Magicbunny.co.uk :: Guest Speakers

nippy99: Mr Durham,

Firstly let me express my gratitude to you for taking time from your busy schedule to answer all our questions. Your help and advice is invaluable.

I saw your show during your previous tour in Guildford, which would now have been about six years ago. It was the show where you started with the children's magic set and explained how you got into magic. An excellent show and hopefully I will get a chance to see you during your current tour.

One effect that stood out for me was the one where you had two towers of about 6 wooden building blocks each individually numbered. When you covered up each tower with a tube and quickly removed it again the order of the blocks had changed. The whole routine was superbly done and this has haunted me ever since. The speed of execution was incredible.

Q, Is this effect still in your new show? Is there a story behind how it originated?

Q, Given your success at breaking away from the Great Soprendo persona, did you find it hard to establish yourself simply as Geoffrey Durham?

Q, And what are your hopes and dreams for the future? Is there an effect you would like to perform and perfect?

Q, And finally, what is your most treasured magical item?

Sorry for having so many questions, thank you so much.

Best Wishes

Darren

PS I've just searched through my ever-increasing library of magic books and have found a copy of Magic as a Hobby by Bruce Elliot. I paid Ł1-50 for it a few years ago and following your comments I shall be taking a closer look!

Geoffrey Durham: Hi Darren

Thank you for your kind comments on the blocks trick.

It was invented by P.T. Selbit about 80 or 90 years ago, and is variously called the Bewildering Blocks, Sympathetic Blocks and (not entirely surprisingly) Selbit Blocks. I agree, it's a great trick.

I first created a routine for it about 14 years ago, and did it for a one-off TV show. It was quite successful, but when I came to re-do it for the stage, I found that I couldn't do it in the same way. (I had used a volunteer for the climax, and his random pile of blocks was duplicated by mine when the tube was lifted.) My problem was that I didn't want to use the spectator for just the end of the trick- it worked on TV, but worried me very much to do it the same way on stage.

So I set about changing the routine, and that was where my problems began. I just couldn't find a good ending. I tried doing part of it blindfolded (terrible idea), I did part of it behind my back (absolutely dreadful) and then, after about four years, I finally came up with a climax that worked - I turned the whole pile upside down, and lifted the tube to find the other set upside down, too. Phew!

In the process, I discovered that my tube had to be made of steel, because it got such a hammering in the handling of the trick - so I just pass that on in case it is of use to anybody.

And no, I'm sorry, it isn't in my new show. When I put together the latest edition, I decided to make the first 90 minutes completely new, and the Selbit Blocks fell by the wayside in that process. But I'm sure it will come back in the future.

In answer to your second question, yes, it was quite difficult to get people to accept that I wasn't going to be doing the old act any more. It wasn't so much the public, but rather the agents and bookers who found it so hard to take. I suppose they resented having a familiar source of income removed from them! Certainly it was a good few years before they took it as read that I wasn't going back to my old ways.

Next question? My hopes and dreams for the future - well, I'm not an ambitious person, and I don't have any grand plans. So long as I can make a living and be with my kids, I tend to feel OK. I'm definitely going flat out with the new show next year, then in 2005 I've decided to take a year off - though when the time comes, I may re-consider that! And after that? Who knows...

You ask if there's a piece of magic that I would like to perfect. Well, strange as it may seem, it's the Chinese Sticks. I've seen it performed so often and so badly over the years that I'd love to come up with something that really knocks people sideways.

And in answer to your last question about my most treasured magical item, well (back to the last question) it's undoubtedly Roy Benson's original set of Chinese Sticks. He did a wonderful version of the trick using three sticks, and he always made his own props for the trick. I have one of those sets, and it's really beautiful, and it acts as a constant inspiration to me to try and take the trick one stage further.

Geoffrey

Graham: Mr Durham,

Does there already exist, or are there any plans to release, "The Best of Magic" on video or DVD? It would be a real shame for these gems to be relegated to a vault somewhere. As you stated elsewhere, these shows are not inexpensive to produce, so making them available for a whole new generation to enjoy would certainly be worth the production company's efforts.

kind regards,

Graham Nichols.

Geoffrey Durham: Hi Graham

I really have no idea if there are any plans to issue The Best of Magic in any other format, but I'd be very surprised. Certainly, they wouldn't sell if Thames Television chose to distribute them in the shops, and so it would be for the producer, John Fisher to issue them "privately" to magicians in some form. But I would imagine that copyright restrictions would prevent him from doing that.

Sorry...

Geoffrey

Orion: First of all, thank you for visiting these boards - I am amazed at the length and breath of your replies. You have an extensive knowledge of this art that is impressive to see and so valuable to learn from.

You recently mentioned the similarity of a magician and a TV cook:

Quote:

Watch the good television cooks. The similarity between the work of a TV magician and TV cook is very striking.

Geoffrey Durham: Hi Orion

Thank you for your kind message.

I was at first surprised that you were at first surprised! Then I realised that it must sound odd, since cooking and magic are hardly the same thing.

Well, yes, of course. What I was talking about was the similarities between the job of TV cook and TV magician.

In both cases, you decide at home what you're going to do. Nobody at the TV company knows or cares.

You get together the props. You pay for them. Nobody at the TV company knows or cares.

You rehearse. You work out the right order to present each moment, so that the sequence is clear. This will often be different from how you would do it if you were working to an ordinary audience, because the camera only has one viewpoint. So your job is to introduce each ingredient so that the whole is clear, and you need to explain clearly what's going on at the same time. In both jobs, you need to understand how to explain yourself.

You then write a script, so that your explanation becomes entertaining.

When you've rehearsed enough, you pack it all up. You need to pack spares of everything. In the case of the cook you need to line up at least two of the finished dish as it comes out of the oven. In the case of the magician, you need to line up at least two ready-set-up props in case of disasters. (Your studio bosses will not take kindly to you re-setting a prop if you need a re-take).

And then you get to the studio with your script and your props and nervous energy, and you SPARKLE! Everything needs to be up and energetic and clear, but you also need to have your nerve well enough in place to know that you aren't going to drop an egg, or worse, a pack of cards in Si Stebbins order. Because if you do, you won't be hired again.

They are both highly specialised, and, I think, very similar jobs in show business.

I did a pilot about ten years ago of a street magic show (and everyone said it could never catch on!). My model in that little enterprise was Keith Floyd, at the time the most entertaining and apparently freewheeling cook on British TV. I learned so much from watching him. Because I realised that while it looked unprepared it was in fact rehearsed to the nth degree. And today, I learn from other TV chefs. They can teach us all a lot.

Geoffrey

Chabang: When writing your introduction for this forum I realised that unlike so many other performers it was virtually impossible to label you as being one particular type (a close-up magician, a mentalist) due to the phenomenal variety of styles you have presented over the years - to this end how would you classify yourself?

Geoffrey Durham: Hi Chabang

I think I'd probably describe myself as a stand-up magician. Stand-up magic has quite a long and honourable history, particularly in Britain, but it's not too common elsewhere. I think it may possibly have been David Devant who started it - not that I'm comparing myself to him!

Stand-up magicians are able to offset the cynicism of the audience by commenting on the ludicrousness of what they're doing - I think that's what probably attracted me to it!

Geoffrey

Graham: Mr Durham,

What is your criterion for assistant selection, to avoid picking on someone who may disrupt the smooth running of the set? While the obvious "loudmouths" need to be avoided, there are also the not so obvious danger zones such as those who would rather die than be called up before an audience. None of us would wish to put them through such an ordeal. Just two examples ...

kind regards,

Graham

Geoffrey Durham: Hi Graham

This is a very good question, and one I could write a very long answer to. I'll try to keep it short.

999 times out of 1,000, if a spectator disrupts your set, it is your fault.

If the relationship between a magician and a volunteer is about power, then the relationship has gone wrong. It's the magician's responsibility to put it right.

I saw a magician do a show not so long ago, and he used three volunteers. The first was told to "stand over there, under the bag of cement". The second was asked to "stand just there, over the trapdoor". The third (a lady) was told to "put your legs together - can you remember how to do that?".

This kind of stuff can be lots of fun for the magician, and it can undoubtedly get a good response from the rest of the audience. But magicians only have themselves to blame if spectators don't want to come up and be subjected to such stuff. Or of course they may want to fight their corner...

And it's hardly surprising if less and less people choose to volunteer as your set progresses.

A lot of us come into magic because we're basically shy, and it gives us a kick to be able to control other people by doing things that they can't understand. That's fine. But often it can lead to an arrogant attitude, which puts the magician in a false position of power.

So here are some suggestions.

Open your set with an effect, which doesn't need a volunteer. Watch the audience. Look for the people who are laughing at your jokes, or who are interested in your trick, or who are (a good test, this) leaning forward. Look at their eyes. Are they warm? Do they sparkle just a little bit? If so, look them in the eye, just briefly, just once. See if they look back. If they do, they are a good bet for a good volunteer.

Ask them if they would like to help, and look them in the eyes again at the same time. If they say no, respect that immediately, and move on to someone else. Never press-gang a volunteer. When someone agrees and they help with the trick, be kind to them. Be as courteous as you would be if they visited your home. Try to put them at their ease. Ask their name, and remember it (crucial!) and use it often. Let them say whatever they want to say, and listen to them, and respond as if it were a conversation. (Actually, it is a conversation.) Don't be bound by a script, but keep the structure of the trick in mind, and keep the thing moving.

When the trick is over, make sure they get a round of applause, or at least (if it is a small audience for a close-up performance) show your own appreciation.

My experience is that you will never have a problem with a disruptive volunteer again.

A final thought. It can often be a bad idea to close your act on a volunteer trick. That is because the person has to get their applause, and go back to their seat, and it muddies the final picture of your set. You need all eyes to be on you at the end, and you need all the applause to be for you. For that reason, I have never closed on a volunteer trick.

I hope some of this is useful.

Geoffrey

Graham: Mr Durham,

Many thanks for that excellent reply.

The magic act that uses the "bag of cement" or "clean hand, dirty hand" tack highlights what can be wrong with magic for me. It actually damages magic, as many will think twice about volunteering after such an ordeal. Often that "magician" is far too thick skinned, or just plain thick!, to realise how far from the correct track they are.

This reminds me of an act which appeared on the 'Jerry Sadowitz Show' to be judged by Bobby Bernard. The young guy came on with his sponge routine, and used the opening line "Would you like to see my balls?". Bobby put his head in his hands, and I found myself rummaging in my pocket for a stun gun.

There is so much more to performing magic than effects.

All the best,

Graham