Engagment and Misdirection.
- Thread starter mclintock
- Start date
The Fitzkee Trilogy is worth looking into, as is Magic and Showmanship.
Btw, any relation to Reed Mclintock, coin god?
Btw, any relation to Reed Mclintock, coin god?
I'm not sure that Magic and Showmanship would be that helpful -- much of it is a reflection of the time in which it was written.
The answers to your question depend on whether you are doing close-up or parlor/stage magic and the type of audience you are performing for.
Close-up magic is a conversation. Think about how most conversations play out -- either someone is telling a story, explaining something they have seen / read / heard or there is a back and forth with questions and answers. Make your magic a conversation. Make it about a story or about something you heard or a series of questions. Leave space in your presentation for true interaction with your audience. Let's say you are doing a routine about dreams -- ask your audience if they remember what any of their dreams from last night or if they had a recurring dream or if they have ever dreamed that they could fly. Listen to their response and then go into the routine.
Stage and parlor magic are like a play. For each effect you need a plot, characters, drama and sometimes even humor. You need to show what is happening, why it is happening and why it is important through your script. Also make it interactive. Have a conversation with your volunteers.
For close-up and stage/parlor you have to make it about more than fooling the audience with the effects. Avoid what Euguene Burger calls narrating the adventures of the props in the magician's hands. If your presentation is about what a deck of cards or a couple of coins do, then it is not engaging. Few people, other than magicians, have an emotional attachment to a deck of cards or a couple of half dollars. Few people will be engaged by you merely saying "look" unless you have a production crew behind you filming for a television special.
As for misdirection, that is a function of the design of the effect. That is, it should be built into how you do the effect. The key principles focus on attention and inattention. As Tommy Wonder says, misdirection is a misnomer. We misdirect by directing the audience's attention to something else. That is, we direct their attention to something rather than away from something. That leads to inattention to what we are doing. Another way of creating inattention is making the move on an off-beat. When there appears to be nothing happening. The audience is not paying attention because there is nothing to pay attention to. One point of inattention is during the preliminary phase of a routine - when you are setting up the effect, especially if you give off the sense (like Dani DaOrtiz) that it doesn't matter. Often, the most inattention is during the release of tension after a reveal or even a joke.
The answers to your question depend on whether you are doing close-up or parlor/stage magic and the type of audience you are performing for.
Close-up magic is a conversation. Think about how most conversations play out -- either someone is telling a story, explaining something they have seen / read / heard or there is a back and forth with questions and answers. Make your magic a conversation. Make it about a story or about something you heard or a series of questions. Leave space in your presentation for true interaction with your audience. Let's say you are doing a routine about dreams -- ask your audience if they remember what any of their dreams from last night or if they had a recurring dream or if they have ever dreamed that they could fly. Listen to their response and then go into the routine.
Stage and parlor magic are like a play. For each effect you need a plot, characters, drama and sometimes even humor. You need to show what is happening, why it is happening and why it is important through your script. Also make it interactive. Have a conversation with your volunteers.
For close-up and stage/parlor you have to make it about more than fooling the audience with the effects. Avoid what Euguene Burger calls narrating the adventures of the props in the magician's hands. If your presentation is about what a deck of cards or a couple of coins do, then it is not engaging. Few people, other than magicians, have an emotional attachment to a deck of cards or a couple of half dollars. Few people will be engaged by you merely saying "look" unless you have a production crew behind you filming for a television special.
As for misdirection, that is a function of the design of the effect. That is, it should be built into how you do the effect. The key principles focus on attention and inattention. As Tommy Wonder says, misdirection is a misnomer. We misdirect by directing the audience's attention to something else. That is, we direct their attention to something rather than away from something. That leads to inattention to what we are doing. Another way of creating inattention is making the move on an off-beat. When there appears to be nothing happening. The audience is not paying attention because there is nothing to pay attention to. One point of inattention is during the preliminary phase of a routine - when you are setting up the effect, especially if you give off the sense (like Dani DaOrtiz) that it doesn't matter. Often, the most inattention is during the release of tension after a reveal or even a joke.
Oops. I meant that Showmanship for Magicians (the first book in the Fitzke Trilogy) isn't too helpful because it is a relfection of the time in which it is written. Henning Nelms's Magic and Showmanship is a great book and is the best theory book for the price.
No relation, sorry.
And what I am looking to get in to is close up magic. Thank you for the tips, would you have any specific suggestions for getting them to look away from the deck if I wanted to do something like a pass or a top change? Sorry if I am asking too much, I am just trying to expand my knowledge on how I can work around the way peoples minds for tricks.
OK, reread my prior post. It is all in there.
First off, think direction (looking at something) rather than misdirection (looking away from something). What can the spectator pay attention to instead of the deck?
Second, think about design. The direction (to something other than the deck) should be designed into the effect. There isn't a set answer for a specific move outside of the effect that move is part of. You can't just say "is that a rat over there in the corner?" or, as some magicians suggest, ask an inane question like "is there any reason you just picked that card?" What you are doing before or after the move matters.
Third, the move should be done in a way that creates inattention. If your presentation is about what you are doing with the deck, the spectators will pay attention to what you are doing with the deck. If you presentation is about something interesting, the spectators will pay attention to what is interesting. Similarly, if you pay attention to what your are doing with the deck, your spectators also will pay attention to what you are doing with the deck (sleights should be done without looking and without evidencing any tension). Also, those moves could be done during a period of inattention where the selection procedure is preliminary and unimportant or on an off-beat where the audience isn't paying attention because they are responding to something else like a reveal or a joke.
The one point not included in my prior post is a discussion of how sleights need to be justified. Your pass should look like squaring up the deck and a top change should be an "in-transit" motion done when you are turning your body from one side to another and gesturing with the deck after your hands come momentarily together (reflecting a natural action). The moves should not look like "somthing" happened.
RealityOne is providing some great knowledge on in-transit motions, directions, and more. Really excellent post
The distinction between "anything but my hands doing the secret move" and "something of interest" is a big one.
In the former scenario, your desire to divert attention from the move leads to inner fixation on what you are doing, which can be reflected through your actions.
Should you have a well-designed routine (e.g. Tommy Wonder's Cups and Balls), the very structure of what you do provides an engaging sight to the audience-- you build your routines from the ground up to accommodate your secret actions, rather than see about instances to covertly insert them into the routine.
I hope that makes things a little clearer.
The distinction between "anything but my hands doing the secret move" and "something of interest" is a big one.
In the former scenario, your desire to divert attention from the move leads to inner fixation on what you are doing, which can be reflected through your actions.
Should you have a well-designed routine (e.g. Tommy Wonder's Cups and Balls), the very structure of what you do provides an engaging sight to the audience-- you build your routines from the ground up to accommodate your secret actions, rather than see about instances to covertly insert them into the routine.
I hope that makes things a little clearer.
This is one of the best pieces of advice you will receive.
You have to give them a reason to look elsewhere, and this comes down to trick and performance construction more than anything.
A lot of newbies struggle with knowing what to say when performing (that's fine, we've all been there). As a result, they often mumble, or simply don't say anything. You mumbling or staring at your hands is never going to be as interesting as the pack of cards you're holding, so why would the audience bother looking elsewhere?
I think the key idea is that the spectator should never feel like they missed anything, they should always feel like they were looking in the most important place the whole time. I guess the ultimate goal is to make them feel like they were watching everything the whole time, even if they weren't.
I'm sure there's a quote from someone along the lines of 'If your spectator feels like they were misdirected, then the misdirection hasn't worked' (I'm sure someone will fill in the gap in my knowledge here...)
Sorry of this is all slightly disjointed, bit of a 'train of thought' style post.
Just listen to RealityOne, here knows what he's talking about.
Rev