This will probably not set very well with many of you out there (or maybe you'll see my point), but lately I'm very interested in performance theory, but what seems incongrous to me is that the writers of these books are sometimes, IMO, terrible performers.

My best example is Kenton Knepper of Wonder Words. This book, many have said, has radically changed their performances for the better and I believe it.

But it's weird, though, because when I see Kenton perform I find his manic style and fast talking/ and I guess joking, to be so confusing I don't know what he's saying, much less any wonder-words being applied (my opinion from Desert BrainStorm and Up-Close).

Another performance writer like this would be Eugene Burger. I agree with his performance theory from what I've read and actually I sort of like his performance style, but it is the opposite of Knepper in that it's so slow and deliberate that you're hard-pressed to find the entertainment. I think I like his style like a like a fine wine after years of appreciating wines.

I've read simliar comments about performances by author Daniel Ortiz of "Strong Magic".

The reason why I'm posting this is because I would like to know if I am buying good books on drama theory from teachers that have proven methods based on solid techniques or am I buying into the magic cottage industry. And being that I'm new to performance theory I really can't say I would know the difference.

Caman

They are the one that write the books.
It is very hard to find books by PROS.
They work, they don't have time to write

Shimi

(Larry Becker, Lee Earle, Hallas,TA Waters ...and many more)
S

Go to Amazon.com (or your local bookstore) and get a copy of "Practical Handbook for the Actor." I can't think of a better book to introduce you to the area of performance theory. Though this book is not a magic book per se, it is a wonderful and consise book on how actors prepare for and perform the roles they have to play. While you are reading, think of the character you wish to be as a magician and apply what you read to your audience interactions. You will se dramatic (no pun intended) changes in how you see your purpose with your audience.

Also, don't discount what Eugene Burger has to say. His style, I admit, is uniquely his, but what he has to say in applicable to any performer and is very valuable.

Thanks,
Richard Green

Hi Shimi,
I think you will find that Larry and TA Waters were not really Pro's in the Paid to perform scense. Larry normally only works for magicians. On the Other hand Ortiz and Berger are working pro,s.

I think it is also apt to remember that good teachers/coaches do not have to have been performers to be good. I mean all sprinters are not coached by great sprinters. all football coaches are not ex top players

Camen,
the one thing that you have pointed out (perhaps Un-knowingly) in your comments is that all three of the performers you speak of have styles which are them! They are not trying to be someone that they are not, Their performing character is an extention of themselves. we all know performers who come out and straight away snap into a performance mode which is nothing like themselves with an almost puppet like over stiff recital more than performance.
The three performers you speak of do not really change when they are on stage they have crafted their performance around their own personalities.
Phillip

Richard Mark Published a book: Mind Warp.

By reading his book ,you can tell that all his shows were for
magicians/mentalists.

Shimi

This topic has been of interest to me for a while. I've only seen Kenton on the Desert Brainstorm videos and I was not that impressed with his performing style. Now whether that is because I just don't like it (in the same way that I don't like some singers or some comedians) or whether he just isn't very good, I don't know. Nor am I sure you could come up with much of a criteria by which to judge that type of performance. I also think that it might be unfair to judge him on the basis of a video put out for magicians/mentalists. Perhaps if I were to see him perform live I might have a different view.

I've also seen lots of references to Darwin Ortiz being a bad performer and the irony of this given his authorship of "Strong Magic". Again I have only seen him on video but I thought he actually quite a good performer. As Phillip suggested, he is good at being himself.

I've personally found Derren Brown's thoughts on performing to be of most use in my own performance. But then I suppose he is one of Shimi's "Pros" !

Andrew

Caman, I'm very happy to see someone who have the same questions I have.

May I add a point : I saw, few years ago, E. Burger in a lecture at the "Double-Fond" (the magic cafe of D. Duvivier). And E. Burger is a thinker I like to read. But I was disappointed. I found in this guy many beautiful ideas, and I understood, during this lecture, what is "A Voice". When he speaks, everybody listen, when he speaks, we are fascinated. But what about his magic ?...

In fact, I'm a storyteller and I'm far from having Burger charisma (too young, maybe in 20 years ), but that's not a reason for refusing to judge of his magic. Because I saw nothing during this lecture, nothing that magically enchanted me. Maybe I had waited for too much, but I only saw a haunted deck, the production of a glass of cognac, and a (poor) voodoo print, and too much card magic (where is bizarre magic ?...)

That's a problem for me to judge him because I'm probably not "the perfect performer" I would like to be, but I'm sure Burger is not this perfect performer. I heard many people talking about Kenton Kneeper and saying the same kind of things. But I only know KK trough his books, and he is a very good writter. But what about performance.

If a good writter can't make a good performance of his theories... who cant' ?... I fell like I 'm listening the guru of a sect (sorry for this word, but sometimes that's what I think).
And p.b.jones said :
"I think it is also apt to remember that good teachers/coaches do not have to have been performers to be good."

I really hope you 're right, and KK "Kolossal Killer" makes me think that, sometime, you're right. But I think we must be careful of people who are about to cross the thin border between magic masters and guru who built a cult of his own personnality.

Some people are very good writers and some people are very good performers; it is rare indeed to find one person that is very good at both.

Millard Longman

Ain't that the truth, Millard!!

Since I spent four years in graduate school immersed in performance theory this is a particularly interesting thread for me.

First, though, I'd like to comment on Eugene Burger. Jacque said he was an example of "do as I say and not as I do." Would you please expand on that, because my perception is completely the opposite. It seems to me that he "preaches" about the importance of meticulous scripting, rehearsal, and of finding one's unique voice as a performer, and these things are clearly evident in his shows. Another post asked about Eugene, "where's the bizarre?" Eugene, though, has always made it clear in his books that he is not professionally a peformer of bizarre magic, but rather that that is an aspect in which he dabbles. I think a curious things about Eugene's writings is that people tend to project their own expectations onto them. What strikes me about his performances is this: If you want to see people captivated by close-up magic like you've never seen before, watch him peform for laymen. Possibly it is necessary for jaded magicians to put on a new set of eyes in order to appreciate the wisdom in what he writes.

Now as to theory in general: arguably the first book on "performance theory" would be Aristotle's "The Poetics." The Poetics differs from many modern texts in that it was intended to be a synthesis from empirical observation. Aristotle was looking at the tragedies being performed in his era and was trying to arrive at a set of rules for what made the good ones good. In contrast, many modern books on "theory" are really best described as manifestoes. They are efforts to describe the type of performance that the auther sees in his or her own head, rather than performances that actually exist. Atoinin Artaud's "The Theater and its Double" is an example of this. Artauds writings, in a very real sense the poetry of a madman, are ferociously compelling. What little work Artaud was able to create from his views was more laughable than compelling.

In the magic world today, a fair amount of "theory" is more of the manifesto type. Yet I wouldn't count either Burger or Ortiz in this category. Ortiz strikes me as being more in the Aristotelian bent, and Burger is more self reflective, as if he's saying these are the things I'm trying to work with on myself, perhaps they can help you too. Kenton's theoretical writings I haven't read, so can't comment on. Behind these three, however, nearly every young, super-enthusiastic magician who has been in magic for only a few years feels compelled to write at least a couple essays on "theory." These can't help but be in the manifesto style, since these kids don't have a body of work from which to draw. I have a special fondess for these guys (Andy L. being a great example) because, in the first place, I was once among them, and in the second place, being so fresh they often have the ability to see things that a lot of us who have been performing for a long time miss.

The bottom line is that I prefer theoretical writings from people who are informed by experience. But I also remember that "theory" need not be written by great performers. The insight to dissect accurately the performance that one sees is not neccessarily predicated by being able to execute the work oneself. Still, when less experienced performers write theory, I look for a different thing. Then I look for a compelling vision of what performance might be. I see it as a kind of airy speculation about new directions I might take, that will hopefully give me new eyes with which to see.

I guess what I'm getting at is that rather than looking for some sort of guru to follow, it's best to look for what the writers have that is good and draw from that. I suspect that some of us are looking for magic gods when what we need is more earthly insights.

--Christopher Carter

"I suspect that some of us are looking for magic gods..."
You are probably right, a lot of us have tried this quest (you were probably one of those guy many years ago).
"...when what we need is more earthly insights."
AMEN !

But you notice that it's a difficult problem. Because a lot of this "Magic Masters" tend to argue they have answers. that's why a lot of magician follow these guys. And that's the problem.
Because they build schools and dogmas that put themselves out of critiscism.

But who is guilty ? The man who search a Magic God (a lot of magicians are in quest of a mentor or a magic-guru) ? Or the so-called master who use this group of fans to built a school or to sell more books (I agree: this is not really dangerous, but it cost a lot of money for those who try to find the "Answers") ?

Yep, I sure was a seeker of magic gods! But apparently not the disillusioned one that many on this thread are. I believe that the guilty party is the seeker for these reasons: First, each of us is ultimately responsible for our own construction of reality. Second, none of the so called "masters" I read try in any way to set themselves up as "masters." There is nothing in Strong Magic to indicate that Darwin Ortiz affirms his way to be the one true path, and Eugene Burger stresses over and over that magic is a huge community, and his way isn't necessarily right for you. Indeed his main message is that you should find your own unique path. What each of these gentelmen has is the temerity to express his opinions on performance. If others interpret that confidence as an invitation to followers, well, that's their problem. I know Eugene well, and while he certainly would be delighted to sell you his books, he definitely doesn't want followers.

--Christopher Carter

I think some of you might have missed the point of Eugene's writings. They are not about "How to become a great magician." They are written as explorations of the things he's done to make himself a "better" magician, that you also might wish to apply to your own magical endeavors.

On another note, I'll go on record as saying that I think Eugene is very entertaining, but just like any performer, there might be certain pieces he performs that don't work particularly well for him. I have yet to meet a performer where I like every single thing they do. I can say, with reasonable certainty, that Eugene's choices for performance pieces probably have little to do with what other magicians think, though.

Ben Blau

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not as "disillusioned" as you seem to think.

And you are probably right when you say "Eugene certainly would be delighted to sell you his books, he definitely doesn't want followers". I don't know E. Burger personnaly and he is apparently a very kind and interesting person.

But I'm just a litte tired with all those who build gods from magician who are no more than good magicians (what I respect because I try to build a big part of my life on magic). E. Burger or K. Knepper have probably not desire such an aura but unfortunatly they have it. And now, they are confronted with a character which probably outdistances them. And I can't say if I don't like (these words are too strong but I don't have enought vocabulary, sorry) the magician himself, because I don't know this guy personnally and I have nothing against him, or the character. Maybe we are waiting for too much for these magicians, but they can't fill our major gap : find our own path in magic.

In fact, I don't like people who are blind because they think that someone has some truth because HE is THE master. And we are often confronted with this kind of people in Magic.

Have you noticed, when a quality actor like Orsen Wells portrays a magician, the performance far exceeds the majority of professional magicians. How can a guy who probably didn't know much about magic create such a performance? answer: He is a master of Character Development, not tricks.
The magician's problem is an infatuation with "secrets." We spend excessive amounts of time alone studying, reading & acquiring tricks with little, or no attention to the true parent art of magic - theater. Then we try and re-enter the world with our "bits o' business" and expect astonishment. Tricks, no matter how good, will never make the dull interesting or the bland exciting.
If you really want to excell, spend the majority of your free time studying acting. Interact with others as you work on character development in a theater group. At nite, read the classics works on acting (i.e. Hagen's Respect for Acting). Understand the meaning of the true wonder word, character, and develop it in yourself.

p.s. I'm shocked Eugene Burger was included in some of the above criticism. I think he's one of the best out there actually doing close-up for a living. He combines his understanding of theater and human nature to weave spells on laymen.

Thanks all for the discussion.

Let me focus my goal and hopefully I can steer this discussion to a more tangible solution.

My performance, as I see it now, is lifeless and mechanical. To Burger's excellent point, it lacks audience involvement--as he would say, it's suppose to entertain so talk with your audiences and script in those questions and have replies in the ready.

Also, I've lost my own direction as a performer of magical feats. I've become immersed in the "how-to's" of the effects that my performance is mostly about "fooling" the audience which of course is not very entertaining for them.

In learning Performance theory, I wanted to learn how to get back in contact with the "magic" that the audience would feel and that I want to feel as I'm performing for them. I use to feel this way, but like I said before, after learning from scores of books, videos, and acquiring "tricks", I've lost that naivete that made performimg magic enjoyable for me and for my audience.

I'm not as bad as this may read. I mean I still of course enjoy magic and my audiences still enjoy the magic, but there is something lacking (especially after you see a Gaeten Bloom or a Kevin James).

There seems to be lacking a "motive", a "purpose", a "function to entertain". I don't know how to explain it--that's why I wanted to learn performance.

Richard Green above suggested "A Practical Handbook for the Actor." I researched it and it looks like a great book based on the performance therories of David Mamet (of the "the Usual Suspects" fame). It's seems to be a "manifesto" of how the actor should focus on his actions rather than try to emotionally carry the entire show. Seems like good advice. But another point he makes is that an actor can't carry the show, because there are all the other actors, writers and techincal people involved so how could he.

Now this leads to me the question and concerns about the other aspects of performace, particularly the writing.

I feel that the writing is basically the CRUX of the show (much less how you, as an actor/ performer, can pull it off.)

So in this search for performance theory, I'm trying to gather knowledge on how to write stories or create theatre that enthralls and amuses audiences.

If anyone has any suggestions on this --Richard?-- I would really appreciate it.

I've been looking for the book(s) by Brander Matthews ("A study of the Drama" of Preston Sturges fame) that will hopefully provide theory on writing to create compelling stories.

Anyway, this is where I'm at. I think some of you may feel that I'm way out in left field overthinking this, but I feel like the famous Maven quote:

"It's easy to do bad mentalism (magic)."

Caman

You'd probably find great value in Ron Bauer's "Private Studies" series of booklets. Go to http://www.thinklikeaconjuror.com for more information on these.

If you haven't heard of them, they are basically performance scripts for some decent tricks, along with commentary and analysis from Ron Bauer on the subject of making your performances more engaging and interactive.

Ben Blau

Perhaps we could address *where* the performer is performing...obviously, a trade-show worker isn't going to have the time to create a mesmerizing play with magic at its focus; he has to work! But few would say that he is not a professional.

If yo have EB's voice, and look, and are performing at a Seance, then I think you would agree that he is amazing. But, if you're thinking his quick card tricks aren't what you expected in the coffee shop on the corner, then there is a specific quality missing (or simply asunder)...it doesn't fit.

Thank of Joel Bauer doing private readings...or Max Maven doing sponge bunnies...

Now, to topic: the art of an actor is to act. The art of the magician is to "magish". If you want to act, then study acting. If you want to combine acting and magic, think about what direction you wish to go, and find your road map...after all, if we "act" as magicians, and we don't want people to know that we are "acting", then we must study the art of the theater *moreso* than the art of illusion (although I guess there will be arguements that it is ALL an illusion!)...

I think your english is perfectly adequate to express your point here. However, I would suspect that your take on Burger might be based on seeing him in a venue other than his typical one, which is interacting with small groups in a restaurant or cocktail party setting. Not that he doesn't appear in other settings, but these two are, IMHO, his areas of real strength. In these arenas, his "theory" really shows. The laypeople I have seen him working with in this format are truly mesmerised.

I am sure that we all have our own tastes, and if his performance isn't your cup of tea then so be it. But I think if you have seen Burger in action you would have to concur that his performance is extremely successful with his target audience. To me, this fact alone is enough to make me interested in what he has to say about performance. I would rather not indulge in the question of whether I care for a particular performer's style, if the alternative is for me to examine his theatrical choices and determine why they seem to work for him.

I very much disagree with the assessment that Maven makes most of his living performing for magicians. As I see it, he likely makes most of his living pursuing television and unique multi-media venues. And he clearly does this on an international scale. Plus I simply can't recall a book on performance theory by Maven. If you are familiar with one, please correct me.

--Christopher Carter




I haven't read "A Practical Handbook for the Actor" but my guess is that if its based upon Mamets ideas regarding acting you'll probably not find it particularly enriching for your desires. Mamet's ideas regarding acting seem to me to be directed toward minimizing their influence on the overall production, while simultaneously maximizing the role of the playwright. There is a highly stylyzed, almost expressionless cadence to the actors he directs that's probably the antithesis of the emotional connection you seem to be trying to establish. Not having read the book, my comments are necessarily limited, but this is my expectation.

My instinct is that what you may be seeking mostly is a point of view. Perhaps it would help to try to return to those elements you first found enjoyable in magic. Try to write out a sort of character analysis for yourself. Try to delineate those things you like, dislike, believe in, don't believe in. Then see if you can bring any of this to your magic. Books on story telling and scriptwriting would surely be helpful, but it doesn't help to over-mystify the process. Maybe the best answer is to just try to share a little bit of yourself and your enthusiasms with your audience. At any rate, that's usually what makes performance the most enjoyable for me.


--Christopher Carter

I have read many books on theory and have not had the concerns that some of you have shared. I guess because the comments made by Berger and Ortiz and many others seem to fit their performing personality; so I see no inconsistency.

Having said that, I have noted that many magicians talk about stories and if you just explain what you're doing as a narrative, well you just aren't a professional. But when I pick up a book by Cervon, Jennings, or whomever, there it is...I'm putting the card in the middle...when I turn it over it appears to change color...etc.

In addition, I have read a half a dozen different instant millionaire marketing books.

What it all boils down to is read as much as you can about everything and then do what works for you. It's that simple.