|
|
Caman New user 34 Posts |
Hi, all,
I'm new. I have been reading Pure Effect and the chapter on Invisible Compromise. Though it is a fascinating discussion, is it just me, or does Derren violate his own premise by using cards following this chapter. I understand also that he is not using cards anymore in his performances. But why does he in Pure Effect especially after saying that any "visible" artifice looks suspect. It seems that this book is a prelude to some other book he may be writing. Do his later books/videos excercise what he expouses in Pure Effect. Just curious- Caman. |
A l a i n B e ll o n Veteran user 302 Posts |
Some notions in mentalism are very limiting, and one has to use good judgement and break free from them when necessary.
The idea of invisible compromise is great, but limiting, in some cases inpractical. It is not new either, many great mentalism presentations use this notion, but Derren gave it a name. And I think it should be worked into our effects as much as possible. So while it is a good idea to keep notions like this in the forefront of our thought processes, we should also be aware of situations when these notions have to be violated. In the end will will think more about our effects and create better ones. Also, to answer the other questions, Derren is focusing solely on mentalism of a special variety. I don't think he uses cards anymore. His book "Absolute Magic" is more about presentation than effects themselves but you can tell how he is distancing himself from general magic. I don't know of any videos he has done after he decided to go exclusively into mentalism. -Alain Bellon |
Dr Omni Regular user UK 199 Posts |
His video on mentalism is "The Derren Brown Lecture", available from International Magic in London, in which he discusses the concept of the "invisible compromise" and much else, with practical demonstrations.
He is not arguing that the mentalist should always perform with no props whatsoever. On the contrary, his point in that - because what the mentalist does is not real - there is always a "compromise" somewhere, and if that compromise (which covers the trickery) is "invisible" to the audience (even if they play back the effect many times on a video), then the effect will be more convincing as mind-reading. It's a subtle but excellent point. Of course, he does believe - as do most thinking mentalists today - that props should be kept to a minimum. If audiences today see some great big contraption, they will assume that it's gimmicked *even if it is not*. If Derren Brown ever walks on stage and performs Metamorphosis, check the date and time - it will be 1st April before 12 noon. |
Ray Haddad Regular user Mansfield Center, Connecticut 151 Posts |
The truth of the matter is that without some sort of proof in the physical realm of those humans to whom we perform, there is no mentalism taking place.
If we focus one on one, we can sometimes achieve it but in a group, there's too much risk of a forgotten instruction, a forgotten word or number, a spoiler who wants you to fail, a mistake on your part or even a sheer accident. These things make it essential that we have some sort of written proof of success, some random thing like a playing card or dice roll or at least one impartial witness. I've done mental effects over the phone and those one on one moments of success are hard to beat. Without being able to prove the thoughts of another person to an entire audience, all we have to go on is the testimony of the volunteer or audience participant. An audience will almost always assume that you have used a stooge unless some outside, seemingly irrefutable evidence is somehow used to prove the event happened as they saw it. Writing a word on paper, marking a word in a book or seeing the evidence of the mindreader step by step is that kind of proof. In my opinioin, the use of props is almost essential to prove success in a group. Best, Ray |
A l a i n B e ll o n Veteran user 302 Posts |
Quote:
An audience will almost always assume that you have used a stooge unless some outside, seemingly irrefutable evidence is somehow used to prove the event happened as they saw it. Writing a word on paper, marking a word in a book or seeing the evidence of the mindreader step by step is that kind of proof. I think there is a small loophole in this argument. If you are using a stooge, does it matter if he just says that you read his mind or if he writes a thought down first? Writing a word on paper or marking a word in a book does not prove that you are not using a stooge. However, those elements help with the eventual participant that changes his mind. To avoid the stooge suspicion we have to rely on other mechanisms. -Alain Bellon |
mclare New user 94 Posts |
Hi - I'm new here. As I understand DB's principle, it's not about avoiding props - I'm sure he uses them where he needs them. A book used for an illogical book test may be a bad, 'visible' compromise (from the effect of mind-reading a thought-of word), where the presence of the book seems unnecessary and therefore suspicious to the audience. But the existence of the book in a logical book-test, and I hope we can take DB's 'speed-reading' demonstration as a good and logical book-test, is no longer a visible compromise - it makes perfect sense - in fact the routine would not be possible without it.
It's such a simple but important thought. More than just a patter line, I think. The book stops being a compromise to the effect, and makes complete sense. How often do we see that? Mark |
Ray Haddad Regular user Mansfield Center, Connecticut 151 Posts |
Quote:
On 2002-06-03 20:28, Alain Bellon wrote: Alain, I was going to answer this before the system went south and just got back to you. Yes, you're correct. Using paper and pen is not really a convincer but having a participant swearing that nothing was rigged makes it far easier for him or her to be believed when he is inevitably questioned after an effect. Saying, "He didn't ask me to do anything at all" is enhanced by his being able to say, "The paper was normal, the pen was mine and he didn't ask me to do anything at all." I think it helps, is all. Nothing will convince a true skeptic save perhaps using them as your assistant. Best Always, Ray |
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Invisible compromise (0 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.01 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 < |