|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next] | ||||||||||
Harley Newman Inner circle 5117 Posts |
This is really such a simple discussion, transmogrified into something that appears complex. Most of this thread is about the wrong questions. It's not about which routines you do or don't do. It's not about tricks. It's not about whether you're a mentalist or a sideshow performer, or a juggler. It's about how you tie things together. (And Jon A is not a geek, unless he's developed some private habits, I haven't heard of.)
WHO is the audience watching? WHAT is that character's reality? HOW does the performer convey that reality? The consistency of the character's worldview is the most important thing. When story and character are consistent, the show goes well. When there's a disconnect, the flow stops. If the audience stops and shakes their heads, saying "huh?", then the theatrical reality is not being conveyed from the stage to their imaginations. All theatrical elements are threads in a tapestry. When a performance is well-woven, one sees the tapestry. Otherwise, only the flaws show. Some performers can maintain flow. Some can't. BTW, for Trickster, the shifting of shapes is simply a means to an end. It's just having a particular skill, which enables Trickster to achieve a (usually selfish) goal. The vast majority of magicians I've seen, who try to adopt a trickster personality, merely come across as egotists, insulting the intelligence of their audiences by saying "I know how the trick is done, and you don't, nyah, nyah, nyah!" Those whose role is con artist, must present a consistent reality. That does not necessarily make them tricksters.
“You can’t depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus” -Mark Twain
www.bladewalker.com |
|||||||||
Lawrence O Inner circle French Riviera 6811 Posts |
Hello Harley Newman,
This thread is not about the wrong questions. Admittedly it's not about which routines you do or don't do: It's not about tricks. However it is about what we do: The first questions a person asks about a stranger is who is this person, why is he here, what does he want with me? These are the essential first questions the magician must deal with. Either we want to show skill or we want to share a magic dilemma. “The ones who believe magician’s skill to be the ability to lift the double cover of The Duck Pan without the inner lining falling out… or which side of the Foo Can to pour… are true duffers… While many will admit that an ability to operate a mechanical device does not demonstrate any magical skill, a great many will wish to quarrel violently when I discount the magician’s skill in having acquired the agility to accomplish sleight of hands calisthenics… Robert Houdin said so specifically. He should have known. Nevil Maskelyne offered similar statements. Certainly he knew. Kellar bothered little with sleights. And who among us would say that any of these three was not a skilled magician?” Dariel Fitzkee. As the magician, we are not here to brag about our acquired skills and make them look more impressive as they really are to gain credit. We are here to shake some audiences rational minds, make them like it, and remember it. As Whit Haydn analyzed it, "Magic IS the Message", meaning that "The Dilemma IS the Message." So what is the dilemma? On one end of the dilemma, the magician intends to prove that there is no other possible explanation than "magic", which forces the spectator to consider the possibility "Maybe it was magic..." and they take off on a creative reverie of "What if magic were real? What would it mean?" If skill is a possibility, there is no impossibility and then no dilemma (it is pre-explained) and therefore no "magic". On the other end of the Dilemma, "There is no such thing as magic" brings spectators back to reality and the creative thinking that goes into trying to figure out "Well then, how could he have done it?" Again when physical or mental means are offered as a cause to the effect, there is no "magic" left. The dilemma is created to keep the creative thinking constantly bubbling with a strong energetic dialectic between these two ends. Thus your interesting statement "the consistency of the character's worldsview is the most important thing" is only essential after the magician having clearly set in his mind which "character's worldsview" he will aim at putting off balance with cognitive dissonance to put the spectator in a dilemma. It seems to me that your interesting post mixes an essential mean with the end.
Magic is the art of emotionally sharing live impossible situations
|
|||||||||
Donal Chayce Inner circle 1770 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-01-13 12:48, Harley Newman wrote: Actually, by his own admission he is a geek. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Quote:
BTW, for Trickster, the shifting of shapes is simply a means to an end. It's just having a particular skill, which enables Trickster to achieve a (usually selfish) goal. The vast majority of magicians I've seen, who try to adopt a trickster personality, merely come across as egotists, insulting the intelligence of their audiences by saying "I know how the trick is done, and you don't, nyah, nyah, nyah!" While I concur that some professional Trickster magicians come across as insulting and egotistical, in my observation they're in the minority. How many professional magicians constitute a "vast majority" of those that you've seen? Quote:
Those whose role is con artist, must present a consistent reality. That does not necessarily make them tricksters. According to your definition of the Trickster ("having a particular skill, which enables Trickster to achieve a (usually selfish) goal"), con artists would be tricksters. Since a certain degree of amorality is a hallmark of the Trickster, I think you may be on to something. |
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
When the "No such thing as magic" side of the dilemma is weakened, the possibility that magic was the actual cause is strengthened. This takes us in the direction of the Theater of Charlatanry.
When the "I can't imagine any other possible explanation" side is weakened, we move toward the Theatrical Depiction of Magic--Harry Potter, Mandrake, Doctor Strange. I think that the Theater of the Dilemma is the central part of the continuum where things are both balanced and in constant flux. The dialectic of the dilemma constantly pushes and prods the mind in two different directions as long as the secret of the trick is unresolved. But one performer can move from one end of the continuum to another--from show to show and trick to trick. I think it is the overall artistic intent that defines the performer. One can also raise or lower the claim. The greater and more audacious the claim, the greater the demand for stronger proof. I think if we were attempting to name these approaches, it may prove difficult simply because of the many different shades and possibilities. Fake strong man stunts, fake sideshow stunts, fake karate or kung fu stunts, fake escape stunts are different from the real ones. The real demonstrations are simply demonstrations of skill as they claim. Fake ones are meant to accepted as real--so they go toward Charlatanry. Many performers combine real and fake methods. Where are we then? Houdini would use both real and fake methods in order for what? To convince people of what? I think he was creating a mythological character to be remembered forever by the public by intentionally impersonating a super character. The Dilemma was strong with him, and still is in the minds of today's public--a public that never saw him. |
|||||||||
Michael Kamen Inner circle Oakland, CA 1315 Posts |
(Posted before seeing Whit's response above) Different ways to view this no doubt. I am not seeing the con artist as trickster. Nor am I seeing the trickster as having a usually selfish goal. Renee Lavand is a trickster, because he sets up a false premise and proves it with the help of subterfuge. He is not a con man or charlatan, and is certainly not offensive. What is his motive?
Michael Kamen
|
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
Both the Trickster and the Charlatan wear a mask of magic, science, alchemy, or the occult.
The Charlatan intends that no one knows it is a mask, he wants to remain hidden. He never wants to be revealed as the Charlatan. The Trickster intends all along for the audience to eventually know that there is someone hiding behind the mask. That is what gives the depth and layer to the character of the magician in the Theater of the Dilemma. He is both the Trickster in hiding and the Trickster revealing himself. The Actor is never really hidden behind the mask. The audience knows along that he is just "playing a part." The Trickster might actually be both Actor and Charlatan at different stages of his performance. |
|||||||||
Donal Chayce Inner circle 1770 Posts |
(Also posted before seeing Michael's and Whit's posts. My, people come and go so quickly around here!)
Quote:
On 2010-01-13 17:18, Whit Haydn wrote: In reading this and Harley's post, it occurred to me that one thing that was never touched upon in our earlier thread discussion on the Magician, Trickster and Charlatan ( http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......tart=450 ) was that these archetypes are not mutually exclusive. One can be both a Trickster /i]and[/i] a Charlatan. Knowing that, it seems to me then the question we need to ask ourselves when sizing up such people is, "Are you a good witch or a bad witch?" |
|||||||||
Donal Chayce Inner circle 1770 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-01-13 17:23, Michael Kamen wrote: With an emphasis on "usually," I concur. However, as per my prior post, a healthy does of amorality is at the core of the Trickster. In its strictest sense, amoral does not mean immoral; rather, it means that things are neither moral nor immoral. The great gift of the Trickster is not that they teach us the difference between right and wrong through their deeds, but rather that they get us to think about what constitutes morality and immorality. |
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-01-13 17:53, Donal Chayce wrote: I think the Trickster has always represented intelligence, cunning and deceit and its value for survival as opposed to brute strength, courage and force. The Trickster/Magician character is much like Bugs Bunny--overqualified to be prey, he hangs around with his enemies just for the sake of playing with them. He intends no real malice, just likes the game of manipulating and conning them. Even Jesus admired the cunning and foresight of the con man. The term Charlatan does not always mean someone with bad intentions. Some psychologists and healers believe that a little Charlatanry can be used to help others. I don't intend these three approaches to be moral or ethical judgements--simply a description. |
|||||||||
Lawrence O Inner circle French Riviera 6811 Posts |
I think that "civilized" has always represented intelligence, cunning and deceit and its value for survival as opposed to brute strength, courage and force...
;)
Magic is the art of emotionally sharing live impossible situations
|
|||||||||
Donal Chayce Inner circle 1770 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-01-13 17:59, Whit Haydn wrote: Indeed. You yourself have been a boon to mankind since learning the healing rituals of the Placebo Indian medicine men of Cucamonga. |
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
Yes, quite.
|
|||||||||
Michael Kamen Inner circle Oakland, CA 1315 Posts |
In light of the good ideas raised, I should perhaps expand my thinking about the Trickster, who is perhaps a useful model across both the magician and the charlatan, and across both playful and sinister motifs. The con man is fairly straight forward, but can we elaborate on the non-sinister aspects a bit more? This is very interesting and complex. For example, I placed Renee Lavand in the trickster frame, because he presents the craft as a dilemma. However, I do not see him as a Bugs Bunny. Perhaps I am mistaken. I can see that the nature of the trickster character is to keep hidden in his case, but I would like to reflect on the motive of that hidden trickster, in his case. I wonder how Renee would describe that level of his character?
Michael Kamen
|
|||||||||
Donal Chayce Inner circle 1770 Posts |
All archetypes are neutral, neither "good" nor "bad", but there is a light side and a shadow side to each. The Trickster's shadow contains villainy (Satan is a Trickster), whereas its light side is often aligned with the Hero (another archetype). Indeed, the Trickster sometimes is the Hero, e.g., Coyote, Br'er Rabbit, Robin Hood, Peter Pan, Bugs Bunny, "The Saint" Simon Templar...even Bart Simpson.
What defines the Hero is an arduous journey or a quest or an adversary that must be vanquished, ultimately for the benefit of the tribe. And as Whit points out, the Trickster relies on cunning and intelligence to best his stronger and more powerful opponent. It's interesting to note that one of the major Hero archetypes if that of the Magician/Conjuror. Perhaps it's the Trickster-Hero in Lavand that resonates with you? If so, then what journey/quest is he undertaking in his performances, who or what is his foe? As an aside, I also find it interesting that there are very few female Tricksters in myth and culture. I wonder if that (at least partially) explains why female magicians are a small minority? |
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
One can lean toward the Charlatan side by intending to prove claims/abilities that one doesn't really possess. A great deal depends on the LEVEL of the claim.
To claim to have real psychic powers, a money printing machine, ability to cure cancer, or perform psychic surgery are obvious types of Charlatanry and can have serious effects on people's lives, faith, marriages and pocketbooks. Lowered claims like faked demonstrations of NLP, faked strong man stunts, faked tying a cherry stem with the tongue, etc., are probably harmless or less likely to cause harm. Charlatanry can be used for entertainment as well as for taking unfair advantage of people, and perhaps for doing good. So perhaps intent matters as well. There are voodoo and shamanistic healers that can use charlatanry to increase people's faith in their claimed abilities, and use that faith to either heal or harm. Dumbo was given a magic feather by his little friend the mouse--a Charlatan. Magicians might use Charlatanry in entertainment, as in a psychic performance that claims real ability, but is only used for the sake of entertainment and not to take advantage. A psychic advisor might use the faith and interest of his subject to give advice, feedback, motivation, self-confidence, or psychological counseling. Charlatanry can be accomplished with less "proof" even when the claims are high because the personal charisma and acting ability of the the Charlatan, along with people's desire to believe, leads to a suspension of disbelief. Perhaps there is a circle here somewhere. The weakening of one side or the other of the dilemma is what enables all of this. If one believes that magic is possible, and that the Charlatan is magic, then suspension of disbelief takes care of the rest. They have bought the story, just like the guy who deposits a 4 million dollar check from Nigeria. So acting and theater alone can create Charlatanry among the gullible without "proofs." |
|||||||||
Harley Newman Inner circle 5117 Posts |
I was using "trickster" in the old way. At the beginning of traditional trickster tale cycles, he's usually insatiable in his desires, whether they apply to food, clothes, baubles, or sex. And at the beginning, he's amoral. He doesn't care if you live or die, or if he feels like eating your children. He just desires. As the tales progress, he learns from his mistakes, and often ends up rescuing the world for humanity, taming the chaos of the universe. He progresses from animal nature to human, and becomes a culture hero at least, and perhaps a god.
He changes skins, discovers ways of solving problems. It's not magic or powers. It's problem-solving. He's not a charlatan. He just is. Primordial. Dangerous. Magic is a form of theatrical performance, a ritual by definition. Effective practice of the ritual involves character, plot, and dramatic conflict. Conflicts arise from all kinds of motivations, and drive the stories. Fitzkee was on target. It's not about the trick, nor the mechanical ability to pull it off. It's entirely about the way in which we, as performers, entice our audiences to enter our realities. We move from one place to another, finding different dilemmas, and different solutions. Our character binds us to the process, giving our diverse skills a theme that ties them together. Juggling might be one of those skills, a good mental routine another. Derren was very effective with his glass-walking routine. IMO, he mixed too many themes into the process, which in the hands of a lesser performer would have confused the audience. However, he pulled it off, because he, as a character, developed a particular kind of relationship with his audience. They accepted as real, the stories he told. His concept was not so much of having powers, as it was about things he'd learned. The audience, by proxy putting themselves in his shoes, were thrilled at the idea that they, too, could perhaps learn those lessons. And yet it was a paradox. They also knew that THEY could never do such things (due to social conditioning). We begin to learn, when we're pre-verbal, all kinds of things that we can't do, things we should be scared of, things that are "impossible". These lessons generalize as we mature, because that's one of the traits of psychological patterns over time. When we go onstage, we present an alternate reality to the one the audience "knows" to be true. In Wonderland, all kinds of things are possible. Trickster is one archetype. Con man is another. Shaman is another. So is geek. In his act, I don't remember that Jon bites heads off chickens and snakes. But he does present a believable character, in believable situations. And if his dramatic conflicts are solved in an odd way, it's still believable. He's just odd, isn't he? Whit, I like your comment "The dialectic of the dilemma constantly pushes and prods the mind in two different directions as long as the secret of the trick is unresolved." It really is tricksterish, though the nature of trickster is that each resolution twists, becomes the next dilemma. In sideshow, there's ongoing debate about whether one should mix real with fake stunts. To me, that's just egos talking. The audience doesn't care. They just want to be amazed. I've been tracing a lot of stunts back through history, to shamanic origins, writing a new show with it. It amazes me, that the performance root we share, used juggling, sleights, ventriloquism, illusion, and stunts. Nobody questioned it. It was, in a way, the original variety entertainment. Even in cultures where the skills are known to the general public, and used in the evenings for entertainment, the regular people would not call the results real, because THAT was what the shaman did. (S)he could be imitated, but not replicated. I just watched Rene's Oil and Water routine...brilliant! He didn't brag, claimed no powers, merely accepted a certain reality. And the audience had no choice, but to ride his story, wherever he wanted to take it. And each time he said "It can't happen any slower", the message the audience perceived was "It can't happen". It strengthened the impact beautifully, created a wonderful paradox. Even though he had such superb control, the end result was supposedly out of his control.
“You can’t depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus” -Mark Twain
www.bladewalker.com |
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
Harley:
The old way? I think the playful Trickster appears in humorous tales in Aesop, and in African, Asian and American Indian myths. Br'r Rabbit is the descendent of the clever Trickster rabbit in African Tales. Bugs Bunny is his Brooklyn cousin. I am not sure what you mean by this: "Whit, I like your comment "The dialectic of the dilemma constantly pushes and prods the mind in two different directions as long as the secret of the trick is unresolved." It really is tricksterish, though the nature of trickster is that each resolution twists, becomes the next dilemma." Could you give an example of how when each resolution twists, it becomes the next dilemma? What kind of dilemma do you mean? |
|||||||||
Harley Newman Inner circle 5117 Posts |
I have 5-6 feet of shelf space of trickster tales, and only one complete cycle. It's in "The Trickster" by Paul Radin. Radin was one of Franz Boas' (father of modern anthropology) students, who collected extensively from Winnebago people, about a hundred years ago. This book contains a couple of trickster cycles, and is one that I read, about once a year. I ran into Bill Neale one time, and we got talking about it. The rest of the people there were lost, had no idea of what we were discussing. Bill and I were howling with glee for about an hour. You will, too. And it's not children's stories.
There are a couple of essential paradigms with "clown" and "trickster". One, is a moment of discovery. When something happens, clown discovers it, takes delight in it. Then it evolves into a problem, requiring some kind of resolution. The resolution becomes another moment of discovery, and then another problem evolves. Here's an abbreviated example from an old show (which I miss doing): I pull a beautiful red apple out of a bag. I'm hungry. I take a big bite. The apple gets stuck in my mouth. After a series of failed attempts to spit it out, I bend over, get a kid to kick my derriere, and the apple pops out. I lean over to catch the apple, and when I stand up again, my pants fall down, which I don't notice, because I'm enraptured by the apple. Everybody laughs, and I don't understand why. Eventually, I figure it out, so I pull them up, and get hopelessly tangled in the suspenders, trying to get them right. After struggle, I do a backward roll, and the pants are up, the suspenders where they should be. I realize that the kid kicked me, so I try to convince a woman in the audience to kiss it better. Then I discover that the apple was a ball. I discover more balls, and have to find a way to hold on to all of them. Etc. Also in there, are about 4 run-on gags, which provide continuity. Each discovery becomes a dilemma. Each solution twists into the next phase. Each event is somewhat separate, but are tied together by the character, the story providing a particular kind of logical train, that the audience follows effortlessly. (Well, not effortlessly. I've heard about people having sore bellies for days, from laughing.) Audience perception is the most important thing. They're pulled through a series of emotional events, with which they can identify. (We're a weird species of critter, who spend much of our lives looking for things with which to identify.) The script is not about clown, in a way. It's about our own curiosity, gluttony, frustration, trying to find order in a chaotic universe, having the universe backfire on us, etc. This is where the audience puts themselves in the shoes of the performer, and the ritual of performance provides a catharsis for all. Different characters require differences in scripting. Obviously, you, Whit would not do a pants drop, in the middle of a con game. It would decimate the illusion you present to your audience. In my newer performances, slapping a blowgun dart out of the air, before it hits my face, would lose the kind of impact I want, were I to do a pratfall first. We are always in the driver's seat, but our characters might not appear to be. It's a way that we play in the psychological space, between the stage and the seats. That's what makes good performance. Not tricks.
“You can’t depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus” -Mark Twain
www.bladewalker.com |
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
Good performance and good magic performance are not necessarily the same thing.
Tricks are important to a magic show. I do not portray a con man. I am a magician. |
|||||||||
Donal Chayce Inner circle 1770 Posts |
Quote:
In his act, I don't remember that Jon bites heads off chickens and snakes. But he does present a believable character, in believable situations. And if his dramatic conflicts are solved in an odd way, it's still believable. He's just odd, isn't he? That's just one definition of "geek". Two others are: "an unfashionable or socially inept person"; and "a person with an eccentric devotion to a particular interest." I suspect that when Jon referred to himself as a geek, he meant the latter. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » The Superhero Theory (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.12 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 < |