|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
Frank Simpson Special user SW Montana 883 Posts |
Curtis-
Regardless of what anyone hopes an audience will or should think of a performer or prop, the simple fact that they've seen the exact prop in action before will inevitably invite comparison. In many ways, this violates a cardinal rule of magic; never repeat an effect for the same audience, as this gives additional time to examine methods and props and possibly discover the workings. Assembling a person from 4 pieces is not significantly different from dividing a person into 4 pieces, particularly when accomplished with the same prop. The added "surprise" of the mismade effect comes too late to avoid the discerning eye of the audience, who up to that point is only seeing a slight variation of the same effect. You simply cannot put a person into that cabinet without an audience with a shred of intelligence knowing that the person will be divided into 4 pieces. And more likely than not, looking to see how it will be accomplished. If a performer's personality is indeed strong enough to steer attention to "I wonder what HE/SHE is going to do", then it is a logical extension of that line of thinking to wonder "why they need a box at all." I do think it would be a mistake to perform Thin Sawing immediately after Mismade, not because of discovery, but because of the tendency to dillute the effectiveness of the second effect. Save the second dismemberment illusion for later in the program and do something else in the meantime. The overall impact of both effects will have a stronger impact in the long run. Nothing in all of magic is more important than remembering that it is theatre. Dramatic structure and pacing and timing are all important elements that are simply not understood by, or in sadder cases, ignored altogether. I have been in shows with actors who want all of their lines to be the laugh lines. And they can play for and get those laughs, but when they do so without paying attention to the structure of a well-written scene they do so at the expense of a bigger laugh that should have come a couple of moments later. As a result, the better, bigger laugh gets little or no laughter and the overall impact is diminished. There comes a point where we must check our egos as "workers of miracles" to critically discern not only what our audiences perceive, but how and why as well. |
|||||||||
magicofCurtis Inner circle Los Angeles 2545 Posts |
Valid points. But isn't any magic using a prop actually repeating itself? Does the magic rely on the box?
Therefore that is why I come up with clever routines to introduce the box. Actually create a situation as to why to have them.... or just use props for just cause. For example, I want to escape from water all chained up so therefore in order to do so on stage it only makes sense to have a clear box on stage that is filled with water. etc.. See my line of thinking?
Curtis Lovell II
http://www.CurtisLovell.com http://www.MagicofCurtis.com www.facebook.com/curtislovellii Los Angeles, California - U.S.A. |
|||||||||
Frank Simpson Special user SW Montana 883 Posts |
Philosophically speaking, I suppose using any box is repetition. Mechanically and practically speaking, no. Realistically an audience will observe first from a practical standpoint. And if your showmanship skills are almost impossibly strong, you can steer them into a place of philosophical thinking. But bear in mind that a) it takes a long time to bring someone to this place, and b) this is also how cults are formed.
Situational use of a prop is indeed the ideal circumstance for presentation, but I fail to see how a situational justification exists to double-use the Mismade prop without giving a leg-up to an audience to figure out how it's accomplished... But situational use or justification stops short of a fully-developed dramatic arc of a presentation. Remember plot. Really it's the best misdirection there is! |
|||||||||
magicofCurtis Inner circle Los Angeles 2545 Posts |
Hmm, another thought. Okay, some say "no" to doing the stack of boxs and the mismade as one. Now would you do the stack of boxes and then the next trick you would roll out the mismade lady boxes?
If you answer yes... SAME TRICK.. BUT combine it as one... NOW this box is not a trick, the magician knows MAGIC.
Curtis Lovell II
http://www.CurtisLovell.com http://www.MagicofCurtis.com www.facebook.com/curtislovellii Los Angeles, California - U.S.A. |
|||||||||
Frank Simpson Special user SW Montana 883 Posts |
Curtis-
The fundamental problem with your arguments is that you are deciding what an audience thinks rather than letting them draw their own conclusions. The box is always the trick, largely because that is one of the conventions of magic. It is a quantum leap from dismissing the box to bestowing "magical powers" onto a person. I would never do stack and mismade on the same program, regardless of which props are used. |
|||||||||
styles New user Toronto, Canada 70 Posts |
I would tend to agree... most people leave a magic show trying to figure out the modus operendi behind the trick...
So to use a box twice in a similar fashion will help them figure it out. Especially if the bottom box is left on the base. Now if you could mix it up with a newer version where you can remove the bottom box and use it differently, there could be a possibility. The method as perceived by the audience should be different enough to blur the real secret and not reinforce the answer. Just my two cents.
Scott
|
|||||||||
MCM Elite user Minnesota 456 Posts |
I forgot who, but someone does a variation where the first one uses a "flatten" illusion to turn the assistant (dressed in a playing card joker outfit) into a giant paper doll. Then the "doll" was cut into pieces and put into separated mismade cubes. Cubes are stacked and opened showing the "mismade" joker. Then the usual rearrangement is done and she comes out whole. No blades are used.
|
|||||||||
Matt Kap New user Seattle, Washington 67 Posts |
Good point, Styles.
-MATT KAP
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious." -Albert Einstein
|
|||||||||
styles New user Toronto, Canada 70 Posts |
MCM -- sounds like a great way to put together two different illusions... plus some brilliant creativity.
Always great to see new and novel routines being performed with the good ol' standards.
Scott
|
|||||||||
Frank Simpson Special user SW Montana 883 Posts |
MCM- Now that's an extremely creative combination of illusions into a routine! If you can remember who does this one, let us know, OK?
|
|||||||||
MCM Elite user Minnesota 456 Posts |
OK, went back and found out. It was on a telethon (Jerry Lewis maybe?) some eons ago by Greg Wilson (son of Mark Wilson). Sherman Helmsley from the Jeffersons helped out with it.
|
|||||||||
Shrubsole Inner circle Kent, England 2455 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-03-23 10:02, Frank Simpson wrote: That is an extremely important fundamental of magic that some forget, Frank. It dates way back to when magicians first uttered the lines "Look, this is a box, it is EMPTY!" - Nowadays, there is little to no point in saying that: no one is going to take your word for it. Nowadays, you show them all around the box and then take the box apart: the audience then make THEIR minds up that as they have been shown everything, the box IS empty. Lead the audience to their own wrong conclusion. I still see a lot of times even now when magicians forget this very important rule. :)
Winner of the Dumbringer Award for total incompetence. (All years)
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Grand illusion » » Stack of Mismade? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.03 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 < |