Okay, I know it’s boring, but someone’s gotta do it: the gentle insertion of some facts.
-
Breathable liquids are not fiction, but neither are they a feasible way for Blaine to do what he’s going to do (not with the technology as it currently stands).
-
DocCathode suggests that Blaine swapped places with a double during his ‘ice’ stunt. He didn’t.
I know several people who work with Blaine on his projects, and I have met and talked with at least two people who were involved in that specific stunt, one being part of the TV crew and one being an advisor. It was Blaine in there the whole time. I’m a professional magician myself, and I’m pretty well-connected in the trade. People level with me about stuff. Sometimes, they level with me about stuff that I can’t share with people here on the SBMD, and if this is the case then that’s what I say here on the Boards. This is not one of those times.
Someone may say that since I’m a magician, and since magicians lie and deceive, I can’t be trusted. This is flawed reasoning. A magician only ‘lies and deceives’ when performing, and only within a framework of understanding that exists between performer and audience. This understanding goes something like this: ‘I am going to use my talents to create magical moments for you; you know it’s not real (just like you know Ewen MacGregor isn’t really a Jedi Knight), but I can help you suspend your disbelief for long enough to create a moment of magic for the purposes of entertainment. You know this is what I do, and I know you know this is what I do.’ Apart from these specific circumstances, magicians are as honest and reliable as anyone else. If not, if some guy uses deceptive techhniques in real life, and without this framework of understanding, then he isn’t a magician: he’s a con artist, and he can go to jail.
-
Doc Cathode further asserts that trickery was involved in the ‘living in a box’ and ‘standing on top of a pole’ stunts. Again, I respectfully disagree, to the extent that in both cases Blaine was the only person involved (no doubles or switches), and that he was doing what he said he was doing. These are (or were) genuine feats of endurance.
You are free to believe or not believe, of course, and yes, there’s a small chance I could be wrong. But these are the facts as best as I’ve been able to ascertain them, and I’ve done a lot of talking to a lot of people in the trade about these stunts.
-
Mssmith537 refers to Penn & Teller’s routine involving Teller submerged in a tank of water. Yes, there’s a trick to that, and no, Teller was not actually required to hold his breath for any long period of time. Penn & Teller cheerfully admit as much, as muldoonthief is aware. However, there is no correspondence between that stunt and the Blaine stunt, and the method by which Teller could (secretly) breathe would not apply to the Blaine stunt.
-
DocCathode wrote “I’ll believe it when I see it in person. Blaine used editing to fake his levitation. I see no reason to believe his other tricks are not also the result of movie magic.” It is correct to say that editing was used to enhance the levitation effect Blaine used in his first TV special. The basic effect does not require TV editing, but the TV editing made it look more spectacular than it would appear in real life. There has been much discussion within the trade about the ethics of doing this, and some of us agree that it was something of an own-goal, in that (a) the version without the TV trickery would have been quite good enough (it has fooled and entertained many people over the years), and (b) once word gets out that TV editing is used in some of your tricks, it’s hard to persuade people that this isn’t the explanation for all your tricks. DocCathode’s post is an example of this very problem.
DocCathode is incorrect to say that Blaine’s other tricks are also the result of editing techniques or special FX. David Blaine is a reasonably accomplished close-up magician with some very good, well-practised techique, especially with cards. The great majority of things you’ve seen him do on TV, he would be able to do for you right in front of your eyes.
In terms of technique and skill, as a close-up magician he is nowhere near the best, but he is good (if you want to see the best, check out Shoot Ogawa, Armando de Lucero, Darwin Ortiz, Simon Lovell, Michael Vincent and guys of that calibre). However, he has a presentational style that found a new audience for magic and made it seem cool and hip, and that was quite an achievement at the time of his first TV special.
And now, we return you to your thread.