|
|
Scott Fridinger Special user Gloucester Pt, VA 893 Posts |
Mr. Close, I feel that your current work using the E-Book format is excellent. The format is perfect for those visual and book learners. Thanks for producing such high quality products. My question concerns The Work series and it's future. I believe I have heard Volume 3 will cover the Side-Steal, do you have any idea how many volumes you will produce and which movies you will be covering in the future? Thanks.
Scott
www.JustGreatMagic.com
Sleight of Hand, Sleight of Mind |
mclose V.I.P. 306 Posts |
There is no set length for the number of volumes in The Work. And I don't have any thoughts on what should come next.
I am very much open to suggestions, so let me know what you'd like to see. Close |
wsduncan Inner circle Seattle, WA 3619 Posts |
Using humor in magic?
|
TheAmbitiousCard Eternal Order Northern California 13425 Posts |
It seems to me that most beginners feel that the holy grail in magic is finding the perfect invisible move that will fry all the magicians. They bounce around trying to perfect The Pass, then The Top Change, Then the Side-Steal, then back to finding the perfect Pass again. They don't realize they are always caught because they are always staring at their own cards, and so is everyone else.
From my study a successful move is as much about technical proficiency as it is about timing, directing attention, body movement, active and passive body language, pauses, smiles, jokes, etc. Perhaps something along those lines would make a good e-book. How to work the proper moments into one's effects. Bill mentions humor. A good candidate.
www.theambitiouscard.com Hand Crafted Magic
Trophy Husband, Father of the Year Candidate, Chippendale's Dancer applicant, Unofficial World Record Holder. |
Dave V Inner circle Las Vegas, NV 4824 Posts |
I agree with Frank. Watching daily movements and mundane chores showed me that much of the time you really don't look at what you're doing. For example, drop a handful of change on the floor and pick it up. Once your eye spots its target your hand goes for it as your eyes move on to find the next one.
You can see in my avatar that I'm watching the ball I'm tossing in my hand, drawing the spectator's attention to that hand (and the ball). My very next move is to (false) place the ball in my left hand freeing my right for what I intend to do (and where my eyes are looking) and that's to pick up the wand. Naturally their eyes follow mine and watch me pick up the wand. Then, and only then, do I redirect my attention to the left hand to finish the vanish. My left hand (the passive one) is out of play and naturally draws no attention to itself until I choose to direct attention there by looking and then tapping it with the wand. Slydini's body language plays into this theory too in a different way. He leans forward, you pay attention, he sits back and relaxes, and so do you. BAM, the dirty work is done. To me, body language and not looking at what you're doing is a powerful tool and is something that should be explored further.
No trees were killed in the making of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
mclose V.I.P. 306 Posts |
What Frank and Dave are talking about here is one of the basic rules of magic: The audience will look where the performer is looking. If the performer is looking at his hands, so will the audience. The key, of course, is being able to do all your moves without looking at your hands.
As far as discussing using humor in magic performances: I'm not sure that this would be particularly helpful. My feeling is this: if you are not funny when you're not doing magic, then you shouldn't try to be funny when you do magic. A magic performance should be an expression of your personality and world view. You don't have to be funny to be effective. Don't be afraid to simply be who you are. Close |
Pete Biro 1933 - 2018 18558 Posts |
You echo what Seabrooke answered to a guy after a lecture that asked, "How can I learn to be funny onstage?" Seabrooke answered, "Are you funny?" The guy said, "No." Seabrooke said, "Then you won't be funny on stage."
STAY TOONED... @ www.pete-biro.com
|
Mike Goeller New user 26 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-01-11 21:07, Frank Starsini wrote: We have a guy who comes into Denny and Lee's Magic studio, who is a great technician . He has a great personality, he's naturally funny, has a good voice... execept when he's performing magic. He's a card guy, and as soon as he starts performing all of his attention is on the cards. He hardly looks up. His great personality becomes none existant. All the attention is on the cards and that's were his focus and the audience focus is. I've tried to explain to him that technique is important, but presentation and misdirective (or should I say directive) techniques are probably more important. (just look at guys like Matt Schulien) I tell him "up and out" that's the attitude you want to convey. The magic is more about you and the interaction with the audience then it is about the cards and the secret moves. He just doesn't get it. I've seen him MC an event with no magic and absolutly kill the audience getting them to laugh and have fun just off his personality, yet the second he does magic that personality dissappears and it becomes Marlo demonstrating move after move with monotone patter. In my personal work I have found Gary Kurtz's book Leading with your head, good information on Directive techiques, as well as John Carney's material, Fitzkee's Magic by Misdirection, Slydin's material, of course the Books of Wonder (my personal favorite books in magic), There are plenty of books that give good examples of these techniques in use, like the Matt Schulien book. Your Worker Series and Closely Guarded Secrets give great examples of how to mess presention, Misdirection, and technique, to become something more then the sum of its parts. What other sources have helped you along the way in learning and applying misdirective and presentational techniques/Ideas? I would love to see a book or essay with your own personel thoughts on the subject of misdirection and presentation. (more then what you've written in workers) |
mclose V.I.P. 306 Posts |
For me, the biggest learning experience was my time at Illusions, because I did so many different types of magic - tableside, bar, stand-up. I learned the lesson of looking up and out when I worked bigger parties, a 12-top table for example. The props had to come off the table and up in the air in order for everyone to see. I would also recommend Juan Tamariz's 5 Points in Magic. He talks about tying imaginary threads between your eyes and the spectators' eyes; in other words, making contact with everyone, so everyone feels they are part of the show.
The problem with a lot of card magic is that it is designed to be entertaining to the magician who performs it. Notice how many tricks there are where the cards are spread so the indices are readable to the magician, not the spectators. Here's a question you might want to think about: There's some wrong with the T-formation used in the Slow Motion Ace trick, but I've never heard anyone discuss it. Any ideas what it is? Close |
Scott Fridinger Special user Gloucester Pt, VA 893 Posts |
Quote:
Well, after reading your post and thinking about the question, I would have to say the problem is that the effect seems to be pointed toward the performer, not the spectator. The T is formed so the performer can "read" it, and the effect is all done toward the performer, taking the spectator out of the effect. Each phase comes "back" instead of bringing the effect to the audience. I hope that made sense. So, if we hold this conclusion to be true, would you then say that any such effect should be done with the "leader" back closest to the audience? This might not be what you had in mind, but it makes me reconsider several effects.
www.JustGreatMagic.com
Sleight of Hand, Sleight of Mind |
Scott Fridinger Special user Gloucester Pt, VA 893 Posts |
Quote:
This is also an excellent point, I just finished watching a video, I believe it is the new Jennings DVD, but don't hold me to it, which brought up that point exactly. The performer made it a point to finish with the cards spread so that the pip[s where readable by the audience. He even corrected himself in the explanation, after demonstrating the incorrect display at the end of the explanation. Now, this post has wavered from my initial question slightly. In the Work you discuss moves and progress through the use and needed misdirection, etc for proper execution of the move. Others have asked for more "abstract" teaching, while I hold you do teach everything, except the humor aspect specifically mentioned, discussed with concerns with the moves. So, the question becomes what "moves" do we wish Mr. Close to discuss all the ins and outs of. Possibly a volume on Forces, I know there are many sources out there already. The double lift? The top change? Your previous volumes covered so much great information, I don't know what I would like to see next. Thanks for your last post, it was very thought provoking.
www.JustGreatMagic.com
Sleight of Hand, Sleight of Mind |
mclose V.I.P. 306 Posts |
You hit it exactly; the T-Formation is laid out so the most important packet (the leader packet) is closest to the magician, not the spectators. This seems very wrong to me.
Close |
Pete Biro 1933 - 2018 18558 Posts |
Yah, and the deck's spread out often have the pips the wrong way for the speckie's viewing.
I just got a silly little packet trick (which PLAYS SO STRONG) "Two Wrongs don't make a Right" and one has to make sure the cards, when turned over, are READABLE by the speckledtator's view.
STAY TOONED... @ www.pete-biro.com
|
Mike Goeller New user 26 Posts |
I wish Juan Tamariz's books would hurry up and be reprinted. I missed them the first time around. (too young in magic to know I should have bought them when they were out) I've heard rumers of reprints for a couple of years. I keep thinking as soon as I spend $500-$600 on a set the reprints will come out.
I agree completely with the spreading of the cards so it looks right to the spectator. (that's one of my pet peves) I had never though about the T-formation, but it does make sense. The only thing I see possible wrong with this would be if your displaying supposed gambling skill. Having the packet closeset to the performer makes it seem almost believable. If presenting it as demonstration of magic, having the leader packet toward the spectator would make sense, as the premise is the cards change, rather then are manipulated into possition. (just a half thought out, thought) Mike G. |
Scott Fridinger Special user Gloucester Pt, VA 893 Posts |
Mike G, if you are performing using the T formation as a gambling routine, most likely you would have a circle, such as would be on a card table with 4 players. Also many of the best gambling routines actually happen to a spectator's hand instead of the gamblers, using the accomplice line. This would push the effect to the spectator, and when you reveal that you never use partners and you still have a better hand, the kicker is set up "outside" of the effect, so they don't pay attention to your hand. You are performing for them, so they win.
www.JustGreatMagic.com
Sleight of Hand, Sleight of Mind |
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The January 2007 entrée: Michael Close » » The Work » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes) |
[ 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 < |