Navigation Menu

[Mark ScivierParticipant]

The following is my own personal reaction to the performances. I’m curious to hear other people’s thoughts.

Very different characters. Slydini is mysterious, quiet, and studious. Daniels is more brash, extrovert, and overtly an “entertainer”. What they have in common is their tremendous skill set, their timing and uncanny ability to misdirect, and a penchant for showing off! Daniels’ routine is a stage routine for a TV audience, and is well-rehearsed and scripted, and designed to entertain a prime-time TV audience. Slydini is a more personal close-up performance, apparently guided by requests from the host.

Neither performance is truly interactive. In both cases, the spectator is used as a foil mainly to punctuate the skills of the performer. The interactions border on making the spectator look a little foolish e.g. “You’re not watching.” “It can’t be under the cup, right? Wrong!”

I’d certainly like to emulate both performers’ technical skills and ability to misdirect, and, in Daniels’ case, his professional entertainment value.

[JackKeymaster]

In terms of Paul’s routine, it is a close up routine – he’s just doing it on TV to a large audience. But it can be done at a table right in front of you and Paul would often do that effect in those environments.

But yes, both Slydini and Paul are giving the illusion of interaction when in reality there isn’t any. Is this a problem do you think?

[Mark ScivierParticipant]

I believe Paul Daniels has cleverly adapted the routine for a more effective presentation to a larger studio audience e.g. by using a high table to provide better visibility, and by including an exaggerated whole-body slow-motion replay for comedic effect.

To answer your question, Jack, I don’t see any problem with giving the illusion of interaction when in reality there isn’t any. This might even be preferred from the magician’s point of view because the magician needs to be in control. Having a spectator think they’re in control, when in reality they’re not, is probably ideal. Two caveats come to mind – one is that (imho) the magician still needs to listen and respond to what the spectator says/does, and the other is that the magician still needs to avoid making the spectator look foolish.

[Author]

Posts