Posted by Ian on 2009-05-23
in Celebrity
“It’s all about the wriggling ball.”
This was the theme of a lecture by close-up magician David Williamson this Thursday. David is indisputably one of the great magicians in the world today, a man who if there was any justice in show business should have made it to the big time. He has more talent than most of the best known names in magic rolled into one – and yet somehow fame has passed him by.
If he had been a Brit that would have been understandable. But David is American and one somehow expects Americans to chase that pot of gold. However David has never been a chaser. He has no ruthless streak of ambition that makes him strive to be top dog. He’s one of those guys who seems to love magic with a hobbyist’s enthusiasm and if work comes along, that’s good; but he’s not going to shake the right hand or kiss the right butt in order to succeed.
Which is lucky for us: because it means he’s happy to lecture to magicians. If he had been a David Blaine or a David Copperfield or a Criss Angel or a Ricky Jay or a Kreskin (the best known of the American magicians working today) then we wouldn’t ever see him hanging out with the likes of us. He would be hidden away in his own enclosed world of celebrity entourage mixing with successful artistes and performers from other fields.
So what makes David Williamson so special? I think I would describe it as naturalness of technique. He’s one of the few who performs magic as if he was born to it. Most of us have learnt through trial and error and studying and watching other magicians how to make coins vanish or to palm cards or to spin wands or to bend spoons; but when you watch us you know it’s something we’ve taught ourselves.
People admire us for it because they know how much effort we’ve put into it. But they also instinctively know if they had read the same books and practised sufficiently, then they too could have achieved it.
But watching David you just know however many hours you spent, you would never attain his heights of excellence. It’s so good that the only explanation must be magic. I’ve never seen David perform in front of non-magicians; but I can imagine that it would be a life affirming experience.
There are other factors too in David’s make up which make him exceptional; he’s good looking, tall (which gives him a natural authority), a great raconteur and extremely funny (both physically and verbally). He seems completely nerveless which means he can improvise and take chances which others wouldn’t dare take.
He is totally non-threatening and non-sexual, in the sense that he’s as natural and relaxed with women as he is with men. There is none of the sleaziness, which is characteristic of many male magicians, with his interplay with the opposite sex.
So where does the wriggling ball come in? Well two of the greatest close-up magicians of the twentieth century were sitting together looking at a cup and a ball. Both men were exceptionally bright: if they had put their minds to it they probably could have made some major breakthrough in science or medicine.
As it was, they were discussing how to make a ball wriggle when you lift up a cup to give the impression that the ball had just arrived. If the ball was stationery it would suggest that it had been there for some time; and the illusion of that magical moment would be lost.
Would an audience notice if the ball wriggled or not? Maybe not. Would it make any difference to their enjoyment of the trick if they saw the ball wriggle? Perhaps not. Would the magician get paid more if he made the ball wriggle? Certainly not. But put all those wriggling ball moments together and it’s possible that you can achieve something greater than the sum of the parts.
It’s David’s philosophy that you will never be a good magician unless you do care about the wriggling ball. Indeed he went further; if you don’t care, then you really shouldn’t be a magician in the first place.
Is he right? I couldn’t really say. I know a lot of excellent magicians who couldn’t give a stuff about the wriggling ball. But, then again, none of them are as good as David Williamson.
This was the theme of a lecture by close-up magician David Williamson this Thursday. David is indisputably one of the great magicians in the world today, a man who if there was any justice in show business should have made it to the big time. He has more talent than most of the best known names in magic rolled into one – and yet somehow fame has passed him by.
If he had been a Brit that would have been understandable. But David is American and one somehow expects Americans to chase that pot of gold. However David has never been a chaser. He has no ruthless streak of ambition that makes him strive to be top dog. He’s one of those guys who seems to love magic with a hobbyist’s enthusiasm and if work comes along, that’s good; but he’s not going to shake the right hand or kiss the right butt in order to succeed.
Which is lucky for us: because it means he’s happy to lecture to magicians. If he had been a David Blaine or a David Copperfield or a Criss Angel or a Ricky Jay or a Kreskin (the best known of the American magicians working today) then we wouldn’t ever see him hanging out with the likes of us. He would be hidden away in his own enclosed world of celebrity entourage mixing with successful artistes and performers from other fields.
So what makes David Williamson so special? I think I would describe it as naturalness of technique. He’s one of the few who performs magic as if he was born to it. Most of us have learnt through trial and error and studying and watching other magicians how to make coins vanish or to palm cards or to spin wands or to bend spoons; but when you watch us you know it’s something we’ve taught ourselves.
People admire us for it because they know how much effort we’ve put into it. But they also instinctively know if they had read the same books and practised sufficiently, then they too could have achieved it.
But watching David you just know however many hours you spent, you would never attain his heights of excellence. It’s so good that the only explanation must be magic. I’ve never seen David perform in front of non-magicians; but I can imagine that it would be a life affirming experience.
There are other factors too in David’s make up which make him exceptional; he’s good looking, tall (which gives him a natural authority), a great raconteur and extremely funny (both physically and verbally). He seems completely nerveless which means he can improvise and take chances which others wouldn’t dare take.
He is totally non-threatening and non-sexual, in the sense that he’s as natural and relaxed with women as he is with men. There is none of the sleaziness, which is characteristic of many male magicians, with his interplay with the opposite sex.
So where does the wriggling ball come in? Well two of the greatest close-up magicians of the twentieth century were sitting together looking at a cup and a ball. Both men were exceptionally bright: if they had put their minds to it they probably could have made some major breakthrough in science or medicine.
As it was, they were discussing how to make a ball wriggle when you lift up a cup to give the impression that the ball had just arrived. If the ball was stationery it would suggest that it had been there for some time; and the illusion of that magical moment would be lost.
Would an audience notice if the ball wriggled or not? Maybe not. Would it make any difference to their enjoyment of the trick if they saw the ball wriggle? Perhaps not. Would the magician get paid more if he made the ball wriggle? Certainly not. But put all those wriggling ball moments together and it’s possible that you can achieve something greater than the sum of the parts.
It’s David’s philosophy that you will never be a good magician unless you do care about the wriggling ball. Indeed he went further; if you don’t care, then you really shouldn’t be a magician in the first place.
Is he right? I couldn’t really say. I know a lot of excellent magicians who couldn’t give a stuff about the wriggling ball. But, then again, none of them are as good as David Williamson.
