I agree, and I've had my bitter moments towards Blaine, but think that none of us can deny the strength of his presence. Bottom line, he knows how to take effects that we've been doing for years and make them mind-destroyers. Granted, the camera probably only showed the best reactions, but still his character is very strong and consistent. A camera crew cannot make just anyone into this.

-Christian

The skill of the people in the TV/media industry can sell ice to Eskimos. Blaine's tricks look good because they are shot by a DOP who knows what look is needed. It is cut together (edited) by somone on over $120,000 per year and mainly under 30 years old.

At a rough guess I would put a number of persons in the whole production is in excess of 500 people, 500 professionals all working to make one man look good! The same 500 could make ANYONE look good.

Blaine's shows have the basic hooks that are used by Jerry Springer's team. The same basic things that make you watch and say, "Did you see that girl's reaction?" not, "What a kick-boohaa trick." As with JS, DB's shows place importance on his specs' reactions. He is not featured half as much as the public he tricks. This is the production teams' 'gimmick' or trick if you like, of getting you to watch.

I can't believe I'm actually on Blaine's side for something, but you still cannot debate the fact that his style was impressive. I don't care how many people are working on a movie set to make a film look great, the actors' and actress' skills are what make great movies. The ability to portray the character they're going for is not something that editing can replace.

All I'm saying is Blaine does an excellent job portraying what he does as real magic, not just some card tricks you see at a restaraunt; and this is beside the spectators' reactions. You could watch the entire show only showing him and it'll still be impressive to most magicians because of the power of his character, and that's something that technology can't replicate (at least not yet).

What I'm saying is that HE does not get to say what tricks he performs. If the director feels the impact of the effect is poor for TV he will not shoot it. Or if it's been shot and looks bad then it's gashed.

Most actors are chosen on the basis of how popular they are, how many bottoms on seats if you like! Not talent. If you want TALENT from an actor, go to a theatre!

Another point for actor selection is plain old good/unusual looks. If the face fits it gets used.

You seem to not understand that what you see is the director's vision. If he/she don't like the way that shot looked, they film 'till it looks perfect. If Blaine obscures a camera, they re-shoot. For every hour you see there are over 100 hours you don't.

Why was Houdini cool to the early 1900 generation?

The predominant magician who is most exposed to the media, will be the one who is remembered and is the most "cool."

Blaine is also physically attractive, especially to the ladies.

Looks are very important in the entertainment industry. This is sad, but true.

Hmmm. Even when that character is a blank anomic post-Gen-X cipher?

I mean, yeah, that does seem to be a marketable persona. I'm just not sure it's really difficult to portray.

“Do or do not. Try doesn’t exist.”

Yoda

Sure, AT THIS TIME, when social identify, role and meaning are a bit vague this makes good sense. He is immediate and not context driven. He makes the moment from the environment. Great ideas.

...just dawned on me... remember those MENTOS commercials? For some reason Blaine's performances bring that kind of mini-story to mind.

Apparently you and I differ GREATLY in our perceptions of attractive. Also, the correct quote from Yoda is: "Do or do not. There is no try."

Paul Daniels was very popular over here. I would not use the word cool so just think popular. He gained that status due to the fact he was on TV every week. Other magicians who mainly work clubs/stage get smaller viewing numbers. So It was that at one point in England you say magician and they all shout back "Paul Daniels".
He has not been on TV for some while and as a result has fallen back among his contemporaries. This is the media for you.
We have a footballer (soccer-player) over here, David Beckham. He is a good player but nothing outstanding. He gets top sponsorship, gets top pay, is in about every newspaper every day to saturation point.
The only reason this situation happened is the media made the appetite for the market that they could come along and fill. They built this guy up soooo much they are now angry at his success.
He is now so successful that they can't bring him back down. This makes the media furious and quite nasty in their coverage. But they did such a good job at building him up even that can't hurt him.

I think it's a bit much to say David Beckham were nothing special and owed everything to the media. David Beckham made his name as the best free-kick taker in the British game (and that's because he practiced A LOT, he was notoriously antisocial in that respect) and remains one of the best midfielders and playmakers; as a result of reaching the top of his game and the lifestyle that went with it (and in particular the wife he ended up with) the media attention followed to the point where Posh and Becks are the media commodity they are. But it happened in that order; no newspaper editor decided to take a no-name footballer and make him a star.

Paul Daniels was on TV every week for fifteen (count 'em) years. In Saturday night primetime, no less. Maybe a mediocre magician with the right backing could get that slot, maybe not, but they wouldn't last more than a couple of seasons, and certainly not fifteen years.
And to make this clear, Paul Daniels is, and always was, very good indeed. He's a great all-rounder with knowledge of every aspect of magic, he's a master at working a crowd, was the first non-American magician to win Magician Of The Year, and by all accounts is a nice fella to boot.

And so back to David Blaine. I feel that David Blaine's biggest sin in the eyes of many of his critics is that he did something they didn't think of first. There's a lot wrong with the man (no-one's perfect) but you have to admit he accomplished what he set out to do. His stated aim in his first special was to change magic on TV; now street magic is the dominant style, even his critics will have tacetly added it to their own publicity materials. You could argue that would have happened anyway, but every c1hange needs a catalyst and this one was back in '93.
His mumbling charisma-free style suggested no performance skills, but the more I've watched the more I feel the guy is much more subtle than people give him credit for. It's already been pointed out that the focus is on the reactions, Blaine's role is as a weird stranger, not a street performer. Also remember this was the early nineties, when much of what was being done culturally was to get away from the brash, over-the-top theatrics of the eighties.
When he entered his perspex box, the interviewer asked him how he'd like to be remembered, to which he responded in his trademark mumble, "As the greatest showman of all time", which sounded ridiculous said like that. But then as the stunt unfolded (and like his street magic, it turned out to be more about peoples' reactions than the stunt itself) I realised he'd managed to get everyone talking about him and flocking to see him by sitting in a box in a plain grey tracksuit saying or doing nothing at all for 44 days, I'd have a tough time arguing how that didn't fit the definition of good showmanship.

I'll add a quote another great showman, the American MMA fighter Bob Sapp. For those who don't know him, he has limited skills to say the least, he relies on bull power in the ring and his fights are invariably ugly affairs with no real technique on display. Despite this, he is a household name in Japan, draws a ton of money and is the poster boy of the K1 promotion due to his impressive look and charisma. His analysis of his success was as follows;

"They don't come to see me win, they come to see me lose. But they come to see me".

Great post Helenheld!

HelenHeld, Points taken.
I was trying to make my post plain for our non-UK members who may not know some people I mentioned.
I was not knocking anyone but making a point about the mechanations involved in MTV type fame.
There are many better players than Becks but he is the golden fleece to the media. I like the guy and avoid newspapers anyway. but many people read them and support this self perpetuating circus of hype and lies.
Blaine never had the effect on me as he has on others. I knew many of the moves and tricks and only got a good entertainment value out of it. It did not blow my mind, more like tickled some cells.
His 'Persona' is a known technique used for causing confusion. I have a few mates who can use these types of cue sets to make you feel uncomfortable/spooked/confused, or make a womans heart flutter .
I have a chap at work who does this technique without knowing it. he can really put someone on the back foot.

Agreed... Good post, HelenHeld...

Funny that when I first saw Blaine I despised his lack of patter, and presentational style. I did not think a magician should be wearing a t-shirt, and pants, or street clothing so to speak. I always read that the magician is dressed above the audience, as he is suppose to be different, and well....magical! I feel he didn't milk his effects enough for all that they were worth. Then after long hours of watching him, and studying his style, I warmed up to him.

As a matter of fact his dress style, and street talk presentation, fit perfectly into the gansta/thug environment he was performing in, the mean streets of Queens New York. He was one heck of a cool customer out there in that situation, and he made them believe he was one of them. To me, this was ingenious. He walked around asking gangs if he could show something, and was very confident, and very smooth with his card handling out there.

That is very impressive to me, as if he flubbed up his life could be at stake!

The reason that Blaine is "cool" to the MTV generation is because, quite frankly, all the other magicians on tv before him just aren't. The MTV generation could care less about the grandeur of a Copperfield or the spectacle of S&R. Just look at what's on MTV, and you'll see that magicians simply don't fit. In that respect, we ARE the round pegs in the square holes; and Blaine made the motion towards changing that.

-E

Point taken Mister E! (Are you the Riddler?)

Sorry, I couldn't help myself... Hmm...

Okay, let's hear from the MTV generation.

MTV is not different. It is not revolutionary. ****, they play "the revolution will not be televised", on TV! My peers are not walking fishsticks...this is simply what has been offered to us. And quite frankly my friends, they are bored! Everything is institutionalized. From the music we listen to, to the TV we watch, to the sports practices, to even our graduation parties.

My generation likes Blaine because he's there. I start performing for two minutes, here, California, anywhere...first thing I hear is woah...this guy's better than Blaine (and it's not even true). My generation is STARVING for something different. We know all about sex, about violence about drugs. You can't shock us.

Radical is now the reverse of what you suppose! Radical is when I put on a Portuguese wool sweater over a tucked in collared button down to ironed khaki slacks, and walk into a ripping teenage party in Santa Cruz, Ca...that looks like something you'd see on some soap opera (the O.C?). The only one there not in hooded sweatshirt and faded jeans. Dressed for the yacht club. Reaction is instant. Smiles, introductions from all the girls, every guy too, wants to find out who I am.

Add a little magic, yes, contextually appropriate, emotionally involved and the entire party is in my hands. Or, sit down at a beat up honky tonk piano and play a *classical* piece, the drunken laughter and high pitched giggles fall silent...and at the end, there is applause!

My point here is, don't underestimate this generation. They're just as bored with MTV as you fellows are. Something strong, something different, is going to WORK.

Note that this doesn't mean wear your tails and top hat and pull rabbits out of hats with chintzy silver topped sticks. It takes panache, style, and a whole lotta balls.

...Er...I forgot to mention that I'm 17 years old, but by the arrogance in the above post, I daresay you could hardly miss it.

To entertain my generation you simply need to not be boring. That seems like a simple thing, but suprisingly, it isn't. They are capable of paying attention, staying silent for a good long story, or piece of music, or act, but it has to be something that is worth paying attention to for awhile...which is what we don't find on MTV.

Honestly though, whether I'm recounting adventures I've had in other continents, or weaving some message into a magic routine, or even playing a 250-year-old piece of music, I have found my peers to be exceptionally receptive.

Don't think that faded jeans and a t-shirt, and not talking much gives you rapport. It's YOU that people get caught up in, of any age. So BE you...with adaptations. When I'm at a party at a club, where I'm the only person under 30, I build rapport differently than at a crazy grad party. The end result is the same, and both "characters" are mere facets of myself.

Once you have the pulse of an audience, or a party, once you connect to them, and are accepted...well, you can express yourself, communicate, with whatever art form you choose.

Mithrandir, you are not in MTV's key demographics. MTV gears its programming at 12- to 14-year-olds. No wonder you are bored with MTV.