|
|
The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3158 Posts |
Hey guys, most of the stuff I write over at the olde blogge deals with standard magic, but I've also been reviewing Penn and Teller's "Fool Us" show, and I know a lot of that is of interest to you guys. In any event, a British mentalist by the name of Dominic Rougier wrote up a guest editorial talking about how "Fool Us" may or may not be impacting Mentalism and Mental Magic.
Thought I'd pass along the link. http://sleightly.com/blog/2011/08/30/242......ntalism/ If you'd prefer to save yourself the click, here's the editorial itself... ------------------------ Is “Fool Us” good for Mentalism? To begin, a definition of terms. There is a very real and important distinction to be made between “Mentalism” and “Mental Magic”. Bob Cassidy, in his excellent “Theories and Methods of a Practical Psychic”, defines them as follows: “Pure Mentalism looks exactly the same as what I would call “pure Magic” (…) [Effects] that are very direct and seemingly impromptu. They tend to defy logical explanation and actually appear to be real Magic. (…) many members of the audience believe they just saw “the real thing.” Mental Magic and most theatrical Magic are also indistinguishable. Both are obviously illusions or special effects, which are visually or intellectually interesting, but nonetheless are generally perceived to be tricks by even marginally intelligent audiences.” He puts the difference even more succinctly later in the same book: In Mental Magic they ask “How did you DO that?” In Mentalism they ask “How did you KNOW that?” There is nothing wrong with Mental Magic. Indeed I write for a Magician whose show is full of it, and it can be very entertaining and even powerful on occasion. However, I would claim that there was no Mentalism performed on “Fool Us” and the very structure of the show precluded that from ever occurring. “Fool Us” is an unusual Magic show. It’s an excellent showcase of some leading talent and yet the competition aspect keeps the performer’s prestige firmly below that of the hosts. The “revelation” period for each performer is consistently awkward, if not downright ugly, and the judging standards seem vague and contradictory. This format is what prevents the show from featuring anything beyond Mental Magic. Since the base concept is that the performers are there to perform tricks, then even a genuine mind-reader would be assumed to be using trickery of some kind, even if Penn and Teller could not determine what method was used. With that in mind, I’ve briefly summarised some notes on the Mental Magic presented to date: John Archer: John Archer’s material is always worth watching. From his blindfold act to his Ukulele playing, he uses his effects as a vehicle for his character and comedy and they are truly excellent. The routine he performed (a “Just Chance” effect) was original in presentation and method, but more importantly it was both highly entertaining and represented some powerful Magic. In many ways, this is perhaps the ideal presentation for the format, since there’s no great claim to power and the whole was thoroughly enjoyable. Graham Jolley: Graham Jolley had an interesting take on the format –- he walked out and essentially declared that he would perform two effects, one for the audience and the other for Penn and Teller. His first effect (coloured snooker balls in pockets) was something that he’s been performing for years and therefore is tightly scripted and very effective. The latter was a card trick designed to win the competition. This established him as a competent entertainer, performing baffling magic whilst making no great claim to power –- this is mental magic at its very best. Richard Bellars: Richard Bellars performed two pieces, once in the pilot, and once in episode four. The pilot effect had a hallucination plot, where Jonathan Ross was apparently made to believe he saw a predicted playing card in a blank deck. This represents two of my major pet peeves and is something which is alarmingly common at the moment, especially among those who are trying to emulate Derren Brown. Pseudo-hypnosis is a difficult presentational angle to perform, as it requires total control over your audience member — if they talk or move too much, then the entire illusion is lost, as it was on this broadcast. Equally, the “revelation” at the end was handled in the worst possible way. It seems to be a really common trend right now to perform an effect and then spend five minutes telling the audience how they were subtly influenced by something or other. The old adage of “show, not tell” should apply here. It’s a similar pattern to writing a mystery novel — you don’t want your detective simply telling the reader how the crime was committed and you absolutely do not want to be introducing new information in the final analysis. Instead you need the reader to come to the solution a couple of pages before the detective does and any revelations need to seem obvious after they’ve been explained. You want your reader to be thinking, “Oh yes! I thought there was something odd about that!” The combination of the two can simply make the presentation seem insulting, especially when the performer does not seem to believe in their supposed abilities. His confabulation routine in episode four was better – the ending of the prediction in the shoe is, in truth, not a bad idea for a piece of Mental Magic. However, this effect suffers from two other problems – the selection process (darts, words, rock/paper/scissors) lacked clarity and pace (and suffered from being “too perfect”), but more importantly, the expectation built up around the briefcase was too great. There’s always a danger that if you create expectation around a particular effect, then the actual effect will be disappointing in comparison. The rest: Nick Einhorn and Colin McCleod both suffered from less-than-spectacular responses from the audience members on stage, which are the risks with these kind of effects. I have it on good authority that Alan Hudson’s CD effect did not actually use the method which P&T exposed, but since it could have been done the way they stated, does it matter? Morgan and West had the same issue. Mark Shortland, Jon Allen, and Manuel Martinez had the same problems as any Danger Monte routine – in that it’s hard to understand what effect is actually being shown. Mark’s effect was actually rather more self-consistent than the others since he was just “very lucky”, but perhaps this was not the most effective way or engaging way to demonstrate this. What is interesting to me with the above summaries is that none of the effects dealt with what makes Mentalism powerful — the audience, their reactions, and their personal information. This is achieved primarily through context and meaning. There is a huge cognitive difference between revealing a four-digit number that someone is thinking of and revealing their PIN number, even if the mechanics could be the same. Likewise, revealing a thought-of-word pales into insignificance when you’re revealing the name of a childhood friend. Almost all of the effects shown were essentially devoid of meaning – Nick Einhorn’s otherwise excellent routine came across as being a series of meaningless choices which he could predict, rather than something which could be psychologically influenced. Likewise, Richard Bellars’ pseudo-hypnosis attempted to give meaning to something which appeared fundamentally meaningless and so it rang false. Is “Fool Us” good for Mentalism? I would argue that “Fool Us” is, on the whole, a positive for Magic. It showcases performers that would not otherwise be publicly visible and does so with usually helpful editing and lighting that makes the effects look good, unlike some other contemporary Magic on television (BBC’s “The Magicians” was a particularly contemptuous example). Exposure, although ugly, rarely affects anything in a meaningful, long term way. Although it’s tempting to throw one’s arms up and declare that the sky is falling, I don’t really believe that this reaction is justified. The public are educated about Magic by what they see on television and I know that (at least in this country), the working environment was often more antagonistic directly after seeing an episode of “Fool Us”, as people seemed ever more determined to catch Magicians out. This seemed to end pretty quickly and has currently been replaced by references to Dynamo, which is another story entirely. Nevertheless, the same long-term benefits for Magic should apply equally to Mental Magic. Mentalism, on the other hand, is on slightly dodgier ground. A proper piece of mind-reading shouldn’t appear to have anything in common with a Magic show, so, in theory, there shouldn’t be any impact. On the other hand, there are many techniques which are used by both and would not benefit from either the association or the exposure (Colin’s “Instant Stooge” quip was possibly the worst example of this). I’m tentatively chalking this up to a no-score draw, since although I don’t believe that “Fool Us” offered many positives for Mentalism, I also don’t feel that there were many significant, long-term negatives either.
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
|
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Mr. Rougier has good taste in the literature of mentalism.
:eek: |
David Thiel Inner circle Western Canada...where all that oil is 4005 Posts |
Ummmm...Bob WHO??? Is he related to that Hop-a-long person?
David PS Very interesting article. Thank you for posting it!
Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Except bears. Bears will kill you.
My books are here: www.magicpendulums.com www.MidnightMagicAndMentalism.com |
Shrubsole Inner circle Kent, England 2455 Posts |
I think he is David Cassidy's brother but I've never heard him sing.
Good article by the way. The trouble in removing the competition part is that in removing it you nullify the title of the show and the need for Penn and Teller being there. However, having them there doesn't justify it either as they could simple host the show and end with a big spectacular from them. But then I find the title "Fool Us!" rather degrading to magicians as well as not all magicians set out to 'Fool' people or set up that confrontational stance, they just entertain. Therefore as a whole I dislike this show defining for the new generation what magic is all about and what you are supposed to do as an audience member. Just sit back and enjoy the act or BOO if they are really that bad. Just stop this 'out to get them' attitude.
Winner of the Dumbringer Award for total incompetence. (All years)
|
David Thiel Inner circle Western Canada...where all that oil is 4005 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-08-30 20:30, Shrubsole wrote: Ohhhhh! Right! I heard about that. He had a promising singing career until it was cut short by a tragic skiing accident. Apparently he had been imbibing heavily in the chalet and thought it would be great fun to smack his ski pole into a tree as he raced by. However he miscalculated and a hole was punched right through his hand! Of course, he had to stop performing because the microphone kept slipping through it. A terrible, terrible loss. Such a talent! Perhaps one day we shall yet hear him sing "Da-Doo-Run-Run" again. We can only dream... David
Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Except bears. Bears will kill you.
My books are here: www.magicpendulums.com www.MidnightMagicAndMentalism.com |
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
You know what's funny? I actually did sing in a band once. "Butch Cassidy and the Wild Bunch."
That whole skiing thing happened when I was in a blackout. I came out of it just before I hit the tree. Good thoughts, Bob |
David Thiel Inner circle Western Canada...where all that oil is 4005 Posts |
Oho! (An all encompassing utterance of triumph.)
I KNEW it. And I don't suppose you'd like to comment on those rumors about a busload of Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders, a case of tequila and Hunter S. Thompson in some backwater Mexican town in the summer of 1982....hmmmm? David
Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Except bears. Bears will kill you.
My books are here: www.magicpendulums.com www.MidnightMagicAndMentalism.com |
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Oh, yeah. That WAS me, now that I think about it.
At least I think it was me. |
gmeister Inner circle 1588 Posts |
Which one was you: Hunter or one of the cheerleaders?
|
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-08-30 22:30, gmeister wrote: Neither. I was in the cantina with Dr. Crow when we heard a commotion outside. We figured it was the Mexican army so we ran outside shouting, "You'll never take us alive!" But it was just this guy Hunter and a bunch of cheerleaders so we surrendered. After that I don't remember much about it other than running around with a pompom sticking out of my pants yelling, "Where's Debbie?" The Rt. Rev. Dr. Bob |
Decomposed Eternal Order High Desert 12059 Posts |
Excellent piece, thanks for posting that.
ClICK HERE for HOW TO MAKE TRANSITION FROM MAGICIAN TO MOTIVATIONAL SPEAKER WORLD NEW BOOK!
Click here for NEW PROMO TRAILER! 90 seconds of pure laughs without a standing ovation! Click here for Magicians Austin Mentalist Performance https://www.facebook.com/AustinMagicians https://www.speakermatch.com/profile/gianicano/ Magicians Company Entertainers in Dallas, TX https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8sHW_zVuSc https://about.me/motivationalpublicspeaker |
dusty Veteran user 352 Posts |
I have to agree with both Bob and Dominic. Too many effects out there in magic land are offered as the next best thing in mentalism and to many they do not recognise the difference. All too often the premise you are apparently demonstrating is not made clear. Book tests are a classic example; we name them book tests whereas they should be looked on as word tests, and the book should be out of play and if possible out of sight before the word is revealed. Bob has a superb remote viewing routine using dice, which ironically do not exist, what better proof that magic, props or sleight of hand is not involved. They are only in the assisting spectator's mind.
Graham Jolley is a prime example of someone who makes no claim as to his "powers", he simply gets on with entertaining the audience, which is great. However if you are going to stand there and state categorically you can read minds, predict the future or name my dead dog, you better be sure that you wrap your presentation in a premise that I can understand, not necessarily believe but at least understand... For me Fool us was never designed with mentalists in mind. Given that P & T state that real mind reading is B&llSh%t then clearly you would be trying to nail jam to a tree by having them accept that as the method. Ironically in their Vegas Show, they reiterate that message then do a multi phase, book test..go figure!
Regards,
Dusty aka Max Gordon. "Always give 100%, Unless you're a blood donor!" Exclusive publications available from: www.solutions.yolasite.com |
SimonG-97 Special user 508 Posts |
I don't understand the comments about Richard Bellars, He is'nt trying to emulate Derren, in fact he knows Derren and Derren has given Richard permission to perform some of his things in Richards prefessional show.
I know Richard and he is a good mentalist, he is also a good magician, and hes also incredibly nice and generous with his time, hey hes performing an hour of stage mentalism for a show me and my Mum are organisng for 350 odd people for free, and hes bringing his tech team down so that When me and my friends perform we have a good stage. Richard in my opinion was the best performer on the show. |
harbour Loyal user 283 Posts |
"How do you Know that" vs "how did you do that"
All rest with the performer and his/her original performance. |
Dr Spektor Eternal Order Carcanis 10781 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-07 16:19, harbour wrote: ...yes yes soon you shall have 50 posts!!!
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
|
Russell Davidson Inner circle Hampshire, England 1108 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-07 19:41, Dr Spektor wrote: What has his post count got to do with anything? Once again I must say that this distinction between mental magic & mentalism exist only in the mind of the performer. I absolutlely assure you that 99% of laymen don't go away pondering the differences you think are there. |
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9982 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-07 16:19, harbour wrote: methinks one should add, "How did you know to do that?" -- which is how I usually approach doing Mentalism -- demonstrating unrecognized innate abilities rather than "paranormal" ones. Example, "In ancient times everyone was able to 'read minds" more than today. Man learned to shield his thoughts and secret intensions. This evening I am going to show you all how to open that shield just a crack -- to allow you to read my mind without fear."
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
Dr Spektor Eternal Order Carcanis 10781 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-08 04:13, Russell Davidson wrote: Your certainty makes me think you may have missed the boat As for the post count - it makes sense only from a certain pov which may or may not be true Do you see?
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
|
C.J. Inner circle There's a lotta rambling in my 2366 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-08 06:57, Dr Spektor wrote: I do. But in a roundabout way, I'm happy it bumped this up. I missed this thread the first time around, and I found the first post to be a good read. Particularly the analogy of detective stories.
Connor Jacobs - The Thought Sculptor
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur Be fondly remembered. |
Dr Spektor Eternal Order Carcanis 10781 Posts |
That is true CJ! Yay for the 50 Poster avatars! They do bring up gold once in a while
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
|
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Mentalism, Mental Magic, and "Fool Us" (0 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.09 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 < |