Stage Magic Can Really be Bad

[Josh Burch]

I began my career in magic watching Lance Burton, David Copperfield and the World's Greatest Magic specials. I wanted to do the really big stage magic but as I saw more and more stage magic it began to lose its flavor. Stage magic began to turn into a bland, cheap looking branch of the art.

I have looked back at some of the magic that first inspired me and I feel like it is still inspiring as long as we pay attention to what is happening and look at it with fresh eyes. Jim Steinmeyer talks about how stage and close-up is very different and should be presented differently. I agree for the most part but I think that many stage magicians skip over well known principles in close-up and do not apply them to their stage magic.

I'd like to look at Jim Steinmeyer's invention Origami. It is one of the most poorly performed and ripped off illusions in the magic community. I believe that some of the reasons it was so popular is because of two performances. The first is from Doug Henning, the second is from David Copperfield.

 

[RealityOne]

I blame Fitzke. He thought magic couldn't be presented without all the smoke, music and sequined assistants. I also blame the boxes. All of them. It is too easy to come to the conclusion that the secret is in the box and then to speculate how it works. I've seen some really bad stage magicians, so bad, I can't even remember their names. But, there are some really good stage magicicans. Kalin and Jinger are my favorites (no surprise in that Steinmeyer produces their shows) followed closely by Kevin James. Copperfield was amazing when I saw him in the 1990s, but the last show of his that I saw he seemed to be just going thought the motions.

But let's be honest. Most magic shows are mediocre at best. I've seen way to many poor performances of Kevin James' bowling ball production (oh look a bowling ball, on to my next trick) and way too many people do a dance with Losander's tables. I've seen magicians burn through 10 illusions in 5 minutes just because they can. I've see guys everyone knows perform and have magicians fall asleep with me wondering if the performer would fall asleep. But then again, I've seen performances by folks like Jeff McBride, Wayne Houchin, Dani DaOrtiz and Shoot Ogawa. Just amazing.

Avoiding being "really bad" just takes dedication to the art of magic and learning the difference between doing tricks (or illusions) and entertaining. It isn't what Fitzke says either. It is taking tricks and, as Larry Haas says, turing them into performance pieces. Until magicians understand what that means, they will be performing bad magic.

 

[Josh Burch]

Doug Henning performed in a funky way. He was a bit of a hippie and his audience responded to him at the time. If you can look past his style I think that there is a lot that can be learned. Of course my observations are not necessarily the gospel truth.

Henning starts of by explaining that this is a strange box. One of the biggest problems that people find with stage magic is that the magicians just push around a bunch of suspicious boxes. Henning understands that this box looks funky and he has to explain why it looks funky. His explanation involves that the box is like the Tardis, it is bigger on the inside than it is on the outside. If this is the case then of course the box would look a little strange. Too many magicians take this for granted, if you introduce something that's a little strange it is probably better to attend to the problem as it arises.

Origami has some beats built in to the prop. When he says the box is unique he begins to unfold it and the audience sees that it is a magic box. The build up is interesting and magical. Comedians will often look at their act and break it down looking for missed moments that could be an opportunity for comedy. I think we could do this as magicians. How can I add more magic into this routine. The invisible deck is a good example. There is some magical by-play in the classic routine. The selection process is magical and interesting. Showing the box is a magical moment.

Doug does something that is unique for most stage magicians. He talks through the illusion. He is very present and aware of what is going on and how the audience perceives the magic. It has become a cliche to have the girl in the box change costumes. Most of the time I think that it is not noticed. Doug points out the costume of his assistant as she comes on stage so that when the kicker appears it packs a punch. This is added when you see the mask and the new costume. It is completely different.

He uses his words to his advantage as well. He says that there is hardly enough space for the girl after she gets in the box. Why would he do this? It may have been a flub in timing but I think it is more effective to make a statement, especially one that may not be true, after it can be verified. The audience hears this and it forms an image in their minds of the box being pretty small.

Steinmeyer has talked about the importance of the mirror. It is such a smart addition. The idea that magicians always use mirrors and magnets makes the mirror suspect. The apparent reason for the mirror is fairness, so you can see what is behind the box. The unspoken reason is that it must have something to do with the method. Steinmeyer was aware of its power and he and Doug talked a lot about this.

 

[Josh Burch]

I blame Fitzke. He thought magic couldn't be presented without all the smoke, music and sequined assistants. I also blame the boxes. All of them. It is too easy to come to the conclusion that the secret is in the box and then to speculate how it works. I've seen some really bad stage magicians, so bad, I can't even remember their names. But, there are some really good stage magicicans. Kalin and Jinger are my favorites (no surprise in that Steinmeyer produces their shows) followed closely by Kevin James. Copperfield was amazing when I saw him in the 1990s, but the last show of his that I saw he seemed to be just going thought the motions.

Yes! Kalin and Jinger are so great! Sorry for the choppy format. I meant to include my thoughts on Origami in the same post but it became too long.

I do think that the boxes can be explained away or that the motivation can be made more clear. I think that too many magicians neglect that they are using a big funky prop and that they need to have a reason for it.

 

[Josh Burch]

Copperfield's performance is different. I think I prefer it (probably because I'm a Copperfield fanboy and I love 80's music). It is refreshing to see the two routines performed so differently. Sure they are the same trick but there's a real lesson in character here.

Copperfield has to do with his actions what Doug did with his words. Doug could explain away the funky sticks he put into the box. Copperfield used swords which take less explanation.

It is interesting to watch him unfold the box. He really want to milk it. You can see him pause at certain moments. It's a mauri finale. You think the box is finished opening then he opens it some more, and more, and more. He understands the audiences expectations and plays with them a little bit. It makes the sequence a little more interesting.

He's working with Joanie Spina in this piece. If you weren't aware she is a dancer, choreographer and director. She worked with Copperfield for years and went on to be a well known director of magic until her untimely death. People poke fun at Copperfield for his dance numbers and dramatic flare. It is clear that the dancing here is not obsessive and that Copperfield does not do anything unnatural that takes you away from the routine. The dancing here is just enough for you as an audience to realize that there may be some sort of a romance between the two characters in this magic play.

The use of color is interesting in this one. It is clear that everything is red and black. I don't know if this symbolizes anything but in the beginning the man is tho only one in white. Through out the performance the box and the girl change color to match him. This may mean something in the story but even if it doesn't it is a solid design feature. It helps you to notice that the girl's clothes have changed in this performance as well.

My favorite part of this whole routine is at 3:35. Copperfiled realizes where the magic happens. Up to this point Joanie could still fin in the box. This is the first legitimately magical moment. He realizes this and accentuates it with his pacing and gets a gasp and applause from it.

One thing that I noticed is how he turns the table around. He has thought this through a little better than Doug. He is very fluid where Doug stumbles a bit. These motions communicate a lot.

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

The popularity of stage magic during the 80s and 90s is why I didn't get into magic until my mid-twenties. It's not just that stage magic is so often bad, it's boring. On top of that, I thought stage magic was really all there was (other than Ricky Jay) and had no interest in it at all. Interestingly, this thread has finally given me the epiphany as to why.

Well, I knew some of why. Card/object manipulation, for example - I watch this and have always been able to tell they were just holding the objects in such a way that I couldn't see them at that particular angle. I didn't know what back palms and split fans were, but I knew the cards were behind his hands. The only manipulation act I remember thinking was cool when I was a kid was a guy who produced cocktails wearing short sleeves. I always forget his name, though. Anyway, I watch these acts and think, "Wow they're good at hiding those cards. When are they going to do magic?" Then the show would end and I'd still be wondering that.

Something like Origami - Doug's performance was, eh, awkward. He reminds me too much of the shy, awkward kid I used to be to be able to enjoy his performances. David's performance has flair and ... well, it has flair. He's got some nice applause points, and he has mastered his craft. But what's the point of it? Origami specifically is a ritual with no result. Talk about the box, bring out the box, unfold the box, girl goes in the box, box folds down, box is stabbed (for some reason never explained in the narrative - there's got to be a word for that, like Chekhov's Gun, but instead of it needing to be used, needing it to make sense when used), the box is unfolded, the girl gets out with a different outfit on.

Honestly the outfit change is just to give it an ending moment applause cue, I think. Otherwise it would just be, "See? She's fine! Ta da!"

And that, in summary, is why I don't like stage illusions. Far too much of it is pointless, ultimately. I get exactly the same feeling watching these kinds of performances as I do when my friends want to show me the new gadget they got. "Look, it can do this, and this, and this ...". There's no drama, no meaning, no message. David mentioned that:

It is too easy to come to the conclusion that the secret is in the box and then to speculate how it works.

Because the secret is (generally) the box. Even as a child I clearly remember thinking, "If I had that box, I could do that. It has nothing to do with the dude in the suit and corny dance moves."

There are very few stage acts I would pay to see. I would pay to see P&T again (Actually, I would pay the same amount just to see Teller. Penn's parts are important, but Teller is the artist in my mind). I would pay to see Dan Sperry's full show, just to see if I like the rest of it as much as the couple pieces I have already seen. Mac King is on the list for the next time I visit Vegas - but I'm not sure he counts? He's not an illusionist, really. But he's funny. I would see Copperfield if someone else paid. Jeff McBride if the tickets were inexpensive.

To be clear, because I really don't want it to seem like I don't respect these people - I do. Copperfield, McBride, Burton, all them - they are great at what they do, and I do respect their accomplishments and skill. I just don't have much interest in seeing it.

 

[TylerScottIllusionist]

Stage magic began to turn into a bland, cheap looking branch of the art.

Cheap looking? Man if only that echoed with some of the prices! The flash appearance prop I want is $4,500.

I certainly see a lot of the points that you raise but I wonder if it really matters in the long term scheme of things. Magic is a business before it's an art (despite what we like to believe) and the whole purpose of entertaining is to hopefully make money off of it. I've seen some performers using the same stage equipment and props that have been done to death but they are absolutely killing it financially because this what laymen are willing to pay the big ticket prices to see. I think they want to see the grand illusion since it's more foreign to them rather than a deck of cards.

Maybe that's also why it seems bland and boring to us is because we are so used to it since magic has become a part of our lives. To your average laymen, it's all new and exciting stuff that they haven't seen before so they are excited to pay for tickets to go see a show that to us seems boring.

But at the end of the day this is all subjective and it's really to each their own. People will just speak with their wallets if they don't like something.

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

I do understand that illusions can be super expensive, but they often do look cheap. Well, cheap isn't the right word. They look like something that was made so someone could accomplish a magic trick.

Magic is a craft, a tool, that can be used to create art. Entertainment is a business.

So, caveat - this is my opinion, from my perspective. I do realize that I'm probably not seeing the industry as a whole, but I am noticing trends in what I do and what the people I talk to do. That being said, what I do and what the people I talk to do, are generally geared towards the same thing so it could be an echo chamber thing.

I feel like magic is sort of split into two factions. Maybe more. The folks who just want to entertain and the folks who want to create really magical experiences. The folks who just want to entertain seem to be the ones who shift towards doing stage shows. It's big, it's flashy, it can pay really well, and it's like seeing a play you get to interact with from the audience's perspective. But there's a divide. A fourth wall of sorts. Watching Copperfield do his thing, most of it seems like you're watching this guy up there doing his thing, and sometimes people come from the audience to join in, but mostly it's detached.

The people who strive to create really magical experiences tend to like parlor and/or closer environments. This allows them to pull the audience into the show a lot more. It's a lot harder to be detached from the magic when it's happening around you and to you. When you feel it, because it's right there.

In my experience, people go to stage shows to basically see a play. People go for close up stuff because they want magic. Furthermore, in my experience, people are really craving a truly magical experience, not just some tricks.

 

[Bryson G.]

Let me preface this by saying that I would pick performing stage/parlor magic over close-up magic any day, but that's only because I am just more comfortable performing in front of a larger group.

I do, however, think that close-up magic is far more magical, and often just of higher quality, than stage magic, and I think there's a huge reason for this.

Close-up magic has changed a lot recently; stage magic has not.

Whether you think it is for better or for worse, street magic specials, online magic sites, social media, and exposure/teaching (take your pick) of magic on YouTube have all changed close-up magic. A lot more people are doing close-up magic in different ways and bringing different perspectives. There are tons more original close-up magic effects being created than there used to be. Because of this, close-up magic has been able to quickly morph and change to more modern tastes, growing to be more visual and organic.

Stage-magic, has remained rather stagnant. There are far fewer new magic tricks available for stage because there are less people (especially less new people) involved in it. Magicians have been performing the same stage magic tricks with boxes and saws for 50+ years. Sawing a woman in half has become a trope. It's not as entertaining to audiences as it used to be and some stage magicians haven't moved on. The thing is, however, that these stage magicians don't have to move on, because there are not a lot of new stage magicians to push them forward. With no one to lead the charge to innovate, stage magic is going to stay the way it has always been.

TylerScottIllusionist brought up a really good point about how, although stage magicians still perform the same old tricks, they are making big bucks. I believe, however, that this is only due to that being the only kind of stage magic available, like I mentioned earlier. If a person is in the mood to go see a magic show, that's most likely their only option. If there were more options, I think that old style of stage magic with boxes and swords would be pushed out. I mean, just look at Matt Franco. He had a new style of performing magic on stage and he did what lots of classic stage magic performers could not, he won America's Got Talent.

In closing, magic only becomes better, changes, and adapts to people's changing preferences where there are lots of new people to act as innovators in the art, and while this is happening in close-up magic, it isn't happening in stage magic.

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

Well said!

 

[RealityOne]

So, Henning and Copperfield represent what stage magic was in the 1970s and 1990s. What is it today? How about Kalin and Jinger's performance of Op Art -- another Jim Steinmeyer creation.

I believe the choreograpy for Kalin and Jinger also was done by Joni Spina. Maybe she just did it for Jinger, Mark seems to have his own style (I'm guessing that both Josh and I would be able to do similar moves). The scripting does seem to have Steinmeyer's touches on it, especially the wry, somewhat self-deprecating humor.

Sawing a woman in half has become a trope.

I feel like magic is sort of split into two factions. Maybe more. The folks who just want to entertain and the folks who want to create really magical experiences.

I think Kalin & Jinger's presentation of the sawing in half is truly magical.

I certainly see a lot of the points that you raise but I wonder if it really matters in the long term scheme of things. Magic is a business before it's an art (despite what we like to believe) and the whole purpose of entertaining is to hopefully make money off of it. I've seen some performers using the same stage equipment and props that have been done to death but they are absolutely killing it financially because this what laymen are willing to pay the big ticket prices to see. I think they want to see the grand illusion since it's more foreign to them rather than a deck of cards.

One of my amusements in life is to listen to people talk after a magic show. I don't give away that I'm a magician, I just listen and ask questions. Here are my observations: 1) most people think they know how it is done (remembering if they think they know a portion of how it is done, they think they know it all); 2) most people remember 2 effects maximum; 3) most people don't have a reaction more than "that was interesting." Half the people don't remember the name of the performer or performers by the time they get to the parking lot. Heck, I can't remember the comedy magic guy, the family show performer or the guy who did the stage illusions that I've seen recently in Atlantic City. Actually, the comedy guy and the family show performer may have been the same guy. I've seen Masters of Illusion on Tour and can only remember a couple of the performers in the show (Kalin & Jinger, Kevin James and Daren Romeo). Oh yeah, the magicians at the Burlesque magic show were named.... yeah I forget -- but I do remember them doing a handkerchief through microphone trick in slow motion to Chariots of Fire and doing Jeff McBride's Miser's Dream routine with a 65 year old man. I can't remember the illusion shows I saw in Vegas 10 years ago or the name of the magician in Hawaii.

Why? Because the boxes predominate the magician's personality. In some instances, that may be a good think based on the magician's personalities.

Magic has always been about the magician. A good performer can entertain with a silk and a thumb tip. All the expensive boxes in the world won't help a bad performer.

 

[Tower of Lunatic Meat]

Oh yeah, the magicians at the Burlesque magic show were named.... yeah I forget...

I have memory lapses in remembering names as well.

But in all fairness it was a burlesque show.

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

So, Henning and Copperfield represent what stage magic was in the 1970s and 1990s. What is it today?

The same, basically. At least, as far as I'm seeing.

I think Kalin & Jinger's presentation of the sawing in half is truly magical.

Is it? Why? What I'm seeing is a clearly false claim (the only similarity that table has to civil war era surgery tables, is that they're both tables) followed by the adventure of the props.

I do agree that many performer's stage craft is so poor that they don't make a point of making people remember them rather than the tricks they do.

 

[Josh Burch]

Confession, I really don't like Origami all that much. I also don't really like Doug Henning all that much. Origami is a classic illusion and I chose it to point out that stage magic isn't without worth.

Kalin and Jinger, I think that these two are great. I'm not a huge fan of OP Art but the Wakeling Sawing is in my opinion the best sawing out there. Funny, I think I first heard the "adventure of the props" line used by Steinmeyer.

When I look at stage magic today I think there are a few who are doing it well in a relevant way. I still love the stage magic of the past though. This is the direction of stage magic in my mind.

This clip has some adult content (An F-word and some blue humor in other places in the clip). I love the bit from about 1:40-3:00

This is more of a magical pantimime, but I LOVE it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS5pKQtxG0g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyetrgRlVGo

 

[Fredrick H.]

Little late to the game here but I have been talking with magicians about this recently.

I think what the conversation has basically proven is that, while when magic on stage was in its heyday (Houdini, Thurston, etc) It was in some ways technologically advanced. It was ahead of the audience so it came across as wondrous. It also helps that they laymen then was not as educated as we have today. I think herein lies the problem with stage magic today. It doesn't match the time period anymore. If anything when I talk to people who go to see a magic show on stage its because they are a "great performer" or "I love classic magic". If I am giving full disclosure I don't see any magicians today on stage doing amazing work. Barry & Stuart are great entertainers, Kalin and Jinger are great entertainers. That is to say the magic they are doing Im still left with, "I guess that was interesting".

Being a strong performer is what most stage magicians today lack, so they do get by on an expensive crowd pleaser. I think magic today should be moving in a new direction. With how advanced technology is today magicians are failing at doing what they started out doing a long time ago. Being at the forefront of the technological movement. We are too stuck on tired classics because that is what magic in a way has become defined as. I mean a comany like crealev has made amazing advances in magnetic levitation:

Another company like holos is making interesting developments into holographic images:

I have a desire to make a new style stage show that utilizes magic as a special effect. Imagine if you went to a magic show and it was like watching a movie in real life. You could transport your audience with a good well thought out story (intro, problem, arc, conclusion) and allowed the magic to be a part of the story rather than having to dance around a floating table acting like its such a big deal. This is what I feel an average audience expects to see in film and stage productions on a whole and yet the magic show is still coat tails, sequined dancers and corny staging.

I think Xavier Mortimer has done a decent job exploring this idea but its only a start.

I love this performance, not because penn and teller figured it out. But I didn't care how it worked, The story drove the magic rather than the other way around. In a close up setting I think it is more important to let the magic do the talking and story follows. But stage magic needs a huge over haul, something passed the box, passed the floating girl, and passed tired humor.

just my thoughts

 

[RickEverhart]

Stage Magic Can Be Really Bad. This is an interesting title/thought and I've enjoyed reading down through the comments. I would venture to say that All and Any Magic Can Be Really Bad when performed haphazardly with no connection made with one's audience. I concur with Reality One's comment regarding Copperfield in the 80-90s to now. Maybe I just went to a bad show in 2010 but it did seem as if he was "burnt" out and just going through the motions.

 

[Josh Burch]

Another company like holos is making interesting developments into holographic images

Interesting, I don't agree at all that technology is the problem. While I like the idea of a holographic display like this, what you showed was a treatment of Sargent Pepper's Ghost. The main idea is not new, it seems like they have integrated some sort of lenticular technology as well to account for the slight changes in vantage points.

I do think that the issue lies with the performers and the messages that they convey. I love Kalin and Jinger as well as Barry and Stuart. Kalin and Jinger are very entertaining in my view, I'd pay upwards of $60 just to see them. Barry Stuart of the other hand almost always get me thinking about something else besides the magic. They make me react on a visceral level. I almost always find my beliefs challenged by them.

I think Xavier Mortimer has done a decent job exploring this idea but its only a start.

I really like Xavier Mortimer. He is trying to be a real artist and I applaud everything that he does. I almost used one of his clips as an example of stage magic that I like. I hesitated though because I think some might see his style as a bit corny or overly artsy.