The personae that mentalists adopt seems to be one of two: the "traditional" mentalist who is a dark spooky guy with access to hidden powers, and the "Regular" who is a regular guy, often in a suit and tie, who happens to have weird powers.

Max Maven is the most conspicious of the traditional, think Richard Osterlind for regular.

The regular seems most common. Max is the only guy I know of pulling off the traditional. I'm wondering what the considerations are. Are people willing to accept a dark persona? Max definitely gets away with it. But Max is better than most people at most things.

That reminds me of a question I'm asking myself some time or the other: As mentalist or psychic or whatever would I play out my psychic abilities - sometimes overplaying -, because I know I'm unique with these abilities, or would I rather take "them for granted" because I ALWAYS had these special powers?

That means, am I the master mind reader with this very special aura around me and a stary, hypnotic look, or do I just demonstrate some unusual abilities that I had since I can say "Look at me"?

I believe that mentalism, as believable as it is, should be played so the audience can relate. I think that like Larry Becker, Richard Osterlind and Banachek are great mentalist performers. The main reason for this is that they are ordinary people who seem to have special powers or admittedly are masters of psychological subtleties. It's very hard to pull off what Max Maven does, as he pulls off his character amazingly and it is indeed unique to Max. I believe that when performing Mentalism, one should play it as a unique ability, but a normal average guy. This may not bee what you agree with however.

Cheers,
mackmania

Max Maven is a good example of the 'traditional' mentalist, well established and, his 'spooky dark' persona has obviously worked well for him.

It's the so called 'regular guys in suits and ties', ie, Richard Osterlind, Banachek, Luke Jermay, etc., who hold the appeal for me, IMO mentalism comes across as more 'convincing' without the 'trappings' of a certain image.

Infamy

I'm not sure I'd lump Max in with the "traditional" mentalists. When I think of traditional mentalists, I think of performers with studious, thoughtful, serious personae, sonorous voices, and often with beards. (Actually, Eugene Burger looks the perfect part, as did Tony Andruzzi.)

Max, to me, comes across more like a bizarre magick character. While he's sonorous and sometimes studious, his performances are full of playfulness and sly humor, and his trademark vampire hair, goth dress, and pale complexion, which are the most striking thing about him, say something quite other than "mentalist." What they DO say, I'm not sure, but they're certainly unique and hardly stereotypical of mentalists.

--Josh

In mentalism, I think what generally works best is to use a "theatrically enhanced" version of one's self. Max's character and real personality seem more integrated than other performers I see. I think it helps to make his stage persona seem less "put on." Could another performer wear this type of image well? I'd say probably yes, if it's an extension of who they really are. A so-called "regular guy" would look silly trying to pull that off, unless he was a seriously good actor.

Ben Blau

Just to add my few cents;

The mentalist personae thing has popped up with a certain frequency here, as in quite a few other foras over the years.
The various opinions interest and amuse me, but also more than that, surprise me - and make me worry a bit.

My question here is, why on earth it apparently is that important to "construct" a stage/mentalist persona!
Sure, I know about Max Maven, Eugene Burger and a few others. I'll come back to that in a minute.

My honest opinion, is that I, SVEN, have obtained a certain level of success (-in my stage life, and in my professional daytime job life)not at least because of my personae.
Yeah, I know this sounds egocentric and not very humble. However, I know from a long life's experience, now matter what setting you are in, that if you want your audience (family, friends, co workers, employees, bosses)to like you and believe in you, they must adopt and trust your personae.

Let me ask you;
In our daily life, how easy is it for a person to pretend that he/she is someone else or something more or different to that he/she actually is
Difficult, - if you ask me!
The most of us would (at least after a short while) look right through that person's false/fake persona.
Isn't it true, that if such things happen and you get your proves on that something fishy is going on, that your belief and trust in that person fades?
He/she isn't for real!

I for one am absolutely convinced about that there are no differences between the above and someone’s performing life
It is in my opinion incredibly difficult to create(stage) personae and make people believe in that over time.
Most people are aware of and accept that the actor they see playing Hamlet, just is Hamlet on stage, not in his private life.

However, it seems to me,that it is a little bit difference in many people’s mind when it comes to us, the magicians and mentalists.
I have actually seen it time and time again, that people expect me to be the same person off stage and 24/7 as the one they watched on stage.
So be it, that’s fair!
But what if that the stage Sven was a made up one?
I honestly believe in that you must be yourself that be on, or off stage to come out real and trustworthy

I have also found that in addition to that the performer makes the mysteries on stage, the mysteries also make the performer!
I know for a fact (because I have been told so !!) that my stage personae alter slightly, depending on where I am in my act, and what effect I am doing.
My normal “me” is a pretty outgoing, (almost)always smiling, friendly guy.
When I do the fun related effects of my act, that character automatically seems to get emphasized on.
And when I do the more serious or mysterious parts, I also seem to get more “mysterious”
But NOTE, that’s not up to my knowledge when this happens, and NOT on purpose!
-and I am still ME.

The meat of my message after all this, is that the only way to come through as honest, believable and real character, is to be yourself.
Not anybody else.

Sven

Well said, Sven!! I'm almost exhausted after reading your treatise. Might I add one thing more.

If more people were doing what Max Maven is doing, it would no longer be at all unique. Now that's an obvious statement, isn't it? Max goes right to the top - and sometimes over it - with COMPLETE personae.

To compare, Blaine is no longer that interesting of a personae, because so MANY people are doing it. The Blaines and Blaine wannabes will act spooky (and blase), but Max looks, sounds, lives, and breathes the part.

That said, I do prefer the "he could be you or me" regular sorta guy, as personified by Osterlind. But that's no surprise to anyone either.

*jeep!
--Chet

Sorry about that, Chet!
One word just took the other
:)

"I yam what I yam and dat's all dat I yam."... Popeye the Sailorman

Peace,
Parson

And "If ya thinks ya is right, ya deserfs credit. Even if ya is wrong." --Gus Segar, via Popeye.

*jeep!
--Chet

No need for apologies! After all, if you'd put that in PDF format, I'd have had to pay $25 to read it!

*jeep!
--Chet

Great post Sven. SO I just want to add some additional thoughts ont this. As mentioned in many other threads today your are more likely to have success and be accepted by the audience if you play the natural role AND if you don't stand there in saying you have those powers.

People love entertainment and mental-shows but also like you more if oyu show them you are as normal as them. I als use some lines like Banachek or Osterlind. I just have trained abilities and expecially at corporate shws I could establish myself as a very busiy performer.

In mentalism it's important that you have audience on your side to work together. As soon as you begin to present you as a person that claims to have the special powers you create a challenge situation in which its just a question of time you will lose, because people not any more want to attend your shor for entertainment reasons but for taking chance to get you caught.

Try to find out what your personal style is and then work on it. that's what other persormers like Derren Brownm, MAven, Osterlind, Banachek etc. also did and that's the reason why they have success.

So soon as you start to act like a person you are not or try to copy performer like Brown, there are examples for this failing badly, you won't have success and thus no bookings. Especially in corporate market.

IMO all the Osterlind, Banachek and the other performers maybe are not that much more better than maybe you. They also perform CT, NW and so on like you. But they have experience AND they are themself, beeing natural and don't claim to are supernatural people.

SO instead of treating them like a god just learn from their experience and develope your style.

IMO that's the key to a successful performer.

Greetings and good luck
Thomas

Poeple are

Enhanced appearance works for some.
A good performance and special look can set you apart from others.
It doesn't have to be as extreme as Marilyn Manson but can be something subtle like a style of clothing, unruly hair or two different colored eyes.
Acting a eccentric, all knowing, very serious, nerdy or whatever can work.
Even if your name isn't remember they may remember 'the mind reader with the crazy hair'.
While it's not necessary, your chosen style can set you apart.

Good point Jazz. And I also can agree with you. But though it should be delivered in a quite natural style. Like an actor who convincingly plays another character.

A good example which comes to my mind now is Jay Sankey who plays 'The great Boris Pocus' on his DVD 'Boris Pocus-Extremely mental' I liked it very much since IMO Jay convincingly played his role.

So as a conclusion I would say that , regardless what style one wants to play, it should be developed on the natural style of that person and not copied from another character.

Greetings
THomas

Gus? I thought his name was Elzie.

--Josh

Hi zack, check out drew mcadams book "making money from magic" he has a fantastic section in it that discusses the area of persona...i understand many many people say this but for me it was well worth the price of the book just for the said section

This kind of advice is priceless. It is one of the reasons that this board is such a great place to learn.
Peace,
Parson

I read Richard Osterlind somewhere (maybe on one of his excellent blogs) saying that his stage persona is an act. A bit like the Columbo character. Seemingly forgetting simple things like names as then it appears he having to abandon these simple brain tasks to allow his to do the amazing mind reading things he is capable of.

This makes sense and Richard stresses that it is deliberate.

As this is the case Richards "normal guy" persona is just as much of an act as Max's. Just in a different way.

I like Richards normal guy stance and employ it myself.

Ian