More on Smoothini

[Waterman]

I have the utmost respect for any magician who decides to take the leap into performing magic on television. Smoothini is the latest magician to showcase his talents on the AGT stage and by all accounts continues the tradition of criticism and/or praise from those of us who chat on-line about magic more than we actually perform it (I know there are exceptions regarding that comment so my apologies to those out there who are bringing magic to he masses through public performances).

Most magicians felt that Smoothini presented a decent display of effects that although by no means original to "us", played very well to his intended audience...more specifically the audience of judges who determine the eventual fate of the AGT contestants. Others were disappointed and deemed the performance a poor choice to use on national television to represent the art of close-up magic.

Regardless of what anyone thought of Smoothini (I personally enjoyed his magic...he performed the type of tricks that fooled me badly enough at one time to ignite the passion to learn for myself how to perform them and he came across as a likeable and charming guy)its interesting to see how audiences responded to magic that some magicians may categorize as being too generic or standard for a lay- audience (much like Blaine did when he had performed invisible deck, biting a quarter, and other "magic store" items as effects for his first television special). From what I saw, the performance received great reactions from not only the judges ,but from the audience as well. The effects using sponge balls, a TT, and basic card productions would have not been as well received by the guys at the local magic club meeting because we see this stuff all...the...time. If this perception were true of the general public, Smoothini's act would have been received by Howard and the other judges as being unoriginal and with a , "We've seen magicians do these tricks hundreds of times...come back when you have something original to show us." response (along with three giant red X's illuminated above the stage).

So the question is this...do we actually perform enough close-up magic to the general public for any effect to be referred to as being too generic or unoriginal? Does an audience leave a magicians act asking him/herself if their was meaning behind every trick and justifications for the props being used? I'm not saying we should eliminate those factors when creating a performance, but at what point do we step back and ask ourselves what leaves the biggest impression for a spectator when he/she leaves a performance of close-up magic? Acts like the one performed by Smoothini inspire me in that the effects which have been my favorites since I first visited Tannen's over 40years ago will continue to be enjoyed by audiences today when done well...that even a simple sponge ball vanish from one hand to another can not only stand alone as a routine in and of itself, but that it will never garner the reaction we get from most card tricks we begin with the comment, "I've seen this one before", and that sometimes doing a few quick tricks in three minutes can be more entertaining than watching an hour long magic show put on by the local magic club by magicians who are quick to criticize the guy who decided to do what most of us will never do... have the confidence and courage perform on national television.

[Bill Mullins]

Are you setting up a straw man here? Because I haven't seen him criticized for doing tricks that are well-known by magicians.

I have seen criticism of his routining, and for failing to present magic as anything other than a series of "oh wow" moments.

[Brad Henderson]

what bill said.

Sponge balls is great trick. Great tv trick?

maybe not

Sponge balls are visceral. For the judges it was. For everyone else, it's just a trick.

re you question on material choice - not related to agt: Many people will never see a close up magician, but the people who do are the type of people who are likely to go to places that have a magician. if you are likely to go to places that have a magician, you are likely to see magicians. I have literally had lay people tell me that on their latest cruise they saw "the bowling ball trick" - they has seen it so many times they assumed it was a standard that every magician did. heck, I once had a 13 year old kid describe the magic show they brought to her camp as "hack". When the 13 year olds recognize your material as tired, that says a lot about how common a lot of material is.

if most magicians are doing the same material it stands to reason that those people who go to venues that are likely to have magicians are likely to see the same material. To chose to perform that material automatically invites comparison, and makes it look like magic is something people go to the store and buy - we all buy the same tricks. It makes magic a commodity.

Del Rey was a firm believer in avoiding tricks other magicians did. He believed magic - by definition - was special. if the audience sees you doing the same thing as every other magician, you and it are NOT special.

TV is a different game as you will reach many who do not frequent magic-common venues and the invisible deck IS new to them.

re motivation: you don't need to have a story about a dead grand parent or use magic to fix a car for it to be motivation. You just need to be clear to the audience who you are, what you are doing, how you are doing it (according to the dramatic fiction) and ideally why you are doing it. To win a contest is a decent why, but as an audience member it fails to address MY needs. "Because I can" is also valid, but equally self centered. "because I want you to feel surprise" is super simple, but at least now we are moving everyone in a clear direction.

But honestly, I think most magicians miss the 'how' step and in doing so can never get to the 'why'.

How do you make the coin disappear? Is it a scientific process? If you stare at it can you will it out of existence? Is it just the jugglery of sleight of hand?

if you are a magician, how do you accomplish your magic?

I recently saw a 90 minute illusion show and there wasn't a single "magic" moment in it - just a lot of things happening that prompted the reaction "how did he do that?"

they weren't asking about the method. They were trying to figure out literally HOW is the magician allegedly doing it, because it was clear the magician (beyond operating the props) had no idea himself.

just some thoughts - not on smoothini and agt per se