| Author | Post |
|---|
jmac
Wizard
| Joined: | 08-15-2004 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 629 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 02-28-2008 01:16 |
|
I would agree, this is from a structure standpoint.
I'm all about havin a great time, " maybe pull my finger joke or two "
jmac
did you get that booger..
Last edited on 02-28-2008 01:28 by jmac
|
Aramis
Illusionist
STAFF
| Joined: | 11-30-1999 |
| Location: | Canada |
| Posts: | 1305 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 02-28-2008 01:28 |
|
Jeremy I'm thinking about this again and I noticed something I thought was very interesting. Unless I understand Schneider's 5 steps incorrectly, he and Ortiz seem to disagree.
I am having a hard time paraphrasing two theories at once here, so bear with me.
From what I understand, Ortiz believes that the final effect should be the Result, or the Climax (the strongest moment in the routine). He believes this should be at the end of the routine. This would follow most theatrical and narrative standards (again, as far as I understand, I don't have any formal training in either of the above fields).
Schneider seems to put the Result in the middle. I have nothing but respect for mister Schneider, but I am wondering if I misunderstand his model here. As far as Ortiz seems to say, (and I would tend to agree with this), it is of critical importance that the last thing to occur in your trick/show/performance/routine/act/whatever also be the strongest. If they have to think back after the effect happens before confirming that it really happened the way you say it did, then you've lost part of the reaction. They have to react on, or as close to, the climax as possible. I seem to remember Ortiz being very clear on this.
|
jmac
Wizard
| Joined: | 08-15-2004 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 629 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 02-28-2008 03:11 |
|
Here is my thought it would depend if someone could look back, one phase or an entire routine.
jmac
Are we really splitting hairs, or was my point that they all want to think like a spectator, not like most magicians, " if they didn't call me for holding the double" than "the switch is just a guess"
Last edited on 02-28-2008 04:12 by jmac
|
erlandish
Wizard
| Joined: | 11-30-1999 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 982 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 02-28-2008 13:44 |
|
Aramis wrote: Jeremy I'm thinking about this again and I noticed something I thought was very interesting. Unless I understand Schneider's 5 steps incorrectly, he and Ortiz seem to disagree.
I am having a hard time paraphrasing two theories at once here, so bear with me.
From what I understand, Ortiz believes that the final effect should be the Result, or the Climax (the strongest moment in the routine). He believes this should be at the end of the routine. This would follow most theatrical and narrative standards (again, as far as I understand, I don't have any formal training in either of the above fields).
Schneider seems to put the Result in the middle. I have nothing but respect for mister Schneider, but I am wondering if I misunderstand his model here. As far as Ortiz seems to say, (and I would tend to agree with this), it is of critical importance that the last thing to occur in your trick/show/performance/routine/act/whatever also be the strongest. If they have to think back after the effect happens before confirming that it really happened the way you say it did, then you've lost part of the reaction. They have to react on, or as close to, the climax as possible. I seem to remember Ortiz being very clear on this.
My understanding of this is that Schneider is talking about the spectator's thinking, which is sort of beyond our control and outside the dynamics of the effect. The effect would basically be the surprise, and the inevitable aftermath of a baffling effect is that some spectators are going to want to try to figure it out. That is steps four and five of Schneider's five steps. This can happen while you're getting ready to move into your next trick, during the applause, etc.
What needs to happen is that the routine needs to be structured in such a way (before the final effect) that the spectator is not able to figure it out by rewinding, and must be forced to admit that he was fooled (or some other kinder admission, such as "it must have been magic").
Given this, I don't believe that there's a conflict between Ortiz and Schneider. In fact, Darwin's quote saying a spectator shouldn't be able to figure it out via logic seems to marry itself quite well to Schneider's five steps.
Last edited on 02-28-2008 13:45 by erlandish
|
jmac
Wizard
| Joined: | 08-15-2004 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 629 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 02-28-2008 14:03 |
|
Thanks Erlandish, My goal is to find the common ground between the theory's. I think you brought that together well.
jmac
|
cosmicplay
Wizard
| Joined: | 08-15-2004 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 879 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 02-28-2008 14:59 |
|
Honestly, I am not focussed on entertainment so much as I am on magic. I hear magicians say all the time "all that matters is to entertain them". My answer to this: Why didn't you become a comedian?
I truly believe that good magic is entertaining in itself. A strong piece of magic, delivered in a way that aims at creating magic, enhancing deception in every possible way, is entertaining in a way that supports magic, doesn't go at the expense of it.
Sure, there is room for a joke or 2. But a lot of magicians are ignoring how to make their magic more deceptive and put all their time in the jokes. To me that is acting like a comedian, not a magician.
|
Aramis
Illusionist
STAFF
| Joined: | 11-30-1999 |
| Location: | Canada |
| Posts: | 1305 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 02-28-2008 18:49 |
|
Laurent, I think it is very easy to confuse 'comedy' with 'entertainment'. This is not what I am trying to say. Focusing on 'entertainment' does not only mean adding jokes (In my case it usually means eliminating jokes). Entertainment is much much broader than comedy. Saying a magician can be succesful without comedy is true, just as much as saying a magician can be succesful without using 'bizzarisms' or without using sexuality.
Furthermore I don't think anyone is suggesting that 'having fun' is the only thing to being a magician. Ortiz has a series of great quotes at the beginning of his book on specifically this topic. This being said, if your audience isn't 'having fun', then I think you're missing out at least part of your role.
|
Aramis
Illusionist
STAFF
| Joined: | 11-30-1999 |
| Location: | Canada |
| Posts: | 1305 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 02-28-2008 19:19 |
|
Thank you Erlandish for your insight. That does clear up a few things for me about what Schneider meant .
Even then, I do seem to remember Ortiz saying that an ideal construction would eliminate ALL doubt before getting to the result. I guess it might be a bit of an idealistic view. Is it possible then, that Ortiz was saying (In Schneider's terms) that the shorter you could make step 4, the closer steps 3 and 5 will be and hence the stronger the reaction?
|
jmac
Wizard
| Joined: | 08-15-2004 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 629 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 02-28-2008 23:32 |
|
Aramis,
I'll say this I was shocked at how often Ortiz quoted Schneider.....
jmac
|
erlandish
Wizard
| Joined: | 11-30-1999 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 982 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 02-29-2008 00:10 |
|
Aramis wrote: Thank you Erlandish for your insight. That does clear up a few things for me about what Schneider meant .
Even then, I do seem to remember Ortiz saying that an ideal construction would eliminate ALL doubt before getting to the result. I guess it might be a bit of an idealistic view. Is it possible then, that Ortiz was saying (In Schneider's terms) that the shorter you could make step 4, the closer steps 3 and 5 will be and hence the stronger the reaction?
I don't know how much we can minimize number 4. We can present states, motivate our moves, get ahead, use gimmicks to eliminate moves, etc. This we can control.
But there's the function of it -- which is to convince them that what made it happen is what we said made it happen (ie: magic, mental powers, etc.). That's the point where they've been "fooled".
For instance, another aspect is more Tamarizian -- dealing with false solutions. If you vanish a coin without using sleeves, and if nothing in your actions allows sleeving, so long as your sleeves weren't rolled up they might still allow themselves to think sleeves were involved even if nothing in the rewind points to sleeving. This is the part that's more difficult to control. We can try a hard-core cancelling methods routine, but some routines might suffer under those conditions.
In my opinion, this is the stuff that's still in flux in magic theory.
Last edited on 02-29-2008 00:11 by erlandish
|
cosmicplay
Wizard
| Joined: | 08-15-2004 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 879 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 02-29-2008 13:28 |
|
Aramis wrote: Laurent, I think it is very easy to confuse 'comedy' with 'entertainment'. This is not what I am trying to say. Focusing on 'entertainment' does not only mean adding jokes (In my case it usually means eliminating jokes). Entertainment is much much broader than comedy.
Aramis,
Thanks for reminding me. To clarify, I believe that deception in its purest form is very entertaining. That is why I tend to focus on the deception part.
|
cosmicplay
Wizard
| Joined: | 08-15-2004 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 879 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 02-29-2008 14:33 |
|
erlandish wrote: Aramis wrote: If they have to think back after the effect happens before confirming that it really happened the way you say it did, then you've lost part of the reaction. They have to react on, or as close to, the climax as possible. I seem to remember Ortiz being very clear on this.
My understanding of this is that Schneider is talking about the spectator's thinking, which is sort of beyond our control and outside the dynamics of the effect.
A lot of point 4 is under control. Think about the use of a feint, or simply the repetition of an effect. Also the way it is presented. A more theatrical frame around an effect might be less inviting to the spectators to go through 4 and 5. I think, Aramis, your thinking comes from this ‘threatrical’ background. You focus more on presentation, character, and comedy. Those things will take away the drive to go through 4 and 5.
Some spectators, like my mum, just want to believe in magic. They won’t rewind the tape recorder of their memory and try to reconstruct the trick to understand it. They will stop at step 3 and give a standing ovation. They are the perfect audience, the eternal children who want to believe.
But most people will go through 4 and 5. It’s human nature. We want to understand. We are curious. We want to stand on our beliefs and will question anything that doesn’t fit in.
Here is a simple example of 4 and 5. You show 3 face down cards. Turn over the top one, it is the ace of hearts. You place it in the middle, snap your fingers, and show them it has come back to the top. You repeat it one time, another time….
Sooner or later, it’s pretty much a guarantee someone will say “they are all aces!”
This to me is the proof of Al’s theory. They have gone through the different facts and actions, stayed in phase 4 for a while…. Then suddenly hit that thought “wait, he never showed me the other cards…. They must all be the same….”, so they move on to step 5. Conclusion: not fooled.
|
Aramis
Illusionist
STAFF
| Joined: | 11-30-1999 |
| Location: | Canada |
| Posts: | 1305 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 02-29-2008 18:40 |
|
Laurent, I agree with all you have said. Again I might be inclined to interpret your example differently.
In the example you mention putting an ace on the bottom and turning it over, revealing another ace. It is almost inevitable that they will reach the conclusion that they are all the same. What I'm trying to defend here is that, if it is at all possible (as it is in this case), proof should be given before the climax as opposed to after.
In other words, if, after your trick, your spectator needs to see the cards to confirm they are all different before reacting, his reaction will not be as strong as if he is already convinced of that information. It is no coincidence that Daryl opens his ACR routine with a face up spread.
|
cosmicplay
Wizard
| Joined: | 08-15-2004 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 879 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 02-29-2008 20:28 |
|
You are totally right. But it shows how the mind of the spectators work. They are going through that process of exploring the possibilities.
Last edited on 02-29-2008 20:37 by cosmicplay
|
Current time is 22:52 | Page:   ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 |
|
|
|