New Video

[worldwideme]

holy moly that was a fun read romeo. and i agree to an extent, i cant really have more than an abject theoretical opinion, because i dont have a character, i perform as 'Web to the max'

 

[romeo sierra]

Consider Teller. Would anyone disagree with me here that he isn't a genius in magic and a master entertainer? Yet... Would Teller BE teller withut the mute character?

No, he obviously wouldn't be Teller. But that's not what I was expressing. His silence is an imperative trait to his character. His clothing is not. If Penn and Teller performed together in swimming trunks or track suits or, hell, even clown outfits-- they would still be Penn and Teller because of their comedic dynamic and established character traits. In fact, I believe there are even a few episodes of Bullsh*t where they occasionally wear different outfits other than their typical business three-piece suits.

I'm aware of the show. You fail to mention that half the reason why the show wasn't well received was due to the lack of interesting celebrities they had on it. The scraped the bottom of the B list barrel for that production, but I digress.

The success of the show and fame of the celebrities are irrelevant. I was talking about how MAGICIANS were out of place due to not adapting their appearances to the real world. Their appearances were offputting and even comedic when not in their appropriate context. This ultimately took away from the level of talent and showmanship they are known for among insiders. Their attire was so distracting, no one could take them seriously.

Anytime I perform any where I stay true to that image/character. Why? Surely Romeo I Don't need to remind you about the importance of branding? It falls into marketing. Why would I go through hell and high water to create this kind of image only to appear in "appropriate" clothing on the street side? I wouldn't. I'm branding myself, I'm branding my image. I want a very specific mental picture to be invoked when you say my name. The clothing doesn't make the character, not by itself. But in this case it certainly is an integral part.

I can appreciate your position with regards to branding. I understand that; it is very important. But I still disagree with you in regards to the amount of weight you put into clothing. I don't find your frills and top hat to be an integral part of your character. Accessories? Yes. Integral accessories? I guess that's ultimately up to you, but I hardly think so.

Think about this. As human beings, we are all naturally characters by default. We live our lives by certain themes, lessons, aspirations, goals. We all have our own quirks and odd mannerisms. We all want to be liked and remembered to a degree. It is these similarities and differences that make theater and cinema thrive. Actors copy real life to develop their own characters. With that, think of a hypothetical everyday man. He works a stressful, white-collar job and has a nice-looking, productive family. He watches football on Sundays and enjoys a beer after work. His idea of a perfect outfit is a t-shirt and jeans. That's what he feels is his own element. But, he would never wear that to work, because he'd look out of place and be a distraction to others. He wouldn't wear that to a fancy dinner at a five-star restaurant. He wouldn't wear that to bed. You mentioned branding. Even though he doesn't wear the same t-shirt and jeans, he may still carry a similar distinctive, casual style through his entire wardrobe. Many people naturally do that to develop a familiarity with a certain style. But does the fact that he doesn't wear a t-shirt and jeans every waking moment of his life make who he IS anymore memorable to those he interacts with? Is no one going to show up at his funeral because he wasn't remembered as the guy who always wore a t-shirt and jeans? Of course not. People will remember him for the fiber of his character-- his sense of humor, his morals, his overall demeanor, his way with people, and yes, maybe lastly-- his general style.

Perhaps the makeup, and vest, and frills don't make the character, but I'd still have to be dressed Victorian Gothic, wouldn't I? I suppose you're going to try and convince me that that wouldn't stand out just as much as how I was dressed in that video just so it conforms to your point? You're going to need to try harder than that sir.

Firstly, Draven, I already said a few times I didn't mean to attack you or even sound confrontational at all. Sincerely, I do apologize if I came off that way, and I mean, if you were offended on a personal level in anyway, I'll back off-- no harm, no foul. With that, I do get a vibe of defensiveness, so I'll tread carefully.

Trying to discredit a valid point prior to letting someone voice it doesn't make it any less valid. So with that, I'll offer this.

I studied theater in school and acted in a variety of plays. When I adamantly felt I was portraying a character right, I would find it difficult to change anything about it regardless of a circumstance. Some professors and directors told me to separate myself from the character completely, and think of other individuals like the person I was portraying. People I knew or heard of. And then picture how that person would look in the same setting-- how they would dress, behave, and socialize. I would then take those traits and apply them to the actual character I was assigned, and this surprisingly would allow me to further develop the person I was portraying. Some traits worked; others didn't, but the change of mentality always opened up viable options I never saw before.

Again, with regards to your clothing... how about this food for thought: Romeo and Juliet. They are two characters typically dressed in Shakespearean garb who carry swords and ride horses. However, in the 1996 Baz Luhrman remake film, they were dressed in contemporary attire, weilding guns and driving cars. Despite that, the nature and specificity of the CHARACTERS remained the same. They were still two naive teenagers and star-crossed lovers who would continue to be remembered for who they were. Hopefully, this illustrates my point regarding how characters can and should remain relevant to the audience they're performing for.

If you're the expert, and know my character better than I then please tell me Romeo, WHO is William Draven anyway? If you answer nothing more in your reply, then please answer me that.

I'm no expert and never claimed to be. And I already told you what my interpretation was of your character was. From what you expressed, it seemed to mostly sync up with your understanding of your character also. You had a great list of adjectives and details that I actually do find exciting. In that list, you didn't mention awkward, laughable, or out of place. Unfortunately, in my HUMBLE opinion, I thought that's what "William Draven" was in that SINGLE, PARTICULAR video. Otherwise, I am a fan of yours when you can actually make it work. But in this case, The Master of Macabre looked like a kid's show villain who was on a cigarette break.

I not only take that, as well as the general vibe of your (and The Now) opinion as a slap in the face, but also as a bold faced challenge. One that I accept.

As far as I was concerned, I was only offering an honest opinion and food for thought. Cyber slaps in the face and challenges to intellectual duels are not only amusing but very sophomoric, and I imagine we're both bigger than that. Like I said, I never intended on personally berating you. If you still want to take it that way, that's your own beef, and I'll take no part in it. I apologize again.

Wayyyy too long for my liking,

RS.

 

[William Draven]

After some consultation with a close friend over the nature of this subject, I have decided to drop my argument, and further consider what is being offered as sound critique. The only explanation I have for my actions is a bruised ego.

 

[Ashrei]

I like it, man. I don't know where this was taken place (after the show or vicinity of the show, etc etc) but I think it was really well done. Audience liked it, and to me, that's what it really comes down to. Strong work.

 

[worldwideme]

After some consultation with a close friend over the nature of this subject, I have decided to drop my argument, and further consider what is being offered as sound critique. The only explanation I have for my actions is a bruised ego.

good for you draven, once again you've proven to be better than alot of people here.

 

[romeo sierra]

The discussion could've probably been better? handled over PMs, but I think both Draven and I offered valid points of interest that other performers could really benefit from. Debates like these really challenge people to think about what they do, and I think it's good for magic as a whole.

Again, I'm far from perfect, myself. I don't ever intend to come off as an all-knowing preacher. In fact, in comparison to Draven, I'm probably a little boring and unoriginal to most people. I've recently given up professional work, and I only really perform casually for friends and family now. With that, I'm still fond of studying magic, and I try to incorporate various areas of my background into the magic I do perform. Everything I post "has no basis more reliable than my own meandering experience," so it all should be taken with a grain of salt.


RS.

 

[RikAllen]

Taking the original post, with its question, away from the discussion that followed (haven't had enough time to digest, so I don't have an opinion as of now) I will give this tid-bit of advice.

The effect was performed very well (toying with the microphone stand could be considered slightly un-professional, but I've seen MUCH worse from 'professional' magicians). You obviously have Draven pinned as a character so I won't say anything into the presenting of the effect (superb overall).

After watching it and then watching it again (because I liked it...but didn't love it) I asked myself Why I didn't love it. I've enjoyed all of your videos so far, but something about this one seemed...messy. The effect was clear enough to be enjoyed...but confusing enough to detract from the potential enjoyment. Realizing it wasn't you or the spectators that muddled the effect, then the logical conclusion is that the effect was kind of off.

The effect itself could be structured differently. I like the tarot, the ouija board, and the potentially haunted pen. I do think the everything could be portrayed clearer though.

My first instinct for change. Keep all of the props used. This might seem like very little, but let's try this out for size.
The pen is still your link to the other side. It's going to form the markings, on the paper, but the spirit world has a different language, in order to translate you're going to use the ouija board so that the spirits can communicate properly. The ouija board ends up with the letters A E R T W circled (water). I think you can figure out the ending.

That's just a quick way to streamline the effect, keep all of the elements, and make it easier to follow. A good line after the ouija board ends up with random letters "Damn spirits, always playing games..." Just a breath of comedy before you dramatically close it with the water reveal (the line is optional, if it doesn't fit, you must acquit...)
Feel free to take the line for some other bit if you want as well (not sure if it's 100% original...but I can't think of anywhere I've heard it...maybe Casper's unfriendly ghost people).

Just my thoughts on the video ( and effect), take them for what they are (sleep and caffeine deprived advice from an amateur magician).

 

[William Draven]

I like the advice. I'll have to look into the water spelling however, due to the nature of the out to lunch gaff it may not be possible. Consider it a design flaw. Thanks for the input. This routine is still evolving.

 

[j.flynt]

I really liked the performance and setup. I also laughed when you completely launched the card box in the beginning.