|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 | ||||||||||
Lusion Special user 590 Posts |
Nfox yes the same book from Jim...no its not inprint I contacted Jim (2 months ago) and he said he only had about 8 left.
|
|||||||||
Alan Munro Inner circle Kentwood, Michigan, USA 5952 Posts |
I like other sawing methods, but I love the Wakeling version! I've been analyzing the Mark Kalin and Jinger presentation of it and I was impressed at the start. I couldn't believe that it seemed even more impossible, with each viewing. The more I know about it, the more impossible it seems.
I'm in the process of researching how I want to build one and the restraints are one of the most challenging aspects. I know this illusion would fit my style, because I love to have spectators involved in the action to make whatever I perform into a miracle. The Wakeling Sawing looks incredibly fair and it's deceptive in a subtle way. |
|||||||||
Harry Murphy Inner circle Maryland 5444 Posts |
Alan, the restraints are already made for you! Just head over to Cannon’s Great Escapes and check them out at:
http://www.cannonsgreatescapes.com/spectacular_2.html Scroll to the bottom of the page. They are referred to as the “Selbeit Sawing Restraints”. They are an Ian McColl (a genius with gimmicked restraints!) and Mark Cannon.
The artist formally known as Mumblepeas!
|
|||||||||
WayneNZ Inner circle New Zealand 1013 Posts |
Thanks for the link Harry.
That solves apoblem Ive had for a while. best wishes Wayne |
|||||||||
Alan Munro Inner circle Kentwood, Michigan, USA 5952 Posts |
I know about the Cannon restraints, but I understand that they can be made rather inexpensively, from items at a tack store. I don't mind doing a little work. I just have to keep the project on budget, without making compromises.
|
|||||||||
Frank Simpson Special user SW Montana 883 Posts |
Whiat I find rather amusing about all the discussion here is that no one has brought up the fact that a VAST majority of audiences will not have opportunity to make a comparison between the two versions! This is not like "which cola is better", or "what brand of coffee is better" where the average consumer has opportunity for regular and near-continuous comparison.
Magic enthusiasts who seek out shows to see at every opportunity will perhaps see both presentations, but likey separated by some period of time which makes an objective comparative analysis impossible. The average lay person will likely go at least year or longer before seeing a different sawing. They would likely, if pressed, give an opinion as to which is "better" but it would probably not have much, if anything, to do with the all the points mentioned in this discussion. I would tend to bet that both presentations would be regarded as enjoyable. Arguing opinions is pointless, as there is no possible way to refute one's opinion. Just an an interesting food-for-thought kind of thing: I remember the first time I ever saw a sawing performed live. It was Stan Kramien, about 1974-5. It was a thin sawing, but he did have a committe onstage with him. To keep them away from the "funny business" he did use restraints, similar to the Wakeling version. This way they were directly, physically involved with the prop, but the 8' lengths of rope assured that they would not get too close, and that they would be contained to the edges of the stage. For the normal bit in thin sawing where the girl's chin is tugged to drop the blade, he requested that the volunteer holding the neck rope give it a sharp tug to drop the blade. Two committe members had been "cold-cued" to run from the stage when this happened, and it got a good laugh. |
|||||||||
mark2004 Loyal user UK 215 Posts |
I agree with you on the point about opinions - you can't tell someone they are wrong about their own preference (I could ramble off about Kant's writing's on aesthetics and the expression of aesthetic judgements but I think that might just bog things down).
My own opinion is that I have been more impressed by performances of the Wakeling and Selbit versions of sawing than by performances using the Thin Model. However I don't think that automatically means Alan Wakeling's or P.T. Selbit's designs are better. My feeling is that it just happens that the magicians I happen to have seen using those props were better performers with better-developed and better-presented routines. All the various sawings have their own strengths and weakenesses. Even the cheap and cheerful "use-it-on-a-volunteer" Jig Saw can make for a good show in the right hands. Conversely, it doesn't matter how good the Thin Model or Wakeling designs are if they aren't backed up by drama or comedy or other performance skills. Unfortunately for advocates of the Thin Model it seems (from my entirely subjective observations) that quite a few second-rate performers have bought this illusion and stuck it in their shows in the belief that going through the motions with an established prop is a recipe for success. On the other hand, for one reason or another, there seem to be fewer performers doing the Wakeling sawing and very few doing the Selbit and other variations. Furthermore these performers seem to be, on the whole, more professional. The result is that there's a higher probability of seeing a lacklustre Thin Model whilst the odds are that if you see someone doing the Wakeling or Selbit they are likely to give a good dramatic presentation. For the record here the above is purely my personal observations and I accept that this might be a statistically unreliable sample. Also, I am not a performer although I am a collector of magic books and paraphernalia. I do think that performers sometimes lose track of the audience perspective on these issues and get drawn into technical discussion. I don't suppose I'm entirely immune to that myself. However my observations of various performances of different sawings are drawn from a lifetime of watching magic as a fan. For much of the time I have come at this as someone who first and foremost wanted to be entertained and only more recently have I taken an interest in working out the puzzle of how its all done. |
|||||||||
Wade Live Veteran user Earth 322 Posts |
Why perform it? BECAUSE IT KICKS *SS!
|
|||||||||
Alan Munro Inner circle Kentwood, Michigan, USA 5952 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-03-18 16:03, Wade Live wrote: Yup...it can kick *ss. Another thing that I like about it is that it fits my performing style. I like to perform things that appear to be performed in a disarmingly fair manner. Challenge presentations get a great audience response for me. |
|||||||||
mark2004 Loyal user UK 215 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-03-18 17:29, Alan Munro wrote: I agree it can kick *ss, but it can also fail badly if you're not up to the job. A few cautions are worthwhile: You have to be good at patter. The Wakeling is one of those illusions that involves a lot of spoken presentation. You have to maintain a monologue for the audience and at the same time keep an exchange going with each of the volunteers to keep them under control. You cannot let up on this - pauses or lack of vocal presence will sink this illusion. One of the reasons people so often cite Kalin's presentation is that he is brilliant at this aspect. This is not an illusion that will suit a magician who generally does an act to music and without much spoken presentation. It is therefore also not good for situations in which there might be some difficulty with spoken presentation to an audience (eg. language differences, sound system limitations etc.) If it is done on TV shows it has to be done in formats that have a studio audience - it won't really work if done straight to camera in an otherwise empty studio. As much as I dislike the Thin Model sawing I admit that it is quite versatile in some respects and merely requires the performers to go through the correct sequence of physical moves (which is perhaps why I have seen so many lacklustre presentations of it). It seems to me the key to a really effective sawing illusion (whichever design you choose) is in the build up as much as in the method. As with so many things it is the thought that counts. The reason Selbit's original performance made so much impact is that the fundamental proposition - the portrayal of a woman being sawn in two - was shocking. I think that modern magicians sometimes miss that and think it is sufficient to present an illusion that is visually puzzling. In doing so they lose any element of danger or horror or tension. OK, not everyone will want to go for the horror angle but it is still possible to create tension. Even though pretty much eveyone understands these days that what is being presented is visual trickery it is still possible to imply an element of risk. For example, you can get audience members to verify you are using a real saw, you can imply the illusion requires great skill or timing and if anything goes wrong then the assistant faces real danger. In addition, the Selbit and Wakeling sawings feature elaborate sequences in which the assistant is restrained prior to the actual sawing element. These sequences were designed not only to project the idea that the assistant is fixed in a particular place but as a vehicle for building tension. They provide time during which the audience is carefully presented with Selbit's key proposition - the shocking idea that a woman is being restrained on a table and is about to be sliced in two. It's in this element that performers like Kalin or Paul Daniels really do their stuff, selling the concept to an audience and mixing humour and seriousness according to their own particular styles. I have one final criticism of many presentations of the Wakeling sawing. This is that I think the absence of a saw detracts greatly from the effect. In most presentations I have seen with the Wakeling prop the magician just drops the two dividers in and they simply do not feel like a convincing way to cut a person in two. OK, I know we are talking about magic where all kinds of things are supposed to happen in mystic ways and in that context it is reasonable for someone to be divided in two with no great effort. It's just that I feel a real looking saw contributes an important part of Selbit's original proposition, which I mentioned previously. I've seen at least one Wakeling-type sawing that included a saw so I don't see any reason why the props can't be built to allow that. I'm also certain that the original Thin Model included the use of a real saw before the dividers were dropped in and I've seen plenty of performances that followed that recipe so I don't fully understand why I've also seen performances that omitted the saw (all I can think of is that they were desperate to cut down on time or they were desperately short of money to buy a saw. Or maybe there was some sort of weird problem with safety regulations...?) So, in summary, my view is: Whatever version of sawing we're talking about, it's not just about going, "ta-da! look a woman in two pieces!", it's about selling an idea to the audience, creating tension and triggering that side of the human psyche that compels people to watch shocking things. |
|||||||||
Alan Munro Inner circle Kentwood, Michigan, USA 5952 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-03-21 05:06, mark2004 wrote: I agree. The reason that I chose it is because patter is one of my strengths. I'm good at writing it and delivering it for proper effect. One thing that has always puzzled me is the fact that relatively little is written about verbal misdirection - other types of misdirection tend to get much more attention. If one knows how to craft sentences, you can get others to accept some statements without questioning them - a scary thought, when the technique is abused. |
|||||||||
Alan Munro Inner circle Kentwood, Michigan, USA 5952 Posts |
By the way, I just got an email stating that Osborne plans will be available for the Wakeling Sawing in about a month. Great news!
|
|||||||||
sethman Regular user 145 Posts |
I'll be the first in line to buy the plans. It's a great illusion.
|
|||||||||
Dave Dorsett Veteran user Macomb, Illinois 345 Posts |
With all due respect to Paul, I strongly recommend anyone interested in the Selbit/Wakeling Divided go the extra mile to see / buy "The Magic of Alan Wakeling" by Jim Steinmeyer.
This is one effect where the "why" and "how did we get here" is as important (if not more) as the "cut a piece this size." And that's just for this one effect. There is brilliance in almost all ideas and philosophies of Alan Wakeling.
Dave Dorsett
Douglas~Wayne Illusioneering |
|||||||||
Alan Munro Inner circle Kentwood, Michigan, USA 5952 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-03-23 11:26, Dave Dorsett wrote: I'll be first in line to buy a copy, when it's republished in paperback. But I have no idea how long it will be before the copies start hitting the shelves. In the meantime, I'm doing the next best thing - analyzing why the presentations work or don't work, and taking notes. As for using a saw in the illusion, I'd rather just use the blades. But, I agree that blades are often just dropped in, with no thought to the effect. I, for one, will be using the blades as if they were large meat cleavers. What parts would be easy to cut through and what parts wouldn't be? Bone would be hard, but cartilage would be easy. It may be a gruesome thought, but that adds to the realism and helps in developing a silent script. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Grand illusion » » Why perform Wakeling sawing? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.06 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |