|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
NJJ Inner circle 6437 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-12-10 08:29, Dick Christian wrote: I've thought long and hard about this post. I agree that book tests are lessened dramatically when presented as 'magic tricks'. However, I don't agree that, by extension, they should not appear in 'a magic show.' The worlds of magic and mentalism have long crossed over. Kreskin used to open with the linking rings. Osterlind performers a wonderful T & R newspaper. Barrie Richardson's books are packed with card tricks. Banachek does an amazing sponge ding dong routine. The important thing for the entertainer to do is to create a clear CONTEXT for the book test. For example, consider the following patter. "Ladies and gentlemen, tonight you've had the oppurtunity to see some impossible things. And the question I am always asked is "How do you do that?". The simple answer is that I don't. You do. The human mind is capable of the most incredible things. Our imaginations can create something from nothing with the slightest stimulus. All I am doing here tonight is providing the key to unlock your minds potential to SEE the incredible and the impossible. Allow me to demonstrate by showing you something that requires no trickery or no sleight of hand. It uses simple psychology and suggestion. Sleight of mind if you will..." A presentation like this, in the correct hands, allows a magician to perform a realistic and believable feat of mentalism along side dove productions and bills in fruit |
|||||||||
Dick Christian Inner circle Northern Virginia (Metro DC) 2619 Posts |
Nicholas,
As I acknowledged in my post there ARE some performers who are able to successfully include both magic and mentalism in their performances. I know both Kreskin and Banachek (and even booked Kreskin for one of my agency’s clients a number of years ago) and they, as well as several others I know, are among those who can and do. However, I still believe that those who can represent a very distinct minority. In addition, it has been my observation that the ones who do so successfully are more apt to be mentalists — e.g., those you mentioned as well as Craig Karges and a few others — than magicians and they tend to open with a brief magic trick, thus clearly establishing the magic in a subordinate role. While I am sure that there are also some magicians who can successfully include an effect or two of mentalism in their performances those I have observed have been less than effective as mentalists and I believe that those do it well are the exception to the rule. It is also important to remember to whom my comments were directed. While there are certainly a number of notable pros who post to the Café, they are far outnumbered by the newbies, hobbyists, amateurs and other less experienced magicians and it is the latter who post the vast majority of queries. In this case my comments were in direct response to the question posed by micromega123 who described himself as “a noob in every sense of the term” — i.e., unless I am mistaken, a “newbie.” An unfortunate result of the recent resurgence in interest in mentalism by the magic community at large prompted by the interest in TV programs dealing with the paranormal (not the least of which was the dreadful “Phenomenon”), encouraged by the aggressive marketing of mental magic and mentalism — including a plethora of book tests — and aided and abetted by the apparent assumption on the part of many of those new to magic who may have not yet fully mastered the fundamentals of magic that, since few mental effects involve difficult sleights or complex staging, mentalism is somehow less demanding of special skills on the part of the performer and is therefor an easier alternative. IMO they often fail to understand that a totally different set of skills is required of a mentalist and those skills are not only different, but in many respects can be even more demanding than those required for much of the magic they may still be trying to master. While all magic is largely dependent on applied psychology, that is especially so when it comes to mentalism. Not only does the effective presentation of mentalism require a very different mindset from most other magic on the part of the performer, but also demands that he have a far deeper understanding of the psychology of the audience in order to establish the proper frame of reference. I do not deny that the presentational context you suggest can be effective; however, the operative words — as you yourself have stated — are “in the correct hands.” My perusal of the Café during the few months I have been a member suggests that those who meet that criteria are in the minority. BTW, the fact that both magic and mentalism effects are described in the same book is a totally different matter and has nothing to do with the discussion of their suitability for inclusion in the same performance, so your reference to Barrie Richardson’s books is a non sequitur. The only thing “amazing” about a “sponge ding dong routine” is that anyone would have such poor taste as to actually do it (I know Banachek and can’t imagine him doing it).
Dick Christian
|
|||||||||
NJJ Inner circle 6437 Posts |
I agree entirely Dick.
I'd imagine that most magicians who perform a book test would argue that THEY are one of those few performers who can perform such effects correctly and it's the 'other guys' who shouldn't be doing it. |
|||||||||
NJJ Inner circle 6437 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-12-21 16:39, Nicholas J. Johnson wrote: Just for the record...I'm not thinking of anyone in particular. |
|||||||||
John C Eternal Order I THINK therefore I wrote 12945 Posts |
Depends on how it's performed.
J |
|||||||||
Stuart Cumberland Loyal user 289 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-12-10 00:54, Nicholas J. Johnson wrote: Absolutely. There's a major difference between magic and mentalism. Stand alone, there's a great chance of suspicion of a prop such as a book. That said, showmanship will greatly overcome any possibility that a book might be gaffed. A booktest can greatly enhance a mentalism performance. Question: are you hung up on a gaffed booktest? Why not use an un-gaffed test? One of my favorites is Annemann's Test of the Tiber. I do it often in high schools with a borrowed phonebook from the main office. It's a mind-blower. SC |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Booktest (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 0.05 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 < |