Hi folks,

although I am not really a beginner, I would like some advice as to how large a group I could do card magic (Non-jumbo) to? I am thinking of doing some tricks to about 20-25 workmates at christmas. (actualy fellow uni lecturers) It's a sort of talent show of mixed performers. Any advice out there please?

Trevor.

As long as it's not a large auditorium everyone should be able to see and understand the magic. 20-25 people should be no problem.

I agree. That size audience shouldn't be a problem.

It also depends on what kind of card tricks you'll be performing. I'm mostly talking about a larger crowd such as in an auditorium. I've performed card tricks on stage in front of a few hundred people using a normal sized deck. As have many others. Mac King comes to mind with his traveling cards routine. Mike Finney does a card on forehead for large audiences.

Some tricks wouldn't be good with a small deck such as an ambitious card where they won't see the effect from a distance but many other tricks can still be done. BUt for 20 - 25 people. Even for 50 people. I don't think you'll have any problem unless they are sitting far away and I doubt you'd want that.

Have fun with your show.

Ron Jaxon

Size of an audience may matter depending on the seating arrangements. Especially if doing close-up on the table instead of stand-up parlor type things.

Quite. It entirely depends on your choice of effects - for example an oil and water may be a little too small packed.

However, effects can be made to play very large - Paul Harris has used traveller effects for large audiences. Also, make them varied and visual - card from mouth, card on ceiling, etc etc, and it should play very well.

Simon

Many thanks for the helpful advice folks. Can I put something else in the ring. I will be performing in a lecture room with a large screen. (I am a university lecturer) I have the facility to have myself 'beamed' via video camera onto that screen so people can clearly see what I am up to. Does this idea sound too gimicky?

Trevor.

Sjdavison and Jaxon,


Did you guys used the same photographer for your pictures?
:P

Will

LOL. They are kind of similar aren't they? Kind of like the same person in different times.

Ron Jaxon

What can I say? He's a good looking chap! Yes, hadn't noticed that before!

YEs, a projector can be a good idea, Banachek has used that very effectively for metal bending demonstrations. Only problem I can forsee is moving around, as you would have to keep your hands fairly stationary, and it may be annoying to watch if your hands shift outside the frame. It could work, but would take some thought.

Simon

It doesn't sound gimmicky but I don't think it may be necesary if there are only 25 people. Could be overkill I think.

I would use the camera the screen. Use a video camera and tv to test what you are doing if you have the chance. You have to make the decision for instance on whether you are going to 'play' to the camera or to the live audience.

This is not as easy as it sounds. Depending on WHO you play for a number of things must be taken into account. For instance: If you play to the audience then you have to forget the camera and make sure that you have someone who can adjust via steady cam, etc. to what you are doing. You can easily move out of fram destroying the continuity of what you are doing, etc.

It is probably more practical to WORK TO THE CAMERA and thus attempt to insure that you always stay in frame. Use of assistants, if any, will have to be worked into the routines as ancillary to what you are playing to with the camera.

Obviously, many problems are solved if you have multiple cameras and a DIRECTOR! The director would be absolutely necessary to insure that the framing, etc. worked out before hand was followed as you worked thru the routine.

Think of working with a screen much the same way that you would think of being on T.V. and you see the problems and the good points also. Because issues like the above are seldom thought of the use of camera and screens at magic conventions seldom look as good as they could or work as well as they could. Best,

The use of a camera is certainly good - there is the danger that the cameraman is getting into some "unpleasent angles" - also, a bigh screen close-up of your sleights might also be a challenge to your handling.

So you need to discuss the scenario and the scene with the cameraman . . .

Good luck