How do you make magic entertaining?

I have started threads to ascertain an answer to this question. The wizards of smart do not seem to have an answer. The best answer I got was, "Perform and you will find out."

All I hear is, "You must make it entertaining."

From what I have seen you make magic entertaining by having a cute eight year old boy or girl help with a trick or tell jokes.

Is that it?

I like this thread for a variety of reasons. The question that occurs to me is: How does any performer make ANY PERFORMANCE OF ANYTHING entertaining? What 'makes' for entertainment?

The one answer that I come up with time and time again, and it's not definitive is this: Enthusiasm. Enthusiasm to me communicates that what is being offered IS important to the performer and thus draw in the attention of the viewer(s). Not mock enthusiasm. But, real interest and belief in the importance of what one is doing.

Why is a performer boring? In almost every case in my experience it was the inability of the performer to look, seem, communicate that the performer was actually interested in what they were doing. They seemed unconnected to the 'event', if you will. Here I am with this box, ho-hum, look at the neat hankies that come from the box. Who cares?

Importance is always conferred upon the thing/event BY the performer. Something sitting on a table might look important, interesting, etc. But, it's the attitude of the performer that takes the object and injects something more into it.

I have seen 'tricks' done with almost no verbal presentation....ONLY the observed attitude of the performer communicating excitement to the audience. Sometimes very simple tricks.

I think it has entertainment on its own, but its like a raw diamond. You need to bring the entertainment out. Put a coin in your hand, and now it isn't in your hand. So? Put a coin in your hand and crush it into tiny bits that fly off into the air. Cool! By feeding the imagination of the spectator, as opposed to just the intellect of the spectator, magic becomes a story. Like a fantasy movie, but they are right there in the movie seeing it happen first hand.

I have written much about Perverse Magic (see Genii Forum under General) where the performer instead of trying to show how good he is says he's going to do something and then - to his amazement or annoyance or frustration something else happens.

(So, for example, if I come out with a birdcage with a bird inside and tell the audience that I'm going to make the cage float and then, to my confusion the cage disappears - that's Perverse Magic.)

When the audience laughs and you can see how they are enjoying what they see I know that what I'm doing is entertaining.

I feel you make it entertaining by putting the audience's needs ahead of your own. We can be a selfish lot just trying to show how amazing we think we are with all the secrets we know that the audience doesn't. In my mind the difference between a performer and an entertainer is that the entertainer cares about the audience. My goal is to create a journey that transcends their expectations and creates memories they will savor for many years to come. I want them to have fun, to be enlightened and to be amazed. I often say that if the method is more interesting than the effect, you have your priorities backwards. Create memories for your viewers and leave them richer for having seen you work.

I offered some thoughts appropriate here under Magic Opinion 1. A lot to agree with in Ray's post.

If one views performance magic as a form of communication it can guide routine design. Falling back on both the Furst Principles and Interrogative Method we might ask,

Does the audience know you are a magician? Do they understand that you are planning to do magic effect? Are they paying attention NOW?
Do they desire to be entertained? Have you created the conditions under which magic might occur? Are you practiced enough not to destroy the illusion?

To answer Al's comments in the OP directly. No, just "performing" will not make you entertaining or what you do magical. Kids and jokes may be entertaining for some audiences but may lessen the "sense of magic."

Being an effective magician measured by the story told after is not something one "find out." If there is no magic within you it will rarely be communicated to the audience.
If you do not attract and sustain interest and attention, magic may never have the chance to happen.

To borrow Ray's term "enlightened" there is no magic if the power is turned off or the bulb is burned out

I think that that "entertainment" is not such a one-way communication as many think. I think that an audience who is entertained is also drawn into the process and contributes to it almost as much as the entertainer.

Brad Burt has suggested that enthusiasm is a great part of entertainment; I am not sure I agree, but I do think that that enthusiasm is a way of drawing at least a part of the audience into the process of entertainment. But I do not think it is the only way, nor do I think it works for all members of an audience.

As a counterexample, I suggest that "deadpan" comedians were NOT enthusiastic, yet were very entertaining to many. I am thinking of Jack Benny, Jackie Vernon, Bob Newhart, Pat Paulson and Steven Wright. What they did was to draw the audience into what they were saying - the audience was required to picture what they were saying and appreciate the incongruity. They involved the audience in filling in the gaps in their stories or what they said.

This is interesting from a Marshall McLuhan perspective.

I also take issue with the post-Paul Harris magicians who seem to think that it is their job to astonish/amaze their audiences - like doing so is doing some great favor for their audiences. I don't agree. I think that a state of astonishment is an inherently unbalanced state for some. Those people need some resolution, and that is why there is so much discussion about "how it was done." These people may enjoy puzzles, but their joy and entertainment is in the solving of the puzzle. Otherwise, why not just buy a puzzle and NOT put it together - that is what magic is asking these people to do.

So a really basic question here is whether we can define entertainment. My contribution is to suggest that, as was previously posited, entertainment includes communication, but that communication is two-way (even if not oral or verbal).

Enthusiasm and engagement certainly help in the classroom.

Yet--even in the classroom--enthusiasm can be manifest by more than jumping around and engagement by more than playing educational games.
I have somehow been deeply engaged by professors who were clearly devoted to their field and who simply shared their expertise and knowledge..

I agree with your observation here. I think what you are calling "engagement" is kind of what I was driving at.

And for some, just the naked trick is engaging. For others, the process of "figuring it out" is engaging. For others still, it is the incidents along the way that are engaging. And so on.

Is there a universal "engagement" that can be tapped into, or is an audience divided into multiple engagement niches, each or which needs to be tapped?

See this is where it gets interesting! What a lot of folks consider "enthusiastic" is generally overblown action, exaggerated action, facial and verbal expression. That's a parody of enthusiasm. I consider Steven Wright to be an enthusiastic performer. The enthusiasm is inherent in what he offers. Does Wright strike you as "not engaged" in what he's doing? Not me.

Yes, I have a very fluid definition of "enthusiasm", I admit it. Maybe "perceived enjoyment" would be better? I've seen Wright (to stay with the most obvious example) dozens of times. It never once occurred to me that he was not enjoying what he was doing.

On Steven Wright, it was very clear that he thought what he was saying was funny (sometimes he broke himself up). And, yes, he enjoyed doing it.

But I would not characterize his demeanor or stage persona as enthusiastic. His character was emotionlessly recounting facts. And those facts required the audience to work to infer the point.

But maybe you are right - maybe I don't think of enthusiasm in the same way you do.

I had planned on not interrupting this flow of thought.
However, while reading these posts, I had a realization,
Much is said in the world of quantum mechanics that the observer affects reality.
Well, here, the observer affects the performance.
Not great, but interesting.

I know I'm going to hear from the "magic is different from anything else" crowd, but I'm going to say it anyway: as far as the general public is concerned, magic is just another form of passive (as in "you watch someone else do it") recreation, like TV, movies, sports, live theatre, concerts, comedians, and so on.

We like to think we send audiences home talking about what we did and how impossible it was, and how that's unique to magic. Wrong. Audiences -- people looking for recreation -- talk (and often argue) about TV shows and movies, they have long discussions about sports, they like or don't like a live theatre performance, they go home humming or singing songs from concerts (not to mention dancing in the aisles during the concert), and they often repeat jokes they heard ("Silence... I kiiiill you!"). So where is magic unique?

How do we make magic entertaining (and I'm going to assume you meant "to the general public")? I'm going to go back to something Fitzkee said: study other types of entertainers and see what they do and how they do it, and how it works or doesn't work. That's how. Study what the audiences like about certain performers. Study how they come across as unique human beings (geez, even sports figures do that). Put aside the books on magic and read Variety or another trade journal for a while.

Am I suggesting everyone has to do this? Not by a long shot. If you're mostly performing at the magic club, or for friends, or are what used to be referred to as an "amateur magician" in the pre-PC days, then there's probably no need to do any of this.

Dear Opus:

Nope, you are correct about Wright. I was attempting to push my position to the point of absurdity and I now see that I succeeded. Thanks for the conversation.

I think the starting point has to be in doing good magic to begin with. If I choose to see magic, I'd rather watch a strong, amazing, impossible trick with little else, than a pathetic trick with a great script. Otherwise I'd go see a comedian or singer or play.

When I want to be entertained by magic, the magic is the central thing. To make magic entertaining that is the first and most important consideration - make the MAGIC itself awesome.

I think that there may be much more to entertainment than just great magic.

For example, think of Johnny Carson. Every night he kicked off his show with a monologue. Some of his jokes were topical. Some were formulaic. ("How hot was it?") And sometimes his entire monologue fell flat - with terrible jokes. I found myself enjoying his monologue more when it was unsuccessful. Johnny's personality came out and his floundering was genius.

In fact, some magicians built an act on failed or lame magic, and I found many of them quite entertaining. Tom Palmer, Topper Martyn, Carl Ballentine, Chipps Cooney (an AGT contestant) all were very funny and very entertaining to audiences, but their magic was not "great."

Isn't that more thinking of how to create entertainment with magic rather than making magic entertaining?

But it is certainly true that one can be very entertaining with bad magic (Tommy Cooper), but then that isn't quite the same issue as 'making magic entertaining', I think.

Yes it is.

But this gets into the question of whether magic is a tool for entertainers or whether it is itself "entertainment." And if the latter, what kind of entertainment is it?

I think Al started a thread on just that issue

From my perspective, yes, bare 'magic' is entertaining. I gave more detail on the other thread.

I just went back over this thread, and it seems to me that you're all saying exactly the same thing, but coming from different directions.

So let me paraphrase what I think I'm reading: A magic trick, in and of itself, can result in a pleased response from a spectator, if performed in an engaging manner. There... I didn't use "magic," by itself, or "entertainment."

So what does that mean? You don't need smoke, dancers, moving lights, projections, comedy, or even "a story," as long as the audience shows interest in the trick and the outcome. How much interest? That's a whole different conversation. It also means the trick has to be presented in such a way as to engage that particular audience.

Have you ever watched a gadget demonstrator at the supermarket or at Costco? Those people are demonstrating a gadget, but the good ones still come across as interesting individuals with something to say. They don't need stories, comedy, dancers, or anything else. The problem is with the ones who think they're "entertaining" but come across as jerks because they force it.

Back in basic training, our Drill Sergeant demo'ed how to break apart an M16A1 and put it back together before letting us do it ourselves. That demo was not done in an engaging manner: there was no call for it. It was "do this, do that, and do that." The Drill Sergeant wasn't even in the picture: we were all focused on the weapon. I've seen performances of magic tricks like that.

Now, was that demo "entertaining" to some of the guys, who were interested in weapons in and of themselves? Sure. They loved it. But the rest of us were just trying to keep track of the selector lever, the release pins, the bolt, the firing pin, the little firing pin retaining pin (aka the cotter pin) that always got lost, and the other parts, and to memorize the sequence.

So, can a magic trick be entertaining by itself, without adding ketchup (as Pop Haydn calls it)? Sure. But you still have to engage the spectator and give him a reason to care.