trained, and are getting paid to do the job they chose. That's an entirely different dynamic from inviting a real human being on stage and mistreating them, or threatening to mistreat them, or pretending to mistreat them. Now, I can get lost in a movie and allow unreal things to affect my emotions. (Of course, as magicians, we still need to decide what emotions we intend to affect, but most never go that far). But how many magicians really can do this? Have you ever believed for a moment that the watch that was just "accidentally" smashed or the bill that was "accidentally" burned, really was? I have - once. Once. And it wasn't the first time I saw the trick. But to your point, even when I watch the scariest of movies - I am not the target. I feel fear, but it is not fear for MY well being. I feel worry, but it is not worry for my son or father. In the magic show, we are dealing with real humans with real feelings. But Most magicians can't produce real drama in their acts - that's why most try to be "comedians." Sad thing is, even fewer are funny. But I digress. I contend that there is no drama in a guillotine routine - and that is one of the problems, it is merely an excuse to make someone feel uncomfortable and tease them with the thought that something might go wrong, but nothing will. In other words - it's stupid. (Have you even noticed that the only real drama comes from the notion that maybe the magician will screw up - in fact it's a notion many magicians put out there. So, the only thing that can produce suspense is the deeply held belief that we just may be as big of a screw up as we appear to be.) But let's give the magician the benefit of the doubt and say he can produce suspense with the chopper. So, what is the guy onstage feeling? What is the woman onstage feeling? What is the child onstage feeling? What is the child of the person onstage feeling? If we can get people to get lost in the moment and believe that there is real danger in the chopper, what is the feelingful response we engender in our audiences? Is this what you want in your magic show? If it is, then good. But I don't think many people think it through. Instead they hide from it, by doing all the gags. They know what they are doing is reprehensible, so they try to make light of it. But is that any better? Teasing someone? Setting them up and delaying? Making them get on their knees in front of an audience? If you were a guest in my home, and I put you through those antics, would I be a very gracious host? Just sayin |
|||||||||
Potty the Pirate Inner circle 4632 Posts |
OK the main thrust of my argument has been: There are many, many good working performers who use some of the items on David's list. Far more than the supposed few who are the exceptions to the rule - the exceptions are so ubiquitous that they disprove the whole point of the article.
I have backed this up with my own experience, and pointing out the (rather obvious) fact that around the World, there are literally THOUSANDS of working magicians. Even if only one in 50 were "good" (a subjective thing anyway), there will STILL be hundreds of performers being the exception to David's rules. You have, so far, given no answer to this mathematical evidence. Except to deny that so many magicians actually exist. In reality, if you had actually BEEN to a wide variety of shows, you'd know that actually, most of the performers who have been around for some time can work an audience. That is the quality which makes a performer "good". All other skills are secondary. I have also stated that stereotypes are created by the PERFORMANCE, not just by the props and the attire the performer wears. I mentioned that it's unlikely that a performer will CHOOSE a stereotyped image UNLESS that's the impression he wants to create. Again, you have just kept on about YOUR concept of a stereotype. And, the other main issue has been audience management. You quite clearly believe that having spectators assist with effects like the Guillotine are being unwillingly humiliated. Here, I have said, you are quite wrong. This is all about the PERFORMER, and HIS ability to manage spectators. I even posted a quote from one spectator who a few weeks back, was "ritually humiliated" by me on stage. He wrote to say "thanks, you made our holiday." I have other similar testimonials, EVERYONE in my show loves to take part in it. If they don't want to be up on stage, they won't be. If you have a spectator assist with a mind-reading effect or card trick, at the end of the routine, you reveal the spectator's thoughts or card in an impossible way. In effect, you're showing that YOU the PERFORMER are cleverer than the spectators. This is also humiliating, but in a more subtle way. The raw truth is that folks ENJOY getting up in front of their friends and "making a fool of themselves". Of course, a BAD, or more specifically, INEXPERIENCED performer will perhaps make his guests feel uncomfortable, but experienced performers will NOT have this problem. I'd lie to explain a little more: It's a simple fact that old hands make sure they have the audience with them all the way. One of my firm beliefs is that an experienced entertainer can present ANYTHING. So if I have a routine written by someone else, and it's not exactly my style, I should be able to present it more-or-less as written, even so. I guess this comes from my days in theatre and pantomime, when we learned and rehearsed someone else's show, according to someone else's directions. The great thing is that as performers in our own right, we have the CHOICE of what we put in our show. Now, here, I can turn to David's article, and suggest, (once again, this time, specifically), that instead of his angle, we perceive the list differently: These effects are frequently seen badly performed, as they are favourites of the World's Hobbyist Magicians. Some of them may look rather stereotyped if you're not careful, and there are loads of other effects and routines out there to consider. Before including any of these effects in your show, you should really think through WHY and HOW you'll present it. That, I'd go along with. Although, it's dry and, after all, rather obvious. Did I mention that I thought this article should have been a comedy observational piece? As the original author, I would love to see David's re-take on the essay, but this time without the b******t. A witty and readable discourse on the reason to abandon loads of "classics of magic". Now, that could be VERY entertaining reading. :) |
|||||||||
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
Potty.
Apparently they don't teach logic to pirates. You can't prove a negative. You claim magicians exist who use these props in intelligent, interesting relevant ways. You say there are thousands of them. Ok. Name them. Show me videos. Prove me wrong. The only counter you offer is that you seem to believe you are the exception. David made it very clear. Everyone thinks they are the exception. Most aren't. So - show me those who use the props well. Show me a guillotine routine that is dramatic or one that doesn't follow the tired let's humiliate the Audience member format. I've asked repeatedly. You claim there are thousands. Show us And clearly you never visited the bad magic photo blog or you would have seen HUNDREDS of magicians who clearly are using stereotypical imagery without realizing how cliche and clueless they appear. Finally, you keep repeating that adult audience members lime to be humiliated on front of their peers Not an argument, just a wacked out belief. You keep believing that matey. |
|||||||||
Mr. Mystoffelees Inner circle I haven't changed anyone's opinion in 3623 Posts |
"The problem with your position is that every person involved in the endeavors you list are part of the show. They are trained, and are getting paid to do the job they chose."
Not the audience. "But to your point, even when I watch the scariest of movies - I am not the target. I feel fear, but it is not fear for MY well being. I feel worry, but it is not worry for my son or father. In the magic show, we are dealing with real humans with real feelings. " But remember, these real humans all volunteered to go to a magic show. Some of them, the ones who wanted, again volunteered... to be an "assistant". No one throws people on roller coasters who are deathly afraid of them. The ones who get on WANT to, although some would pay at the top for the first hill to be able to get off! Some of us enjoy it! I agree few people want to be exposed to real danger or fear. But, many enjoy being titillated. With the guillotine it is more than just danger, no? Would any sane audience member volunteer to be guillotined if they had even a small particle of concern that they might be killed? They know full well that theatrics and "magic" will save them. I say this with a need to confess that I seldom do this kind of magic- I just don't like it. Halloween is an exception. Also, I always make it a priority that I never scare, ridicule, embarass, or endanger a volunteer, and I will not allow someone to "volunteer" someone else. An interesting debate, TT, with good points made. I love conversation that makes me think and re-evaluate. Jim p.s. "Potty. Apparently they don't teach logic to pirates. " I think that must be correct- otherwise you wouldn't see so many of them limping around with a parrot sitting on their dark colored coat...
Also known, when doing rope magic, as "Cordini"
|
|||||||||
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
Mysto -
I don;t think we are disagreeing in regard to the notion of audience v participant. If you are going to see acts of violence, then you know you are going to see acts of violence. That is far different from going to see acts of violence and then being threatened by acts of violence. Which brings me to the question - why use a guillotine? What purpose does it serve? What does it's presence and "thing ness" convey to an audience? What are you purporting to do? I contend when answering the first question - why use a guillotine - many magicians would answer, "because I saw someone else do it" and the "working pros" would answer, "Because I can get 12 minutes out of it." When you bring someone onstage and place their head in a guillotine you are saying that you will place them into harms way in order so you can prove that you can use magic to keep them from being harmed. But built into that proposition is the admission that you are willingly placing the spectator into harm's way. If there is no chance for harm - then why even do the trick, right? Now, a smart magicians might say - well, it's not about harming them but demonstrating an impossible penetration using their body, something undeniably ungaffed, as a control. Fair enough - but that smart performer would not use a GUILLOTINE whose existence is predicated on killing people, would they? Now - if you are cool with putting your audience member into harms way, or threatening them with the chance thereof, then that's cool. But then, it makes no sense to make a bunch of stupid jokes that take away from what should be a genuinely suspenseful encounter. And even then - should we doing that to children? Ok - check out the little darlings section. We will get to watch Potty's head LITERALLY explode. B |
|||||||||
Potty the Pirate Inner circle 4632 Posts |
TT, you have clearly demonstrated that you don't have a theatrical bone in your body. You continue to bleat on about "elevating the perception of magic as an art", yet repeatedly demonstrate (with some aplomb, I may add) your total lack of understanding of the art of entertainment.
I HAVE offered you a statement, willingly given, from one of "humiliated few", which tells you how pleased he had been to be on stage and "ritually humiliated". And, as I said, there's more where that came from. You just don't know how, or why, spectators want to come up on stage. Well, as I said, you could just watch a bit more TV, and you may realise...... You STILL cannot answer ANY of my points, so why come back with a post full of wishy-washy nonsense? Either argue your point, defend yourself against my comments, or just stop bothering to post. You simply cannot argue that ALL the World's magicians are rubbish, with the exception of a tiny few. Have you actually stopped to think what you're saying: "You claim magicians exist who use these props in intelligent, interesting relevant ways. You say there are thousands of them. Ok. Name them. Show me videos. Prove me wrong" Yeah, right. I already told you no one wants you sniffing round their website. But, you just went ahead, and told all the professionals out there what you REALLY think. Good luck to you, I hope you find a way to "elevate magic as an art form." ******. Potty Arse. If you want to "get" what David was trying to say, just watch this: http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail198.html There you are....happy now? ;) |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » 11 Stage Props To Vanish In 2011 (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.21 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |