If you haven't seen this, do yourself a favor and enjoy. Inspirational. Penn and Teller Foolus S02 Ep. 2 - Shin Lim:
Crazy good performance on Fool Us by Shin Lim
- Thread starter Justin.Morris
- Start date
Seconded.
The only disappointing thing about it is that it was on tv so there will be idiots out there saying "it's just camera tricks and stuff, hur hur"
Was an amazing performance, absolutely beautiful.
The only disappointing thing about it is that it was on tv so there will be idiots out there saying "it's just camera tricks and stuff, hur hur"
Was an amazing performance, absolutely beautiful.
Ill just leave this here:
Dai Vernon once said, "Confusion isn't magic."
Edward
Dai Vernon once said, "Confusion isn't magic."
Edward
Can you expand on that a bit please Edward as I'm a little unclear as to what you mean with that quote.
L,
In my personal opinion this and nearly every other competition act I have ever seen has been pure magical masturbation. In it people are concerned with new sleights, fancy apparatus, new effects, new visuals, etc., etc. Most of what these people do flaunt in the face of tradition, break fundamental rules of magic/theatre, and generally create poor effects for the sake of "progress." Where acts like this one excel in new visual effects they usually lack polish, choreography, good acting, and most importantly meaning. I would personally rather watch someone do one simple trick very very well, than someone do a half-assed job trying to squeeze 40 tricks into a 10 minute set no matter how new and dramatic or fooling they're supposed to be.
To be frank when I watch an act like this I see wasted time, wasted talent, and perhaps most disturbing, a severely negative trend in where and what magic is (because of increased desire to make acts like these)
That is why I quoted Dai Vernon. I don't think Dai Vernon would have escaped the novelty of the act enough to say, "What really happened here?" but I do think most of the old greats would absolutely ROLL in their graves at the sight of this.
Edward
In my personal opinion this and nearly every other competition act I have ever seen has been pure magical masturbation. In it people are concerned with new sleights, fancy apparatus, new effects, new visuals, etc., etc. Most of what these people do flaunt in the face of tradition, break fundamental rules of magic/theatre, and generally create poor effects for the sake of "progress." Where acts like this one excel in new visual effects they usually lack polish, choreography, good acting, and most importantly meaning. I would personally rather watch someone do one simple trick very very well, than someone do a half-assed job trying to squeeze 40 tricks into a 10 minute set no matter how new and dramatic or fooling they're supposed to be.
To be frank when I watch an act like this I see wasted time, wasted talent, and perhaps most disturbing, a severely negative trend in where and what magic is (because of increased desire to make acts like these)
That is why I quoted Dai Vernon. I don't think Dai Vernon would have escaped the novelty of the act enough to say, "What really happened here?" but I do think most of the old greats would absolutely ROLL in their graves at the sight of this.
Edward
This guy gets it.
I'm with you. Found it a bit hard to follow, almost too much going on.
Plus, I really dislike close up performed to music. The great thing about close up is you can interact with people, and I always considered allowing time for people to react, and enjoying their reactions, to be part of the 'art' of close up. Other spectators love to see how their friends react to magic as much as magicians do. But in this act, the two people on the stage seemed to be largely ignored whilst Shim tried to look moody and cool for the cameras. The result? They seem kind of bored and detached from the whole thing.
Not debating his skill, but I don't rate this as highly as a lot of magicians seem to.
Jon Armstrong's performance of his 'Tiny Plunger' on the prior episode was much better. He had personality and he allowed Penn's reaction to amplify the effect.
That's how close up should be done, IMHO.
Rev
Thanks for replying Edward. To be honest I had never thought of it that way. I've never been to FISM or anything but constantly hear bad things about the competitions, generally the fact that they are purely competition pieces and would work in the real world. It just never occurred to me that "Fool Us" was a competition.
I'm not a pro, heck I'm barely an amateur, and I understand what you and Rev have both said, but that doesn't change the fact that when I saw it for the first time my thoughts were, "wow, so that's what can be achieved."
Jon Armstrong was brilliant with his performance, and he couldn't have been more different from Shin Lim as far as close up goes, but I don't see that it has to be one or the other. Yes, it was exhausting watching Shin and it got to a point where I was thinking "how do you explain this trick?" because there was so much going on. But, it still made me go "wow."
Ah interesting perspective. I can see where you are coming from. Copperfield became the greatest because he brought story to his magic in a strong way.
One of the reasons I like this is because I feel it wasn't confusing at all. Everything was linear, connected and creates it's own 'story'. Not in a literal 'Sam the Bellhop' way, but in a more abstract sense. If you for to an art exhibit and just don't get or understand the art, it's because you are looking for a literal translation to your world. Art doesn't work that way all the time tho (regardless if we think it should). Think about all the abstract art and all the modern dances you've seen. A plain isn't the only thing that can be beautiful and worth watching. To say those artists don't know what they are doing just isn't a fair statement.
I see the same thing here. Shin Lim could have played it like a clown where the universe is playing tricks on him, but I see it more of a character who is in full control of his surroundings. The routine was not a table hopping routine (like say tiny plunger) and he shouldn't treat it that way. His audience was much larger than two and he would have done a disservice to the routine to ignore the larger audience. His facial expressions and the way he looked at the larger audience showed that he really believed what he was doing. Not to mention his choreography to the music and the emotion in the music!
I don't agree but not because I don't understand why tiny plunger was well done. (But I've got other problems with tiny plunger)
Magic and art is broader than solving problems and plot lines, but should consider the answer to 'why?'
I thought it was exceptionally better than most magic routines to music.
One of the reasons I like this is because I feel it wasn't confusing at all. Everything was linear, connected and creates it's own 'story'. Not in a literal 'Sam the Bellhop' way, but in a more abstract sense. If you for to an art exhibit and just don't get or understand the art, it's because you are looking for a literal translation to your world. Art doesn't work that way all the time tho (regardless if we think it should). Think about all the abstract art and all the modern dances you've seen. A plain isn't the only thing that can be beautiful and worth watching. To say those artists don't know what they are doing just isn't a fair statement.
I see the same thing here. Shin Lim could have played it like a clown where the universe is playing tricks on him, but I see it more of a character who is in full control of his surroundings. The routine was not a table hopping routine (like say tiny plunger) and he shouldn't treat it that way. His audience was much larger than two and he would have done a disservice to the routine to ignore the larger audience. His facial expressions and the way he looked at the larger audience showed that he really believed what he was doing. Not to mention his choreography to the music and the emotion in the music!
I don't agree but not because I don't understand why tiny plunger was well done. (But I've got other problems with tiny plunger)
Magic and art is broader than solving problems and plot lines, but should consider the answer to 'why?'
I thought it was exceptionally better than most magic routines to music.
All,
Style aside (music or not/ scripting or not) this act leaves soooooo much to be desired:
1. TERRIBLE hands. Watch just his hands for 10 seconds - they look like dying spiders. There is so much tension in every sleight he does and the covers for most (including ditches and steals) are very contrived.
2. Bad choreography. He missed several musical cues by beats/seconds.
3.Lack of deception - anyone else notice the exceptionally dark spot in his close up mat right off the bat? True it makes a cool image (the smoke not the spot), but its not deceptive. Spectators have eyes which work just as well as ours.
4. Obvious/ intentional structure flaws. Most of these are just to make something visual. I am confident that all of the effects (quite a list) could be accomplished in a more deceptive way which would have also lead towards better theater.
5. CENTER LINE.
6. Making faces isn't acting.
The list goes on. I would happily provide one if you are genuinely curious.
I sincerely wish that magic competitions/conventions/ organizations/magicians in general would encourage great performers instead of the "new fantastic thing we haven't seen yet" This mindset is the same reason we have children teaching classical effects of magic on youtube and people like J.P. Vallerino exposing some of the oldest and best secrets available to the general public. The flawed mindset says, "the old thing isn't good enough so lets make something new and expose the old way. The problem is the old way works just fine and would have continued to work for hundreds if not thousands of years if someone hadn't exposed it.
Shin Lim is not the problem. I am all for the creation of new material/effects/etc. In fact, I applaud him for his creativity. However, there is much much more to a great magician than creativity. Learn to follow the rules of magic before you go breaking them. To complete your metaphor; It is the difference between a 5 year old's scribble and Pablo Picasso's "Dachshund".
I hope that I haven't stepped on anyone's toes with this post. I realize it leans towards rant and for that I apologize. This is my passion and my profession and I want magic to go in a positive direction while I am alive to change it.
One final thought, and this is primarily for L:
Art is generally defined as something which elicits a response. While, "WOW" is a response it's not a very deep one. That is why I would say this act isn't particularly "artful" to me. It's kind of like saying all pornographers are artists. True art makes you reconsider something important. It makes you feel something deep and inexpiable. So you know, Salvador Dali is one of my favorite artists of all time. When I saw "persistence of memory" in person I literally fell to my knees and wept. THAT is the level of effect that art should have.
Edward
Style aside (music or not/ scripting or not) this act leaves soooooo much to be desired:
1. TERRIBLE hands. Watch just his hands for 10 seconds - they look like dying spiders. There is so much tension in every sleight he does and the covers for most (including ditches and steals) are very contrived.
2. Bad choreography. He missed several musical cues by beats/seconds.
3.Lack of deception - anyone else notice the exceptionally dark spot in his close up mat right off the bat? True it makes a cool image (the smoke not the spot), but its not deceptive. Spectators have eyes which work just as well as ours.
4. Obvious/ intentional structure flaws. Most of these are just to make something visual. I am confident that all of the effects (quite a list) could be accomplished in a more deceptive way which would have also lead towards better theater.
5. CENTER LINE.
6. Making faces isn't acting.
The list goes on. I would happily provide one if you are genuinely curious.
I sincerely wish that magic competitions/conventions/ organizations/magicians in general would encourage great performers instead of the "new fantastic thing we haven't seen yet" This mindset is the same reason we have children teaching classical effects of magic on youtube and people like J.P. Vallerino exposing some of the oldest and best secrets available to the general public. The flawed mindset says, "the old thing isn't good enough so lets make something new and expose the old way. The problem is the old way works just fine and would have continued to work for hundreds if not thousands of years if someone hadn't exposed it.
Shin Lim is not the problem. I am all for the creation of new material/effects/etc. In fact, I applaud him for his creativity. However, there is much much more to a great magician than creativity. Learn to follow the rules of magic before you go breaking them. To complete your metaphor; It is the difference between a 5 year old's scribble and Pablo Picasso's "Dachshund".
I hope that I haven't stepped on anyone's toes with this post. I realize it leans towards rant and for that I apologize. This is my passion and my profession and I want magic to go in a positive direction while I am alive to change it.
One final thought, and this is primarily for L:
Art is generally defined as something which elicits a response. While, "WOW" is a response it's not a very deep one. That is why I would say this act isn't particularly "artful" to me. It's kind of like saying all pornographers are artists. True art makes you reconsider something important. It makes you feel something deep and inexpiable. So you know, Salvador Dali is one of my favorite artists of all time. When I saw "persistence of memory" in person I literally fell to my knees and wept. THAT is the level of effect that art should have.
Edward
He lost me at the Ziplock bag after he spouted smoke and then regurgitated the card. I'm with Edward and Rev on this one... it seems too much like "look at all the things I can do."
You're not stepping on toes at all! Your being very articulate in your response. I would very much agree that art can evoke much more - including magic. The first time I watched Copperfield fly it took my breath away. But I also recognize a good job. I feel like I can agree that it's not the top pieces of magic I've ever witnessed, but I see it as very well done. Perfection is not an expectation I have to be honest. Every performance I've ever watched I critique in my head, but that doesn't mean I think they are poor or belong in the trash category.