Is it good to be a bit too "flashy"

[Ghost89]

Just wanted to know what you guys think about magicians who do a lot of fancy flourishes/card work when doing a trick. A magic buddy of mine said that being a bit too flashy when doing cards automatically causes the spectator to focus even harder on what the magician is doing. However, I would like to hear your opinions regarding this

 

[visualartist]

Just wanted to know what you guys think about magicians who do a lot of fancy flourishes/card work when doing a trick. A magic buddy of mine said that being a bit too flashy when doing cards automatically causes the spectator to focus even harder on what the magician is doing. However, I would like to hear your opinions regarding this

I've learned the opposite to be true, the audience is more impressed. Only if there is substance in the magic of course.
If it is your style to be suave with card magic and you are almost exclusively a card magician then you SHOULD display finesse with a deck of cards.
For my character however, I don't flourish when I perform because all my magic with cards is incidental. I don't do ACR's or dan and dave-esque tricks (except for subway) so flourishing wouldn't seem right for me.
It depends on what you're trying to convey with your audience.

 

[AsherF]

I don't critique style. I feel this falls under style which is a matter of preference.

 

[eostresh]

There is nothing inherently wrong with adding flourishes to your magic. I do it all the time to great effect. The key is keeping it "appropriate." What I mean is that when you do flourishes it is kind of tipping the fact that you are good with cards. That in turn tips the fact that you can manipulate the cards and then, what the spectator is watching, is a demonstration more of skill than of "magic." So, for instance, I just started doing an effect I call "Throwing Star." It is a sandwich effect where two cards(The Jokers) are tossed in the air and caught in a fan. When you pull the jokers out of the deck you realize that they have caught the spectators card in between them. The whole effect is a fun "show off" kind of effect so it is perfectly acceptable to add some flashy flourishes surrounding an effect like that. Indeed, many effects can be presented as kind of a demonstration of skill and still not ruin the effect. A tabled gambling demonstration is a demonstration of skill as opposed to magic and many of those can be as entertaining to the audience as a magic show. So essentially flourishes can be added to stand up and walk-around magic to a similar effect that long table spreads and smooth table faros add to a gambling demo.

Where I wouldn't use it are for card effects that are not really card effects. They are inherently impossible and therefore "Magic." Case in point would be something like "Twilight Angels," or something like "Anniversary Waltz." These are effects where something impossible happens to the card itself. In the case of TA the angel on the back of a Bicycle card moves around the back, in the case of AW two signed cards are fused as one. I feel you kind of tip the fact that you are using sleight of hand to disguise a gaffed card if you get to flashy in the moves surrounding effects like that. Indeed I would actually go a step further and say that you should barel;y handle the cards at all when performing those effects. They kind of warrant a minimalist approach. In theory, you shouldn't be seen to be handling the cards much at all, No shuffling, and No cutting what so ever, whether you do it in a flourishy way or not.

So for instance, with TA, I really like to sell the fact that the back is normal by doing a short ACR sequence prior to moving the angel around the back. In that ACR sequence I use moves that allow me to insert the card in the pack, square the pack, and immediately show the card has risen to the top. No shuffles or cuts in between insertion and reveal. So I guess what I am driving at here is that if you truly want to present a card effect as if it is magic and not sleight of hand you should go further than merely eliminating flourishes and fancy cuts from your routine. You should eliminate ALL cuts and shuffles from your routine. Ie. No double undercuts, no overhand shuffle controls, no nothing. If you want the cards handled after the card is inserted in the deck you can let the spectators shuffle, but you shouldn't be seen handling the deck at all.(or at least as little as possible.)

 

[RealityOne]

Being "flashy" indicates to the audience that you have the ability to skillfully manipulate cards and the audience will attribute any "magic" to your skillful abilities.

Contrast two presentations.

In the first, the spectator inserts their card in the middle of the deck and the performer does a series of cuts that would make Sybil proud and then has the spectator turn over the top card to reveal their card. I suspect the reaction will be a "wow, you're really good with cards."

In the second, the spectator inserts their card in the middle of the deck. The magician places the deck down on the table and asks the spectator to put their hand on the deck. The magician then places their hand on top of the spectator's hand and asks the spectator to think of their card and imagine that their card is melting up to the top of the deck. The magician lifts his hand and the spectator lifts their hand. The spectator turns over the top card and sees that it is their card. I think the reaction will be a "What the heck! How could my card have come to the top... you never touched the deck."

That being said, I think a magician should be able to do basic cuts, flourishes (fans, spreads, etc.) and shuffles. That gives the audience a sense that we are professional. Unless you are Lennart Green, who amazes even more by the haphazard way he appears to handle cards.

 

[Jecoa]

Well I believe that it all depends on what message you intend to give the spectator.
If you want them to think that you are really good with cards then by all means go crazy with your flourishes.
But if you want to give them a more magical experience you should only display enough skill so they can see that you know your way around a deck of cards. Because the instant they they see a move or think they saw a move in a card trick, the magic is practically gone.

 

[renome]

Being "flashy" indicates to the audience that you have the ability to skillfully manipulate cards and the audience will attribute any "magic" to your skillful abilities.

Contrast two presentations.

In the first, the spectator inserts their card in the middle of the deck and the performer does a series of cuts that would make Sybil proud and then has the spectator turn over the top card to reveal their card. I suspect the reaction will be a "wow, you're really good with cards."

In the second, the spectator inserts their card in the middle of the deck. The magician places the deck down on the table and asks the spectator to put their hand on the deck. The magician then places their hand on top of the spectator's hand and asks the spectator to think of their card and imagine that their card is melting up to the top of the deck. The magician lifts his hand and the spectator lifts their hand. The spectator turns over the top card and sees that it is their card. I think the reaction will be a "What the heck! How could my card have come to the top... you never touched the deck."

That being said, I think a magician should be able to do basic cuts, flourishes (fans, spreads, etc.) and shuffles. That gives the audience a sense that we are professional. Unless you are Lennart Green, who amazes even more by the haphazard way he appears to handle cards.

I generally agree with this, but then again, a lot of guys preffer the "skillful" presentation over the "magical" one and I think that's fine and really depends on the situation and the people you perform for.
Imagine the scenario where the magician puts the card into the middle of the deck, hands the deck to a spectator, turns his back and takes the deck from the spectator with his hands behind his back. He instructs another spectator to hold hands over his eyes and from that position he performs a series of cuts that would make Sybil proud producing a card in the end.
The reactions that you get depend on how far are you ready to go with your presentation and although I agree that "magical" presentation can achieve awesome reactions more easily, I don't think that "skillful" presentation should be dismissed that easily.
I personally use both of them depending on how I got into the situation to perform (I don't perform professionaly, i.e. for money), so if someone saw me flourishing in a bar and asked me how the hell am I doing what I'm doing, I would probably go with the "skillful" presentation because the basis are already set. On the other hand, if I'm just harrasing random strangers on the street, I'll most often go with the "magical" presentation since they have no idea who I am or what I do or what am I capable of.
On the side note, when it comes to videos that present some new ideas or performance of the old ideas that are intended for magicians only, I don't even like unnecessary fiddling with cards, let alone flourishing.

 

[eostresh]

That being said, I think a magician should be able to do basic cuts, flourishes (fans, spreads, etc.) and shuffles. That gives the audience a sense that we are professional. Unless you are Lennart Green, who amazes even more by the haphazard way he appears to handle cards.

See, I think if "Magical" is what you are after, even this goes too far. Two quick examples that come to mind are Guy Hollingsworth and Jamy Ian Swiss. Neither of these guys jump into crazy flourishes when performing but both have an obviously elegant style in how they handle cards. As a result their performances seem to be beautiful demonstrations of skill and not "Magic." Perhaps I think that because because, as a magician, I can appreciate their skill, or perhaps it is because of the characters they portray? I guess you would need to ask a layman to say for sure.

 

[Josh Burch]

In any art there must be motivation behind every choice. A fancy cut may be as effective as a double undercut and it looks totally different.

I agree with realityone's ACR analogy. I'd like to expand it a little bit, I doubt you'll agree with me completely but that's alright. Imagine a rising card routine. Let's say the performer does a S shaped "Lepaul Spread" a card is chosen. As they sign their card the performer does a small sybilesk cut. The card is replaced in the deck and in the hands shuffle is performed followed by a fancy false cut. The cards then are put back in the box. The performer then holds the deck completley motionless and as the focus is brought to the deck the box slowly opens and their card is revealed.

This is not the way I would perform it, but I do think that the contrast is interesting. I think that this flourishing stuff has its place in magic.

 

[Josh Burch]

I don't think that showing that showing you know how to handle a deck of cards is anything to avoid.

I love David Copperfield and I love the way he handles cards. I remember the first time I saw him perform "Airtight". All that he does is a one handed fan to let the spectator chooses a card. I remember distinctly thinking "Wow, that was smooth!". Instantly I knew he was good with cards.

Last time he came to town, right before the Scorpion card trick, he did a card spring. The gasp from the audience was audible, he made a joke about it. Arround here one of my friends turned to me and said "Man he's good". I laughed to myself because that same friend has seen me do a card spring a hundred times before. What makes it different this time?

I think of Lennart Green as well. Next time you watch one of his video clips watch how fast his fingers move when he straitens up the cards. It's easy to see that he has straitened the cards thousands of times before. i would consider this a flourish of sorts.

I could go on naming similar examples from Bill Malone, Ricky Jay, David Williamson and others. I mention these examples because it is essential that you know your way around the cards. Sometimes a flourish can be used to establish credibility.from the above mentioned names, they all use large or small flourishes in their acts.

The flourishes that they choose to use add to their performance.

 

[formula]

By definition "too flashy" is a bad thing. Professional magicians do tricks they can do with their eyes closed, that work every time. I like to throw in a bit of flash and style, because I know a lot of older magicians either can't do it or can only do basic flourishes and I know that gives me an edge in getting work.
Flourishing will never make spectators focus on the cards more though, if anything they will make a joke about a mis-spent youth learning to flourish.

 

[RealityOne]

I generally agree with this, but then again, a lot of guys preffer the "skillful" presentation over the "magical" one and I think that's fine and really depends on the situation and the people you perform for.

I agree. I prefer the magical presentation but I understand the reasons for the skillful presentation. My intent was to point out that the magical presentation is more difficult with a flashy presentation.

See, I think if "Magical" is what you are after, even this goes too far. Two quick examples that come to mind are Guy Hollingsworth and Jamy Ian Swiss. Neither of these guys jump into crazy flourishes when performing but both have an obviously elegant style in how they handle cards. As a result their performances seem to be beautiful demonstrations of skill and not "Magic." Perhaps I think that because because, as a magician, I can appreciate their skill, or perhaps it is because of the characters they portray? I guess you would need to ask a layman to say for sure.

I understand what you are saying. How you handle cards is a factor in how the audience perceives you. I see a lot of videos where the handling of the cards lacks experience and confidence - in those situations a simple swing cut looks suspicious. I can also see how a very elegant handling could make something look more like skill. In those situations, I think character and the nature of the effect will also have a significant impact on the audience's perception.

There was a great lecture at EMC 2010 by Eric Meade on a similar topic exploring what was the more magical handling of a four ace production.

 

[eostresh]

I understand what you are saying. How you handle cards is a factor in how the audience perceives you. I see a lot of videos where the handling of the cards lacks experience and confidence - in those situations a simple swing cut looks suspicious. I can also see how a very elegant handling could make something look more like skill. In those situations, I think character and the nature of the effect will also have a significant impact on the audience's perception.

I definitely agree with that. Character is the key. I love Ricky Jay's character but I don't think a "Magical" presentation is even what he is after. The thing to keep in mind, and I think this is similar to what you are driving at, is that it isn't a terrible thing to present it as skill. If you are going to do that you had better have the skill to actually back it up, but it isn't a bad thing to let the audience in on the fact that you are performing as a sleight of hand artist. Coin magic is probably a great example of that. I would surmise that most laymen throughout most of the world realize that a guy performing coin magic is demonstrating sleight of hand. It doesn't necessarily stop them from appreciating coin magic. They just appreciate it on a different level and in a different way than say a mentalist who convinces an audience that he/she is indeed psychic.