|
|
Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
Clark Special user 957 Posts |
The revelation has been unleashed; the effect in its entirety has been delivered. We are only seconds after the “Oh my God!” and the “Wows!” have subsided. We are rapidly approaching a critical point in the spectator’s minds, the point at which every magician has a genuine and righteous dread of. The moment of guessing, grasping if you will, at methods that will make the spectator feel more comfortable in their minds with what they have witnessed.
This is the point in an effect when the disillusion takes place, the systematic break down in the spectator’s mind of the possibility of magic. One must realize that this is a natural reaction inherent with human nature. Indeed we need to minimize this, but we will come back to that later. First lets ponder on why this happens in the first place. Is it because people do not want to be amazed? I don’t really subscribe to that belief. Einstein was noted for having stated, “The most beautiful thing that we can experience is the mysterious.” I would dare to say that every magician (taking into consideration where he/she has chosen to spend their ‘free’ time) is especially in tune with the validity of his observation. This would mean that people in general long to be provided a path to astonishment. So what is the problem, why all the guessing? This reaction begs the question of whether or not the spectator actually reached the level of “astonishment” at all. I would say probably not. I would guess that the person has more than likely simply entered the realm of being only fooled. The performance simply handed them a puzzle that turned out in an unlikely way. Leaving the spectator with a feeling that the whole situation is indeed in need of them to “take a stab at it.” I for one believe that to not question what you have just seen to some degree is impossible. Even when applying our best efforts to watch an effect and just enjoy it, our mind still races. Even our own “brotherhood” has to consciously try and stop analyzing to enjoy the full benefit of a given performance. How, or why, would we expect a layman to do any different? The fact is that problem solving is a survival mechanism that is naturally built into us as a species, a type of “knee-jerk” response. Analytical questioning is as much a part of magic as exhaling the air you breath is to inhaling. Most definitely a cause and effect relationship that is largely inseparable. Once again, in my mind, our job as magi being to minimize this natural desire to begin this questioning, so as to effectively extend the moment of mystery that has been experienced. I think that the awkward moment in question is a bit of a paradox. The guess confirms that you have fooled them, hence letting you know that you have accomplished your objective. (Or at least some of it.) Yet it weakens, if not destroys what you are working for. Undeniably the questioning later is a part of the enjoyment earlier. I imagine if one were to ask one hundred magicians how to minimize this moment of disillusion it would be very easy to get at least fifty different, as well as correct, replies. A few things that when correctly tended to will help this cause greatly are having an emotional hook, the use of comedy, an interesting plot, and so on. All of these things are well explored in magic literature and are GREAT advice, but I am looking anyone’s thoughts or experiences that they have found truly useful in keeping that moment of astonishment permanent…or as close as possible. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Best, Clark
“The key to creativity is in knowing how to hide your sources.”
Albert Einstein |
|||||||||
George Ledo Magic Café Columnist SF Bay Area 3042 Posts |
Interesting question... but do we really care whether audiences go home talking about the performace in terms of "wow, that was great," or in terms of "how the heck did he do that?" I'd say it doesn't make any difference, as long as they're talking about the performace and the performer. If I were still performing, I'd want my audiences to wonder how I did it, to talk with their friends, to tell the story, to remember me as a performer. To say, "Gadzowie, I really enjoyed this guy -- you gotta go see him."
I've always looked at magic as a form of entertainment, like theatre, ballet, concerts, and so on. I'd want people to say, "George is a great magician" in the same way that they say "Yo-Yo Ma is a great cellist" or "Celine Dion is a great singer" or "Tiger Woods is a great golfer." Golfers can read all about Tiger's "secrets" in Golf Digest or whatever, but that doesn't diminish their admiration for the guy's talent and skill. He's still a great golfer. For me, the astonishment and the experience of watching, say, Tina Turner on stage stays with me for a long time, even if I know every one of her songs by heart.
That's our departed buddy Burt, aka The Great Burtini, doing his famous Cups and Mice routine
www.georgefledo.net Latest column: "Sorry about the photos in my posts here" |
|||||||||
Clark Special user 957 Posts |
Very good point, thanks for the view as well as the food for thought George.
“The key to creativity is in knowing how to hide your sources.”
Albert Einstein |
|||||||||
chrisrkline Special user Little Rock 965 Posts |
Einstein was possibly correct about the mysterious, but Aristotle noted that we have a deep desire to understand.
I would say that we achieve part of what you seek by constructing our routines to deal with the inevitable questions and solutions that the spectators come up with. A properly constructed routine anticipates the solutions a spectator might develop and provides "proof" that those solutions are not right. It doesn't matter whether their "solutions" make sense; if the spectator thinks they know the solution, then their experience is diminished. A big mistake we can make is to not take the thinking our audience will inevitably do into account. If we want to fly magically on stage, we are not doing a production of Peter Pan, where the audience is so caught up in the drama, that they don't care about the wires. No one really believes that the actor is flying. But when a magician "flies," even if no one believes, he is flying. A large portion of the audiences’ astonishment comes only after they have exhausted all possible explanations (with the help of the magician) of how it is done. Float a light bulb in a movie--ho hum. But when Blackstone did it, it became Magic, not because its dramatic potential was maximized, but because Blackstone studiously eliminated, through his presentation, every possible explanation we might come up with on how thee bulb floated. It is the audiences’ thinking about the magic that allows the magic to occur, but only when that thinking leads to one dead end after another. Of course, that is often frustrating for the spectator. It takes real talent to turn something that frustrating into a wonderful experience, and why so many magicians come off as jerks.
Chris
|
|||||||||
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24312 Posts |
Punx had some definite feelings about this. As far as he was concerned, a really strong story, one that could stand on its own, took the heat off the magic. His idea was what I call "magical synergy." You have a strong story that is good enough to stand on its own. You have a strong trick or routine that will stand on its own. Then you combine the two of them so they intermesh without interfering with one another. The result is stronger than the sum of the parts. And the audience leaves thinking about the wonderful things and not worrying about how it was done.
It's kind of like the first time I saw Star Wars. I didn't worry about how they made the various kinds of hovercrafts work. I just enjoyed the whole thing. This approach is not for everybody. In fact, if the story is just a lot of "let's hear the sound of my voice" it will fall on its face. But when you see a master do it, the effect is undeniable. Another way of taking the heat off the magic is to go into the next part of the routine, so the audience is distracted from problem-solving by more magic. Basically, you give them more mental homework. As an example, I saw The World's Greatest Magic Show for the third time a couple of weeks ago. It changes a lot, so some of it was new to me. Gaetan Bloom keeps adding new information to what you have already gotten, so you don't have time to think about how things work -- even if you wanted to. And then, it doesn't matter. And Kevin James does a new version of Creo that fooled a lot of really knowledgeable magicians. This he followed with his closer, the new version of the snowstorm. This is so engaging that you really don't care how it works. The audience leaves full of wonder. I know. I listened to them in line.
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
|||||||||
chrisrkline Special user Little Rock 965 Posts |
The next part of the routine, Bill is talking about, might be a completely different effect, or might be the same effect, phase two. Each step in an ACR, card to pocket, a dove production act, or even a cup routine will have repeated effects, each one designed to eliminate possible audience suggested solutions. Just when a person starts to imagine that they have figured out how something is done, that theory is shot to pieces.
Sometimes a false solution, that has an element of truth, can be used to misdirect. Look at Vernon's explantion phase in cups and balls where he gives away a secret in order to build up the amazement of the final loads. In many card to pocket routines, the idea of palming is suggested, as a lead in to convincing the audience that you are not palming. When I did the cups a few weeks ago, and did the false transfer explanation, a wiseguy in the audience said, "Yea, I thought you did that." I was bothered at first. Like Vernon, I combined the explanation with the "method" of getting a ball under the cup. I then went into the question where I ask how many balls are under the middle cup, after I just did a false transfer--which I had just taught to the crowd. I use Gazzo's line of giving them a moment to think, while revealing the two balls under the cup, put it back down and asked the wiseguy how many were under it and he said two. I showed three. I had just taught him the false transfer and how to sneak it under the cup. He claimed to know what my method was. I used that exact method, thirty seconds later, and the wiseguy did not pick up on it. The thing is, I believe he did know the method, and may have figured it out early in the routine, but he was still misdirected by the structure of the routine, and lost track of things as we went on. On the street, I suppose I am not seeking that high level of magic someone might do on stage.
Chris
|
|||||||||
Clark Special user 957 Posts |
Bill, I love the term “magical synergy” that you used. The phrasing really drives home the fact that there is a vast difference between astonished, and entertaining. For example: It would be astounding to make the White House levitate, but would it be entertaining?
Your phrase is a more eloquent way of articulating what I was trying to get across in my original post. Neither an astounding act, nor simply entertaining act will necessarily cause the sort of “astonishment” that we are looking to create as magicians. I have found, in my best performances, when the spectators reach the level of true astonishment will all but silence the questions. Both you and Chris have helped me work through some very important thoughts that will in turn continue to help me structure my routines in an even stronger way, many thanks to you both for the input. Clark
“The key to creativity is in knowing how to hide your sources.”
Albert Einstein |
|||||||||
chrisrkline Special user Little Rock 965 Posts |
Bill, let me ask you this. Punx believes (believed) that if you combine a story, powerful in its own right, and a magical effect, complete on its own, and you combine them properly, you achieve something more powerful than either alone.
Lets say that Copperfield is doing a levitation. It seems necessary (or at least magicians feel it is necessary) to use convincers with the effect, subtle or not, that wires are not being used. It is the old "pass a large ring of metal around the floating assistant" idea. This seems to be a part of most (or all) magical levitations, something that is not needed in the hovercraft scene in Star Wars. That is because in Star Wars we know it is not a real Hovercraft, and we know that Lucas is not trying to make us believe he got one for the movie. Lucas is interested in the drama, and the special effects are there to enhance the drama. As long as the special effects are done competently, we can sit back and pretend for a while we are in a galaxy, far, far, away. With Star Wars, we are suspending belief for a few hours. I suppose this could be the purpose in a magic show too, but it seems that it should be different. We are supposed to believe the levitation in the Coperfield show. It is, after all, a magical show. That is why there are convincers. Even in an age where people really believed in everyday magic, they would know that few had the power to fly. Even then, convincers would be needed. If Punx added a good story, would he still keep the convincers? I believe that the audience will, and in fact must, look for the wires, if it is a magic show—in other words if it is real person, really levitating. They better not find the wires, however. And they better not believe simply the lighting effects hide them. You do not always want the effect to be a puzzle, although it may sound like that is what I am saying. I think in some cases, the convincers can be open and clear, and in others more subtle. But they should be there. Maybe this is all part of our skeptical modern age and the feeling that few in our shows are “true believers” and maybe due to my not wishing to produce “true believers,” but even thousands of years ago, not everyone believed that magical entertainers were using "real" magic--at least not everyone believed. But they could still be amazed. I agree that real drama or good stories can enhance the overall magical experience—if done properly.
Chris
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-06-25 08:38, Clark wrote: Such is true only when the magic impinges upon the everyday reality of the audience. Such need not be the case when magic is motivated by the dramatic or theatrical conventions familiar to most who've done theater. "How did..." just means that the train ride of motivation or intention in the performed work has been derailed by something. Get that something off the tracks of the performance and you can keep moving. Usually this something is a moment of gloating where the insecure performer seeks reassurance that they pulled one over on the audience. That something is the performer's ego. Just another sacred cow to get off the tracks. MOO!
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
George Ledo Magic Café Columnist SF Bay Area 3042 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-06-25 22:54, Bill Palmer wrote: Excellent point, Bill. I've listened to some of these comments too, and they're generally along the lines of "Gawd, that was a good show," or "Man, he's good." From reading thru the Café posts for a while now, I'm beginning to think that too many of us are way too worried about whether audiences will discover the secret, which brings us back to whether the point of magic is to fool people... and it makes me wonder if we're subconsciously thinking that the only audiences that matter are other magicians. From my own experience, I don't believe that most lay audiences (i.e., the ones who matter -- the ones who pay for the tickets) really go home and try to figure out the details. Sure they'll wonder about how that 600-pound tiger, fully awake, was sawn in half, but so what? Let them wonder... a sense of wonder seems to be a good thing in magic: Doug Henning made a career out of it. Maybe you can help on this one, Bill: when people go to a music concert, say Yo-Yo Ma, or Perlman, or the Stones, or the Dead, or whoever, do they come out of the show talking about that chord in the sixtieth bar that was a bit behind, or do they just go, "Man, that was a good show?" I'm guessing some musicians might talk about the technicalities, but do these performers play for other musicians or for lay audiences?
That's our departed buddy Burt, aka The Great Burtini, doing his famous Cups and Mice routine
www.georgefledo.net Latest column: "Sorry about the photos in my posts here" |
|||||||||
chrisrkline Special user Little Rock 965 Posts |
When you see a musician and you say it was a great show, you are reacting the way the musician wants. The trouble is that that is too vague. Any performer wants that reaction. If you are watching a rock show, and you only worry about the quality of the voice, you are missing the point. If you listen to a Bach partita, and miss the depth of the music, you are too. Great art exists on several levels, and while one can appreciate it on a simple level, the depth is important too. But not all art is approached the same way. In some art the skill is apparent, in others it may be more hidden. In magic, the question is, what does the performer do to get the reaction he seeks? And what is the proper reaction we should seek? To hope that the audience experiences, in Harris' word, astonishment, may be laudable, but it is difficult to know when astonishment occurs and more difficult to know what that entails. And in magic, when is an audience reaction that is directed simply to the drama of the presentation without regard to the hidden wires an indication that they are missing the magic? When is an audiences' reaction consisting of only asking, "How did he do that?" a sign that they are missing the magic, too?
If you are doing a levitation, and the audience simply is wowed by the drama or story and fails to even worry about wires, have you done magic, or have you done a simple drama? If they only fret about the wires and think about nothing else, have you ignored the drama? Can you do a wondrous magic show without the drama? When Daryl does his FISM ACR, I think he needs those "how did he do that?" That is why he repeats the effect in different ways several times. If the audience is sufficiently amazed with the first, "The card jumps to the top," why do more. Why put the "card" into the middle twice and have it come to the top, and then do it a third time, but that time casually reveal that yes the card is going into the middle by turning over the deck, if not to deal with the inevitable, "He did not really put it into the middle." Did he fail because they ask that question?
Chris
|
|||||||||
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24312 Posts |
Lay people and magicians as well have a tendency to want to solve problems,as has been noted frequently. Punx felt that if an audience left one of his shows saying,"That was a good magic show, I wonder how he did all of that," he had failed. He wanted them to say, "Wow! Those were great stories," or, better yet, "What a great artist!"
Most people who go to a concert, whether it be Yo-Yo Ma, Perlman, or any of the others, will leave with "Wow! What great music!" The teachers will say, "Did you notice how he or she interpreted that piece?" The critics will notice the flaws, and if there aren't any, they will either be disappointed or they will criticize something other than the music. Or they will make something up. When a performer reaches a certain level, he knows that in any given audience, there may be one critic, about 15% musicians, and the rest will be "real people." He will play for the real people, and hope that he can please the others. The exception would be the "trade concerts." For example, if you have a blues festival, many of the attendees will be musicians. But a musician appreciates not only the technical aspects of the music, but also the music, itself. Once in a while, you get the guys who think that because they play very fast, they are great musicians. Then they hear someone like B.B. King play, and if they have a soul, they will realize that B.B. King can play more blues in one note than some of these noteslingers can play in a hundred or even a thousand notes. There is a phenomenon that is quite interesting to banjo players, specifically bluegrass banjo players. This is the "bluegrass banjo camp." This is not for kids, like the Tannen's magic camp. Nope, adults spend their vacation time at one of these things, learning how to play the banjo and listening to bluegrass music by some of the remaining pioneers in the field, as well as the current masters of the music. Bluegrass music has enjoyed a meteoric rise in popularity in the past 10 years or so, and guys that used to have to work as UPS drivers or whatever to survive are able to give up their day gigs and perform for people who want to learn the music. Much of how the music is played has the same element of secrecy that magic does. At one such camp a couple of years ago, two of the pioneers were on stage, and they didn't realize the mike was on. They looked out over the crowd, mostly upper middle class people with some disposable income -- doctors, lawyers, etc. -- and one of them remarked "Look at all those losers and wannabe banjo players!" The other one replied "Those losers and wannabe banjo players are the reason we are up here, man! They put us here."
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
|||||||||
George Ledo Magic Café Columnist SF Bay Area 3042 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-06-26 14:29, Bill Palmer wrote: Bingo! I'm all for the art in magic, the astonishment factor, the mystery, the masterful presentation, and so on: the stuff that makes a magician a great magician. The same technical competence and mastery of the craft that great musicians and other entertainers have. That's all part of being a professional in your chosen field. However, unless we're performing for an audience of other magicians, or critics, or teachers, I think it's pointless to worry about what their reaction was, as long as it was favorable. If I levitate an elephant in a North African setting, with a story about Hannibal's march to Rome, and people keep paying for those tickets, why should I care whether they come because they like the set, or because they can't see the wires, or because they are history buffs who appreciate an inside joke, or because the elephant is cute and reminds them of Dumbo? I can't force a specific reaction on a house full of human beings with different lives, interests, and motivations. I can only hope that the majority likes my work and wants to come back and see me. Me. The guy with bills to pay. And maybe that's my real point. It seems to me that high-end professional entertainers are more interested in audiences coming to see them -- them personally -- because they like them, than coming to see what they do. Those billboards in Vegas don't advertise songs, dance numbers, or illusions: they push the performer. As actors have said for a long time, there's no such thing as bad publicity; those tabloids "revealing" Brad's, or Oprah's, or Mildred's latest faux pas don't hurt them -- they keep the actors in the public eye. Buying the product.
That's our departed buddy Burt, aka The Great Burtini, doing his famous Cups and Mice routine
www.georgefledo.net Latest column: "Sorry about the photos in my posts here" |
|||||||||
MR2Guy Regular user Nashville 179 Posts |
Quote:
This reaction begs the question of whether or not the spectator actually reached the level of “astonishment” at all. I would say probably not. I would guess that the person has more than likely simply entered the realm of being only fooled. If your audience is "being only fooled", then your not doing your job. In my opinion, your opening effect should dispell any ideas that what you are doing is simply a puzzle, you must astonish them, give them an experience that they can take with them. Magic is a art, once you understand why you do magic, you can better understand how to affect people, and why.
Question every rule.
There are no absolutes. |
|||||||||
chrisrkline Special user Little Rock 965 Posts |
The trouble is that there is a wide area between the extremes of "being only fooled" and the mythical ideal of pure astonishment that allows for a lot of fooling without the pain and embarrassment. It may not be good magic if it is just a puzzle, but once you get past the puzzle, you cannot expect the audience to stop thinking. You may not want them to think that it is just a puzzle, but do you really expect that they believe you really do magic? Do you think that if you properly construct a levitation of an elephant, they really believe it is Dumbo flying? Do you feel that you have shortchanged your audience if they are astounded and still look for the wire? Why do you suppose that magicians do so many subtle things to convince you that there are no wires? It is because we think about it--it is not just magicians who think about the method. Laypeople think about the method too, and not just jerky laypeople.
There are many classic routines that are developed with the understanding and acceptance of the fact that laypeople will try to figure things out, and the routines use this truth to strengthen the magic. There is nothing wrong with wanting to do entertainment, involving magic, that is designed so that laypeople do not think about the methods and are only amazed at the effect. Some magic seems to require this. But others require fooling the audience.
Chris
|
|||||||||
Stuart Hooper Special user Mithrandir 759 Posts |
The deeper I dig into the nuances of interaction between magicians and the audience, the more I grow convinced that the smallest subtleties have a profound effect on result.
I think Clark's original post can shed some light on the situation...while it begins with a fairly open question, he ends up answering his own thoughts, more or less, deciding that he thinks magicians are really presenting puzzles. The exact 'why's' still elude those who even now work in quiet places, but there is ample evidence that often intent, or a decisive leaning towards certain concepts will have expressive effects in magic, despite the lack of a direct, explicable connection to what is actually occuring in cards, coins, or what have you. Unfortunately, unless you start making and explaning those connections, 'positive' intents or concepts seem to create widely varying results at uncontrolable times and intensitys. Perhaps it it simply because we group them all together, but more 'negative' intents and concepts seem to have a universal effect on an audience. Even, and perhaps especially the language we use in our own internal realms can have drastic effects on what gets expressed throught the Art. It becomes an unfortunate trap then, that many magicians seem doomed to go out with the idea of using the latest 'tech' to 'smash, kill, stun', or otherwise metaphorically disfigure a poorly defined 'adversary' known only as the 'layman'. Whether through ignorance, lack of natural insight, unfortunate circumstances, bad experiences, or miguided teachings, it seems that many end up with fairly strong ideas about 'it just being a puzzle anyways'...or a defensive 'I'm clever and you're not' attitude, or a blinding delight in 'moves' or god forbid and actual disdain for their own work (often because it is not truly their own)that goes far beyond a humble bit of self-effacing. Once that occurs, and as it occurs, without further thought, it is very difficult to concieve of a situation with an audience where the magician's beliefs would not be reinforced, since a great deal of those thoughts will be translated (if not literaly) to the audience. They will become defensive or suspicious in turn, they will treat what is presented to them as puzzles as puzzles, and they will not enjoy something that it presented mockingly, or disdainfully, and they will have no respect for someone who has no true respect for themselves or what they are doing. This happens in fragements and degrees, certainly. I'm not calling anyone here a 'bad magician' personally, since I have no idea one, it's not polite or allowed second, and third, I do not consider myself a 'good magician'. Just food for thought. At a certain point I realized that a group that appeared to be homogenous achieves extremely differing results, even though many use similiar value systems. That provoked my curiosity, and I now believe that the differences are caused by inflections of the mind. |
|||||||||
George Ledo Magic Café Columnist SF Bay Area 3042 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-06-26 16:46, chrisrkline wrote: No, I do not think I've short-changed my audience if they're astounded at that huge elephant floating out over them, but they still look for the wires. Actually, I think they'd be far more astounded at the insurance premiums and legal fees required to do that stunt! I haven't short-changed them simply because, in a house of several hundred, some will look for the wire and some will not. Some will go "where can I buy that?" and some will go, "Mabel, will you look at that?" Some will go "that thing's huge" and some will go "I hope he doesn't poop on us." In that house of several hundred, people will have different reactions; they will remember the thing differently and go home and think about it differently. I can't possibly affect them all the same way. I could fly Dumbo thru a huge hoop to prove there are no wires and some people -- mostly the engineers -- will immediately begin to think about how the wires went thru the hoop (otherwise, in their minds, why would I need to pass the beast thru a hoop to prove there are no wires?). Others will wonder if the elephant is a puppet, or a robot, or a hologram. I think there's a contradiction in saying "I know they don't believe this is really magic, but I want them to be so astonished that they don't think about how I did it because there can be no possible explanation." Maybe that's not exactly what you're saying, but that's what I'm reading into it.
That's our departed buddy Burt, aka The Great Burtini, doing his famous Cups and Mice routine
www.georgefledo.net Latest column: "Sorry about the photos in my posts here" |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
I'd be impressed that the elephant floated around.
I'd be astounded that nobody got dumped upon. ;)
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
George Ledo Magic Café Columnist SF Bay Area 3042 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-06-26 18:36, Jonathan Townsend wrote: Hmmmm, yes, we'd have to house-break the elephant...
That's our departed buddy Burt, aka The Great Burtini, doing his famous Cups and Mice routine
www.georgefledo.net Latest column: "Sorry about the photos in my posts here" |
|||||||||
chrisrkline Special user Little Rock 965 Posts |
Quote:
I think there's a contradiction in saying "I know they don't believe this is really magic, but I want them to be so astonished that they don't think about how I did it because there can be no possible explanation." Actually I think spectators do think about the effect, whether we want them to or not. In some cases it is inevitable and we have to take that into account. I don't think the statement above that you wrote is what I meant, but I also don't think it is a contradiction. I like the way Whit Haydn put it when he said that the spectator should say, it can't be magic, but there can be no other explanation. The astonishment comes because all of their "solutions" were destroyed by our methods. There are effects that the method is so hidden, that the spectator feels nothing but awe or astonishment. You need no convincers and the spectator should leave the theater with a feeling of wonder and not with the idea that they want to run home and look up the trick on the Internet. But there are many effects that do suggest solutions to the spectator. Levitations are one. If we think that the majority of spectators do not think “wire,” then we are kidding ourselves. That doesn't mean that there aren't moments when you can astound with levitation, but given any time to think, people will start to ask, "how." I think that is OK. I think that if you eliminate the possibility of wire through your methodology, then that is better. I am only arguing that just because a spectator wonders how you did it, does not mean they did not experience magic or that you did something wrong. When I saw Michael Ammar lecture, I knew he was going to do some IT work. I knew about IT, but was unfamiliar with the set up. He first pulled out a bill, rubbed it on his leg, put his right hand over the bill and it floated. This would shock a layperson, and it momentarily excited me. For some that would be enough--no questions asked. He brought the bill back to the table and repeated the levitation. This time, though, he swung both hands around the bill to the sides, effectively wiping out my obvious "method." At no time did Ammar mention string or wires, and yet doing the float twice, in those two ways, had a purpose. The first one was to amaze, but he recognized that you can stand there only so long holding your hand over a floating object before people start to wonder. That is OK. The second phase destroyed the illusions that the spectators had on how it was floating. But, it also led to a greater feeling of astonishment. You can eliminate some questioning from the spectators after a levitation by going on to something else, but if the floating object had any effect on the spectator, they will start to wonder—maybe that night in bed—if they can lay there in bed and come up with a plausible solution, then you have lost. How would you feel to suddenly wake into a world where things float? That is what you gave the spectator. They will have to think about it. If they see it as a puzzle, they will seek a solution. If you do nothing to eliminate that solution, then the effect remains a puzzle, and the spectator will feel they have solved it. They can then sleep well that night. If you do successfully remove their solution from the realm of the possible, then, and only then, can you get the effect past the puzzle stage and possibly help the spectator achieve astonishment. They may not go home looking to the skies for other flying elephants—they know that they “really” can’t fly. But they also have no clue of how you did the effect. They are in that limbo stage that is close to Harris’ Astonishment.
Chris
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » The moment after the magic... (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.13 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 < |