Greetings all,

I'd like to throw a general question into the forum to hopefully open up a productive discussion on a question that affects all of us who perform escapes.

Recently after closing a Vaudeville style show (of which we were the only magicians, but there were many acts) with a handcuff escape (Cannon's Strong Box, actually), a trusted magician friend sought me out backstage. He praised my patter and performance, but felt the escape lacked any motivation for me to get out of the cuffs.

After thinking about this for some time, I have repeatedly pondered if the embarrassment of not escaping is simple motivation enough, or should escapes have some form of built in penalty for failure?

Some escapes have audience perceieved penalties built in -- for example any water, milk can, torture cell, etc., the motivation is obviously to escape or drown. Other escapes can impose patter or theme related limits, such as speed to attempt break a record of Houdini's. But is such a perceived motivation beyond embarressment needed for an audience to care about an escape?

Has anyone else thought about this? Just seeking everyone's $0.02 on this matter. All replies welcome.

Cheers,
Tom Beaman

I had the same question asked of me after escaping from my strait-jacket hanging upside down. I was asked why get out of the jacket if you are going to still be hanging from your feet? My reply was that it was more difficult to escape while hanging upside down. Blood rushing to my head for one thing.

Since then I have decided that everyons should be informed of the purpose of the escape.
I think that to escape for the sake of escaping is not enough. I feel there needs to be a reason for the escape. Houdini's escapes always had a purpose. To foil a challenger or to not drown.

As with my last escape of combining the strait-jacket, guillotine and chains, the purpose was to escape before the blade cut my head off. I was just now asked by a friend while on facebook if it was realy that close. She and her friends were worried that I was not going to get out in time. Good! It served its purpose.

Just my 2 cents worth
Bruce

I think that your friend was over thinking. Motivation is plain and simple. Why WOULDN'T you want to get out?

What is the motivation of the Juggler, the clown, the trick roper? Does the clown need a penalty if a balloon breaks? Does the balancing act need to do it over a pit of spikes? Isn't the audience just amazed that the balancing act can hold their position for 30 seconds without some invented gaffus taking away from their ability? This would be like saying "why make a lady float in the air if she is just going to come down again?".

YOU performed the show - YOU got the contract - You got the applause. Did the promoter pay you? You did what you were supposed to.

Vaudeville was never about penalties - it was about variety and theatre.

You are doing something that not many people can do. Escaping from something. That is interesting and fascinating to some people, and that is why they watch you.

Sure, they'd be entertained as much if you didn't get out, but that's not going to happen, is it?

If you are particularly lucky, somebody is going to pay money to see your work. More reason to make it more entertaining with a story, or audience participation.

I don't think you need a reason for the escape. You reason is that you are doing it because you can, and they can't!

Had long chats about this and still no solution.

If you think about it,,,,no one would get tied up unless thay could get out !

So if everyone knows that you can get out then why bother to get tied up !

The escape seems (To me) To be the destination, the journey is the most important part of this. If the journey is entertaining the climax of escape should be over real quick as this could be classed as an anti climax.

Being able to do what others can`t do could be portrayed as arrogance,or the belittleing of the speckies present.

So many angles to look at this from and after many years of doing it I still can`t drill down to it,,,so what is it all about ?

Ken.

If I may be the Devils advocate. People are not sure you will escape or they would never bother to come to the show.

- - On the flip side: People go to NASCAR in the hopes of seeing an accident. People know the golfer will eventually get the ball in the hole.


It's not the music it's how you sing it. ( I believe, ultimately, that is what Mick, Ken and myself are trying to say)

On the other hand, having 30 pitchforks under you while escaping from a jacket, and burning rope, is an attraction. There is a time and place for theatrics. Houdini never performed his most dangerous stunts as the teaser. In order to see the WTC you had to buy a ticket.

But your friend saying that you lacked motivation.... You got up in the morning, went to the theatre, got cuffed, got out, got paid...... That sir, is motivation. He just wanted to see blood and guts because he felt he could do a better job.

Hmmm, I too have been asked this before and I think escapes can benefit from some kind of penalty just in the same way as mentalism benefits from the "I'll find my pay cheque" thing. But like mentalism I don't think all escape effects need to have a penalty in order to make them entertaining.

I quite like stories. And I think that they can work well in escapes. In/out routines are just funny, no real penalty but I love watching them as much as I love performing them.

What I'm struggling to say is penalty has it's place. I don't think every escape needs it. Would you truly risk your life 5 times in 1 show?

On the other hand, penalty comes in many forms. On 1 tv show a certain Mr Goodwin was restrained naked in a lift. His family were on the ground floor, his clothes in a locked box in the lift. Oh, and 1 of his restraints was a ball gag.

Anyway, failure meant his family would see him in all his glory... He failed as only JG can.

But it worked. The penalty was perfect. Not dangerous, but seriously embarressing.

Some escapes are puzzles. Some are meant to grab an audience by the guts, and twist. One needs balance.

I'm one of those, who believes that more than two escapes in a show, is probably too much. Once you've established that you'll escape, the audience knows what will happen next. I've been known to do three, but only in full-evening performances.

Houdini spent the first thirty years of his career, as a variety artist. He did a card trick or two, the needle trick, etc. As a headliner, he did his act 3-5 times a day, about 20 minutes each. The key word is "variety".

ROTFLMAO Ros, That episode of "one way out" was not aired here in California. I am thinking I can guess why. Goodwin is the only one of us I can think of who could do something like that and still keep his reputation. The worst thing I would be willing to have done to me might be pouring of paint or a gooey liquid on me if I failed.

I guess it depends on your character and style.

Many attempt the 'daredevil' style popularized on 1980's-90's TV.

This is fine for a 'one-shot' stunt or a show finale. Too many 'death stunts' in one show, though, tends to lessen the impact of the 'death' angle, IMHO. While multiple danger stunts have been done successfully in a show, the performer was careful to 'raise the stakes' gradually to keep the finale hard-hitting.

Someone doing a 'Willie Sutton - reformed criminal' type persona would not benefit as much by death stunts as they would by 'cleverness' stunts (spirit ties; substitutions; 'sucker' escapes; etc.) The thrust here would be for the performer to seem 'slick' and able to 'outwit' his 'jailers' in an amazing, but whimsical, way.

I do a westernized 'fakir' style persona, so my emphasis is on concentration and 'contortionist' escapes. The focus is on the 'phenomenal' physical-mental skills used to accomplish the feat.

Y'all are digging too deep, putting way way too much thought into this. The points made by Jay and Harley are valid. As long as the audience finds your escape entertaining that is all that counts. Who cares what a handful of people out of hundreds in the audience think. "For those who believe no explanation is necessary. For those who don't none will suffice." My thought is a show with the proper balance of comedy and excitement. Yes you should have humor in your escape show.

Sometimes the escape can be demonstration of SKILL...
Penalty makes it more exciting...

I dunno, call me 'crazy,' but I think ALL performers should put thought into their personas and what they do, if for no other reason than to avoid being 'clones.'

And humor...yes, provided it works with your persona, and the type of humor should reflect and compliment your persona.

Many thanks for everyone's input. It gives me quite a bit of food for thought.