As previously stated, a successfull performance can be created without ever putting pen to paper, without ever memmorizing, without ever blocking, without ever editing, and without ever rehearsing. Actualy that's not true, it can not be done. One might say "If that is the case then how is it that so many people here have done it?" They haven't. What they have done, is all of those things (save the pen to paper) in front of countless, live, unfortunate audiences. No one, in the entire history of performances of any type, has ever had a successful performance with no preporation at all. What they have done, is take some rought cut ideas in front of audience after audience, and done their writing, editing, blocking, and rehearsal in front of audiences who have never done anything to deserve such treatment. I myself am ashamedly guilty of such crimes. It is my hope to spare future performers, and audiences from such a fate. Certain people in this thread are making that very difficult.

Jack that sound you just heard was me applauding loudly.

BRAVO!!!!!!

I love the way you mention the audience. It was stated earlier how magic was more of a monologue. How wrong can it be?

Jack again I am having trouble agreeing in stronger terms, as I keep re reading your post and breaking out in spontanious applause.

The secret to good theater, is to make it look unrehersed. Look as if it just natural and thereby drawing in the ausience. ALL theater should be audience participation on some level, a laugh, a tear, a dramatic pause.

Keep writing Jack.

I have reservations about hopping into this here, since tempers seem to be flaring, but... the above approach will not get you a "show". It'll get you a bunch of little acts.

Maybe, by pure luck, the little acts will manage to fit together into a show- in fact, they often do... if the magician and the audience aren't concerned with "the bigger picture". However, to routine a great show, the whole of the show must be considered as much as the parts. To use a theatrical example, this is like comparing Cats to Les Miserables. They're both Broadway musicals. They both have a consistant theme. But one is a dramatic story of how people's lives are affected by the French Revolution. The other is a musical revue featuring cats.* There's nothing 'wrong' with either one, but there is a vast difference between them in terms of emotional depth. (Well, after you wring out your handkerchief when the strains of 'Memories' fades and take time to consider the thing as a whole.)


* I may appear to be really snobby here, especially to those who enjoyed 'Cats'. There's nothing wrong with 'Cats'. I enjoyed 'Cats' myself, and I'm a cat person, too.# But from a subjective point of view, the plotline of 'Cats' is threadbare and weak. For example, the whole Mystofalese thing: "Oh no! An essential character is missing! Let's now stop our panic and sing a song to introduce a deus-ex-machina to resolve the problem!"

# Much to the chagrin of my girlfriend, who is very much a dog person.

Every magician of ever level of skill or seriousness should treat magic professionaly. The "It's just a hobby." excuse is a poor one at best. Unless you plan to practice your hobby in a dark room with not a sole watching, you should behave as a professional, regardless of you professional intent. I don't care who or what a magician is, or wants to be, their audience deserves to be treated the same way. I'm not saying that you are required to be "good". I'm saying there are certain ethical requirements each and every individual who ever performs a magic effect should be held to.

I agree with you, EnsRedShirt. Though I believe you are delving much deaper into the specifics than the rest of this thread. I think you will find much of what you are speaking of happens very naturaly and subconsiously in magic, though certainly, attending it more carefully should result in a better product.

Another thing you seem to have misunderstood Glenn... is that nobody was suggesting that you had to take theater lesson in order to perform. Even thought I plan to, I haven't taken any lesson myself. However I have read about it (magic and showmanship, absolute magic etc.) and I'm constantly thinking about the theatrics of my magic.
I also like to watch other succesful performers (Brown, Blaine, Copperfield, NYC's Steve Cohen etc.) and I study how and why they developed their characters.
We're not saying anyone should hire a director (what does he help you with by the way... character developement or stage presence?)

People on this forum were actually giving free theater lessons by posting... and it seemed all you where sayin was don't listen to them.

The One

P.s.: JackScratch, your absolutely right.

Glenn you don't need to answer... let's get back on topic

In all do respect to other magicians and other performers I would like to add this so please take it for what it is worth.

Doing magic shows PERFORMING magic AT A SHOW in front of an audience IS THEATER TRAINING.

One very famous magician once said to me when I asked him about bombing or not going over and he said,

"You rarely learn anything from a good show and learn the most from the bad shows. The bad shows happen but they are a learning experience that MUST Happen in order for magicians to meet there goals".

no worries.

The are the lessons learned from mistakes, bad outcomes. Many of them can not be avoided. This is about the many mistakes and bad performances that can be avoided. The ones that are needless, senseless, assaults on the unwary public. Of course no one here thinks that every performer can possibley have a perfect performance every single time. There are two types of bombing, there is bombing because of something you didn't know, or think of, and then there is bombing because you just hadn't bothered to prepare properly. One is just life, the way it goes. The other is just plain lazy.

@The One - A director isn't always needed, however they do provide an often helpful perspective on a performance that can not be provided any other way. You don't have to have a director, but do not hastily rule one out.

Agreed.

Jackscratch, if you go back and READ the entire post, you will see that we are pretty much saying the same thing. I don't understand why people pull one line out and then quote it out of context.

Is it to improve your post count? Also, If the personal pronoun was the criterion for upping one's post count you'd be the king of the Café.

Drop Terrel Owens a line when he arrives in Texas, maybe the two of you should go bowling or something.

Don't realy see how I addressed one line in that post. Seems to me you are saying you prefer improv to scripted performances. If that isn't what you are saying, then sorry for the mistake. I still don't regret the reply, even if you didn't say it, or weren't thinking it, others were. It warranted adressing.

I don't understand the post count issue or the personal pronoun refrense. I never post anything unless I feel I have something to contribute. Agree or disagree with what I say, I don't think you will catch me posting many fluff posts.

I'm sad to say that I have become very detached from the local magic scene. It is for no reason other than time I have to devote to it. Likewise, I am unfamiliar with Terrel Owen's work. Always happy to spend what little time I can spare in the presence of other magicians.

Guys perhaps we could be a little more polite to each other.
An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something. It is an assessment, judgement or evaluation of something. An opinion is not a fact, because opinions are not falsifiable.
It’s literally nonsense to tell some one they are wrong in matters of opinion.
If there is a difference of opinion you can state your view but bear in mind it's just your opinion and not fact you are stating. Some one can get their facts wrong but even then one can tell them politely you think they are wrong.
We can discuss things without getting personal. Deal with the evidence and the issues rather the personalities. We can attack what others base their thoughts on without making personal attacks.
It may not be as much fun as calling each other names but it’s the polite way of arguing and might be a little more constructive.

I look at what Glen is trying to say and do and I am interpreting it something like this:

(2) Always endeavor to form an accurate conception of the point of view most likely to be adopted by a disinterested spectator.

“Here again the importance of Rule 2 is shown. Whatever details a performer may
wish or require to introduce, these should all be subjected to most intent
consideration, from a spectator's point of view. The supreme question must
always be:---"What impression will the introduction of this detail produce upon
the mind of an ordinary spectator?" No matter how agreeable or even necessary to
the performer may be the inclusion of that detail, he should always endeavor to
understand how it will strike his audience. Such understanding is by no means
easy to acquire. It can come only with experience and constant practice. This is a
case wherein it is impossible to "try it on the dog." The performer must, in the
first instance, form his own conclusions. Nobody else can do much to help him in
arriving at a decision. Above all, he must have the courage of his convictions, and
must boldly take the course which his own reasoning faculties and his own
experience dictate.”

- Nevil Makelyne -


I am of the view that Glen believes the “how” of it, the practical, is understated and undervalued, but that does not mean he thinks that the “why”, the theory, in not important and does not matter. Because he believes the hands on stuff is undervalued does not mean he thinks the theory is overvalued. What he is doing is trying help based is practical experience or lets say he is saying practical experience is more important than some seem to think, to him.

Others are saying, more less. theory is the most important thing and the practical is also important. So it boils down to little disagreement. It seems to me it is the way things are being put that is the most disagreeable and seems all so unnecessary. Yes I know the pot and kettle will spring to mind.

On the other hand I find it all quite amusing.

There is, of course the difference between a fact and an opinion to be considered. Gelnn is not stating that experience is undervalued. He is stateing (or so it very clearly appears) that experience is the only thing that can be considered. The disagreement is that one should be as prepared as possible before ones first attempt, and how to go about achieving that state. Glenn, and others are completely dismissing the value of proper theatrical preparation. An irresponsible act at best.

The question creating all the problem here is not "can you perform an acceptable show without the aid of many classical theatrical techniques?" rather the question is "should you perform an acceptable show without the aid of many classical theatrical techniques?" Glenn is saying that they are bad, that they obstruct good entertainment, and that he refuses to use them. I don't care who uses them or not, but to publish that no one should or that it is counter productive is just wreckless. If nothing else, I wish I had understood the things I know now, when I was just starting. Likewise, the things being suggested here can only be productive. No harm could possibly come from these preparations, which have been shown, in many different ways, to be helpful. This isn't religon, we are talking about functionaly creating good performances.

There is a lot of fact being presented and ignored, or worse yet, as so often happens, being called opinion, so people can say anything they feel like.

Does it cure baldness? If so I will take two bottles.

It is matter of interpretation Jack. Perhaps we might allow Glen to clarify what he means rather putting words into his mouth.

How many posts do you suppose that is going to take? This thread is 4 pages long and growing. It is my sincere hope that no one seeking guidance interprets his posts the way I have. What do you suppose the likelyhood of that is?

The most important thing someone could get from what has been said so far, is that you need to formulate an idea of the finished product you wish to achieve. The message you want you audience to recieve so to speak. Then write it down, block it, edit it, and rehearse it. The more you put into your performance, the more your audience will get from it, and that's what realy matters. You can create a performance that tells a story, makes them laugh, or simply builds upon a theme from effect to effect, but the more your tie you performance together, the more your audience willapreciete it. It isn't a lock, you will still suffer through the early stages of a performance career like everyone else, but it will be like removing the proverbial band-aid. It has to be done, better you should do it the most painless way possible.

My only wish is that no performer aproach an audience unprepared ever again. It's a lot to wish for, but I dream big.

I have not said this at all. What I want to say is that using to MUCH theater scripting or technique is just as BAD (to me) as TO LITTLE theater.

Like the thread on to many notes. It doesn't matter where you are performing. It doesn't matter if it is close up or stage or illusions. Over scripting and over producing any kind of an attraction or entertainment - to much theater blocking the magic and getting in the way of the magic is just as BAD (to me) as to LITTLE theater.

Remember when I said less is more? And I talked about the flash not improving the content in the TV studio? It doesn’t improve the content if it gets in the way of the content.

Theoretical knowledge and practical experience barely touch the fringe of true art.

That's the kind of thing a starving artist says. Magic may be art, but it's job is to entertain.

Too much theatre? What are you talking about? Avante'guard? My understanding is that Copperfield got his real launch performing in "The Magician", a play in which he played the magician. Magic may not be acting, but "too much theatre" that's just about the silliest thing I've ever heard. As if there were any danger of that happening to start with. Could you give me a functional example of "too much theatre" in an actual magic performance?

That shows how much you know Jack.

To much theater or as best I can say - to many notes. To much theater is when a director cuts from camera to camera while a magician is performing and makes it to hard or to distracting to follow the magician.

To much theater is ending a magic show with 18 flash pots for no reason. As I have seen several illusionists do.

To much theater is when a magician does an over written script like I mentioned earlier with the assistant saying "I just invented this new illusion" and then a long not believable story continues.

Two much theater is when a magician uses stooges out of the audience and the audience can tell the lines they say are written because of bad acting and they did it to many times.

To much theater when working television the camera comes in for a close up of a magician doing a trick and then the graphic of the magician's name appears on the screen and the graphic of the name blocks the trick.

To much theater was watching a magic star do the aga levitation and the girl rises 12 feet in the air, then she comes down and then she is covered with a cloth and then she goes up in the air again and she comes down and then the cloth taken away and the girl vanishes. Plus time out for hoop passing. Do we really need to see the girl rise up in the air with an aga and then follow it with the asra? When I saw this this was a long 15 minutes.

To much theater is to much dancing by the assistants before an illusion.

To much theater is to much dancing by assistants after an illusion.

To much theater in one illusion a good example is the mouse trap escape illusion I saw Doug Henning do on stage.

To much theater is the fake way audience members respond in an over produced TV or stage magic show.

To much theater is a magician that has to many big illusions with to much set up back stage. And then they have to do to many tricks or one very very long trick in the front of the stage with the curtains closed because of a long set up need for the illusions.

I have see variety acts that are so big they need the full stage and it is hard to get them set up and taken down for the next act, the MC has to stretch each time they appear in front. To many of these big acts in one show can be to much theater and make audience waits.

I have MCed (shows I did not book or routine and was just a hired act) shows like this with a ten minute set up for an eight minute act. To many of them wrecks the balance of the show. And shows NEED balance. That is my little opinion and a few thoughts on to much theater for the moment!