Because when I think WSJ, I think Piff

[Dustin Stinett]

Apparently Piff the Magic Dragon made enough of a splash on America's got talent that the folks at The Wall Street Journal took notice:

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2015/05/ ... nt-judges/

[Matthew Field]

The amazing John van der Put (that's Piff) did great. But no Mr. Piffles?

Matt Field

[Dustin Stinett]

He's got to save stuff for subsequent shows.

[Dustin Stinett]

Just watched the (DVRed) episode of AGT in which Piff the Magic Dragon (and Mr. Piffles) was put directly through to Radio Music Hall by "guest judge" NPH. Huzzah!

[erdnasephile]

Piff had a bit of a rough night tonight with the judges. I thought the routine was OK (think Bank Nite with Mr. Piffles), but while the judges were fooled by the trick, the majority of them didn't enjoy the dog in danger plot. (Howie's face when he was the volunteer told the whole story). In addition, the eating during the feedback gag didn't come off as funny as it was meant to. I really like Mr. van der Put and am rooting for him to get to the Finals; however, tonight may have been his Waterloo. I hope I'm wrong, but time will tell.

[Brad Henderson]

fundamentally piff is a likeable character. People want to like him. Putting a dog in danger is an Unlikable act.

[Tim Ellis]

I don't understand the point of the GOLDEN BUZZER. It puts him right through to the Quarter Finals.. but so would getting three YES wouldn't it?

I thought it would at least put him through to the finals

[Ian Keable]

fundamentally piff is a likeable character. People want to like him. Putting a dog in danger is an Unlikable act.

Maybe in the US - in the UK, that's funny! Perhaps because audiences in the UK know the dog isn't really in danger...

[Brad Henderson]

see below

[Brad Henderson]

fundamentally piff is a likeable character. People want to like him. Putting a dog in danger is an Unlikable act.

Maybe in the US - in the UK, that's funny! Perhaps because audiences in the UK know the dog isn't really in danger...

then what's the point?

[I.M. Magician]

What was Piff thinking? He really blew it. What a shame. It's almost as if he was trying to get kicked off! Using that adorable dog in an effect like that was suicide. Then, having food delivered and eating it after bombing was embarrassing. Say goodbye Piff.

By the way, Piff made a reference to box number three moving before Howie began selecting numbers. What was that all about? Howie did not select box number three and of course that was where the doggie was. Certainly, an off night for the Piffster.

[erdnasephile]

fundamentally piff is a likeable character. People want to like him. Putting a dog in danger is an Unlikable act.

That's a great point. I've never seen Piff's full show, so I don't know if his character has a dark side. Consequently this did seem out of the character displayed during the previous AGT performances--which is what I think MelB picked up on and expressed. Even the eating bit at the end came across as arrogant, as opposed to sardonic. (It's a fine line, I know). I still hope he makes it.

I really liked the ventriloquist. I don't watch many vents, so I don't know if that surprise bit is original. However, it was very entertaining to me.

[I.M. Magician]

Wow! He got through to the semi-finals. Well, that's good. Let's hope he recovers from last night and makes a better choice next time.

The voting is actually off tonight. The female singer who closed the show last night finished in the bottom three and is now waiting to see if she is saved. She was fantastic! The Mexican singer is also waiting to be saved. She is also terrific!

[keeper]

I guess I missed the negative --I thought he was just as funny. Maybe I need to move to the UK

[Ian Keable]

then what's the point?

It's the same point as borrowing a watch and supposedly smashing it; the audience don't really believe the watch is broken - but they still laugh because part of them wants to believe that maybe it is broken and the potential embarrassment it causes both the magician and the lender.

[Brad Henderson]

but that wasn't this effect, was it? this effect is built on the premise of suspense as all Russian roulette routines are. If you don't believe there is anything of which to be suspenseful, then, I ask, what's the point? Just throw the dog in the wood chipper and be done with it. At least that has shock value.

[Brad Henderson]

but to your point, if you KNOW the watch isn't broken, then where is the embarrassment - except toward the performer too stupid he believes he is convincing someone? or are you suggesting that the part of the audience wishes they were seeing a convincing performance and are just amusing themselves because that's the best they can hope for? because I suspect that may happen more often in many magic shows than most magicians would want to admit. I happen to believe that it's the magicians Job to actually provide that entertainment, but maybe some people need to rely on their audiences for that.

regardless it's a losing proposition with the dog either way - if the audience believes you, you are an abusive a-hole. If they don't believe you, there is no suspense and you get to wait around watching someone uncomfortably point to boxes. UNLESS you think it entertaining to watch the person who believes look uncomfortable, in which case YOU'RE the abusive a-hole

[Tim Ellis]

Brad is correct. The inherent problem with most "bank night" style routines is they rely on the performer having a high standard of acting ability and, even then, the entire premise is flawed.

Rather than putting an item in peril for no good reason and then "magically" returning it unharmed to it's rightful owner, I came up with a different plot.

In SEVEN KEYS TO PARADISE (my version of 7 Keys to Baldpate), I have a locked box on stage with something inside. I bring up 7 members of the audience and they each choose a key, whichever key opens the box that person wins what's inside. They switch keys as often as they like then finally "John" opens the box and inside is a trophy engraved "Congratulations on 40 years of service to the company" (or something similar... I use this presentation as a way companies can give special presentations to unsuspecting employees).

It doesn't have the "tension" of the borrowed-object-in-danger plot but, as Brad points out, creating that tension is a lose-lose situation all round.

[Ian Keable]

Brad and Tim may both be right (in theory). Unfortunately matters are rather different in reality. A few years ago I wrote a book called Stand-Up, A Professional Guide to Comedy Magic. One of my chapters was on Involving Assistants and had sections such as 'Destruction of Property' and 'Deliberate Error: Magician & Assistant'. It addressed everything I had to say about the subject and, the truth is, that whilst there may well be a theoretical imbalance, as postulated by Brad and 'solved' by Tim, in a good performance there is no such conflict.

[Brad Henderson]

if the audience does not believe there is something about which to be suspenseful in a trick rooted in the premise of suspense (as Russian roulette routines are by virtue of their repetition) , then how can one say that is a good performance?

Now, to the other case, if the illusion of breaking the Object is deceptive enough and the audience isn't insulted that the magician expects them to really believe it were an accident (as most magicians can't carry that off with their acting) then I might be inclined to agree that it 'can' work, but the end of a screwdriver 'can work' as a hammer. Doesn't mean there aren't better ways of getting the job done.

[Jonathan Townsend]

I spoke to someone about AGT. They recalled Pif, like the character and did not like the dog trick - uninteresting and awkward in their opinion.