For the last five years in film school and college I have studied and made films, and recently I worked on a couple of DVD’s for the BBC. At one time while making a documentary (in film school) I actually developed a genuine aversion to TV documentaries. I couldn’t enjoy what happened on screen because I could almost physically feel the off-screen stress, disputes and fatigue. Similarly with fiction film, I can always sense the periphery.

My point is that it takes a very good film for the illusion of cinema to be effective. I rarely appreciate film purely as a spectator.

Throughout this forum, on various topics I see this line ‘magic happens in the spectators mind’ or allusions to this line. Now I totally agree with this, but I also consider it a bit of a red herring.

The line seems to be used to suggest any reaction; gasps, claps, giggles, laugher or swearing is an indication that in the mind of the spectator, magic has occurred.

When in fact I think the line means, if magic was going to be perceived, it would happen in the mind.

Say for example someone claps or behaves in a manner that suggest amazement – they might be thinking ‘I wonder if those cards are tricked, I wonder if he has a coin hidden somewhere’, put simply, they may be amazed by your skill, not because they have perceived an impossible/amazing/magical happening.

A real world example, I showed a clip of Lance Burton to a friend, he smiled and reacted in the way most do. Then I asked him what he thought (something not many of have the opportunity to do about our own work, and even if we did, the responses might not be reliable), he told me he was impressed with his skill, at no point did he mention the word magic – nothing even close.

Similarly, watch the videos for magic products, the ones shot on the street with ‘real’ people – listen to what they say – ‘WHAT?’, ‘crazy’, ‘this guy is for real’ ect.

We’re in the worst possible place to have perspective too, because like my relationship to film, we see the periphery.

There is one effect I perform, a mentalist effect, and there is something that happens at one point in the effect that tells me the spectator is thinking exactly what I want them to think. It is something they do with a particular prop.

So my question is, in the wider picture, how do we ENSURE that magic happens in the mind of the spectator (rather than just assuming)? After all that’s our job!

IMHO that's a good specific instance of a much more valuable question.
A specious answer would be to claim that it's a basic playwriting, theater, storytelling issue. But IMHO the answer you seek is called rhetoric.

The specific application you will probably find most useful is to appeal to theatrical conventions of costume and character and then act congruently to the reality you proffer so that the "magic events" can be appreciated in context.

Just one conceptual step outside that answer is the notion of framing - how meaning depends upon context. Another step up conceptually brings us to recognizing the factors which permit a frame to be recognized, the process of inviting someone into a frame and the techniques for managing the frame itself.

Matthew leatherbarrow wrote:

I expect most people will know that some form of trickery is used in a modern "magic show." Also, most intelligent people know that they can be fooled. That doesn't preclude them being amazed at something that seems impossible, even if they don't imagine the magic to be a supernatural event.

I believe, as Maskelyne did, that to intend people to believe it is actually supernatural magic is a bad thing. Maskelyne even wrote that a charlatan is not a magician.

To use the examples you stated, in some cases it might be necessary for a magician to prove that cards aren't gaffed, perhaps by using regular cards before switching in the gaffs, or switching out the gaffs afterwards. Also, some people won't even suspect card gaffs. Many people aren't aware that they exist. Not everyone thinks the same way.

For your other example, a magician either has to prove that the coin isn't in the other hand, or they have to direct attention and be natural such that the audience doesn't even suspect that the coin is in the other hand.

Whit Haydn throws the rope out into the audience at the start of his Mongolian Pop Knot routine. I don't think that routine would be very strong without doing that.

I've seen magicians on here say never to have props examined, because it's wasted time, but Whit Haydn takes it as an opportunity to be entertaining. He gets several laughs out of having the rope examined, and, at the same time, he prevents assumptions from ruining the magic.

matthew leatherbarrow wrote:

You can't ensure it 100% of the time. If the person you're performing for already knows, or stumbles on the actual method, or another valid method, then they won't experience magic.

If the performer isn't competent and prepared, there might not be any magic either.

I almost always perform a routine for magicians friends before I perform it for the public. While they might have a skewed view, they also know where to look to see if I'm flashing, etc., and a typical spectator might miss that. There will be atypical audience members in just about any audience, so it's best to find out weak spots beforehand and eliminate them.

Getting audience feedback takes some effort. Part of it is paying attention, but stunned silence can be confused with boredom. Some looks of amazement are unmistakable, but some people are so reserved that their slight reactions of amazement can be missed. It helps to ask certain trusted people for a sincere appraisal.

And, magic does happen in the spectator's mind. The importance of that phrase is that it gives the performer an audience-centric view of performing, which apparently not everyone has. Some young magicians seem exclusively interested in tricks, and fooling people. That's only part of what's necessary to create magic in someone's mind.

I do agree, it's almost impossible for use to see the magic exactly the way a typical spectator does. We have to pretend. However, I have fooled myself a few times when practicing some things for a long time. That's a very weird feeling, and quite amusing immediately afterwards, at which point the magic disappears.

And, I expect everyone here has been fooled by other magicians many times, so we do know what it's like to be a layperson.

When an audience member says, "Oh, my God," you can bet that what they saw is magic and not trickery. Trickery is, "How did you do that?" Pure astonishment is crying out for the Almighty. A great line from Superman II, "Oh, God." "No. . . Zod."

Interesting.
As usual I have opinions.
When folks go to see staged magician shows they expect to be entertained.
Sure, they may be astonished and surprised but do realize there's skill involved and that it's staged.

In impromptu situations, as on the street, there is a whole different mind set.
There's no fancy staging, no expectations and most props used look like common objects.

For instance, the expectations of spectators depends largely on the type of magic and the magician's character. Those who go to shows like mentalism, geek magic, those stage shows with a dozen productions, etc, all go in with a different mind set.

Or their engagement ring or a puppy or...

Seems to me a magician can only create potential magic but not magic. It only becomes magic if the observer interprets it as such.

If someone wanted to know how a magical effect happened, there are two statements which exist that allow that.

Occam's razor
the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible

and

Remove that which is impossible, anything which remains, however unlikely, must be true.
-Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Using these two concepts you can know, with reasonable certainty, how any "magical" effect is executed. But then, that's not why magicians perform magic, or audiences watch it. In order for magic to happen, the audience must have willing suspension of disbelief. They must accept a reality where what you appear to be doing, is possible.

Matthew, as a film artist you know the films that most affect you are the ones that draw you into the story. These are the films that are so finely structured that they prolong the suspension of disbelief and postpone the mind's inevitable quest for answers. They pull you out of your tech frame and into the story.

I think this is the same for magic. I agree with Paul Harris' statement that amazement is that brief moment when the magic seems real. These moments are rare and brief because the human mind almost instantly begins to search for explanations.

After 30+ years, the effects that best capture and hold my amazement are the ones that either draw me into a rapturous tale or happen in my own hand. I dislike simple mechanical and mathematic effects for this reason. I prefer effects that happen in the spectator's hand or under their watchful eye; effects that are woven around a fun or chilling storyline.

The human mind is going to seek out explanations to any mystery presented. The magician's skill lies in focusing on and extending that brief brilliant moment of utter amazement. Anything outside of that is beyond our control and realm.

Thanks Tommy - Magic done without an audience is science - or practice.

Just my opinion

Um ... I don't understand how a cellphone works. Does that make it magic?

You are not mystified by the presence of a piece of cellophane. There are things among us that are far more puzzling than a magic trick. I still don’t know how my T.V. works. I’ve been watching television all of my life and I still do not have a clue. And they are making it even more complex. However, I am not mystified by it. Why?

Anything that becomes mundane and normal, loses its mystery. It was Doug Henning that told us that as children we saw rain and that it was rubies to us. We get so accustom to them, it loses its magic.

Spectators don’t see cards floating around them all of the time. There first thought is: it must be magic. They are being teleported to their right brain. Then when they come to their senses, their left brain takes over. Naturally they will think what they see is a trick because we do have machines that do amazing things like that. There must be a trick to it. But no machine can make a card spin. It must be a string or magnets. They never come up with the true solution, but they must come up with something to satisfy their logical adult mind.

What we should strive for is to capture that first few moments when the spectator is thinking with their right brain. If we can hold it by taking away one by one all avenues of how it is done, then we can give them an experience they haven’t felt since they were children. That’s why people go to see a magic show.

By george, I think's he's gawt it!

People watch magic for the same reason they dream(I mean "wonder" not rapid eye movement.) Deep down inside we all want to believe there is "more", but the daily grind makes it hard for some. Personally, I have no problem believing that there is "more". I believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and yes, Magic. I'm not an idiot. I'm not a simpleton. In fact, I arrive at all of these beliefs quite logically. Existence is fantastic, all by itself, and that's just as I perceive it. Is magic so hard to believe in placed along side the absurdly statistically unlikely world that we live in? Is the foundation of all that we believe to be fact not set at the end of a long road of misplaced beliefs? The human race has fought war after war, with a body count in the billions, all over conflicting beliefs. Why is the idea that the will has no boundaries so hard to swallow?

I don't know about the rest of them, but I perform magic in the hopes that the people I perform it for are inspired by it to live a life unrestricted by boundaries that exist solely in their minds.

Drew, I totally agree with ya.
What is more magical than waking up?

No, because you can make it work.

I think we'll just have to be generic towards people's perceptions. While each individual is different, there are things which most people perceive in common; I believe most people would react to misdirection or strong visual effects etc..

Sonnets have beauty because of their boundaries, not in spite of them.

Without the boundaries of Time and Space, and the limitations of gravity, water, air and land, life would be meaningless and vaporous. Boundaries are what enable us to know and communicate with one another.

Without the boundaries our Art would be meaningless. Where do the boundaries of the our Art lie? Assuming that we know what magic is, what defines, costitutes a performance of magic within our Art?

Magic must done before a live audience, if not it is something that goes beyond the limits of our art. Therefore Harry Potter and the likes are not where our magic is. In my opinion. Our magic exists within it's boundaries.

um ... no I can't ... I always have to get someone to help me

There we go again, picking the argument apart in pieces instead of observing the big picture. I haven't implied that boundaries serve no purpose. Rather that needless boundaries do. Although certainly the greatest purpose of almost all boundaries in our existence is the joy we feel when we break through them, which rather bigs me back to my point. People will always perceive boundaries, so I don't think our art is any danger, but the point is to show an existence where boundaries (at least some of them) do not exist.