Inspired by the current Uri Geller thread (at least the discussion whether Geller’s claims of paranormal ability are just part of his act). I have derided Geller for so long I never stopped to consider this. When I recounted some of the thread’s discussion with friends of mine who had not heard of Geller, they said they didn’t get the hate. This gave me pause.
Certainly one who claims psychic ability to prey on people (esp. accepting money from the grieving to contact the departed) should be labelled “fraud” and in my opinion prosecuted.
For the purposes of this discussion let’s stipulate the following:
[ul]
[li] Geller actually has no paranormal powers[/li][li] the reason he makes psychic claims are to entertain, to enhance the drama/mystery of his stage act.[/li][li] he clearly crossed the line by selling books along the lines of “you too can unleash your psychic powers like I did” and selling “dowsing” services based on ablities he does not possess[/li][/ul]
If Geller had not engaged this third thing, would we Dopers herald him as a dedicated performer or would we still shout “fraudster”? Assuming the latters, where is the line?
Clearly an illusionist is entitled to (in fact expected to) lie onstage. David Copperfield did not fly. Derren Brown did not read people’s minds nor does he use NLP. Harry Houdini [often?] used gimmicked locks/knots. Even James Randi, when replicating Geller’s drawing/mind-reading trick for Barbara Walters, assumed the role of mentalist, “Think of the picture clearly in your mind” (to which Walters reacted, “as if that matters” or words to that effect). There is no question that part of the illusionist-audience contract involves falsehood and everyone is okay with that - no one is called “fraudster” or “charleton”.
What if the falsehoods follow the performer off-stage? Kreskin maintains an off-stage insistence that he is not using trickery in some parts of his mind-reading act. He doesn’t claim it’s paranormal but he does claim he has a special ability (sensitivity to body language, what-have-you) that to my knowledge he has never disavowed, and which is certainly BS. I happen to have a low opinion of Kreskin as a performer, but does his “kayfabe” mean he’s a fraud?
I know this is fiction, but in the movie The Prestige…
Christan Bale’s character is actually twin brothers - a secret they hide from the public and even close friends to make his (their) teleportation illusion more spectacular.
and non-spoiler: the Chinese performer that always walks with a troubled gait to hide the fact that his trick is done by straddling the fish bowl between his legs. We are given to admire the Chinese performer’s dedication to his art that he would alter his entire public life, never “breaking character” to keep safe his secret.
So when does this off-stage perpetuation of the on-stage falsehood become a bad thing? If a performer garners more ticket sales with such a “kayfabe” than would have without it, has he/she bilked the public - taking money not actually earned?
An illusionist isn’t under an obligation to reveal how it’s done. Are they under an obligation to disclaim actual “magic” (or whatever false “explanation” given for the illusory feats)? I happen to admire those that do and think less of those that don’t. Derren Brown, when first starting, in his own opinion, pushed the falsehood too far with his claims of using subliminal/NLP/etc techniques.
He now says,
I respect that stance - and moreso DB’s efforts to debunk fraudsters. On the other hand, if I see an illusionist who does not make such disclaimers, I can still enjoy the show - even if that illusionist bald-facedly claims whatever and never recants or disclaims. Why? Because I know he’s trying to fool me. He knows he’s trying to fool me. I am not fooled, merely entertained - impressed at how well the real mechanism is hidden but knowing there is a real mechanism.
But what if I am fooled? What if I really thought David Coppefield was actually defying gravity with no contraptions - flying through sheer force of will? Does DC have an obligation to correct my error? What if, as a publicity stunt, DC attempts to and succeeds in fooling a physicist, then uses quotes from the fooled physicist in his promotional material? Those that know DC is an illusionist would say, “Wow, DC’s illusions are so good that it fooled a gravity expert - this I gotta see!” Some may erroneously form the opinion, “Wow, DC can fly! This I gotta see!” Must DC ensure that no one comes to this latter opinion?
Back to Geller. I personally find offensive anyone who tries to persuade the public that any supernatural phenomenon exist - irrespective of why they are doing it. David Blaine is a skilled magician, but it squicked me out when he allowed a woman to believe her dead mother was involved in one trick. Geller more than squicks me out because his schtick is relentless. This does the public a great disservice - but is this disservice distinguishable from McDonald’s offering unhealthy food. The public should know better than to eat at McD’s but does. The public should know better than to believe in psychics - but they do. Is either wrong in trying to profit from the public in either case?
So what if Geller had refrained from peddling wares, books, and services based on the fabricated “truth” of psychic phenomoneon and restricted himself only to staged performances and talk shows. What if he sticks to bending spoons and spinning compasses and steers clear of people’s dead relatives? Would it then be okay for him to never break kayfabe? I want to say no, it’s not okay - but I’m having difficulty objectively stating why beyond my distaste for the public’s appetite for and gullability of the paranormal.