by sleightlycrazy » Dec 5th, '07, 01:01
Pointless was a bad choice of words on my part, and I apologize to those who were offended. I'm honestly surprised at the amount of mockery I got from a few of you, though.
I think that the conditions of the productions can't be as affective if the coins simply come out of the air. As astonishing as producing from the air is, I feel it lacks a certain quality. It would be interesting to create a clash in what the audience 'wants' while doing the miser effect. When the coins come out of the air over and over again, the audience thinks "Yea?! Do it again" and will be delighted when more coins appear impossibly. That's fine. To me, though, when the performer loses something, a part of himself, for every coin he gets, it creates a conflict inside the spectator. "It's amazing that he's impossibly getting money at his finger tips, but look at that! He's bleeding for it...".
I was hoping that my idea of transforming (sacrificing...?) hair, and eventually blood, etc. would have an interesting subtext of the price of money. It wouldn't be very long, and I wouldn't turn more than three hairs into coins.
It's just my opinion, and I appreciate the thoughts of those who gave them. My wording about the classic Miser's Dream pi**ed off a few, but I hope I made my position a bit clearer (at least enough that they can offer their thoughts minus the criticism about my word choice).
PS to clarify, the idea of storing coins in my hair is eliminated. I pluck the hair fairly (fingers wide apart) with my left hand, and carefully place it in my right fingertips, and shake my right hand to show that the hair turned into a coin. It would be a Downs palm production, but the hand motion would be up and down rather than forward to back.
Currently Reading "House of Mystery" (Abbott, Teller), Tarbell, Everything I can on busking