In my opinion most of his stuff involves obvious shills and/or trick photography.
I must admit I’ve never seen him live and he may have a good regular show but his “big” TV illusions don’t do anything for me at all.
I remember as a kid watching magicians perform illusions that would make me say, “Wow how did he do that” I always understood it was a trick but wondered how it was done.
Copperfield makes me say, “wow this is where they stopped the tape and this is where they started it back”
He doesn’t even bother with a live audience on many of these illusions so for instance when the camera is on the timer, some feet, or whatever he may be eating a sandwich for all we know.
There’s only a few illusions out there that make my heart race and jaw drop in astonishment, while I struggle to think “how the hell did he do that?”
Copperfield’s illusions that fall into that category include “The Blade” (a vertical sawing-in-half), and a laser mismade with Catharine Back back around the early 1980s.
AS far as his performance technique goes, he’s the standard.
Does he do that one live?
If it’s the same one I just watched on TV after he is sawed in half they wheel his lower torso around the stage so that his upper torso can look at it and then he moves his feet.
When I was younger, my family went to see a David Copperfield show in Melbourne. I thought that he was great at interacting with the audience and had quick, witty remarks to those who called out. His magic, I agree, was crap and trite.
However.
A friend of mine went to see a show on a different night and surprise surprise (well, it was to me at that age), she said that at the performance she went to, the same people called out the same things, and he responded in the exact same way. It might be common practice in the magician industry for all I know, but it certainly made me think less of the performance and the performer.
Welcome to show business. Although I’m not one to really defend Copperfield or any other “stage illusion” magic (I think close-up is more difficult and more fun to watch) I can’t criticize him for this.
I used to be an entertainer (juggling), and what happens is that when you do your show night after night, you come to know what to expect from people. They do often say the same things at various points in the show, and you learn what works in respsonse.
To be a good performer you should vary your show and create new material. It’s all about pleasing the audience, and if that means using some stock responses guised as “improve”, that’s OK. Most people don’t go to the same show night after night.
Copperfield doesn’t “stop the tape” for his illusions and the audience isn’t in on them. However, you’re right that they aren’t all the impressive. The are way overblown (his “flying across the Grand Canyon,” for instance was very impressive when he flew through the arch at the beginning, but after that, the rest was irrelevant). Slydini was miles better with just a quarter and his bare hands, and Doug Henning was much more imaginative and talented.
Did you see the one where a man and his son randomly picked from the audience get zapped onto a beach somewhere? They’re on stage and poof they show up on a jumbo screen where we see them sand, water, bathing suits, and all. I don’t remember what the other details were but then poof they’re back on stage in street clothes.
The only way I see to do this trick is by taping the beach screen ahead of time. When the smoke poofs up Wisk the participants out of sight and play the tape of them on the beach. Misdirection, presto chango, poof participants are back on stage.
As one of millions who saw that illusion on TV (I’ve even got it on tape), and one of hundreds of thousands who’ve seen it performed live, I have to say that your description is just plain wrong. The father didn’t get zapped anywhere – he was waiting for his son when he “magically” arrived. The son DID (seemingly) get zapped to that location, but in the exact same clothes he was wearing when he vanished from the stage. And neither father nor son returned to the stage. (Copperfield did, but still in the same clothes as well.) You say you forgot the details, but it actually seems that you forgot most of the illusion.
I’m amazed that you’ve glossed over the most impressive part of that illusion – the vanish. I hope you’ll have a chance to see this live one day, or at least to rewatch the televised version. That vanish is SPECTACULAR, and it looks exactly the same live as it did on TV. Even though I have a pretty solid knowledge base of the principles of magic, I was left stunned by the vanish. (In case those are some of the details you’ve forgotten, Copperfield and the young man vanished from a two-inch thick steel platform suspended out over the audience with a convex mirror behind the booth.) Oh, and btw, in the live show I attended, it was a young lady who vanished from the stage and reappeared on the beach. Are the “vanishees” shills? In the case of that illusion, yes … but so what? The illusion is only slightly if at all weakened by that. How do you explain the proofs that they were there? (the picture/item/initials taken by Copperfield from the audience and shown on the beach)
Just for the record, I know it’s not really magic, but for the observant watcher, it’s as close as you’ll ever see.
“The Blade” is not the one that was used as part of the Great Escapes special that reran on Friday night. In “The Blade”, Copperfield slices his (half-naked) assistant in half from head to toe (well, actually head to crotch), not the traditional side-to-side cut.
But he performs both the BuzzSaw illusion (which is the one you saw Friday night on CBS) and The Blade live. Both are very impressive.
One thing I feel compelled to point out is that the Friday night Great Escapes special was almost exclusively things that Copperfield used to close TV specials – almost none of those are part of his live show. (The BuzzSaw is occasionally still used, though.)
I think you’ve misunderstood me, Grok. I didn’t mean that he had stock responses - I believe that he had hired people in the audience to call out things at particular times. Stock responses are fine and, I agree, part of show business. However, planting people in the audience to set up his witty one-liners are, IMO, bad performanceship.
Feh. Penn and Teller are the only magicians today truly worth their ticket prices. At least, I seiously doubt you’ll find David Copperfield climbing into a cement mixer loaded with bricks as part of the show…
I only watch Copperfield’s TV specials so I can dissect them afterwards. His setups are way too long and pointless for my taste.
Copperfield did a guest spot on Good Day Philadelphia. I missed the actual show, but they run clips from it in the ads for GDP. The clip is of Copperfield perfoming the exact same handturning trick that was explained on Secrets Of Street Magicians Exposed. I would think that any high profile magician would have watched that and the related Fox specials and changed his act accordingly.
I agree that Penn Gilette and his partner, Teller are fantastic.
1 Almost all their tricks involve a sadistic Penn doing his best to kill Teller.
2 They often explain, step by step, just how each trick was done.
3. After the explanation, their work is still so fast and seamless that most viewers need to use slow motion to catch any thing.
4. Their appearance on the Simpsons and the film, Penn And Teller Get Killed.
"Hey! You're not supposed to talk."
"He'll kill me! I mean it! I'm not the first Teller!"
Since you’ve never seen him live, I can’t see how that’s possible. The illusion to which you’re referring was televised for the first time back at the beginning of April 2001 – just slightly over three months ago.
Ah, well that’s a horse of a different color. (Presto! Hahaha!). It’s possible he hires shills to call out stuff from the audience, although I doubt he’d be the first magician to do so.
I can see your point though. However, I could even excuse that if it were done well enough to justify the use of shills. If it added the audience’s enjoyment of the performance, I’d say it’s OK. But if done in a hamhanded manner, I too would probably find it insulting.
Once a doctor asked me how old I was and I gave him a number that was 4 years off, my wife had to correct me.
On a very regular basis I loose my keys or can’t remember where I parked at the mall. At this rate when I’m 60 I won’t remember my own name, hell maybe when I’m 40.
I may do better to set the details and airdates aside and distill my opinion down to this.
David Copperfield IMHO has good stage presence, and is a fine showman but his “main” illusions, the ones that television uses to draw viewers to watch the show suck.
They seem to lack that element of cautious disbelief I feel when watching someone like Penn & Teller of David Blaine. I understand it’s all tricks but when I see a good illusion/trick I have this moment of confusion where my brain says, “wow how did he do that” I don’t feel that with Copperfield.
I think his illusions are lousy. I also hear that he has womanly hands.
