A trance state has been proven to exist: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0026374
I think it comes down to the individual show, really. One of the more interesting pieces of feedback I've gotten is that people do often like the ritual of hypnosis. I think, unconsciously, that lets them buy into it more. It also puts a barrier between their normal, every day life, and the supposed "power" a hypnotist has. As in, it's comforting to them on an unconscious level to see someone have to go through these steps to get someone into this suggestible state.
James Brown is the king of banter - he could entertain a room for hours, I'm sure, with a card trick and then the conversation that gets spawned afterward. Have you seen his appearance on P&T Fool Us? They had to cut it down because he was messing with P&T so long before they made their official guess of his method.
So, in my mind, it really comes down to the theatrical goal. If I'm just demonstrating hypnotic techniques I usually skip the induction all together. But if I'm entertaining a crowd, I will do inductions. Usually a variety of them so it kind of displays the depth of knowledge - thus making the participants feel safe (I'm someone who really knows what I'm doing) and also giving the audience something to think about (Wow, I wonder if that would work on me?).
If you watch Derren Brown he's very good at this sort of thing. Sometimes he'll do a longer induction (For Svengali it was cut out of the recording because they can't broadcast a hypnotic induction in England), sometimes he'll snap people right into hypnosis (The Gathering I think had a great example of that - girl on stage, he turns to her, puts his hand up and says, "And sleep." and she does). He knows when the longer work creates more theatrical value, and when the kind of show of power with an instant induction does the same.
I think it comes down to the individual show, really. One of the more interesting pieces of feedback I've gotten is that people do often like the ritual of hypnosis. I think, unconsciously, that lets them buy into it more. It also puts a barrier between their normal, every day life, and the supposed "power" a hypnotist has. As in, it's comforting to them on an unconscious level to see someone have to go through these steps to get someone into this suggestible state.
James Brown is the king of banter - he could entertain a room for hours, I'm sure, with a card trick and then the conversation that gets spawned afterward. Have you seen his appearance on P&T Fool Us? They had to cut it down because he was messing with P&T so long before they made their official guess of his method.
So, in my mind, it really comes down to the theatrical goal. If I'm just demonstrating hypnotic techniques I usually skip the induction all together. But if I'm entertaining a crowd, I will do inductions. Usually a variety of them so it kind of displays the depth of knowledge - thus making the participants feel safe (I'm someone who really knows what I'm doing) and also giving the audience something to think about (Wow, I wonder if that would work on me?).
If you watch Derren Brown he's very good at this sort of thing. Sometimes he'll do a longer induction (For Svengali it was cut out of the recording because they can't broadcast a hypnotic induction in England), sometimes he'll snap people right into hypnosis (The Gathering I think had a great example of that - girl on stage, he turns to her, puts his hand up and says, "And sleep." and she does). He knows when the longer work creates more theatrical value, and when the kind of show of power with an instant induction does the same.
