|
|
The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3158 Posts |
You're performing a Copper/Silver routine. They have both coins in their hand, they pull out one. It's the copper. You take it and change it magically into a silver (spellbound). They open their hand and see that it's the copper piece.
There are various potential claims to power that you've just demonstrated. "I can do a neat coin trick." "I can change things even if they're in your hand." "I can make two things switch places." (vs "I can make two 'coins' switch places.") etc. Do you ever think about magic from this standpoint? Do you pick and choose your effects based on the implied claims to power? A quick (but important) NB: The concept of a claim to power doesn't have to be an overt one. It's just a natural, logical theatrical extension of the effect just demonstrated. NB2: If this sounds like interesting theory, cool, but I deserve absolutely zero credit for it. A smart guy in Minnesota is doing most of the interesting work on it that I know of.
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Directors do something like that when exploring play texts - reading context and meaning to the words so they gain resonance
"This is not going to be a martial arts demonstration" "And even though others are close enough to help out..." "I am none the less going to get that silver coin out of your hand" "Really" At college it would be the biggest, toughest... person in the audience up for this bit of fun. And several times they would leave the room, open their hand and you could hear the gasp (or scream) from outside before they'd come back to show the rest the copper coin in their hand. The implied power is simply that my will/imagination was strong enough to see the coins change first in my mind then in their hand overpowering their imagination about what they have in their hand. Implied power. IMHO it's more fun to let them figure out what sort of magic the performer is demonstrating - like turning on an overhead lamp before doing chink-a-chink so they can see you deliberately making sure you have shadows.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3158 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-08-07 06:55, Jonathan Townsend wrote: This is absolutely an important point. Whether or not it's out there and acknowledged by everybody that you're claiming a power isn't so much the issue as is the need for theatrical consistency. One might use the exact same technique to make a copper coin change into a silver coin and another might use to change a dummy billet for a billet containing pertinent information, but the potential power claims potentially could not be more dissimilar. Conversely, a DL might potentially imply the same power as a Bobo Switch. Not that it's necessarily theatrically interesting to say "Here, watch me do a Design Duplication under these conditions. Now watch me do a DD under these conditions. Whoa Nelly, look at these new conditions, wait for it, here comes another DD." But if we're trying to establish a legitimate character, then it makes sense to look for those little consistencies that help make a character legitimate. They might not necessarily be power claim based, but that could be a factor...
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
|
Brad Burt Inner circle 2675 Posts |
It is absolutely vital to any magic routine that you determine what the ultimate effect is that you are doing. Else how does one decide on the patter structure? I can't think of any part of putting presentation together that is not affected in some manner by what you decide the 'EFFECT' will be.
A corollary to this is that it's handy to be able to actually 'know' what the effect is going to be or how if you change something in the routine if affects the overall effect. An example: B'Wave by Phil Goldstein is a wonderful, killer trick. If you do it AS THE INSTRUCTIONS TELL YOU TO ... you will be doing a frightfully effective prediction effect. BUT...if you were to give the four cards an Elmsley Count before finishing the trick you have just changed it's end effect totally! I'll let those who have not thought this through to figure out just what it changes to, but this is one of the more blatant examples from the last few years. Magicians unthinkingly and willy nilly added in the E.Count simply because they found out that it 'fit'. But, in reality it did not fit if you were concerned to maintain the original effect of B'Wave. Fascinating really. All best,
Brad Burt
|
gaddy Inner circle Agent of Chaos 3526 Posts |
Assuming this is not a diatribe about the necessity on non necessity of "disclaimers", I think it all comes down to the reactions, or emotions, you want to evoke in your spectators.
Consider these two simplified handlings of the invisible deck: "I hold in my hand an invisible deck of cards. Do you believe me? No? OK, then take out a card and show it to the audience -they cannot see it, because it's invisible, so tell them which card it is... Ok, now put it back into the deck, but put it in upside down! I "magically" make the deck appear, and voila!!! Your card is the only card in the deck that is now upside down!" "Last night I had the strangest dream. I dreamed that I was performing magic and it was going badly -I kept screwing up! But you were there, in my dream, and you told me not to worry because, in the future, you'd pick a very specific, certain card... I was so excited to do magic with you that it actually woke me up out of my deep sleep! I knew that if I just went back to bed, I'd forget your card, so I grabbed the deck of cards I keep under my pillow and flipped your specific card over in the deck. Hopefully my dream will become a reality right now! -Name your favorite card, while I open this deck of cards..." Both are fine versions of this trick, but the implications of either one are completely different than the other. Each one assumes different magical means, and in one context either one could be OK, but under the right circumstances, one (or the other) would be the stronger trick. I hope this makes sense...
*due to the editorial policies here, words on this site attributed to me cannot necessarily be held to be my own.*
|
The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3158 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-08-21 23:50, gaddy wrote: Disclaimers may factor into the discussion if people make overt power claims, but that's only a small part of what this is all about. Let's say I'm in a show. Early on, I do a spellbound routine. I borrow a quarter from somebody and change it into a Chinese coin of similar size. I change it back. I change it again, and then back. Some spellbound-appropriate climax is reached. Let's assume the routine goes off without a hitch, it's deceptive and everybody's entertained. Later in the same set, I say I've got a prediction. A jar of quarters is on the table and it's on top of a sealed envelope. One person reaches inside, grabs some quarters, and then dumps them on the table. The magician and the spectator go back and forth eliminating coins (let's assume it's something more deceptive than PATEO). There's one coin left, and he picks it up and hands it to the spectator. He then hands them the envelope. They take it and the coin. They open the envelope and see a date that says "1988". The other coins that were spilled on the table are examined, and they all have different dates. The coin in the spectator's hand is dated 1988. Again, let's assume that it's entertaining and deceptive. On the surface, this would seem like two different effects. Unfortunately, there's a power conflict. If the magician has shown that he can physically change one coin into another (via spellbound), then obviously it makes sense that he can change any arbitrarily chosen coin into a coin that matches the date he needs. He might not need to use the same techniques in both routines -- that's not what it's about -- but he does run into a problem where the prediction is essentially weakened because the power being claimed is diluted by other powers already established. He might not even be overtly claiming powers. However, even if he doesn't, in every effect there's an implied power being demonstrated. I think it's a fascinating study to examine the relationship between effects and the suggested powers associated with them. Another example: A buddy of mine did a card show recently where he starts with strong sleight of hand, going from gambling to Jumping Gemini to card-to-pocket, before ending with a prediction -- a card, freely chosen, happens to match the card written in a book that corresponds to the spectator's birthday. It's a good routine, and he does have a presentational ploy that allows him to mix what on the surface seems like card mechanics with mental magic. Unfortunately, in that final routine, he wasn't as hands-off with the cards as he could have been, and he didn't stress the fairness of the proceedings. He even handled the card a little bit before showing that they matched (and he didn't even have to). In a regular mentalist's hands this might not have been a big issue, because many mentalists are good about downplaying the possibility of being able to control and/or switch cards, so it's less likely to come about. This guy, though, had already shown he can swap cards around, make them jump to impossible locations, and then he followed it up with a routine where a possible explanation by the spectator could easily be card switching to make the match, and he didn't give them the necessary information to cancel the possibility of card switching. The show itself was fine, fooled everybody there, his handlings worked, but there was still a power conflict that I think lessened the reaction he should have gotten.
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
|
Brad Burt Inner circle 2675 Posts |
Bouncing off of what Gaddy said above concerning the 'emotions' one would like to evoke in an audience/spectator...I have always kept it simple. I don't want folks to weep or shriek in fear, etc. All I work for is amazement. That's it. I want folks to be AMAZED. If some befuddlement and awe come along with that....cool.
I admit...this is certainly limiting in one sense, but it's also freeing in an other. I need not worry about scripting for an emotional response that I do not feel I can provoke. I also look at 'magic' in some sense as defining the very concept of AMAZEMENT! If you REALLY could do magic and were power hungry you might want to parlay that amazement into some form of force over others. But, generally I have to believe if someone 'could' pluck real gold coins from the air they would in fact keep such skill a BIG secret!!! So for me MAGIC and AMAZEMENT are much the same thing. Best,
Brad Burt
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-08-23 15:32, Brad Burt wrote:... IMHO the words are related though distantly - and not even the same type or words. Here's sentence to illustrate: He used magic to get the job done though also left the household amazed that he would do such a thing. Though both words describe potential sentimental reactions to an event one is like a bandaid over a cognitive gap while the other is a sort of ointment to keep the wound from hurting - as in "you'd be very frightened if you weren't so amazed".
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
Brad Burt Inner circle 2675 Posts |
From the American Heritage Dictionary: Amazement, Noun
1. A state of extreme surprise or wonder; astonishment. 2. Obsolete usage: Bewilderment; perplexity. In every understanding of the word amazement noted by the Dictionary, even the Obsolete usage, that's what I want my magic to inspire in those who see it. Brad Burt did a wonderful turn at a local nightclub in which the crowd was thrown into a state of extreme surprise and wonder. They were in every way astonished at what they witnessed. Patrons stumbled about in bewilderment exuding perplexity! It was a very AMAZING bit of magical entertainment. Works for me! Give me that ol' time bandaid and ointment of a magic performance that fits that description any ol' day! I honestly can't figure out what you are arguing for in it's place. Tedium and apathy perhaps or the dull realization that once again the magician just won't get to the freaking point and give us some show now that we've given him our business. If your argument is that the words amazement and magic can both be understood in varying ways....well...yeah. If you are saying that you JUST cannot see them used together on this forum. Well....ok again. I will grant you that the sentence: "Bob was amazed when the masked serial killer cut off his arm with a large knife in a very magical manner.", may in fact be a better use of both words. But, it certainly says nothing about the craft of magic nor should it...I hope. I honestly, honestly did not think that wanting 'magic' to be amazing was so controversial! The more I go over it the funnier it gets. I can't for the life of me figure out and I have been at this over an hour now, how the word 'magic' could be interpreted as a 'band-aid' over a cognitive gap? Isn't that one of our weapons? Cognitive gaps to me just means that I have misdirected well enough for someone to rightly miss what I want them to miss. Bang...we get to the effect of the trick and hopefully amazement. If Amazement is an ointment to help the poor faltering spectator feel better about themselves then we really shouldn't be doing magic in the first place. If it's that destructive to the ego or whatever of the watcher then there's a problem from inception. Possibly you are implying that the problem IS that we are not in fact aware of the problem we are causing by doing magic that amazes? I ain't never seen it in 37 years as a pro, but it could be there. Well, anyway, it gave me a darned good way to shunt off my anxiety for a while! All best,
Brad Burt
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Performing magic tricks for people and finding that aside from being delighted they are also feeling amazed - is a darned good thing IMHO.
There are better dictionaries which discuss the distinctions between bewilderment, amazement, astonishment etc Magic can have all sorts of responses from people, from fear that you will harm them with a curse to hope that you will help cure their ailments to ... well amazement is nice as long as you can distract them before they start banging into the walls of their maze (or box) and start getting unhappy. The word "magic" itself - in the context we most often use use it - IMHO it's the missing (not directly perceived by the audience) causal agency connecting the directed will of the performer and the resultant outcome as distinct from the performer's side actual mechanics in action during the performance from the perspective of the performer.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
gaddy Inner circle Agent of Chaos 3526 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-08-23 15:32, Brad Burt wrote: An interesting aside, Burt. In San Francisco we've got a great magic community, full of people who really care about magic and are also very good at it. One rather odd... side effect... of this, is that a sizable minority of the magi take the whole "emotional involvement of the spectators" and "magic as an artform" aspect of magic far, far too seriously -to the point that they really contrive their plots and storylines to hit a faux emotional note, and in doing so the whole trick suffers badly. OK, back to the topic!
*due to the editorial policies here, words on this site attributed to me cannot necessarily be held to be my own.*
|
Brad Burt Inner circle 2675 Posts |
I can think of dozens of emotions that magic 'could' provoke and dozens of shades thereof. I prefer 'amazement' with whatever shades of difference it will provoke in the various persons watching. I just prefer it.
Go forth friends and cause fear and it's various brethren: Affright, alarm, apprehension, dread, fearfulness, fright, funk, horror, panic, terror, trepidation. Open the spillways to depression and the hobgoblin of utter despair. Or, perhaps you will select lighthearted merriment! Behold the Pale Horse of comedic triumph and after him follows spectator's out of breath! Each performer, hopefully, knows WHAT he wishes to provoke in those watching. I just happen to like Amazement no matter how difficult it is to tie down to a solid definition. Mine includes the spontaneous intake of breath and widening of the eyes. Hopefully applause once they have again gained composure. And, that ever widening smile of delight when they discover that they have been amazed or whatever you want to call it. Hey, it could happen....... Best regards,
Brad Burt
|
Lawrence O Inner circle French Riviera 6811 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-08-07 06:23, Andrew Musgrave wrote: If you are interested into what some magicians like Al Schneider call "real magic" (sharing a magical experience with people) as opposed to "magical jugglery" (demonstration of skil) or theatrical magic (demonstration of magical effects), then you may want to read Al Schneider technique on his web site (or his first two DVDs) Darwin Ortiz Strong Magic Darwin Ortiz Designing Miracles Eugene Burger Magic & Meaning Henning Nelms Magic and showmanship These will cost you much less than what you are prepared to spend in tricks over the years. On top of these exceptional writings, and only if you are interested in sharing "real magical experiences" with your audience and get a real suspension of disbelief, I would add an advice: take away all the "I" from your scripts and replace them by "We". This helps getting rid of a challenging or ego approach and constitutes a first step towards real magic. This approach, for modest it may seem, is a fantastic reputation maker. Good advertisement is not the direct claim of power by the beneficiary of the claim but the indirect word of mouth about the performer's power made by others. Indirect advertisement and testimony is by far the best advertisement for a magician: his direct marketing sould only cover his acts (the types of magic he does), and his indirect marketing should be very active (thanks to the net) and be about him (how other people think a performer is "remarkable" is what gets the reputation and the money)
Magic is the art of emotionally sharing live impossible situations
|
Brad Burt Inner circle 2675 Posts |
[/quote]
This approach, as modest as it may seem, is a fantastic reputation maker. Good advertisement is not the direct claim of power by the beneficiary of the claim but the indirect word of mouth about the performer's power made by others. Indirect advertisement and testimony is by far the best advertisement for a magician: his direct marketing should only cover his acts (the types of magic he does), and his indirect marketing should be very active (thanks to the net) and be about him (how other people think a performer is "remarkable" is what gets the reputation and the money) [/quote] Bravo! An excellent and well put observation. Regards,
Brad Burt
|
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » Power (0 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 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 < |