Dani DaOrtiz

[MagicbyAlfred]

Alfred,

Thanks for sharing the video.

John Moehring's Del Ray America's Foremost is required reading. The handsome tome includes a video featuring Del's incredible close-up and stage performances.

You are welcome Tom. Thank you for bringing Del back into the forefront of my consciousness.

I can't imagine a magician, desirous of performing and getting great reactions, who could not benefit from watching him work -- even on video. Specially since that's all we have of him, at least for the moment.

[Peter Ross]

My 12-year-old son and I watched this the other day on Fool Us. My son, who is generally not that enthused about card tricks, said DaOrtiz's performance was the best ever he'd seen on Fool Us. I agree.

Coincidentally, I listened to Penn Jillette's podcast today, and he said that if anyone watched only one Fool Us performance, it should be this one. He also mentioned that apparently, DaOrtiz does not do TV and that it was a real "get" to have him on as a last-minute performer.

With regards to live vs. TV, I wholeheartedly agree with Richard, especially on the point of the flatness of the Field of View.

[Dave Le Fevre]

I will tell you my problem with Spanish performers like Dani Ortiz and Tamariz. They are far too animated and excitable for my gentle nature. Their personalities overshadow the trick. In fact I can't concentrate on the trick when they are acting in such a frenzied manner.

Yet again, I happen to find myself in total accord with you, Mark. (That must say something about your good taste. Or about mine.)

One friend, whose opinions I usually value, just loves watching Tamariz. Tamariz is his all-time favourite performer.

Each to their own.

[Richard Kaufman]

Dani's enthusiastic demeanor enhances and amplifies his magic.

[Tarotist]

A wise magician told me many years ago, that the way to entertain a magician is simply to fool him. Typically, they will sit stone-faced at the wittiest patter and presentation, doggedly looking for the "moves." But fool them, with even just a single move or ploy, and they will gush like star-struck school girls, using words like "killed," "slayed," "destroyed" (and similar expressions that would otherwise be apropos only in war movies, shoot-em-up crime flicks, or pest control) to describe the impact the fooler had on the foolees.

This thread provides a perfect illustration of both of the above-described phenomena.

Fitzkee stated that even fooling them will do no good. That is because they will talk amongst themselves, beat the thing to death and disect the hell out of it and eventually and sometimes not so eventually find out how it is done. I have utterly no idea how to entertain or fool magicians. I suspect if I really worked at it I could do it but then that would affect my ability to charm and entertain laymen. And to me entertaining laymen is ten times more important than fooling daft magicians most of whom couldn't make the contents of an empty box disappear. I suspect one way to do it is to ascertain what kind of magicians you are entertaining. If they are card magicians they will not react to your card magic. If they are coin magicians they won't react to your coin magic. If they are mentalists they will be bored by your mentalism. The reasons obvious. Ego. Either conscious ego or unconscious ego. However if you show the coin magician a mentalism trick and do it well he will probably react better because his ego is not at stake. Or the card magician a coin trick---that might work quite well providing the card magician doesn't do any coin tricks. Of course a problem arises when there are a mixture of these types of people in your audience. None of them will like you! So I suppose your best bet is to perform to the majority and forget the rest.

Still, who the hell has time for all that crap? The solution is to realise the opinions of other magicians DO NOT COUNT. If they think you are great it is usually a very bad sign. I have seen performers that other magicians froth at the mouth over yet they have dull personalities and dry as dust. They may have creative ideas but that is no bloody good unless they can PERFORM those creative ideas. Or they may be terribly skillful but that is no damn good either since technical skill is only a MINOR attribute of a good magician even though lots of daft finger flingers are under the delusion of the opposite.

[BarryAllen]

I remember Paul Gordon once relating a story that he was at a one-day convention somewhere, when Al Smith approached and kindly asked if he could do a quick card handling workshop, for all the local 'card experts'.

Paul duly agreed, starting proceedings off by saying he'd cover off some of the finer points needed for a Faro Shuffle. He was met with a room of blank faces. Finally, someone at least had the guts to say "what's a Faro Shuffle"?

I was in International Magic Shop once and there was a 'card juggler' customer side. I was looking at the book shelves and was flicking through 'The Collected Works of Alex Elmsley' - which had been released a few months previous. The juggler said "that's a fantastic book, I couldnt put it down". I said "oh really mate - can you show me something you've learnt from it"? "Errrrr sorry, I can't remember anything right now".

Bobby Bernard was sitting in the shop. I looked at Bob, he gave a smile and rolled his eyes, whilst kid-juggler carried on with his 24 way cuts.......to the amusement of himself.

Suffice to say that I have never had much time for Magicians either. However, for youngsters or newbies that truly want to learn magic and demonstrate a genuine passion for the Art, I have willingly given them as much time and support as I could over the years, not wanting even a copper coin in return.

[JHostler]

National pride over one's magicians or other celebrities is understandable from the standpoint of psychology and the egocentricity of human beings. It's very much like sports, where people identify with their team and players and gain a vicarious boost, resulting in a "We're better than you" attitude. But magic is not a competition, or at least it shouldn't be, in my opinion.

A wise magician told me many years ago, that the way to entertain a magician is simply to fool him. Typically, they will sit stone-faced at the wittiest patter and presentation, doggedly looking for the "moves." But fool them, with even just a single move or ploy, and they will gush like star-struck school girls, using words like "killed," "slayed," "destroyed" (and similar expressions that would otherwise be apropos only in war movies, shoot-em-up crime flicks, or pest control) to describe the impact the fooler had on the foolees.

This thread provides a perfect illustration of both of the above-described phenomena.

Really? Howso? Who here celebrated Dani's performance MERELY for being fooled? Who here framed this as some sort of contest (other than you)? Many find Dani's relatively (versus Juan) toned-down style pitch-perfect and quite engaging. Nothing wrong with celebrating excellence, and there is much to be celebrated. Positive vibes.

[MagicbyAlfred]

National pride over one's magicians or other celebrities is understandable from the standpoint of psychology and the egocentricity of human beings. It's very much like sports, where people identify with their team and players and gain a vicarious boost, resulting in a "We're better than you" attitude. But magic is not a competition, or at least it shouldn't be, in my opinion.

A wise magician told me many years ago, that the way to entertain a magician is simply to fool him. Typically, they will sit stone-faced at the wittiest patter and presentation, doggedly looking for the "moves." But fool them, with even just a single move or ploy, and they will gush like star-struck school girls, using words like "killed," "slayed," "destroyed" (and similar expressions that would otherwise be apropos only in war movies, shoot-em-up crime flicks, or pest control) to describe the impact the fooler had on the foolees.

This thread provides a perfect illustration of both of the above-described phenomena.

Really? Howso? Who here celebrated Dani's performance MERELY for being fooled? Who here framed this as some sort of contest (other than you)? Many find Dani's relatively (versus Juan) toned-down style pitch-perfect and quite engaging. Nothing wrong with celebrating excellence, and there is much to be celebrated. Positive vibes.

Sorry, JH, old chap. Not interested in arguing with you. My post is my post, my opinion, my opinion, even if mine exclusively. Like a teacher of mine used to say back in elementary school: "Like it or lump it, digest it: or dump it."

[MagicbyAlfred]

National pride over one's magicians or other celebrities is understandable from the standpoint of psychology and the egocentricity of human beings. It's very much like sports, where people identify with their team and players and gain a vicarious boost, resulting in a "We're better than you" attitude. But magic is not a competition, or at least it shouldn't be, in my opinion.

A wise magician told me many years ago, that the way to entertain a magician is simply to fool him. Typically, they will sit stone-faced at the wittiest patter and presentation, doggedly looking for the "moves." But fool them, with even just a single move or ploy, and they will gush like star-struck school girls, using words like "killed," "slayed," "destroyed" (and similar expressions that would otherwise be apropos only in war movies, shoot-em-up crime flicks, or pest control) to describe the impact the fooler had on the foolees.

This thread provides a perfect illustration of both of the above-described phenomena.

Really? Howso? Who here celebrated Dani's performance MERELY for being fooled? Who here framed this as some sort of contest (other than you)? Many find Dani's relatively (versus Juan) toned-down style pitch-perfect and quite engaging. Nothing wrong with celebrating excellence, and there is much to be celebrated. Positive vibes.

Sorry, JH, old chap. Not interested in arguing with the cantankerous (or anyone, for that matter). My post is my post, my opinion, my opinion, even if mine exclusively. Like a teacher of mine used to say back in elementary school: "Like it or lump it; digest it or dump it."

[Richard Kaufman]

I will put Dani against ANYONE living today in front of an audience.

[BarryAllen]

I will put Dani against ANYONE living today in front of an audience.

Well it would be a bit difficult to put him up against anyone dead!

[Richard Kaufman]

You're a real funny guy.

[Tarotist]

I will put Dani against ANYONE living today in front of an audience.

OK. How about Tamariz?

[Tarotist]

I will put Dani against ANYONE living today in front of an audience.

Well it would be a bit difficult to put him up against anyone dead!

Actually there IS a way to put him up against anyone dead! Just watch his video and compare it to the videos of dead magicians. Here you are:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2e6IVPc5_U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2VnSR8UJ-U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljuM1n15YHU&t=427s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0THSAwO5enU&t=25s

OK. Here is Dani. Judge for yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_KcQt0z-eE

Oh, all right---here is a live magician I have seen many times. Poor Dani wouldn't have a chance in hell against this chap!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJEM-mlDM80&t=24s

[PickaCard]

I have read a quote of Vernon which says something along the lines of “confusion is not magic.”

I saw Dani DaOrtiz at the Genii convention and he was just as confusing as when I see him on many of his videos. Maybe even more so in person.

There is something about his demeanour and his “take any card I don’t care it’s your life” way that just confuses me so much I am not even sure what the effect was. I know I saw something fooling but I am not too sure what is going on half the time.

Of course, on video I can rewatch the performance and the second (or third time around) I get the full impact of his brilliance. But for the most part, at the Genii Convention I was mostly confused and fooled without really knowing the effect appart from him finding the cards.

[Tarotist]

Yes. I had to watch it a couple of times to follow the effect. Of course that happens to me a lot when watching magicians because I don't really have a good attention span for magic. However your statement coincides with my preceding assertion that certain personalities can overshadow and distract from the magic.

[Bill Mullins]

I, too, have been put into a haze by Dani. But in this case, the effects are pretty clear:
The effects in this one are pretty clear:

2:02 stack of 10 cards yields 4 10's
2:34 stack of 7 cards yields 4 7's/transformation of 10's to 7's
3:21 named 3 of hearts appears on card box
3:34 named 2 of clubs appears in card box
4:02 T&R 8 of hearts
4:37 selected 7 yields three other 7's
9:15 ACAAN

[Jack Shalom]

Yes, but will a layperson when recounting the segment review it in that detailed way? I doubt it. And yet we have the sense of being under a spell for a time. That is why I think Dani belongs to that class of magicians that Tom D's recent post describes as hallucinogenic.

[JHostler]

Any time a heavy dose of improvisation (procedural or presentational) is involved, the odds of "haze" rise. Bands like the Grateful Dead magnify this principle in their tendency to be incredible one night, awful the next, and flat-out perplexing on the third. And in the case of magic, the "script" must be as flexible as the presentation and technique. Dani pulls all of this off brilliantly given the inherent challenges. And the general effect, for an attentive (as opposed to passive) audience, is having their sense of reality pummeled.

[MagicbyAlfred]

Any time a heavy dose of improvisation (procedural or presentational) is involved, the odds of "haze" rise. Bands like the Grateful Dead magnify this principle in their tendency to be incredible one night, awful the next, and flat-out perplexing on the third. And in the case of magic, the "script" must be as flexible as the presentation and technique. Dani pulls all of this off brilliantly given the inherent challenges. And the general effect, for an attentive (as opposed to passive) audience, is having their sense of reality pummeled.

It is a good point.

[Tarotist]

Improvisation on television is a risky business I would have thought. As for "haze" the less of it the better. I am in a haze half the time anyway without the aid of a confusing magician to add to it. Probably a reason I am not a fan of magicians who talk too much. The more chatter the more confusion there tends to be.

[BarryAllen]

Improvisation on television is a risky business I would have thought. As for "haze" the less of it the better. I am in a haze half the time anyway without the aid of a confusing magician to add to it. Probably a reason I am not a fan of magicians who talk too much. The more chatter the more confusion there tends to be.

I don't think it's any coincidence that some of the Classics of Magic have enjoyed such longevity because of their simple, visual, easy to understand plot. These could include:

- Torn & Restored Cigarette Paper/Newspaper
- Egg Bag
- Nudist Deck
- Linking Rings
- Sponge Balls
- Chinese Sticks
- Ambitious Card
- Coins Through Table/Coins Across
- Sucker Silk
- Cut & Restored Rope
- Cups & Balls

I'm sure that you can all think of your own to add to the list.

However, the point I'm getting at is that because the plot of the aforementioned tricks is generally easy to follow, they can be presented with OR without patter.

Simple & Visual - these two elements are so much more important than confusing, long drawn out procedures, accompanied with endless drivel.

[Tarotist]

Good God! I have done or currently do 10 of the items on Barry's list! Great minds think alike! The only one I don't do is the Chinese Sticks!

[Jack Shalom]

Dani is a master of making things look like they are being improvised, but there is much less improvisation than meets the eye in his performances.

[JHostler]

Dani is a master of making things look like they are being improvised, but there is much less improvisation than meets the eye in his performances.

Yeah... "controlled variances" or something of the sort would have been more accurate. The perils of caffeine deficiency...

[Maigret]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdxT3BL_Iik

[Maigret]

The best card magician that ever lived. (dixit Penn Jillette) - See link above.

[Tarotist]

I noticed that comment. I consider it hyperbole.

[BarryAllen]

'Best Ever' blah, blah, blah.

"And I was like Oh My Goddddd, he's just oh so my fwaaaavorite evaaaah inniiiiit".

For heaven sake - such immature (Magic Café) teenager talk.

[Tarotist]

I think he is somewhere between quite adequate to very good. The Penn and Teller appearance was very good and made better because of the enthusiastic participants which other guests on the show didn't seem to be lucky enough to have. However, I tend to think magicians hero worship certain people in different ways than laymen do.

[Paco Nagata]

Dani is a master of making things look like they are being improvised, but there is much less improvisation than meets the eye in his performances.

That routine is originally based on a improvised one.

[Paco Nagata]

I wonder what "confusing" exactly mean?

Is confusing not to say before-hand what are you going to do?

Is confusing to put 4 cards on the table just like that and continue doing something apparently not related with those 4 cards?

Is confusing "perverse magic", "fishing", misterious predictions, storytellings, ambiguity dialogues, verbal force...?

Is confusing mathematical card tricks?

[Jack Shalom]

The Penn and Teller appearance was very good and made better because of the enthusiastic participants which other guests on the show didn't seem to be lucky enough to have

It's more than just a happy accident. DaOrtiz creates a free open atmosphere quite calculatedly where people are free to express their enthusiasm. He's spoken often about what he does to foster this atmosphere. This is exactly what he brings to the performance of magic.

[Tarotist]

That isn't exactly what I meant. I am referring to the fact that both Penn and Teller were sitting at the table which I have never seen them do for any other magician on the show not to mention bringing in Donny Osmond to sit there too. I have never seen this arrangement with any other performer. To me that gave him an advantage that was not available to any other guest on the show.

[Tarotist]

I wonder what "confusing" exactly mean?

Is confusing not to say before-hand what are you going to do?

Is confusing to put 4 cards on the table just like that and continue doing something apparently not related with those 4 cards?

Is confusing "perverse magic", "fishing", misterious predictions, storytellings, ambiguity dialogues, verbal force...?

Is confusing mathematical card tricks?

I can only tell you how I personally was confused. It should of course be conceded that I have a very low attention span watching other magicians. If someone is talking too much and talking too fast for me to register one phase before going on to the next I get confused. If a plot is not direct I get confused. If I have to watch a video again to see what the effects were it is a sign that I got confused. I did figure out what was supposed to be happening after a second viewing but then got fed up trying to figure out the last bit and in fact I still don't know what was supposed to be happening.

Years ago somebody said I was "slow thinking". If this is the case I can't be the only one. There may well be people like me who take a little time to process an event. When performing I don't want people to say in reply to a query, "what did he do?" to be, "Oh, all sorts of things". I far prefer a clear cut answer.

[Tarotist]

[quote="Paco Nagata"

Is confusing to put 4 cards on the table just like that and continue doing something apparently not related with those 4 cards?

[/quote]

This is an astute remark. The presentation section of Expert Card Technique warns against this type of thing saying that an effect should go from A to B and not take diversions on the way.

[Tom Moore]

That isn't exactly what I meant. I am referring to the fact that both Penn and Teller were sitting at the table which I have never seen them do for any other magician on the show not to mention bringing in Donny Osmond to sit there too. I have never seen this arrangement with any other performer. To me that gave him an advantage that was not available to any other guest on the show.

They regularly sit at a table with a card or close up performer (it's something of a running insider joke on the show that if you want to know which side a performer will flash it's the side they ask Penn to sit on, not teller), they regularly have guest celebs on the show to play spectators. In the last 3 seasons (because of no studio audience) this has been happening more than ever but it is by no means new, unusual or special.

[Leo Garet]

It's quite a while since P&T were on regular TV in the UK, but I recall them being sat at a table with Graeme Jolley. Also a cardman, whose name slips the memory. I'm sure there were others on the series. As Tom Moore says, it seems/seemed to be a recurring feature.

[Tarotist]

That isn't exactly what I meant. I am referring to the fact that both Penn and Teller were sitting at the table which I have never seen them do for any other magician on the show not to mention bringing in Donny Osmond to sit there too. I have never seen this arrangement with any other performer. To me that gave him an advantage that was not available to any other guest on the show.

They regularly sit at a table with a card or close up performer (it's something of a running insider joke on the show that if you want to know which side a performer will flash it's the side they ask Penn to sit on, not teller), they regularly have guest celebs on the show to play spectators. In the last 3 seasons (because of no studio audience) this has been happening more than ever but it is by no means new, unusual or special.

OK. I stand corrected. We do not get the show in Canada so all I have to go on is what I see on You Tube.

[Tarotist]

It's quite a while since P&T were on regular TV in the UK, but I recall them being sat at a table with Graeme Jolley. Also a cardman, whose name slips the memory. I'm sure there were others on the series. As Tom Moore says, it seems/seemed to be a recurring feature.

I read somewhere that Graham Jolley had a bad experience on the show. I have no idea what it was. Something about being misled in some way. Not that I am one to gossip of course............