|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] | ||||||||||
KirkG Inner circle 1391 Posts |
I think it is possible to do the wand spin in a not very flourishy manner, thereby making it not a florish and in keeping with Vernon's teaching. I think, as a spinning the wand move, it is very natural looking.
|
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
I agree with KirkG. There are ways to do flourishy things in a non-flourishy manner. That may not be the clearest way to express it, but I think I know what he means and I agree.
It may be useful to keep the two different positions that Vernon talked about separate. The problem with flourishes is that they call attention to themselves, and are often used in a show-off way. That is, the performer seems to ask for applause--asking for approval--when he does a fan or shower with the cards. This is wrong for many theatrical reasons, but chiefly among these is that asking for approval or "showing off" puts the audience in the position of judges. They are being asked to "decide" if something is good, difficult, or impressive. This is not a good performing posture, and gives the audience too much power over the outcome. However, Vernon was not against making a fan to have a card selected. One can use a flourish if it is "hidden" in the context of normal handling, and not calling attention to itself, or either calling attention to a move, or distracting from the plot of the effect. "Natural" does not mean "normal" as in the way a layman would handle the cards. It implies that the movements of the performer look effortless and relaxed--like they are only accomplishing what is supposed to be accomplished, and not stiff, awkward, bizarre, or overly slow or deliberate--things which would call attention to the move and make the spectators question it. The wand spin is not a show-off move at all, and the attention and focus it gathers as it happens is thrown to the vanish. The applause is for the vanish, not for the "skill" of the wand spin. That skill is noted by the audience, but they are not asked to "approve" with an applause cue. The applause cue comes at the end, for the vanish. The audience applauds the vanish--"isn't magic wonderful"--rather than the wand spin--"aren't I wonderful." |
|||||||||
bigchuck Veteran user Nothing clever has ever been said in my 400 Posts |
If memory serves me -- Vernon makes the 1st 2 balls disappear using the wand, so the way I see it is -- the spin for the 3rd is more like an exclamation point of the 3rd vanish, which, due to the spin, ends up being the most impossible one... the specs have just seen ball in hand; the hands don't come close together and still the ball goes.
'Natural' is different to each of us and our likes, dislikes, abilities, styles and limitations. Whats natural to you, might seem contrived to me, and vice versa.
"The computer can't tell you the emotional story. It can give you the exact
mathematical design, but what's missing is the eyebrows. - Frank Zappa" |
|||||||||
stine Regular user TN 152 Posts |
..I believe Ron brought up a good point about the fact that cups and balls in and of themselves indicate a "magic" prop.Consequently any idea of organic phenomonon is removed. Cards are something everyone is familiar with and even though the laymen know of card tricks, when handled without any indication of subterfuge can seem naturaly magic to them. If we accept the idea that cups and balls are a display of sleight of hand then the spin would be consistent, and its usage an enhancement of the experience.Perhaps the choice of using cups and balls allows a different way of thinking that doesn't apply to more natural items. If that is true, then 2 pages later the mystery of the "discrepency" is solved. Agree?
|
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
Vernon would not have agreed that his concern for naturalness and against distracting flourishes did not apply to the Linking Rings or Cups and Balls, or any similar sleight of hand trick such as the Egg Bag that used a "magical item."
|
|||||||||
KirkG Inner circle 1391 Posts |
I thank Whit for more clearly explaining my position in the matter. He hit the nail on the head.
Remember as you go through Vernon's work that he wasn't above theatrical phrasing and staging. His comments on naturalness are more directed at either hiding secret moves or making moves that follow "normal" actions invisable. As an example, if you insert a card in the deck and set it down, that is all it should look like. There shouldn't be a lot extraneous finger movement. It should just look like you put it in and set the deck down. Contrast this with his vanich of coin which is held in a very unatural, but theatrically appropriate, manner. This is a focused display move that calls attention to the coin and reinforces its position in the mind of the spectator. There are no unatural additional finger moves, and yet the coin is gone! That is magic! Kirk |
|||||||||
Mr. Muggle Special user 999 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-11-29 20:29, KirkG wrote: I agree. If you watch video of Vernon do the wand spin it wasn't as flashy as the variation that you see everyone use today. If you really compare Vernon's wand spin to lets say Ammar's you will find that Vernon started below the ball with the spin and ended below the ball. Ammar (for example) does the spin as a flourish and makes it a "move" by broadcasting the spin from above the ball dropping his hand below the ball in a large motion. Vernon didn't do that and instead used a smaller pattern which created the illusion that he twirled the wand all around his hand- go watch the footage and you will see the difference. Because of this I think it wasn't so much of a flourish as it was a wand twirl which helped create additional misdirection both for the spectator's mind and eyes. Vernon used this motion (and explanation) for a single purpose. I don't see any inconsistency with Vernon as far as the wand spin. He kept the motion compact so it didn't look like a "move". I can't say the same thing for the 'wand spin' used by so many people today. I do however wonder why Vernon never redesigned his cups routine to stay in line with his thinking and teaching. All those motions going to one side and not using both hands to vanish or shuttle items IMO is Vernon's inconsistency- if he was inconsistent at all.
"Now you're looking for the secret... but you won't find it because you're not really looking. You don't really want to know the secret... You want to be fooled." - The Prestige (2006)
|
|||||||||
KirkG Inner circle 1391 Posts |
I will agree with Mr. Muggle that the multiple shuttle pass vanish used for the first two balls is not my favorite Vernon moment as far as great moves go, but if you think about it as setting up the wand spin, it makes a lot more sense. I don't use it later in the routine as he does, so maybe he is just trying to keep all his moves the same with the idea, that maybe he is doing something and maybe he is not, but you never "know".
Kirk |
|||||||||
Ragman Regular user 161 Posts |
I often wonder if a lay audience expects a magician to perform these small bits of flourish. To some extent it stands to reason that a good performer should be seen as the master of slieght of hand (this only applies to those that portrait themselves as an artist of this type)I think that Vernon wanted his audience to understand that he was a master of slieght of hand. So the use of a single flourish did this for him to a degree.
If you expect a person to be able to do this things(any type of florish)from the start then it is very natural to perform them. Will an audience think them unnatural if thier preconcieved notion is that if anyone should do this with a wand a magician should? |
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
People keep using the words "natural" and "unnatural" in ways that Vernon never used them.
If you do not understand what Vernon meant by natural, you are doing yourself and others a disservice in making assumptions about what he meant rather than by going back to the texts to see what he says. Ragman, your argument could easily be re-worded this way: "If you expect magicians to be very skillful and show-offy from the start, then it would be "natural" for them to be overtly skillful and show-offy in performance." This sort of statement is nonsensical, and totally misunderstands Vernon, as I think many of the comments on this thread do. If we want to make any sense out of this line of questioning, we must first establish what Vernon's actual concerns about naturalness and flourishes were, and how he defined them. I have heard many people talk about "naturalness" in ways that were not only not Vernon's ideas, but were actually the opposite of what he said. |
|||||||||
Mobius303 Inner circle Lakewood, Ohio 1309 Posts |
I totally agree with ya Whit.
I find it interesting how many people know what is natural and who do not practice it. Making a move seem natural or is it moving in a natural way that makes things more magical? They both have their place. The wand spin is a flourish, yes, however it accomplished the goal of misdirection by it's very nature and that is why Dai used it still after so many years. The one big thing that has always bugged me about his routine is explanaition of the effect in the routine. Mobius |
|||||||||
Ron Giesecke Special user Redding, Ca. 947 Posts |
This might be controversial, but isn't all of this discussion based upon a percieved infallibility on Vernon's part?
Regardless of whether Vernon believed that magical items did not circumvent the naturalness doctrine, isn't it just entirely possible that Vernon--like all of us--had his own inconsistencies? Ricky Jay is perhaps the most secretive guy in magic, and has a good portion of his repuatation based on his "need to know basis" bromide. If you asked him to "give away" his cups and balls routine, he'd most likely just walk away. Yet, he routinely digresses with his "Conus" french drop explantion ala Vernon's routine when perfomning his own. Mr. Jay is one of the reasons I take no exception to such an approach, by the way. We are talking magic theory, not trying to give the hypothetical fail test to holy writ. |
|||||||||
Count Lustig Elite user 456 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-12-09 16:19, Ragman wrote: And your basis for believing this is what? |
|||||||||
Mobius303 Inner circle Lakewood, Ohio 1309 Posts |
Ricky Jay's Cups and Balls routine is pretty easy to figure out if you know the basics of the Trick. I liked Ricky Jay's routine it is very interesting use of props and the chop cup principle.
There is no basis for anyone thinking Vernon would show off skill just to show off ...he always had a well thought out idea for using any sleight. Later, Mobius |
|||||||||
Ron Giesecke Special user Redding, Ca. 947 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-12-11 14:53, Mobius303 wrote: And I can also see that my point was apparently impossible to figure out. |
|||||||||
Ignore me... Loyal user 230 Posts |
Regarding Ron's point, that Vernon might have been inconsistent and that folks are attempting to be apologists for such, maybe it's useful to look at words that have been used several times, and their definitions debated, in this thread.
I tend to look at routining within an effect as: This is where an object has to be at these particular times; how do I get it from here to here while hiding that it is moving? In this case, I would have two objectives in this situation, and so I can imagine Vernon might have those same two in mind: The spectator must absolutely see the third ball in that hand, cleanly and unequivocally. Establishing that, now that the spectators may have formed a suspicion, will establish that the previous two balls also were completely and truly in that hand before they disappeared. The ball must vanish from that hand, without a huge amount of fuss, cleanly and unequivocally, before appearing elsewhere. The hand must be completely empty, and, between the time the object was seen and its disappearance is revealed, must have been apparently and cleanly isolated from contact with any other object or container to which the ball could be/have been transferred. So, what would be the cleanest and most natural looking sleight in this context? Time misdirection would only give the spectators a possible explanation. Any kind of movement, either of the hand to someplace else, or of something to the hand, could be viewed with suspicion in retrospect. Given those parameters, here's the question: What would be the most elegant (in terms of directness, not showiness) and least noticeable solution to getting that ball out of the hand, after showing it cleanly? Is there a more elegant solution to the problem? As has been noted by Ron, many of the props used in magic are not natural. It is not natural to put little balls under cups, or to work with a big leather cone, or to have huge shiny rings, so it is clear that "naturalness" doesn't refer to whether something would really happen in real life. I would prefer to think "naturalness" refers to movements which are obviously artificial looking. If I did a vanish using one hand with the fingers held like a gun, would the gun thing look completely artificial and jar someone ("Hey, that gun thing is so far outside what someone would do, I suspect it immediately!"), or is it something which wouldn't jar sensibilities? If I did a vanish with my hands committing a fast jerk (I see lots of people committing such tells when doing the DW Striking Vanish or the Dan Sylvester Pitch, although I've seen folks who have put in the time to make the things look, well, natural), I would think such a fast motion would immediately raise the hackles of spectators, even if they are not in the know. So, is the spin too ostentatious, too noticeable? Is it so far out of character as to be unnatural? Is it done well, without drawing attention to itself, or committed as a flourish? To respond directly to Ron's point, that Vernon may have committed an error but that some might be treating Vernon as holy writ, I would say that understanding and solving the problem, to which the spin was Vernon's chosen solution, would be the best approach to discovering whether he was being inconsistent with his declared stance on unnecessary flourishes. Was the spin unnecessary, or the best solution? (Incidentally, it has always been my understanding that Vernon was against unnecessary flourishes, as a reaction to the embrace of such by many performers, but that there was a recognition that on occasion a flourish can be a solution. I don't have a source, though. Can anyone absolutely state that Vernon said there should never be flourishes, under any circumstances? Since this is one of the main underpinnings of this thread and debate, it would be interesting to know if the context regarding disparaging of flourishes was different from that to which I thought Vernon was reacting. To me, such dogmatism seems, well, inconsistent and out of character, but it could be I've been reading my own biases into the Vernon ouvre, so I'd like to know.) Now, the challenge, to those who feel that Vernon's solution to the problem is unnatural: What solution would you use, in order to fulfill those same premises; to show the third ball there, and then to show it gone, without being unnatural? Does your approach come close to being as clean and, the word not yet used, convincing? The conviction generated by this use of the spin for this particular vanish is what builds conviction for the other two balls, and so the solution must be particularly strong. It will be interesting to see if any strong solutions are presented, if only in outline, which accomplish this. Personally, I'd rather see someone constructively show that there was a better solution to the stated problem (defined by MC and BC), than to read of how someone else made a mistake in terms of how good or poor a solution was found. I look forward to reading what you all come up with! |
|||||||||
Larry Davidson Inner circle Boynton Beach, FL 5270 Posts |
Ignore me, a better solution for me would be to use a holdout. There are pros and cons to any approach, but on balance, a holdout would be my weapon of choice...particularly if I already owned one and used it for other purposes as well.
|
|||||||||
wsduncan Inner circle Seattle, WA 3619 Posts |
It seems to me that Vernon’s comments about naturalness had something to do with the fact that during his ascendancy, close up magic was in it’s infancy, and people had to be reminded that the gestures and methods designed to be seen on a stage or in parlor situations were not appropriate to the new conditions of close up magic.
It also occurs to me that using a “wand” gives one a degree of freedom in handling, because the audience has no frame of reference for how one “normally” holds a magic wand, as their experience with them would be rather limited. So, if you are doing something the audience does, like putting a ball into your hand, it had better look like something they’ve seen before, but if you’re waving a magic wand it should look “magical”. Does that make sense? |
|||||||||
Ignore me... Loyal user 230 Posts |
Hey, Larry!
You know, your post makes me realise I missed one more qualification, that of limiting the toolset. If I'm sitting, I do use lapping and body language quite a bit; if I'm standing, I use the pockets and sleeves for the same. If one has a holdout, then why not use it to one's advantage? Hmm... so I guess I'll alter my question to, if one were limited to Vernon's conditions (hands/wand) for the vanish, what is the best way of getting it out after the display? ==== WSD, have you ever read Hoffman's "Modern Magic," especially the part on the C&B? I cringe whenever I read the ostentatiousness of the presentation, so if that contributed to the environment in which Vernon decided to go in the other direction, I could definitely see the need to emphasise naturalness. I'm sometimes tempted to learn the routine and patter verbatim, and see how it would work in front of an audience... and then I come to my senses. *laugh* |
|||||||||
Josh the Superfluous Inner circle The man of 1881 Posts |
If you spin the wand, do it naturaly. No contradictions in my mind.
But, wouldn't the striking vanish have been the more direct and consistant method? "I tapped my hand to make the first two vanish. This time I'll leave my hand open as I give the ball a tap"
What do you want in a site? "Honesty, integrity and decency." -Mike Doogan
"I hate it, I hate my ironic lovechild. I didn't even have anything to do with it" Josh #2 |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Ever so sleightly » » Dai Vernon wand spin discrepancy (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] |
[ 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 < |