Originally posted by Rafael Vila:
Fitzkee had no professional training as an actor, and never studied stagecraft as a trade. He wrote what he thought might work, and because there wasn't anything else out there, and it sounded good, he has become "an authority". But no one questions his credentials, or even looks at his results. He tried to apply his theories to his own work, and failed horribly, and with consistency, in his attempts to bring any kind of theatricality to magic.
PSC:
Isn't Fitzkee the model for the typical illusion show? Whether in Vegas or on TV, most large-scale magic shows seem to be based on the Fitzkee theory that magic needs 'appeals' to make it palatable.
I personally find adding dancing girls and melodrama to a magic act to be as criminal as adding A1 sauce to a steak. If the stake is good, then the sauce is redundant; if the stake is no good, then the sauce won't improve it.
However, my tastes seem to contradict the public's taste. The reality is that Fitzkee-esqe magic and denigrated filet-mignons are acceptable to the masses.
The smartass answer to your question would be: "Yes!" However, it seems reasonable to elaborate.
"Everybody does it, so it must be right?" Is that the faulty reasoning we apply to the approaches we take to developing magic for the public? No wonder magic is doomed to second rate status as an entertainment form. Right there with clowns,juggling, and vent acts...
The shows you elect to represent successful magic appearances in a general venue are, typically, failures by show-biz standards. They are one-shot fillers (Can't have dead air, can we? And the cost of advertising on magic specials appeals to a certain segment of the market that can't afford the higher-priced time slots during "Friends", or "Sienfeld", or other top-rated prime-time shows...). Even a bad sit-com gets more play than most of the magic "specials".
As far as the general public goes, they don't decide what gets produced, they are subjected to it. Ask them what they saw and see if they can describe in any detail what went on on the last "Magic Show" they watched. Then ask them what happened on the last episode of "The Sopranos".
"The guy (what guy?) made a lion disappear."
Versus an in-depth, multi-paragraph description of the plot, action, and resolution of the "Sopranos" episode, replete with names, impersonations, catch-phrases, etc.
We've managed to lower the general viewing audiences' expectations to a point where anything other than the stereotype you describe is thought to be exceptional! And you wonder why Blaine is successful? First, the bar is incredibly low, so he didn't need to do much to become a name in Magic to the public. And, to give him his due, I don't know that he's had any formal training, but I do know that David Blaine has developed a character that people CARE about! And if you think that is how he really is, then he's doing his job beautifully...
Just a few random thoughts...
Best, PSC