So I've been working on my first true close-up routine for a while, and it's finally starting to crystallize out into something I'm really happy with.
Disregarding the thematic side, it's basically two sandwich effects, followed by a variation on French Kiss, then sponge balls as a finisher, all tied together through a series of productions, vanishes and color changes.
Style-wise, it's designed to be good-spirited, tongue-in-cheek, and as disarming as possible.
I know the usual advice is to put your strongest effect last.
The way I feel however, is that I've put the strongest effect, in terms of impossibility, in the middle. Instead, I've put what I think is the more fun and entertaining, but much weaker one in terms of impossibility, effect at the end.
My reasoning is this. I fully believe that it is possible to reach in a spectator an utter and total destruction of normality. I've seen it happen, and frankly, I've decided to not settle for anything less. The best, and possibly only, way I can see of doing this is probably proper buildup and stacking of climaxes until you finally completely tear down their notion of reality.
So far, so good. If one were to follow the standard advice of finishing with their strongest, most impossible effect, they'd leave their spectators at their peak of distorted reality.
Now my question is, why would you want to do this?
The way I figure, at that exact moment your audience should be at their weakest, psychologically speaking. Their walls are down, they're drifting in a vacuum of bewilderment, and they should be clawing for every little scrap of input that confirms that the world still works the way they thought it did.
How I see it, you can do two things from here. The first one would be to leave it at that, take your applause, and move on. Your spectator's original grasp of reality will return sometime thereafter, since all the input they receive is now once again consistent with what they expect from life.
The alternative is what I'm aiming at here. Rather than leaving them hanging in that vacuum, proceed to fill up that vacuum with emotions of your choice. In my case, I'm trying to mostly focus on happiness and joy. Because your spectator's sense of reality is so utterly turned upside-down, they should now be especially receptive to things they feel are familiar, and more importantly, the feelings and thoughts associated with them.
Now, quite possibly, nothing of what I just said makes any sense, and it really doesn't work that way. Let me take this moment to restate the fact that this is actually my first routine I've ever worked on, and that I do not have extensive experience in actually performing magic. Being the perfectionist that I am (and really, this is the thing that will ultimately get the better of me someday), I'm first and foremost focussing on getting a better theoretical foundation and creating a routine that actually offers my audience something I feel is worth it.
So, please don't respond with a "Just do whatever works for you.". I'm interested in why you think certain ideas might or might not work.
Discuss.
Disregarding the thematic side, it's basically two sandwich effects, followed by a variation on French Kiss, then sponge balls as a finisher, all tied together through a series of productions, vanishes and color changes.
Style-wise, it's designed to be good-spirited, tongue-in-cheek, and as disarming as possible.
I know the usual advice is to put your strongest effect last.
The way I feel however, is that I've put the strongest effect, in terms of impossibility, in the middle. Instead, I've put what I think is the more fun and entertaining, but much weaker one in terms of impossibility, effect at the end.
My reasoning is this. I fully believe that it is possible to reach in a spectator an utter and total destruction of normality. I've seen it happen, and frankly, I've decided to not settle for anything less. The best, and possibly only, way I can see of doing this is probably proper buildup and stacking of climaxes until you finally completely tear down their notion of reality.
So far, so good. If one were to follow the standard advice of finishing with their strongest, most impossible effect, they'd leave their spectators at their peak of distorted reality.
Now my question is, why would you want to do this?
The way I figure, at that exact moment your audience should be at their weakest, psychologically speaking. Their walls are down, they're drifting in a vacuum of bewilderment, and they should be clawing for every little scrap of input that confirms that the world still works the way they thought it did.
How I see it, you can do two things from here. The first one would be to leave it at that, take your applause, and move on. Your spectator's original grasp of reality will return sometime thereafter, since all the input they receive is now once again consistent with what they expect from life.
The alternative is what I'm aiming at here. Rather than leaving them hanging in that vacuum, proceed to fill up that vacuum with emotions of your choice. In my case, I'm trying to mostly focus on happiness and joy. Because your spectator's sense of reality is so utterly turned upside-down, they should now be especially receptive to things they feel are familiar, and more importantly, the feelings and thoughts associated with them.
Now, quite possibly, nothing of what I just said makes any sense, and it really doesn't work that way. Let me take this moment to restate the fact that this is actually my first routine I've ever worked on, and that I do not have extensive experience in actually performing magic. Being the perfectionist that I am (and really, this is the thing that will ultimately get the better of me someday), I'm first and foremost focussing on getting a better theoretical foundation and creating a routine that actually offers my audience something I feel is worth it.
So, please don't respond with a "Just do whatever works for you.". I'm interested in why you think certain ideas might or might not work.
Discuss.