|
|
Brad Burt Inner circle 2675 Posts |
In another post I asked folks what their favorite In the Hands magic routines were. I got limited response and thank those that did. I have always found this subject interesting, because I realized early on that anytime the magic I was doing 'touched' the audience literally in some way the response was better. Vanishing Sponge balls or making them appear without ever going to the hand of a spectator is pretty much a waste of magical energy. Even if only once you place a ball in your hand and then one in the spectator's and then show yours has vanished only to be found IN THEIR HAND with the ball you placed there...well, that's not 'merely' magic to that spectator, it is 'very sincerely magic'. Thus my new query: HOW do WE get our magic more in touch with the spectators?
Consider also the following scenario: You take a deck of cards from it's box. YOU shuffle it and proceed to do whatever trick you are going to do. A card may even be selected from the deck, etc. Ta, da, trick ends. Pretty cool. But, what if....you tossed the boxed deck to a spectator sitting near and asked THEM to remove and shuffle up the deck? What if you asked them to remove a card BEFORE they handed you back the deck? What if they signed the card and thus further personalized the routine, investing it with just that much more interest? See my point? Most magicians, myself included, (I am trying to rework this conceptually for myself and thought it might be of interest to others.) tend to think of an 'in the hands effect or trick' as something more like Sponge Balls, etc. But, I now believe that ANY time we can 'touch' the audience literally with our magic that there is a kind of TRANSFERENCE of interest and even intensity to that prop and thereby the routine as a whole. I also believe that we miss dozens of opportunities per performance to do this. Why? Answering only for myself I have found two factors that inhibit me from fully realizing the possibilities of spectator tactile involvement. The first is simple laziness. It just simply takes more effort to truly INVOLVE an audience in the way described above! The second is just not thinking about that involvement in terms that would allow for the inclusion of the audience! You gotta know that you CAN do such a thing to the degree described above before you can realize it in your performance! That's all….just thinking via keyboard,
Brad Burt
|
Jaz Inner circle NJ, U.S. 6111 Posts |
Sure, having something surprising happen in their hands is very strong.
Involving the audience by touching their minds is too. While magic already interests them, the right patter gets them even more involved. The patter Vernon uses for "Cutting the Aces" and the patter for "Color Monte" both tell stories that suck the audience in. I'm not the best at creating interest with patter and often just let the magic pretty much speak for itself without any set script. For me it does boil down to either laziness or lack of imagination. HOW do WE get our magic more in touch with the spectators? I think it would be good to look at things the audience can relate to, possibly believe in and give some meaning to our magic. While not always magic, John Edward, Ricky Jay, Richard Pryor while all with different venues seem to have done this in their way. We also need to keep in mind of the various different types of magic and what is needed to attract interest, hold that interest and make the audience feel involved. |
FatTony Regular user Dallas, Texas 121 Posts |
I think an audience gets more involved in the effect if:
a.) They are actually a part of the effect. For example, it happens in their hands or they actually have to participate by DOING something. b.) The effect touches them emotionally...many stage performances seek to impact a spectator emotionally. or... c.) The outcome of an effect is uncertain. If you throw in a bit of drama, it greatly perks the spectators curiosity to the outcome of the effect, and the conclusion will hit them harder. Many classic effects where the magician seems to have made a mistake or 'been beaten' play on this, only for the magician to miraculously 'triumph' in the end.
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. - Einstein
|
Daoist New user Taipei, Taiwan 19 Posts |
I must admit that I often prefer card tricks that are more like extended flourishes, such that the spectator merely watches; that might be worth some reconsideration, however.
One thing that I'm curious about is what everyone thinks about this kind of audience participation: ----- Today I was walking around downtown and saw a small stage set up for magic. "Great!" I thought, not often having access to magic performances here. The routine that I saw, however, involved the magician handing a 6 year-old girl wands that broke, bells that didn't ring, fans that fell apart, and by that time, the girl looked ready to break out into tears. ----- I remember watching Gene Anderson talk about treating his audience members with respect and making them feel comfortable on stage, and I feel that all of these props violate that principle. I'm all for audience participation, and I'm glad Brad brought this up, because it definitely gives me something to think more about -- but I don't understand why some entertainers flat out abuse their audiences. I feel it is the opposite of what we should be doing.
I'm...I'm just not feeling STRONG right now...
Uri Geller, 1973, The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson |
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » New to magic? » » Audience involvement (0 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.02 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 < |