People have kindly helped me out with a related query in the illusions forum (thanks, all, if you're seeing this), but a second question has now arisen.

I'm involved with a forthcoming stage play in which one of the characters is a conjurer. One scene shows part of his act, and I'm looking for a showy effect for him to perform alone: the actor will not himself be a magician, so something pretty much self-working and uncomplicated is needed. The venue will be a small studio theatre with either no raised stage or a minimal-height one, and the audience seating will be slightly raked. Layout will be conventional pros-arch, though it's doubtful if there will be an actual arch.

One possibility is a square-circle production (though on a personal level I've never found them particularly deceptive) with, ideally, a good strong finish. Similar items (tip-over? Book-style?) could also be effective. Or perhaps something other than a production? It has to be easily set and struck: a front-cloth number rather than a full-stage one. The character's performance persona is intense and serious, so something that can play to that would be good. Some variety of self-mutiliation, like an arm penetration or chopper, maybe?

I'd be very grateful for any suggestions. Apart from not involving large cabinets or scenic items, straightforward, showy and essentially self-working are the watchwords.

Many thanks.
.

Have you rm or would that be too graphic?

Sorry for the above typo. It should have said, "Have you thought about Needle Thru Arm, or would that be too graphic?"

This comes up here now and then, and the responses are always fascinating.

Since you're doing a play and not a magic show, the question of "who is the conjuror and who's he playing to" takes on an added dimension. Is the conjuror playing to "his/her" audience, or is he/she playing to the "real" audience? I would guess he/she is playing to the audience within the play, so who is that audience? Adults? Kids? Some other group? A combination thereof? What kind of a conjuror is he, and what's the period?

As a theatrical designer, I've spent years and years listening to directors dissect their characters to make sure the actors' interpretations are consistent with the story, and, as you know, this falls right in there. I would suggest that a little more information about the conjuror would help members here suggest appropriate tricks.

I'm waiting for your reply to George's questions, before making a suggestion.

Dick, thanks for reading. George, many thanks for that thoughtful reply.

The play is not being staged in a completely realistic manner: there won't be a specifically defined stage-within-the-stage: different locations will be suggested by lighting, people and miminal (possibly truckable) pieces in way I imagine you're extremely familiar with, George. The performance scenes will be played straight out to the actual audience in the theatre and will have to work for them.

The piece is set in the early years of the twentieth century, in England. The magician is part of a touring variety company playing major theatres in big towns and cities, and their audiences are mostly adult, mostly working and lower-middle class. As I said, the man's on-stage persona is grim and serious - a powerful, mystical (silent - no patter) figure rather than a friendly, twinkling magic man. Though it's not relevant for this particular scene, he has a small troupe of four other people and prides himself on putting on an impressive act with relatively (for the period) small-scale resources. Importantly, he's a very good magician - a star name.

I'm not concerned about any of the magic in the show being historically correct. For the necessary mood and tone overtly comic effects are obviously out, but most of the atmosphere can come from the actor, not the trick.

It has to be relatively brief, easily settable and easily struck. We can't fly anything and there's no possibility of trapdoors (not that it's that big an effect I need for this particular point in the play). Though it's never specifically stated, it's actually an encore piece. Imagine the main act finished, most of the company exit, the magician lingers centre stage and deigns to give his audience one more miracle. Whatever it is rises to a showy climax, the music peaks, maybe a couple of 1910ish spark fountains erupt, the great man takes a final bow and gets off. The props will be unobtrusively cleared while the next scene plays on another part of the stage.

I hope that helps you (and others, if anyone else is reading) visualise the requirements. But I'll be happy to elaborate if necessary.

.

A transposition is always good because it tells a little dramatic story of its own - something vanishes from here and reappears over there. 20th century silks is one example, but there are others involving rice, oranges and checkers, etc. Even the trick featured in my avatar, the mutilated parasol, would be suitable for most periods of history.

Thanks for that, Jim: I hadn't thought of a transposition. I wonder, though, if one could pack the encore/topper impact I need, though having said that, it would be all in the presentation: in the hands of a really good actor I can imagine a deliberately slow, focussed, intense performance lending the necessary gravitas to a good many effects. Perhaps, though, something like a mutilated parasol or twentienth century silks wouldn't be right: I think it's almost certainly way beneath this great, aloof wizard to wave pretty silk hankies around.
.

Kidnapped1853, sorry, I've only just noticed your earlier replies. An arm penetration certainly wouldn't be too graphic, though a knife would be better than even a very large needle or skewer.

Ah - I've just realised you might mean the "needle through skin" type thing rather than having the arm in a box or tube - if so, I think that would be rather too small-scale.

Of the box or tube effect, that could be a possibility, though perhaps I've been unfortunate but the ones I've seen really haven't been terribly convincing. Can anyone point me to a commercial item or maybe a performance video that looks good?

Many thanks.
.

One of our Wiz Kid favorites was a series of mutilations that began with a finger chopper... the pinky finger was chopped off and fell to the floor. A Meir Yedid demonstration of the missing pinky finger was made; the (rubber) pinky was picked up and vanished and reappeared on the Wiz Kid's hand. End of part 1. Part 2 began with the same kid using a Mak Magic (Grant) French Guillotine for the wrist. While demonstrating it, the Wiz Kid managed to chop off his own hand, which fell into the basket and was picked out (rubber again) and passed around from Wiz Kid to Wiz Kid until it was made to disappear and reappear back on the end of the original Wiz Kid's wrist. End of Part 2. Finally, Part 3 began with the same Wiz Kid dragging out his home-made Head Guillotine:



By now the audience was expecting a tragedy, but miracle of miracles, the guillotine was "broken" and the blade merely passed through the Wiz Kid's neck without harming him. Later on, we added a head drop illusion as the Wiz Kid staggered offstage...but that's another story (see The Wizards' Journal #22 item #11 Ribbon Thru Neck and Head Loose Ending).

Lovely routine, Jim. Too lengthy and too comic for my purposes, but I'd like to have seen it.

Bert - sent you a PM.

Dan Harlan has a very visible yet easy transposition effect using the venerable Tarbell color changing silk. He does it as a comedy effect but it can be done straight. Imagine two small tables seperated on stage with crystal goblets. A silk of contrasting color is placed in each. On command they switch. This is done a second time. Then they are tied together in the middle and visibly change in the hands. As a finale they change into two silks of completely different colors. Confetti can be added to this final change to make it look even flashier. See here: http://www.penguinmagic.com/p/6438

Another option is aces in a wine glass: https://youtu.be/19KLE7YHCA0 You might have to use jumbo cards for the stage. Also, you can add a color changing silk or streamer for the finale.

George, I've answered your PM and its follow-up. Many thanks.

FrankFindley, nice idea, thanks, and I'll give it some thought, but I think silks are wrong for the character. And I'd like to avoid cards, even jumbos.

George,

I just went back to reread your main PM and it's vanished - appropriate in a way, I suppose, but distinctly aggravating. I hadn't realised I had to save it to preserve it. What a strange system.

LATER...

And now it seems to be there again. I'm really going to have to examine the private message system more closely.

Hello Bert!
When I began performing at 13, I knew ONE trick that required SKILL, I borrowed the belt (a fancy "cord" from my father's bath robe, and coiled it and could produce a "string" of overhand knots. Every other trick that I had learned from library books, was done with a homemade "box or tube". My show was more a "demonstration", than a 'performance. Then, the librarian, put a new book on the shelves! "Fun With Magic" by Joseph Leeming. (more boxes and tubes!) BUT, on the last page, was a list of magic shops! I ordered Abbott's catalog, THAT AFTERNOON!!! Shortly after a carny side show owner, gave me an Abbott production box! I now had a "real prop"! Within a year, I owned Hippity Hop Rabbits, and Disecto! They were the features of my "show". Within about a year, I met another teenager from a town, 50 miles away. He loaned me, "Fifteen Minutes With A Piece Of Rope" by Ralph Hull. Then the late Stuart Ross, presented his school show, at my school. Ross did mostly sleight of hand tricks from TARBELL. I was now 14, and, quickly realized that THIS was really the "magic" that I needed to learn. The Disecto stayed "in" as my closer, but the Hippity Hop Rabbits, began to be phased out.

My repertoire, developed with "generic" props. Rope, coins, silks, etc., and, I slowly became a magician, not just a kid, doing some tricks. I've made a living for 50 years, with those generic props.

I've written the above, so you'll understand, that I understand, YOUR "challenge". You need a trick that a good actor, with NO magic skills can "perform", and, it should be fairly brief, with a strong EFFECT! I considered all of the nineteen EFFECTS that Dariel Fitzkee discusses in "The Trick Brain", and, think that the best EFFECT, that suits your needs, is a PRODUCTION.

Most of the EFFECTS that have been suggested, as you've noted, are "not quite" what you need. I've owned a half dozen Dove Pans, either inherited from estates, or bought cheap at ring auctions, but, I've never used that sort of prop. I think that, it might be what you can use. I think that a "production" of almost anything, generally pleases an audience. A Dove pan, certainly requires no skill!!! I agree, that a bunch of silks, though flashy, would not fit the "character" played by your actor. The "obvious" production "item", would be a live rabbit, which might be awkward for you to "manage", but, it's the best suggestion that I can make. (I hope that George, "agrees"!)

Dick, many thanks for that. I enjoyed reading about your background, and I fully take your point.

If I could use a live dove (which alas, I can't) and if I could set the prior, visible, contents of a dove pan alight (ditto) then I would use a dove pan. I think the combination of the flames and the shock production of a living creature are enough to distract the audience from the method - anything else gives too much opportunity for pondering. ("How else?" as Carl Ballantine used to say.) But maybe I've just seen too many really poor handlings.

Sadly, I'm pretty sure that a rabbit is out, too, though I'll check with the theatre and the company. A sedate and cuddly bunny, though, doesn't have anything like the visceral impact of a fluttering (and perhaps flying) dove.

But you've given me more to think about and I'm very grateful.

.

Thanks for your response! I fully understand "where you're coming from"!!!

I generally have come to "hate" the use of "Victorian era APPARATUS"!!! I used "apparatus" instead of "props", to emphasize that apparatus is an outdated term for props. I, too, think that props like dove pans, don't really fool anybody! The audience is applauding the 'thing' produced, not the stupid prop! I, long ago, decided that "cans, pans, tubes, and boxes, and, red velvet bags on a stick", are not for me!

I think that we both (George, too!) understand the fine points of "theater". I wish you "luck" with whatever you decide to do.

For more food for thought, here are the programs of many of the early twentieth century magicians: https://archive.org/download/ProgrammesO......ians.pdf

If a larger production is wanted, how about the classic vanishing milk to hat coil? Pour huge amount of milk from pitcher into top hat or bowler, than turn hat upside down and huge paper stream comes out. Hat coils are always well received and this type of effect is very period accurate. If animal effect is desired but live is not allowed, a small appearing bird cage with artificial bird can work. This too can be loaded at start in hat.

Both Dante and Thurston featured hat productions/transformations of this type.

Hey, Dick,

Not to go off on a tangent, but Fun With Magic (from the local library) was one of my first books too, if not my FIRST book.