|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] | ||||||||||
Drewmcadam Inner circle Scotland 1239 Posts |
<<Also, it has been reported that "Secrets.." was going to be spun-off into a series. Who knows whether this will now take place? >>
Let's hope not. It was so awful it was laughable. Anybody else curl up and wilt with embarrassment watching it? Anyway, back to last night’s programme… and who would believe it. It started out with “let’s have another pop at Uri”. Unbelievable. The “fingers under the big heavy bloke” routine is something which Uri performs at his shows – not claiming that he is influencing gravity, as suggested by the programme makers. He admits he doesn't know how it works. (Neither do I!)Rather, he demonstrates it as an example of positive thinking, as a demonstration of the very real power of a positive mental attitude. And what’s wrong with that? As for the rest of the stuff, I’m sure that the strange noises I could hear in the background was the sound of thousands of channel-change buttons on remote controls being pressed. The ESP explanation – nice method, I thought – was intrinsically boring. It’s one of these things where we, the viewers, just have to accept that there’s not a connecting window between the two rooms by which the “sender” can stand up and wave a jumbo copy of the symbol at the receiver / write it on the glass / send a text message… or any one of a thousand possibilities. We only have the word of people we don’t know that none of this was happening. As TV entertainment, it’s weak. The bending bar was just silly. Anneman used this years ago with a bent, glass cocktail stirrer. Was that it? I can’t remember. Such was the impression it left on me that I can’t recall... No, hang on, there was the séance… For me, it was interesting because of the reactions of a couple of the “sitters”. A man in a black suit with a long stick? Please! it could have been more entertaining had the "guy with the stick" slipped an ice cube down the back of someon'e blouse! So far, we can all breathe a sigh of relief. However, the breaking spoon is still to come. As is the moving cigar tube and pen (think wind)and the compass (think attraction) and the talking to the dead (think I’ll go to sleep.) Must admit, b***** sw**** and starting watch concern me. (I, and many others, have long used the same method for stopping the watch.) Still, we’ll just have to wait and see. In the meantime, perhaps Andrew O’Conner can take all this spare time he’s got now that he’s not attending MC meetings, and put it into turning out another groundbreaking Derren Brown type show - but different. Of course, you need (a) real creativity (b) imagination, and (c) a sparkling personality to do that. Ah, well. |
|||||||||
MagicSquare New user Scotland, UK 60 Posts |
Hi Drew,
Clearly, you are a fan of Uri's, but isn't the fundamental problem with him that he *does* claim to have genuine psychic/paranormal abilties? You must have *some* reservations about this approach: I see that you avoid making such claims for yourself. Apart from anything else, claiming to be "the real thing" invites exposure. (As ever, no offense intended here. I am just trying to tease out the issues of what I consider to be an interesting subject). |
|||||||||
Trev New user 12 Posts |
I think Magicsquare has raised an important issue, with Drew.
Drew why don't you claim to have real psychic powers yourself like Uri? |
|||||||||
shrink Inner circle 2609 Posts |
I think we are a digressing here. This show was about exposure, destruction rather than creation. I was a real big fan of Uri to but, he is well past his prime. There will probably never be either a time or person like Uri to ever come along like he did in the 70s.
Exposing Uri really isn't achieving anything. All the exposures on that programme aren't achieving anything....it isn't even entertaining it was so bland and boring I had difficulties staying with it till the end. I can't beleive they have taken a very average show and turned into six weeks of exposure. Really its bad TV and a wasted opportunity to do something worthwhile. I reckon karma is working already and this show will be a huge flop. This really hasn't done much much to enhance the carreers of those involved and I wouldn't be suprised if they are regretting it already. |
|||||||||
Trev New user 12 Posts |
No I think its an interesting point highlighting about what this show is really about, false claims of the paranormal.
Shrink, do you claim to have paranormal powers? Why not? |
|||||||||
shrink Inner circle 2609 Posts |
I don't claim to have paranormal powers but just say for arguments sake I did. Not only that I performed book tests blind fold routines and many of the classic mentalist effects.
Does that mean Nyman and his cronies have a right to expose all the effects I claim to be paranormal? If what you say was true then all the outcomse were achieved in the first programme when they revealed that all was done with trickery. They didn't need to go on and expose any of the effects. The real truth is they are mercenaries out to make a fast buck nothing else. They have a history of making exposure programmes the last of which had nothing to do with paranormal claims. I hope this one will come back to haunt them without the aid of reaching rods! |
|||||||||
The Paranormalist Special user United Kingdom 702 Posts |
Where we as mentalists, that is entertainers in all things `psychic', asked if we want the tricks of our trade revealed to all comers and sundry, to be sold out. Even if these routines or methods are not in our usual show, the performances we do on a regular basis. There are times when we may resort to such demonstrations as the ones that were given away.
A number of years ago I was asked to put on a Victorian type séance even if it was only for fun and for one night, a one off special for Halloween, it does happen occasionally, a very good night it was to. But now things like this are in common knowledge after last Fridays little money earner. The method for Ted Lesley's glass bending was also indirectly given away as well, aren't these toe rags clever. And this is only the beginning, the first episode, there’s still more to come. Personally these little s***'* need to be ostracized, to be placed in exile from our community as if they don't exist. To be removed from any form of work or publicity they may seek in the future. Not to be allowed to sell any future effects through magic dealers that try to make a decent living. Now see if they like it. Just think about it, it is possible if we stick together, or have we like the general public got short memories? and don't care. We either stand together or fall together. Would Nyman like it if his act was revealed or his money making `pro-folio' was given away for that matter? They say it's not over till the fat lady sings. She needs a gag. Yes certainly well done the Magic Circle, at least it's a start. IBM ? Now it's your move. Local clubs? What do you intend to do? Conventions (Blackpool/IBM/Mind Magic/Asylum) Your policy is...........? As entertainment organiser for the Leeds Magical Association I know where I stand. I don't know how this could be enforced but every time a programme of potential magical revelations is made for Media airing it should first be scrutinised by either the Magic Circle, the World Alliance of Magician's, the Magic Castle or some other professional and ethical magical establishment. Just one last question: What gives these toe rags the right to destroy our lively hood? Magic and Mentalism is the entertaining art of creating illusion entertainingly not destroying it. Yours in a fuming temper. Franklin - The Paranormalist |
|||||||||
shrink Inner circle 2609 Posts |
Franklin: I agree with you however I would go one further and suggest that no members of the magic circle or community be given the right to make exposure shows on any level.
|
|||||||||
The Paranormalist Special user United Kingdom 702 Posts |
Yes Shrink no question about it, your right, forgive me I wrote it haste.
Now how can any or all of this be enforced? Franklin ****************************************** I would like to quickly follow up by adding, that it would be easy for anyone to respond and say that nothing can be done to stop the exposure merchants, these or ones in the future. If this is the case then we all might as well pack our bags and give up performing right now. When I joined the Circle many moons ago I took an oath never to reveal and I have stood by this ever since, my livelyhood depends on it. Obviousely those that resort to exposure have not got the talent to make it in the real world of entertainment, the only way they can make a fast buck is by selling out to the media what the think they know. So PLEASE let's all come up with a solution, before its to late. Franklin - The Paranormalist |
|||||||||
Caleb Strange Special user Manchester UK 676 Posts |
Exposure reduces the art of magic to the peddling of puzzles - 'Please turn to page 12 to see how it is done'. It reduces material that, in an artists hands, would be a thing of wonder and beauty, into something at best baffling - about as entertaining as wondering how you're gonna get that new king-sized bed up the stairs. The program we are discussing is a case in point: when magic programme makers feel compelled to include audience comments of the 'Well that's got me stumped' variety (as they did with this programme) then I rather suspect that their primary, and perhaps only goal in magic is to fool people. If magic is to be taken seriously, then we must stimulate our audiences to ask more important questions than 'I wonder how s/he did that?'
My second concern is, if everything is fair game for exposure, then what the heck is the point in creating really strong material, if someone five years down the line is going to reduce it to a 'I wonder how it's done'? And it's no good saying 'Well you'll have to think of something new again.' True artists can spend years perfecting an effect. Imagine this - some mediocre upstart of a crooner comes along, and, for a wad of cash, changes how we hear Sinatra sing 'My Way' - removes some of its magic, if you will - so that everytime we hear it now, we can't help but think back to this shabby expose. Some of the wonder of the world has been pilfered. In some way, we are all diminished. My third concern is with debunking itself. This approach of 'Hah hah fooled you, it was trickery all along', is less than effective. It alienates and offends many people. Imagine a convention of sceptical magicians. Various feats of mentalism are being presented. One performer is particularly impressive, and there is much speculation as to his/her methods. Eventually, the performer comes clean, much to the outrage and horror of the audience. 'I'm not a magician,' declares the performer. 'I'm actually PSYCHIC. I was only pretending to use trickery so as to prove that sceptical types, such as yourselves, are very poor at recognising, and accepting, the REAL thing.' Now, do I feel that sceptical magicians would be converted to the psychic cause by this scandalous deception? Well, no. Hearts and opinions, if anything, would be hardened; and many 'Don't knows' would be put off, I feel, by the smugness and aggressive underhandedness of the psychic. Yet this is exactly what the debunkers are doing. If people MUST convert others to their world view (and there are individuals on both sides of the psychic-powers fence who seem to be so zealously compelled), then I would suggest that there are many better ways of doing this than wearing a grubby mask. Regards, Caleb Strange.
-- QCiC --
|
|||||||||
Trev New user 12 Posts |
Just watched psychics and saw Colin Fry cold reading and his listeners crying their eyes out over their dead loved ones.
If you guys honestly think things like cold reading shouldn't be exposed, you make me want to throw up. Exposed: I.E. A fraud's method you've adopted and now call mentalism. |
|||||||||
mike stevenson Loyal user 276 Posts |
Trev, I am very pleased that cold reading is exposed for this purpose, but if you believe that the moving compass effect, a billet switch, moving pen, moving isolated object should be exposed, along with many others, then you make me want to throw up.
You seem to have adopted a very neutral stance for the exposers, which I do not agree with. |
|||||||||
christopher carter Special user 660 Posts |
Quote:
If you guys honestly think things like cold reading shouldn't be exposed, you make me want to throw up. Sorry you're feeling ill, but you've just described virtually every method in mentalism. --Chris Quote:
On 2003-09-26 23:24, Trev wrote: I'm not trying to start a fight here, but would like to address a few issues that are important to me. Obviously the people being 'read' here are being put through an emotional roller coaster. To put them through this, only to smack them in face afterwards strikes me as psychological torture. I find myself wondering, why would anybody do this to another person. Two answers I can thing of are that the exposer in this isn'tance doesn't care because he is getting his thirty pieces of silver, or the exposer, assuming that he is strictly motivated by ideology, has calculated that his sitters psychological distress is less important than his (the exposers) agenda. My key issue is that even if the exposer's motivations are pure, it is not his place to decide for the sitter whether his personal agenda is more important than the sitter's state of mind. As an analogy, there are a number of highly publicized psychological experiments from the '60s and '70s in which experimental subjects were put through emotional torment without their knowlege or consent. It is now almost universally recognized that experimentation of this nature is immoral and unethical. Exposure of the kind described above seems to me to be so similar to this type of psychological experimentation that I cannot understand how so many in the skeptical community--or those who consider themselves to be champions of science--are willing to accept it. But when they smugly pat themselves on the back for purposefully tormenting a fellow human being--well, I guess we all have different things that cause us nausea. I am a skeptic, but I don't think that is at all relevant to the issue I am addressing here. --Chris |
|||||||||
shrink Inner circle 2609 Posts |
I just couldn't watch any more of this grim series. I've decided not to let it intrude into my life anymore.
The only good thing is I don't use any of the methods or effects in this programme. However no doubt the next series will take care of that. |
|||||||||
dyddanwy Regular user Chester. UK 108 Posts |
Quote:
On 2003-09-22 15:44, Caleb Strange wrote: Caleb, I agree with and fully support your comments - however, would add that what is missing from the 'exposers' arsenal is *skill*. That true, hard-won, quality that lifts a performance to an art-form. The methods may be exposed but if the performance is carried out with true skill then an audience will still react positively. Eddie Izzard relates one of his anecdotes - we've heard it before, but it is still funny because of his skillful delivery. There is truly only one obvious solution to Blackstones floating lightbulb and Copperfiled's 'flying' but (most) audiences still react well to them because of the skill. The effects are poetry. The artform supercedes the method. Even long after those exposers have been long forgotten the skillful perfomer will be able to use the same methods - no worries. It's happened before, it'll happen again. Jack ps. I wish there was a spellchecker on this message board.
~ ~
|
|||||||||
teejay Inner circle Liverpool, UK 1831 Posts |
Hi all
There are questionably 4 items or logical levels(NLP) here; 1)TV Spiritualism shows that use editing to increase their range/impact 2)Magic/Mentalism shows that do the same 3)Exposure of Spiritualist mediums contacting the dead and Psychic Healers 4)Exposure of magicians using tricks to pretend that they have psychic powers To get to the reality of any controversy it is absolutely vital to stick to one logical level. Trev above (imho) is combining 3 and 4 All(?) members of this forum would agree with items 2 and 3. And be against 4 When you stick to the logical levels the issues become clearer The TV people have put these 4 levels together Possibly because nobody would watch a Spiritualism exposure But we must not do the same. Our only issue should be with item/logical level 4 Item 3 should only become important if and when members of this forum become involved in those practises. Please take issue with any of the above. |
|||||||||
Caleb Strange Special user Manchester UK 676 Posts |
Jack,
I agree with you that the exposers cannot steal the core of a performer's skill - his/her panache, flair and charisma. Exposure is not, necessarily, a terminal problem. And as you say, the artistry, the poetry, and the relevence of a performance make it meaningful - the method is just a means to that end. When you go to see 'Othello', the evening isn't ruined by over-hearing someone say, 'Of course, he kills her in the end,' in the queue outside, before the show. However, by harping on about secrets, and only about secrets, I believe exposers are steadily eroding the public's respect for our art. 'It's not about wonder, you fools,' they say. 'How could you ever be so guillible? Secrets are all we peddle - pay me enough and I'll sell you some more.' I believe that parallels can be drawn with film making. The dissemination of special-effect secrets (that started in earnest in the 1970's - 'The making of Star Wars' etc.) have helped to turn an artform that was primarily about story-telling and wonder, into little more than the extended portfolios of various CGI workshops. Let me give you an example - a spolier of my own. (Please ignore the following paragraph if you want to maintain your present enjoyment of the Beatles' song 'Strawberry Fields'. Look away now!) The track is actually a splice of two very different recordings, one soft and lyrical, the other heavy and driving. Lennon was not happy with either arrangement, so he told George Martin that he wanted a mixture of the two versions, but that he didn't want to record the song again. Now unfortunately, not only were these two recordings at different speeds, but they were also in different keys. In the days before time-stretching and pitch-shifting a join seemed impossible. However, as luck would have it, when the tape-speed of one song was altered, the pitch and tempo of both could be very fortuitously matched. And so the two recordings were spliced together, and became the song we know and love today. Now this information, this secret, will not reduce your enjoyment of the song, but once you know where the splice is (and it will become deafeningly obvious when you listen out for it) it will be impossible for you to listen to the song again without hearing the join. Similarly, McCartney's voice on 'When I'm 64' has been speeded up so much that, once you know, it's impossible to hear that song without thinking of Chipmunks:). Spoiler over. In a different context Wordsworth said, 'We murder to dissect.' Maybe that's why most magicians steadfastly refuse to find out the 'how to' of their favourite effects? The scattered anatomy of a wonder is nearly always less than the vibrant living whole. Regards, Caleb Strange.
-- QCiC --
|
|||||||||
shrink Inner circle 2609 Posts |
Exposing secrets ruins effects its really as simple as that. Mentalism is different from Magic in that part of the effect is creating "the possibilty that this might be real".
Show the method the effect is now dead to the people who were suject to the exposure. Who knows a skillful entertainer might turn it into a artful presentation. But it no longer is mentalism the possibilty of it being real is now dead. I do agree in some cases that a good performance can disguise a well known method and still create the desired effect. However withmore and more exposure going on that possibilty is becoming less and less. For me personally it would have very little value left regardless of the skills of the performer. If it still has value for someone else fine but it is no longer mentalism in the true sense of the word. (at least my definition). It doesn't matter how you look at it exposure damages our art and it is possible that eventually it will kill it off altogether if there continues to be profits made from exposure. |
|||||||||
Chris B New user 16 Posts |
Hi everyone,
Was in my local magic shop the other day and heard some gossip. Apparently the people involved with this show were all chucked out of the magic circle, with the exception of Andy Nyman who got a six-month probation! Don't know if this is true or not, but I thought it might be of interest to you all. |
|||||||||
Lee Darrow V.I.P. Chicago, IL USA 3588 Posts |
One thing about exposures that I have noticed over the years - the information does not stick in the public's minds for very long.
According to psychological press sources, we only retain about 2% of what we see after a period of two weeks unless there is another sense involved in the experience or a great deal of interest on the part of the viewer. John and Jane Q. Public simply aren't THAT interested in the methods of the psychics and mentalists out there. "For those who believe, belief will continue, unabated. For those who disbelieve, nothing will dissuade them from their stance." - old psychic's maxim. Bottom line - vary your presentation from what's used on the shows, maybe juggle some routines around for the more obvious methods and, like Malini - "Vait a Veek!" Time seems to cure almost all exposures. Creativity in presentation cures the rest. At least that's been my experience in the last thirty-plus years in the biz. Lee Darrow, C.Ht.
http://www.leedarrow.com
<BR>"Because NICE Matters!" |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Psychic on Five (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.08 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 < |