talkmagic.co.uk

When is a performer crossing the line seperating entertainment from talking to the dead? Perhaps I am the only one, but I do not see how such a thing can be taken for entertainment.

I am fine if Jim wants to go on entertaining in this way, I just don't think it is a good form of entertainment. I realize this may just be a personal preference.


-Ben

well, he doesnt talk to "the dead" he talks to one or two in particular...not from members of the audience a la acorah or fry...but one that he knew/became aware of...

Craig Browning wrote:So you've never done any kind of Ghost or Seance Shows? Never used a paranormal theme in any of your work?

What about the Houdini Seance at the Magic Castle, is that evil and wrong?

Are Falkenstein & Willard charlatans for doing their Spirit Cabinet act?

What about our own Paul Bell and all of his spirited work?

No, I have never done any ghost or seance shows, and I have never used a paranormal theme. I trained as a physicist and such themes would not work for me.
The Houdini Seance at the Magic Castle (forgive me if I have this wrong) has never contacted Houdini, and is presented as entertainment in a magic venue. No claim is made that it is a "genuine" seance, or anything more than slick mystery magic.
The Falkenstein & Willard act was presented as magic pure and simple. I saw it as a child and loved it - but even at the age of eleven I knew (and the entire audience knew) we were watching skilled magicians.
Paul Bell makes it clear in Reader of Minds (a very enjoyable book) that he does not speak to the dead, or pretend to do so, during his performances.
Callahan pretends that he can speak to the dead, which puts him with the Frys and other frauds.

JakeThePerformer wrote:Which came first, Talk Magic or Magic Talk?

One day "Talk Magic" & "Magic Talk" were lying in bed together. "Talk Magic" had a special "glow", while "Magic Talk" enjoyed a cigarette with a most satisfied look...

"Talk Magic" rolled over, looked deeply into "Magic Talk's" eyes and said...

"well, I guess we answered that age old question..."

B0bbY_CaT wrote:

JakeThePerformer wrote:Which came first, Talk Magic or Magic Talk?

One day "Talk Magic" & "Magic Talk" were lying in bed together. "Talk Magic" had a special "glow", while "Magic Talk" enjoyed a cigarette with a most satisfied look...

"Talk Magic" rolled over, looked deeply into "Magic Talk's" eyes and said...

"well, I guess we answered that age old question..."

I'm stealing this and posting it over a MT

I simply can't see what Jim does as being in any way, anything other than THEATER. He's simply taking material we've done for decades and making it more intense. His presentation points exploit the very same things the rest of us (are supposed to) exploit when doing Mentalism and/or this mode of Bizarre performance. In my mind and I'm certain Jim's, it's not unlike what we find in most of the present day Ghost films and Horror productions.

Jim is not out charging folks for his work as a "Medium", he sells himself as an ENTERTAINER when it comes to his ACT. Like many old school mentalists and those that work outside the Dunninger Mold he will do work as a Reader, his writings on that subject are considered to be some of the best going, in fact. But, like Scott McClellan in Canada and others, he sells the act as being legit so as to sell the fantasy today's public wants... they want an EXPERIENCE with things Taboo, for lack of a better inference.

The Willard Spirit Cabinet was originally presented as the real thing as were most all spirit cabinet acts of the 19th and 20th century (up till the 1970s & 80s). The Houdini Seance created by Larsen Sr. was originally sold as an enactment of what a "real" Victorian Seance was like but did emphasize that what folks experienced were the various tricks & whistles Kellar and Houdini had booth caught charlatans using... of course, today's version is far removed from the one penned in the 1930s.

The only thing Jim is guilty of is not doing his show using the same "safe" and tired modular course of production 95.5% of all other Psychic Entertainers, use and he's being singled-out and crucified for it... but only on those forums where cynicism and arm-chair expertism abound. I've yet to see any of his detractors step into Jim world on the turf where Jim has the greater level of support, and attempt the same... but then, that can be said about a lot of folks in which the scenario of attack are of a similar composition.

To Clarify my Position... if I for one second thought Jim was attempting to take advantage of the public with what he presents, I'd be the first in line to bust his chops. But to date I've not seen one single reason to suspect as much; the only complaints set against him coming from a jaded side of the magic community that wants to bury this style of performance just as the old Minstrel acts of American history got swept under the carpet and for not so dissimilar reasons. We may as well be screaming about those Female Impersonators (now calling themselves "Illusionists" no less) that come off as being 100% woman on and off stage vs. the Clown Drag (that actually gets played by more "straight" men than gays)... which one is "right" and which is exploiting whom?

It's all a matter of comfort level to both, audience and the performer. I think that's the bottom line.