While We Were Out
/While we were away, David Blaine’s Ascension stunt, with Youtube, got delayed due to weather. I have no idea if this will end up being cool or lame, but I’ll definitely be watching. I love David’s ability to create such compelling visual imagery in his work. No one else really comes close.
Gee, imagine the depravity Sydney’s bottom paranormalist is capable of.
This is Terrence Brabazon. Our latest GLOMM evictee. A true piece of shit. Go rot.
So Blaine moved his stunt from New York City to Arizona. He’s not the only one ditching NYC these days. Due to high rents, coronavirus, increasing crime-rate, and other factors, there has been a fairly significant exodus of people out of the city. No one really knows the extent to which it’s an issue at this time, since we’re still in the middle of it all.
James Altucher wrote an essay called New York Is Dead Forever and Jerry Seinfeld responded.
Part of Jerry’s response resonated with me in regards to the virtual shows a lot of performers are stuck doing:
There’s some other stupid thing in the article about “bandwidth” and how New York is over because everybody will “remote everything.” Guess what: Everyone hates to do this. Everyone. Hates.
You know why? There’s no energy.
Energy, attitude and personality cannot be “remoted” through even the best fiber optic lines.
That’s sort of my feeling with virtual shows. They seem to cap out at about 60% of the impact of showing people magic in person.
And, from what I’m hearing from magicians over email, they seem to have given rise to a new Easy Answer. It’s the, “I don’t know what you did, but I bet if I was there in person, I could figure it out.”
This trick, Pluck by Christian Grace, came out through Vanishing Inc.
It’s a trick where a selected card is lost in the deck and you suggest you’re going to “pluck” it from a dribble of falling cards. But you actually find two different cards. A 2 and a 6. You decide that means you’re supposed to count to the 26th card, which you do, and find the spectator’s card.
I don’t really have a fully formed opinion about this trick. It’s the sort of thing I’d have to try out to see the type of reaction it gets. My initial instinct is that I don’t really like the change in direction from, “I’m going to pluck out your card,” to, “These two cards I plucked out are cards I’m going to use to count to your card.”
It doesn’t quite violate the notion of The Trajectory of Expectations, because pulling out two cards that count to your card is, technically more difficult than just pulling out your card.
But it does replace a very simple, straightforward trick with something slightly more convoluted, and that doesn’t seem like the ideal progression.
But, as I said, I can’t really be sure how it plays without trying it out.
The main reason I bring it up is to spotlight this post from the Cafe thread discussing the trick.
Say what? I have absolutely no idea what the Tiny Plunger effect has to do with anything, but it’s random inclusion in that thread made me laugh.
I encourage you all to use this statement anytime you want to get your “two cents” in, but really don’t have much to contribute to the conversation.
I feel better just knowing I have it in my back pocket in those times when I don’t know what to say.
Them: “I find it fascinating the way Leni Reifenstahl distorted the diegetic sound in Triumph of the Will in a manner that was seemingly inspired by German art cinema.”
Me: “Hmm… yes… yes… indeed. Of course, I’ll stick with my Tiny Plunger. More entertainment value.”