I wouldn't regard magic as prop-less, but, we certainly have dressed our image down over the years; which is more in keeping with the fashion of the day, not to mention, our ever growing venue limitations.
Growing up, what struck me as odd was how magicians always locked their look & style into an historical era.

I am my main prop!

In "Roxy" I use a ton of non-prop properties - Cigars, Newspapers, my Kitten's scarves, knives, coins, lemons, walnuts and tin cans, cocktail shakers, and playing cards. My biggest "Prop" for BDC is his cane. Everything else hinges on his persona. He makes the magic larger than life, because he is larger than life, but the whole show packs in one small suitcase.

The point is that big boxes does not equal big magic.

BDC, to what extent do you feel the "period set" of a character helps make the magic more comfortable for an audience? IE is this an ecological issue where stranger or larger effects are more acceptable when performed in odd/theatrical settings as opposed to naturalistic settings?

I'm not sure I fully understand your question, but I will try to answer it anyway

In "Roxy" we are performing in a theater, a show about a floor show in a nightclub. As a producer and director, I am a minimalist - I like to use representational set pieces and allow the character's persona(s) and the audiences imagination fill in the rest of the pieces. So the set will be sparse - a small bar, a lighted sign, and a ftable to one side with a few chairs. In most venues we use the existing backdrop, which we add the lighted sign to. These elements combined with the characters and of course the music, are more than sufficient to convey the period and draw the audience in.

I go to grat lengths not to use any items as props that would not have been available in that era - IE a zippo will never be replaced by a bic lighter. I do use a sharpie that has been altered enough to look like a fountain pen to the audience.

Now, that does not mean that I don't use modern methods or modern "invisible" props - but what the audience sees is what fits the period and the character. IE not tubes with a chinese wizard airbrushed on them!

Does this limit the size of the magic? Yes. Does it limit the size of the performance? Never.

Got you, you create an environment for your characters and from the characters comes the magic.

My question comes in the general... is it "better" to set up such an environment and characters to give the magic a setting?

A secondary answer to your question - yes, certain props do become acceptable in the context of a theatrical show. The theater is a strange and magical place, so things that seem out of place in the natural world could be completely natural in the theater.

I originally posted because my stage act uses no "magic" props, and very few props over all. It is reliant on the character.

Posted: Jul 18, 2007 3:38pm
Quote:


On 2007-07-18 15:29, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Got you, you create an environment for your characters and from the characters comes the magic.

My question comes in the general... is it "better" to set up such an environment and characters to give the magic a setting?

I believe that there are distinct advantages to doing that, yes. I don't know if it is better, but I do recommend it.
It does help the audience transcend their own limited world view and accept your broader magical view.

Magic is all about the effect and objects and cloths have an effect on people, always have and always will. Banks do not spend money on things like marble floors for nothing, the Queen does not dress up for fun. To disregard the effect of objects and cloths to is leave untapped the magical power of objects. People spend millions on objects that have no practical use but merely because the objects have an effect on them and others some objects just look interesting and that is an effect.

IMHO that is primarily true for interior design and architecture and not magic in particular.

By way of theatrical counterexaple, Shakespeare's plays conjured up all sorts of places and weather without using special effects or even fancy clothes or furniture. He used the magic of language. IMHO that's probably a good place to start.

As to why queens dress up... be it for fun or just because it's expected of them or somewhere in between... sorry, let's keep this to magic okay?

Johnathon, you are right on. There is a difference between creating illusion and creating an impression.

Almost every show on Broadway now is creating sets with representational pieces and lighting. There are few elaborate sets any more. I'm not saying that there are none, but they are becoming more rare.

On the flip-side, every amatuer community theater company I know builds elaborate ornate sets. Food for thought indeed.

Set pieces do not equal setting. Likewise, props do not equal magic. Magic springs from the character and happens in the mind of the spectator.

I don't know about that but they use a lot of gear in The Tempest to create illisions and magic today.

? the script does not call for any gear. puzzled in westchester - jon

I saw a version a few years ago in Oxford. I believe put together by menbers of the magic circle, special effects, real magic illusions sleight of hand everthing.

There's no competing with the magic of the imagination.

I hope the Magic Circle folks did not try to overshadow the drama and comedy in that work with special effects. Then again, what a 'brave' new world we live in that has such magicians in it.

I don't know if it is still on anywhere.

http://www.creationtheatre.co.uk/previous_tempest03.html

Interesting reviews. not a peep about the performances by the actors or how the added effects enhanced the work.

The reviews there are just soundbites you can look up the full reviews like:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/oxford/stage/2003/0......ew.shtml

This one mentions:


“My only criticism of this otherwise excellent rendition is that the magical setpieces to some degree distracted from some very strong and subtle performances”

Thanks Tommy, that puts things in a much better light. Glad to see folks putting magic in context to good effect.

You can Fly, Levitate, Pull a Lady in Half, Tranform into a bat, Vanish Appear and so on.

I would love to see this production! This is exactly what my magic is all about - not just the effect or trick, but the entire spectacle of the story being told! The magic is the theatrical tool, or the vehicle to communicate the story. I love it!

I do find it interesting that in a production of one of Shakespeare's best works, that the reviewers comment mostly on the magic happening. I mean, we are talking Skakespeare here! I find it bizarre that a magical effect could possible overshadow the words of a master...

BDC, the full review comments that the actors subtle and nuanced performances were noticably compromised by the requirements of the onstage conjuring.

The bard knew how to conjure a tempest on a balmy summer afternoon using words. There is no competing with the imagination, though one can use theatrical effects to illustrate and bring additional layers of meaning to the text and generally affect the flow of scenes.