|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9 [Next] | ||||||||||
Michael Kamen Inner circle Oakland, CA 1315 Posts |
Agreed, and there are certainly embellishments that would make it a different trick entirely. I like the one you suggest. Still, the dealing procedure becomes nothing more than a reference to a well-known though boring trick, and thus only one option among innumerable possible decoys.
Michael Kamen
|
|||||||||
ThomasJ Special user Chicago 999 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-08-03 18:44, Brad Burt wrote: Gregory Wilson told me after a lecture that if I hadn't read Fitzkee, I'm missing out...do you know any websites that sell any of his books or where I might be able to get my hands on one? Thanks, T.J. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Thanks - was thinking about reframing the process as making the thought of card vanish and showing the cards seven at at time without any explicit counting beyond the "puzzled performer" quickly counting out the cards to see if still twenty one. The idea being they say "it's there" and the performer looks perplexed and then frustrated each time til the last time - (you got their card on the fun with the third delegate) you swap in a blank and go back to the original person who told the three and show the cards and they say it's not there, count the cards again and play up the revelation ...
anyway my purpose in this writing is to suggest and demonstrate that finding a frame of interest for the procedure of a trick is (IMHO) critical for it to work for a audience especially when the trick requires a procedure beyond a quick/visual effect.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Michael Kamen Inner circle Oakland, CA 1315 Posts |
How about this. Standard procedure. Cards face up the whole time. After identifying their card, turn over all cards -- they have blue backs -- their card, red back. The standard procedure is just a sucker lead in.
Michael Kamen
|
|||||||||
gaddy Inner circle Agent of Chaos 3526 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-08-04 19:13, Jonathan Townsend wrote: I've seen a handling of this trick with tarot cards (in "The Book Of Thoth: Tarot Trickery" by Steven Minch); performed as a "reading", it uses a very good presentation to make this into a fine trick. In my, slightly biased, opinion -The Cups and Balls is the perfect trick.
*due to the editorial policies here, words on this site attributed to me cannot necessarily be held to be my own.*
|
|||||||||
The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3158 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-08-05 00:01, Michael Kamen wrote: That's true. You could also take a different tactic, and have them "think" which row it's in, telepathically send that information to you, without having anything spoken aloud. Finally, you could show all 21 cards are separate, before squaring them up and have their thought-of card rise from the deck. Notice, though, that these aren't just changes in presentation. The very nature of the trick is changing. Within each trick is an implied demonstration of a power. So many little details can either whittle away at the core of that demonstration, or else polish it and enhance it, and these details can have nothing to do with presentational skill. If you're making the demonstration of the power of flight, then presentational prowess or no, people are going to remember if you didn't prove strings weren't holding you up.
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
|
|||||||||
Michael Kamen Inner circle Oakland, CA 1315 Posts |
And all this goes to prove that you can take a lemon, add sugar and make lemonade, but if you have a good mango you could just peel it and eat it -- AND -- if you are an amateur chef you might just want to take lemons and see what you can come up with.
Michael Kamen
|
|||||||||
JackScratch Inner circle 2151 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-08-04 11:33, Whit Haydn wrote: Description totally incomplete. It is possible to do exactly what you described and yet still make a connection with your audience. It is likewise possible to execute everything you described and have it be the most tedious thing a person has ever seen. So, I don't know if I would go or not. Not making eye contact, not using a lot of words, these things can be done very powerfully or very weakly. Which way you do them, or whatever it is you do, makes all the difference. Did he stand and deliver, or was everything kinda non deliberate? Did he enunciate? Did he fail to make eye contact, or very intentionally not make eye contact. Give me a break Whit, I've seen you perform, you know all this, why are you being obtuse? As for SAM and IBM, yeah, most of their members do SO well with a live lay audience, don't they? For the record, that is not "Drew's position". I never said that magic is "simply theater". That lack of understanding is why you keep disagreeing with me. Could you please restrain your arguments with me, to things I have actually presented? What makes me "seem" foolish and ridiculous is the unenlightened, unobservant mind of those perceiving me. |
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
Perhaps it is your refusal to define your terms.
You said the trick or effect is unimportant. The method is unimportant. The magician doesn't even have to do a trick. How then, is your magic different from "simply theater?" You have an advantage in that you have seen my work. I have never seen yours, you have never published any routines. I have no way to know what you are trying to say except by what you post. And in your posts you make it clear that you don't want to commit yourself to any definition of terms. How can anyone ever make sense of your position? I don't believe anyone could watch their fork animate on their own table or their sugar bowl explode in front of them, and could ever find it "tedious." You don't seem to be able to ever put yourself in the shoes of a real spectator, as in this case (tedious indeed!), and perhaps that is why you don't seem to grasp the point. Perhaps you have never had the experience of being truly amazed. Confronted by real, ungimmicked, unvarnished, impossible happenings, you think that presentation will still be important? You think that if some autistic Rainman type with no personality and no presentation could levitate a glass of water with his mind alone, you think that would require "presentation" to get people to watch without finding it tedious? Perhaps I am dense and obtuse. It is the only explanation I can come up with, as I seem to be the only one here to find your posts simply inscrutable and nonsensical. I suppose this post will be deleted like all the others. |
|||||||||
Donal Chayce Inner circle 1770 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-08-05 14:13, Whit Haydn wrote: Well, based on the evidence, I don't believe you are dense and obtuse. And you're not alone in your POV regarding the posts to which you refer. Therefore, there must be another explanation... |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
To be fair, rainman who really does it (or even non-rainman) would quickly be taken away, used, abused and vivisected faster then you can say 'civil rights'.
next
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
Let's gut the Golden Goose and take all her golden eggs at once!
|
|||||||||
cinemagician Inner circle Phila Metro Area 1094 Posts |
Is it worthy to consider what percentage of any trick routine or performance is "magic" and what percentage is story telling theatre/ acting or general communication?
The sugar bowl and fork example would be very strong magic but very week in terms of theatre or of communicating an intended message. Or perhaps in terms of "entertainment" as it is generally considered. In fact, the absense of theatrical technique in the above example might even lead some to suspect that what they saw was real magic and not...
...The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity...
William Butler Yeats |
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
Maybe it was real magic. Would real magic need presentation?
When the wizard throws fireballs at King Arthur and his men in Monty Python's Holy Grail, the knights react like it was a performance and applaud. What would real magic look like? Would it be entertaining. What sort of motives and agendas might the magician have? |
|||||||||
cinemagician Inner circle Phila Metro Area 1094 Posts |
In my oppinion, Real magic would not need presentation. It seems as though it might be encapsulated by a ritual, or by an incantation or by some action needed to "bring about" the magical occurance.
It could on the other hand be as simple as shooting fireballs from the hand. Or rising off the ground with no apparent means of support. Removing the the theatrical aspects of magic would in many cases bring it closer to what "real magic" might be like. Again, I don't know if this would be entertaining in the sense that we usually define entertainment. As for motives and agendas it would only make sense that the magician would be using his powers towards some worthy end such as to heal the sick, or kill an enemy or attract wealth or what have you. These are the very motivations that are most often missing from "our magic". When the mainstay of our repetoires consists of such stuff as making cards stuck in the center of the pack repetedly arrive on top we only help confirm what Henning Nelms said, "No matter how astonishing a trick may be, it suffers from one major fault-it has no point". Getting Back to Brad Burt's initial question- the perfect trick for me must be astonishing but they must be some point or some meaning to it. Whit, You have failed to convince me so far that the meaning is inherently in the magic.
...The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity...
William Butler Yeats |
|||||||||
Brad Burt Inner circle 2675 Posts |
Yo...
On the fireballs question...consider a fireworks display. Very entertaining, but there is no point except the celebration the display commemorates. Tossing a ball of fire in the air is pointless, but it's also magical. On Nelms...the man whose work almost destroyed my desire to do 'magic'....He is both right and wrong. It's a good news bad news kind of situation. I've argued in almost the exact same vein as Whit that the magic that we all do and love in fact does not have any rational point to it. The most meaningful magic routine ever devised is still just 'fake' magic unless the person doing it is using in some manner that crosses the ethical/moral line into the criminal, etc. Pull money from the air to the strains of Pennies from Heaven as in Fitzkee. Brilliant idea giving context and texture to the Miser's Dream, but no one really thinks it's money from no where. The illusion of pulling the money is the meaning for doing it. All magic routines supply their own meaning, no matter how simple or lacking in surrounding presentation. Show a coin, say not a word, vanish the coin and walk away. No context. No reason why one might want to vanish coin. Pretty silly really if it's assumed you are too stupid or incompetent to make it return. But, if it is done well...it will entertain for the same reason that seeing anything out of the ordinary is entertaining. Or, else, how to explain a show like ...rat's I can't remember the name...they eat bugs, sheep eyes, do crazy stuff. You see it 'is' entertaining in a kind of goofy, inane, why are they doing that kind of way, but there's no point other than to win the money. It's not that Whit and I think that Magic doesn't need some justification or meaning...we just think that magic effects supply their own meaning and anything beyond that is so much gravy. And...should be added. But, magic is inherently interesting, because it always provokes the following question: What is you could really do 'that' by 'real' magic? People would 'really' like to believe that in a Galaxy far, far away a Star Wars universe does exist. By the by: I always consider a trick perfect after doing it enough times to know that it just 'kills' lay folks and gets a good reaction. I don't care how much I love a trick...If it doesn't get a decent reaction from an audience then either there is something wrong with the trick or with me. Generally, I have come to the conclusion that like problems with my computer it's virtually always 'user error'. ;-} Best,
Brad Burt
|
|||||||||
cinemagician Inner circle Phila Metro Area 1094 Posts |
I too agree with what you say about Nelms, Brad. Reading the book at 15 years old in some ways robbed me of the innocence of magic but in other was forced me to confront some of the problems inherient with the performance of magic.
Wide is the gate that leads to undiciplined trivial demonstrations of remotely magical occurances. Narrow is the gate that leads towards the structure suggested by Nelms. It was good for me in some respects- very bad and limiting for me in others. I mention the Nelms quote because it is an assertion worth thinking about, a warning to the would be magician not to fall into the trap of triviality. There are many different ways a magic trick can be meaningful- Ortiz did good job of catagorizing them in Strong Magic under the headings Substantive Meaning and Situational Meaning. The Fitzkee example suggests another approach- one that I do not agree with. Before we get too off topic I guess it's best just to consider what magical effects/performances/ demonstrations one has personally found meaningful and then think a little about why they were meaningful to you.
...The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity...
William Butler Yeats |
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
Every magic trick is a story. Professor shows deck of cards (protagonist) and offers one to spectator. Spectator chooses one (antagonist). Magician places card pack in the pack, the spectator asks to shuffle (conflict). Magician finds card (resolution).
We have a protagonist, and antagonist, conflict and resolution. That is the play that is built into the trick. We should find our meaning in the trick itself. We treat the story as if it were a play. We add character, meaning, color, language, humor, etc., but all drawn out of the trick itself--not added on. The meaning is in the magic itself already. We draw it out and make it plain for others to see, by looking at the trick and how it affects the uninitiate, how it looks from the magician character's point of view, how the magician views his magic and his audience, etc., etc. We should try to release the meaning that is in the trick, not just use the trick as a delivery system for some other unrelated message. One is art, the other propaganda. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
I like the trick where some text and a video demo fool people into buying a thing they will play with for a few minutes then put away and go looking at more text and videos to get more such.
Find the pattern, give it a name, represent it, frame it, hang it on the wall, own it, own up to it, maybe find another frame for it and hang it where it serves you. How about a hand for the trick that fools the magician? As I was walking down the stair I met a man who was not there ... (context, content, frame, decode, where does this hang in your gallery) * towit: Agreed that the performance of a trick offers a drama - though would it not be the performer who's the antagonist and the audience as protagonist meeting the wizard during their evening out?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
JackScratch Inner circle 2151 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-08-05 14:13, Whit Haydn wrote: Yes I did. Quote:
On 2008-08-05 14:13, Whit Haydn wrote: No, I never did. Quote:
On 2008-08-05 14:13, Whit Haydn wrote: Then explain to me why you even bother? Since all a magician needs is a "killer effect", why do you go to all the trouble of scripting and rehearsing a performance? After all, linking rings? Everyone knows they can't lose. Just wander out on stage, don't say a thing. Do the cookie cutter rings routine. After all, you don't need to make a connection, do you? Put your money where your mouth is. You say one thing, but you live another. "impossible happenings", this is your real problem. A magician can do anything given the know how and resources. There is no such thing as "impossible happenings". David Copperfield has made the Statue of Liberty disappear. What more do you want? |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » What's A/The Perfect Magic Trick and Why? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.08 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 < |