It's interesting to me, the dichotomy that has developed in my head. I prefer 'deeper' magic. I like magic that feels real, like it's genuinely bending the laws of my reality. Most of the stuff I see out there is just stunts that do nothing for me. Card tricks are almost always a turn off for me, despite having been a card magician for two years.
Despite my preference for deep stuff, I still really enjoy a few shows and performers that do the adventure of the props. My favorite magic show is Ricky Jay's Ricky Jay and his 52 Assistants. I've seen it over a hundred times, I'm sure. Most of that show, though, he is just doing tricks. His History Lesson, of course, is a trip through the history of the cups and balls, but even then it's mostly dictating where the balls are. I find Blaine to be hit-or-miss, really. Sometimes I like him, sometimes he bores me. I haven't really found a consistent thinking that resolves this split in my head.
Regarding P&T's Fool Us - I don't like it. Like David said, I feel it just perpetuates the idea that a magician's job is simply to fool people. It sets up a "You can't catch me" kind of attitude in the audience and that's not what I want. Most of the performers I've seen on there have left me cold, or in the least, left me wondering why they are doing whatever they are doing. The biggest example for me in Shin's Dream Act. None of it makes sense the way it's presented. It's just a magician doing things because he can do them. Does nothing for me, personally.
My personal goal when performing is bringing people into my reality for a little while. Getting them interested in what I have to say, and hopefully letting them forget that I'm on that stage to deceive them. One of my most memorable comments regarding my show came from a friend of mine, who is a staunch skeptic. He said to me, "I remember realizing I was accepting this a lot more than I thought I would." I felt that meant that I had done a really good job of getting the audience on board with what I was doing and saying.
I don't know what Blaine does when the cameras aren't showing it. He's obviously doing something to get these people to engage in what he's doing, or at least to react vociferously in that manner. There are times when I have used similarly minimalist scripting, usually in situations like the post above where people wouldn't have listened to my more verbose scripts. It works for those situations because, as Teller has discovered, if you just do something intriguing and don't give them words to fight against, they just watch. Once you've got your foot in the door, you can hook them in deeply.
Despite my preference for deep stuff, I still really enjoy a few shows and performers that do the adventure of the props. My favorite magic show is Ricky Jay's Ricky Jay and his 52 Assistants. I've seen it over a hundred times, I'm sure. Most of that show, though, he is just doing tricks. His History Lesson, of course, is a trip through the history of the cups and balls, but even then it's mostly dictating where the balls are. I find Blaine to be hit-or-miss, really. Sometimes I like him, sometimes he bores me. I haven't really found a consistent thinking that resolves this split in my head.
Regarding P&T's Fool Us - I don't like it. Like David said, I feel it just perpetuates the idea that a magician's job is simply to fool people. It sets up a "You can't catch me" kind of attitude in the audience and that's not what I want. Most of the performers I've seen on there have left me cold, or in the least, left me wondering why they are doing whatever they are doing. The biggest example for me in Shin's Dream Act. None of it makes sense the way it's presented. It's just a magician doing things because he can do them. Does nothing for me, personally.
My personal goal when performing is bringing people into my reality for a little while. Getting them interested in what I have to say, and hopefully letting them forget that I'm on that stage to deceive them. One of my most memorable comments regarding my show came from a friend of mine, who is a staunch skeptic. He said to me, "I remember realizing I was accepting this a lot more than I thought I would." I felt that meant that I had done a really good job of getting the audience on board with what I was doing and saying.
I don't know what Blaine does when the cameras aren't showing it. He's obviously doing something to get these people to engage in what he's doing, or at least to react vociferously in that manner. There are times when I have used similarly minimalist scripting, usually in situations like the post above where people wouldn't have listened to my more verbose scripts. It works for those situations because, as Teller has discovered, if you just do something intriguing and don't give them words to fight against, they just watch. Once you've got your foot in the door, you can hook them in deeply.
