(TV Series)

(2002)

User Reviews

Review this title
1 Review
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Uri Geller: Businessman.
rmax30482315 August 2015
Uri Geller was to the 1970s what Timothy Leary was to the 1960s. That many (or maybe most) of us don't know who either of them were illustrates that some forms of celebrity never last very long.

Geller was born in Israel in 1948, became a male model for deodorants and beach towels, and in the 1970s had become a handsome and persuasive young man who appeared to have supernatural powers that expressed themselves mainly in bending spoons and healing broken watches. He was a sensation, especially after the prestigious Stanford Research Institute (now SRI) subjected Geller to a number of tests and revealed that his feats were superhuman.

The claim was disputed by scientists who claimed that the experiments were extremely clumsy and by magicians like "Randi" who claimed he could duplicate most of Geller's "tricks." And, in fact, Geller failed some very public tests later, at King's College and, humiliatingly, on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson.

Eventually the public tired of being amazed and Geller tried to promote his celebrity further by writing an autobiography in which he claimed to be channeling alien intelligence from outer space. As his public shrank, Geller went into business. He was hired to gold explorers to find pay dirt and by the CIA to erase disks in the suitcases of KGB agents, or so he says. He wound up on The Home Network Channel or whatever it is, hawking his own brand of Geller jewelry, which helps you concentrate all your mental energy. He markets Uri Geller teddy bears for world peace. He's his own brand.

He lives in the English countryside in a multi-million dollar estate and drives a Cadillac adorned with thousands of spoons and forks that he's bent over the years. He tell us that after he's gone, if people remember him only for the knives an forks, he'll smile down at them and then try to help the people on the other side.

Parapsychology or charlatanry? (Nobody seems capable of thinking there may be something in between, in varying degrees.) It's easier to cheat than we might think, especially if you're clever and charismatic. I, being neither, was able to pull it off in a small way when taking a course in parapsychology in Palo Alto with a retired professor of philosophy from Stanford, who'd met Geller, Jeffrey Smith, one of the nicest guys I've ever known. The class was asked to turn away from one another and sketch simple pictures to see if there was any resemblance due to thought transmission or something. (I forget the details.) A young lady and I produced almost identical drawings of a human figure, to the astonishment of everyone. This was achieved by the simple expedient of my whispering into her ear -- she, a total stranger -- that we should both draw female nudes in profile. Q.E.D. Thought transmission -- through the channel of speech.

The program includes interviews with skeptics and supporters. Uri himself, now in his 50s, retains his boyish charm. The most balanced assessment probably comes from the late Marcello Truzzi, also coincidentally a friend from graduate school, who observes that it's entirely possible that Geller may be cheating without actually KNOWING that he's cheating.

Geller's enthusiastic -- not to say frenzied -- pursuit of personal publicity, the money, the compliant girls, the respect, the awe, the applause like little waves of love lapping across the footlights, certainly suggests a charlatan. But my mind is open. I, who have no claim to paranormal abilities, remember a phone ringing and, as I reached for it, it occurred to me that it was a collection agency, after a small sum, that had managed to track me down in the course of a full year from San Diego, California, to Hillside, New Jersey. I was so sure of it that my greeting was nothing more than resigned mope.

There may be more things out there than are dreamed of in philosophy, except Jeffrey Smith's philosophy. I doubt Uri Geller is channeling any of those things. It's worth keeping David Hume's oft-quoted observation in mind:

"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed