David Blaine and the Brotherhood of Magicians
Ray Haddad
general.
Blaine has generated more than 8,000 messages in several newsgroups
since he came into prominence a few years ago. Just today, he
generated over 100 messages following his recent special. He has
appeared on guest shows, been interviewed and reviewed by dozens of
prominent magazines, been on national NEWS, and generally captivated
his audiences worldwide.
Love him or hate him, he is good for magic and magicians. Every time
he has had a special in the past, my phone rang off the hook for days
afterwards with people interested in booking a show. Almost all of
them had never had a live performer at a function but were very
interested after seeing David perform. Not all of them booked a show
but the interest was there in increased numbers just because of
someone else's TV special.
No matter what magic special is on TV, the calls increase after the
show. Even the Fox exposures generated more work.
Criticize him if you will. Just remember that no matter what else, he
generates an interest in magic that none of us can do here on this
newsgroup by complaining about him. As a brotherhood of performers, we
should embrace his accomplishment in public and confince our
criticisms to private discussions. That's the professional thing to
do.
Ray
JackGuy22
>should embrace his accomplishment in public and confince our
>criticisms to private discussions.
Well said, Ray! I for one really like David Blaine and I think he adds a great
dimension to the performance of magic. He also is very creative in the way of
general dare-devil performance art, as seen on last night's show.
--Jack
pathfind11
I still conclude after this last special that he must consume Crack!
Ray Haddad
Jack,
Thanks for your comments. To elaborate just a bit more, the real
professionals here can tell the difference between the fans who are
not magicians and those who are. Regardless of their take fans are
passionate about the performance they saw. Magicians are picking apart
the mechanics of the effect and the details that don't matter.
Keen observers are all learning about what flies and what doesn't fly
based on the testimony seen here. As such, the controversy here among
fans who are not magicians is also quite instructional. Those who fail
to see this as a learning option are doomed to mediocrity. I hope they
stay over in their corner.
Best,
Ray
pathfind11
Ahh your smok'en Crack to Ray!
;-)
Path
JackGuy22
>passionate about the performance they saw.
Ray,
Agreed. I am very interested in observing the performance styles of all
magicians, because I feel it helps to expand the horizons of what is possible
within the art. Blaine has a certain aura about him that is quite capitvating,
and it is clear that he is truly amazing to those who see him perform both live
and on television.
David's presentation of tricks and sleight of hand that are easily obtained
through available dealers and literature prove the theory that presentation is
everything. He is able, as the performer, to put himself in the place of his
audience. While performing the trick, he appears just as amazed, puzzled, and
entertained as they are. He is on their level, yet at the same time he is
mysterious and powerful. Tricks he has done which may or may not use the magic
of television to his benefit only serve to expand that sense of wonder to a
much larger audience who would be impossible to reach through regular street
performance.
Blaine's stunts and performance art are also inspiring. Staying atop a pole
for 3 days is not easily accomplished. I am sure athletes can relate well to
the preparation required. I feel his stunts are very well put together, and
they certainly seem to attract a crowd in NYC!
My opinion about Blaine is shared by many and similar thoughts have been posted
here by others numerous times previously, so i'd like to go back to my
agreement with Ray that there is much to be learned from the debate. As we are
all magicians, it should be more productive to embrace Blaine's work. To me,
it matters not how simple his tricks are, or how well he performs them. What
matters to me is strictly the reaction of his audience. Their reaction has
been very positive, so Blaine is successful.
I could even go on about how Blaine is not only a successful magician and
performance artist, but how he has also had great success in getting his work
seen by others via mass media. He worked hard and persisted to get his stuff
on TV.
Anyways, magicians should try to support each other. Clearly Blaine is a
success, much like Houdini, Copperfield, Henning, Burton, Siegfried & Roy,
Harary, Daniels, Pendragons, and numerous others. Have you entertained your
audience? I have. Has someone, even if only one, had a remarkable experience
because of something you showed them? For me, yes. I'm a success -- and if
you answered yes to any of those questions, so are you!
--Jack
"Blaineiac" (as recently coined in another thread)
Pat Umphrey
wasting time bashing and complaining about someone and start using
that time to learn a few things and better ourselves.
>
> David's presentation of tricks and sleight of hand that are easily obtained
> through available dealers and literature prove the theory that presentation is
> everything.
I disagree with this part, but I liked this post so much that
I don't want to taint it. I'll post my opinions separately after I
gather my thoughts on this.
Thanks guys-
Pat
Kenn Capman
Your points are well taken and well articulated.
However, I have some major problems with Mr. Blaine's latest endeavor.
I viewed his first three specials with general apathy. I didn't care
for his 'character' or presentation, but acknowledged that whatever I
thought didn't change the fact that he was giving magic some good
airtime. (and in fact, provided more interest in my close - up
performances)
This time out, Mr. Blaine once again reinforced the public's perception
that magicians are self-absorbed, socially inept tricksters. I refer to
his three segments that were not magical, or entertaining.
First, riding his little clown bike down the middle of a busy street
stalling traffic behind him. Magical? No. Entertaining? Perhaps to Mr.
Blaine.
Secondly, falling down on the sidewalk to gather a worried crowd then
getting up and walking away. What was the point, other than to grin and
say "PSYCH?" Is this magic? Does this further the art or entertain
anyone but him?
Lastly, the bit in the park with the young lady. (i.e. "Look into my
eyes.") When she's fully focused on him, he barks and lunges at her.
Once again conveying the message to the public that if you help a
magician with an effect, he will only abuse and exploit you.
Don't we, as a collective of serious artists, have any outrage at this?
Mr. Blaine has taken an off beat and intriguing personality and turned
him into everybody's Uncle Ernie that insists on doing the same card
trick every time you see him.
In article <u2nqeuocvr83l7gn5...@4ax.com>, Ray Haddad
Frank Rolon
that he has brought to your close-up magic, it is a shame that you can be so
critical of his character and personality when you can't seem to generate
any interest to your own close-up magic.
"Kenn Capman" <si...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:240520021004345360%si...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net...
Paul Pacific
> generates an interest in magic that none of us can do here on this
> newsgroup by complaining about him. As a brotherhood of performers, we
> should embrace his accomplishment in public and confince our
> criticisms to private discussions. That's the professional thing to
> do.
>
I do agree that Blaine is great for the art of magic. I
personally think his magic is very strong but his personality (or lack
thereof) is what I find grating. I don't have to like him, but I
respect him and thank him for what he is doing for magic!
PSIncerely,
Paul Pacific (CLM)
Kenn Capman
Rolon <frank4...@earthlink.net@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I think that you should thank David Blaine personally for all the attention
> that he has brought to your close-up magic, it is a shame that you can be so
> critical of his character and personality when you can't seem to generate
> any interest to your own close-up magic.
Sorry to disappoint you.
Perhaps I should have clarified that I been performing professionally
since 1977, and full time for the last 10 years.
And your background is . . .?
The shame here is not with my analysis, but rather with your inability
to understand that 'more interest' does not in any way indicate that
there was NO interest prior to that point.
It is simply the same phenomenon as when a particular car is featured
prominently in a movie. The public's interest in that model is piqued
and as a result sales increase.
You assume that there were no cars prior to the ones featured in the
movies.
JackGuy22
>stalling traffic behind him. Magical?
This follows a series of other similar segueway/transitions of David in motion.
Between each segment, clips of David in motion or in a peculiar situation are
shown. The bike was a balancing act, as was the bridge, and the corner of the
building.
>Secondly, falling down on the sidewalk to gather a worried crowd then
>getting up and walking away.
I believe this was another take on overcoming fears. Furthermore, David can
probably do that because of his fame. In New York City, interesting things are
always happening on the streets. New Yorkers know who David is, so they see
this as entertaining. An ordinary person doing this would likely cause alarm,
as you pointed out.
>When she's fully focused on him, he barks and lunges at her.
>Once again conveying the message to the public that if you help a
>magician with an effect, he will only abuse and exploit you.
In my opinion, this doesn't fall under the category of abuse. It's just a
joke, entertaining both to the people there on the street and the TV audience.
I see abuse as physical or psychological torture over a period of time.
In conclusion, i'd like to say I share your point of view that much of the
special was not "magic" per se. It seemed to focus more on overcoming fear,
athleticism, comedy, and performance art, with some magic in there.
--Jack
Kenn Capman
<jack...@aol.com> wrote:
> >First, riding his little clown bike down the middle of a busy street
> >stalling traffic behind him. Magical?
>
> This follows a series of other similar segueway/transitions of David in
> motion.
> Between each segment, clips of David in motion or in a peculiar situation are
> shown. The bike was a balancing act, as was the bridge, and the corner of the
> building.
You are correct. I had forgotten that they used similar segues in his
previous specials, and in this one as well.
> >Secondly, falling down on the sidewalk to gather a worried crowd then
> >getting up and walking away.
>
> I believe this was another take on overcoming fears. Furthermore, David can
> probably do that because of his fame. In New York City, interesting things
> are
> always happening on the streets. New Yorkers know who David is, so they see
> this as entertaining. An ordinary person doing this would likely cause alarm,
> as you pointed out.
Again, you provide a valid counter-point.
I wonder if the presence of the cameras and crew affected the way the
onlookers reacted. (Or if they even connected the two, like you said
New York is a busy place.)
> >When she's fully focused on him, he barks and lunges at her.
> >Once again conveying the message to the public that if you help a
> >magician with an effect, he will only abuse and exploit you.
>
> In my opinion, this doesn't fall under the category of abuse. It's just a
> joke, entertaining both to the people there on the street and the TV
> audience.
> I see abuse as physical or psychological torture over a period of time.
I understand your point.
I just come from a different school of thought on how a performer
should handle those spectators who assist him/her.
And I cringe whenever someone with Blaine's prominence does something
that even remotely smacks of a neagtive view of magical performers.
> In conclusion, i'd like to say I share your point of view that much of the
> special was not "magic" per se. It seemed to focus more on overcoming fear,
> athleticism, comedy, and performance art, with some magic in there.
I agree. I think a lot of magicians have missed that point as well.
Watching the show just made me feel like I had walked into a steakhouse
only to find out that they served from a vegetarian menu. I'll still
enjoy the salad, it's just not what was expected. =^)
Kenn Capman
Frank Rolon
wouldn't even contest your credentials. Honestly, I am not a fan of Mr.
Blaine, however his methods, ploys and presentation are part of his act not
mine or yours. You are entitiled to your opinions, thats the beauty of this
forum. I simply don't believe that it does anything positive for the craft
for you or I to bash a fellow practitioner because we don't like his
personality etc etc. Your car analogy is not nearly as impressive as the
amount of energy that you spend defending your fascination with why someone
did this or that. Seriously though, we may not agree with each other on
this matter but maybe there are some things that we do.
For starters, my influences are Larry Jennings, James Swain, J.C. Wagner,
Juan Tamariz, Bill Malone, Eddie Fields and Ed Marlo for starters, how about
you?
"Kenn Capman" <si...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
JackGuy22
>should handle those spectators who assist him/her.
>
I know the school of thought you refer to, and I think I belong to it as well.
I think spectators who participate should be made to feel good and powerful,
not put down. All the same I didn't think Blaine's "boo!" stunt really put
anyone down, it was all in fun.
>And I cringe whenever someone with Blaine's prominence does something
>that even remotely smacks of a neagtive view of magical performers.
Indeed -- Blaine's name is what comes to people's mind when the topic of magic
comes about lately. I have seen where magicians treat spectators poorly and
this is not how we want people to perceive magic.
--Jack
Jim Short
Frank Rolon wrote:
>
> I can truly appreciate the fact that you are a veteran of your craft, and I
> wouldn't even contest your credentials. Honestly, I am not a fan of Mr.
> Blaine, however his methods, ploys and presentation are part of his act not
> mine or yours. You are entitiled to your opinions, thats the beauty of this
> forum. I simply don't believe that it does anything positive for the craft
> for you or I to bash a fellow practitioner because we don't like his
> personality etc etc.
I think the problem with this statement is the global assertion of any
criticism as "bashing". We can grow as artists partly by learning from
the mistakes of others. If we don't feel free to discuss what we think
didn't work (including personality etc etc) then we have limited our
opportunities to improve. Granted, we could be a little more
circumspect in how we phrase these discussions, and I do agree that in
conversations with laymen we should be supportive.
> For starters, my influences are Larry Jennings, James Swain, J.C. Wagner,
> Juan Tamariz, Bill Malone, Eddie Fields and Ed Marlo for starters, how about
> you?
Not that you asked me, but: Paul Harris, Alex Elmsley, Maskelyne &
Devant, Napoleon Hill, Andrew Carnegie, Nikolai Tesla.