Killer reactions

Discuss your favorite close-up tricks and methods.
Guest

Re: Killer reactions

Postby Guest » December 16th, 2003, 11:48 am

Fitzkee had no professional training as an actor, and never studied stagecraft as a trade. He wrote what he thought might work, and because there wasn't anything else out there, and it sounded good, he has become "an authority". But no one questions his credentials, or even looks at his results. He tried to apply his theories to his own work, and failed horribly, and with consistency, in his attempts to bring any kind of theatricality to magic.
PSC:
Isn't Fitzkee the model for the typical illusion show? Whether in Vegas or on TV, most large-scale magic shows seem to be based on the Fitzkee theory that magic needs 'appeals' to make it palatable.

I personally find adding dancing girls and melodrama to a magic act to be as criminal as adding A1 sauce to a steak. If the stake is good, then the sauce is redundant; if the stake is no good, then the sauce won't improve it.

However, my tastes seem to contradict the public's taste. The reality is that Fitzkee-esqe magic and denigrated filet-mignons are acceptable to the masses.

Pete McCabe
Posts: 2332
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Simi Valley, CA

Re: Killer reactions

Postby Pete McCabe » December 16th, 2003, 2:57 pm

Rafael Vila:

I don't want to pick on you, but I have never understood how anyone can read Showmanship for Magicians and come to the conclusion that Fitzkee thinks magic needs appeals to be palatable. I think too many magicians accept Darwin Ortiz's interpretation of Fitzkee.

I can not find any statement in the book that implies that magic is not acceptable on its own. All Fitzkee did was enumerate the most basic, fundamental elements of popular entertainment, so that magicians can incorporate as many of them as possible into their performances.

This doesn't mean that magic needs these things, any more than comedy, drama, or music need them. But virtually all of the top performers in comedy, drama, and music add these elements to their shows.

So do the most successful magicians in the world, who all do exactly what Fitzkee wrote. They add music, rhythm, movement, youth, sex appeal, personality, color, comedy, harmony, romance, sentiment, nostalgia, timing, surprise, situation, character, conflict, costuming, grooming, physical action, pacing, punch, routinging, tireless rehearsal, grace, spectacle, emotion, and the rest of Fitzkee's list of appeals, to their performances.

Not every magician adds every one of these, but think of the most successful acts you know. David Copperfield. Penn and Teller. Lance Burton. Siegfried and Roy. Now check Fitzkee's list.


Pete

Guest

Re: Killer reactions

Postby Guest » December 17th, 2003, 7:55 am

Pete:

I don't think we disagree regarding the use of appeals by successful acts. In fact my post mentions the TV specials and Vegas shows.

Regarding Fitzkee's phylosophy, he does mention numerous times that magicians should not emulate magic acts, but rather other forms of entertainment.

Fitkee also recommends eliminating routines from the act (which may be a good thing) and adding extra appeals.

In your post you failed to list Blaine, whom applies almost none of the appeals listed by Fitzkee.

Maskelyn ye Mage said something to the effect that, 'The success of the magician is inversely proportional to the number of sequins on his tux'.

The higher the theatrical content, the lower the experience of magic.

Guest

Re: Killer reactions

Postby Guest » December 17th, 2003, 8:48 am

Originally posted by Rafael Vila:
Fitzkee had no professional training as an actor, and never studied stagecraft as a trade. He wrote what he thought might work, and because there wasn't anything else out there, and it sounded good, he has become "an authority". But no one questions his credentials, or even looks at his results. He tried to apply his theories to his own work, and failed horribly, and with consistency, in his attempts to bring any kind of theatricality to magic.

PSC:
Isn't Fitzkee the model for the typical illusion show? Whether in Vegas or on TV, most large-scale magic shows seem to be based on the Fitzkee theory that magic needs 'appeals' to make it palatable.

I personally find adding dancing girls and melodrama to a magic act to be as criminal as adding A1 sauce to a steak. If the stake is good, then the sauce is redundant; if the stake is no good, then the sauce won't improve it.

However, my tastes seem to contradict the public's taste. The reality is that Fitzkee-esqe magic and denigrated filet-mignons are acceptable to the masses.
The smartass answer to your question would be: "Yes!" However, it seems reasonable to elaborate.

"Everybody does it, so it must be right?" Is that the faulty reasoning we apply to the approaches we take to developing magic for the public? No wonder magic is doomed to second rate status as an entertainment form. Right there with clowns,juggling, and vent acts...

The shows you elect to represent successful magic appearances in a general venue are, typically, failures by show-biz standards. They are one-shot fillers (Can't have dead air, can we? And the cost of advertising on magic specials appeals to a certain segment of the market that can't afford the higher-priced time slots during "Friends", or "Sienfeld", or other top-rated prime-time shows...). Even a bad sit-com gets more play than most of the magic "specials".

As far as the general public goes, they don't decide what gets produced, they are subjected to it. Ask them what they saw and see if they can describe in any detail what went on on the last "Magic Show" they watched. Then ask them what happened on the last episode of "The Sopranos".

"The guy (what guy?) made a lion disappear."

Versus an in-depth, multi-paragraph description of the plot, action, and resolution of the "Sopranos" episode, replete with names, impersonations, catch-phrases, etc.

We've managed to lower the general viewing audiences' expectations to a point where anything other than the stereotype you describe is thought to be exceptional! And you wonder why Blaine is successful? First, the bar is incredibly low, so he didn't need to do much to become a name in Magic to the public. And, to give him his due, I don't know that he's had any formal training, but I do know that David Blaine has developed a character that people CARE about! And if you think that is how he really is, then he's doing his job beautifully...

Just a few random thoughts...

Best, PSC

Guest

Re: Killer reactions

Postby Guest » December 17th, 2003, 10:24 am

The subject of magic and applied theatre is one that is of great interest to me. I am currently working on a thesis involving conceptualizing of a modern magic performance using an interprative framework of modern theatre theory. I hope to publish the result sometime next year.

In the meantime a few thoughts:

David Groves: It is hard for anyone to judge those responses without seeing the response. They could mean a number of things. Performers are, however, generally afraid of silence. A lot of performers, and especially magicians, perform as approval-seekers, and desire some for of audible response. In The Empty Space Peter Brook writes that we have forgotten silence, and as a result clap mechanically as we do not know what else to do. Arousing this silent response is often the most powerful effect you can have.

As far as Fitzkee, I'll agree with Paul Chosse on most of it. Fitzkee does, however, have one extremely valid point. Magicians have largley not seen a need to make their performances evolve with a changing society. In 1943, Fitzkee wrote that the tables many magicians use are outdated. Funny we still see similar designs in use today......

One of the inaccurate views I believe some magicians hold is that studying of theatre in any form will help anyone. Reading about it in books is one thing, developing it in practice is another. Some books are almost impossible to learn from without taking a class on the subject, such as Linklater's Freeing The Natural Voice. In addition, not every system will work for everyone. Study is required to find out what systems will work on an idividual basis. In the end, you may take David Mamet's view (from True and False) that acting schools do not teach students, but rather claim effectiveness through the actor's success (though Mamet admits he was never a good actor). In his opinion, the best training is getting out and working as an actor. Despite a negative view of schools, Mamet still finds value in physical training (e.g., voice, momvement, etc.).

Not all methods of training or all ideas on theory are out to achieve the same thing. Some want to involve the audience viscerally, others to alienate audiences and make them analytical of the events unfolding upon the stage. Both of these can work in the same performance if you know what you're doing (e.g., Brook's Marat/Sade).

That's enough for now,

Aaron

Guest

Re: Killer reactions

Postby Guest » December 17th, 2003, 11:17 am

Originally posted by Aaron Shields:
David Groves: It is hard for anyone to judge those responses without seeing the response. They could mean a number of things. Performers are, however, generally afraid of silence. A lot of performers, and especially magicians, perform as approval-seekers, and desire some for of audible response. In The Empty Space Peter Brook writes that we have forgotten silence, and as a result clap mechanically as we do not know what else to do. Arousing this silent response is often the most powerful effect you can have.

Aaron
Your point on silence is well taken. Silence may be the sign of an audience that is too stunned to respond, or one that is going through a frantic but futile thought process. That can certainly be a sign that a magician has successfully fooled an audience.

However, applause, gasps, and exclamations of shock remain the gold standard in audience response. Try to tell an agent who's watching your promotional videotape that the audience was too stunned to respond. Try telling a client who has hired you to entertain their party guests that silence is golden.

Entertainers who are successfully able to manipulate their audience are perceived to be more successful. At the Magic Castle, my home territory, that list includes some great audience manipulators, including Dimmare, T.C. Tahoe, Johnny Ace Palmer, Bodine Belasco, Steve Valentine, Brian Gillis, and others. When you walk into one of their shows, you know you will undergo a raucous group experience that includes pure astonishment, but also includes the enjoyment of an audience reacting strongly as one.

When I play the Castle, I know that eliciting a response from some in my audience will encourage others in the audience to let down their guard and respond loudly and strongly, too.

I sometimes sense that the difference between a good and a bad audience is often one or two uninhibited and responsive people, and that those people's loud responses seed the clouds, so to speak, triggering a chain reaction of laughter and response.

Guest

Re: Killer reactions

Postby Guest » December 17th, 2003, 11:49 am

First, the actual quote by Masklyn, from An Interview With Ye Mage in Genii, "The greater the number of sequins on the suit...the less the credence to the performer."

While Fitzkee does not say that magic requires appeals, he sure implies it.
From Showmanship For Magicians:
"Magic, as exhibited by the majority, is the indulgence in a hobby which rarely instructs, seldom amuses and almost never entertains." Page 3

"It doesn't seem to require a considerable amount of heavy analysis to discover why magic is not as popular as many other types of entertainment. The leaders in the more popular fields deliberately cater to the known preferences of the general public while the average performer in the magic field hasn't seemed to care and hasn't bothered to gear himself to popular demand." P. 21

"Try to get as many and as varied appeals as possible." p 26

"When it can be shown conclusively that THE ENTIRE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY - movies, legitimate theatre, night clubs, etc.,- have based their entertainment product upon these fundamental principles of public response, the reason why the magic field should predicate its product upon the same appeals becomes obvious." p 28. (Emphasis as per original).

Also of interest may be the following quote by S.H. Sharpe, found in the appendix of Neo-Magic Artistry:
"...I suppose the popularity of Fitzkee in contrast to my wirtings is that he concentrated on the showmanship angle - giving the audience what one thinks will 'pay' best, which of course, means playing down to their lower emotions, in contrast to expressing one's highest ideals and visions, which is the AIM of fine art, however inadequately accomplished."

I don't believe pasting appeals to a show will make it better. When you tell a lay-person that you perform magic, they usually respond by telling you a story of a magic event that they have experienced. I have heard many of these stories, I'm sure most of you have heard your share. However, I have never heard anyone tell me about a magician they saw who had exceptional choreography, or lights, or smoke, or nostalgia, or group coordination, or many of the other appeals ennumerated by Mr. Fitzkee.

The stories they tell are simple, and always describe the magic effect. That is what people remember.

Guest

Re: Killer reactions

Postby Guest » December 24th, 2003, 11:31 am

Originally posted by pchosse:
...And you wonder why Blaine is successful? First, the bar is incredibly low, so he didn't need to do much to become a name in Magic to the public. And, to give him his due, I don't know that he's had any formal training, but I do know that David Blaine has developed a character that people CARE about! PSC [/QB]
In relation to Fitzkee, Blaine did in fact use appeals.

Fitzkee spends a lot of ink writing about how an act should be up to date, and in 1995, when Blaine first came out, he was way up to date. The other big TV magic specials of the time--World's Greatest Magic and the like--featured guys onstage in tuxedos performing for studio audiences with fake reactions. Blaine took the counterculture slacker character that no one in magic had even thought to present to the public, and made him a protagonist, dirty t-shirt and all.

In addition, Blaine enhanced the conflict (another Fitzkee appeal) by purportedly bringing the audience into the conflict. Because the audience members reacted in a real way, they became part of the plot. In World's Greatest Magic and the Copperfield specials, the volunteers' (read as "leggy models'") reactions are so fake that they cannot be taken seriously, and are thus, in the audience's minds, cut out of the plot; they are fluff, irrelevant.

Blaine indeed used appeals, just not the conventional ones that old-school magicians think about. Blaine (and Criss Angel and other counterculture magicians) is more contemporary than most magicians seems to realize, even now.

Guest

Re: Killer reactions

Postby Guest » December 31st, 2003, 10:53 am

My morning commute (using Fitzkee's 39 appeals in order):

I started the car and turned on the radio. The movement of the wipers were beating to the music's rhythm. My neighbor jumps into her car - she's a dead ringer for J-Lo. I change the station. The 'personality' uses blue humor to entice me to laugh.

Yet I'm not entertained.

The traffic's harmonious ebb & flow is controlled by the synchronized traffic lights. I'm stopped two cars behind a red light for what seems like an eternity. There's a couple on the corner who are busy swapping spit under an umbrella. I think it's the two from that sappy show, 'Average Joe'.

Still not entertained.

The 1980 MGB in front of me just died. Been there; done that. Another interminable wait. Something's got to give. I must have goofed on my timing. I make a mental note to leave earlier. A Pteradon drops a 'prize' on my windshield. I wasn't expecting THAT!

This is not entertaining at all.

Two people step out of the MG. He's dressed like Charlie Chaplin. She's Carmen Miranda. The Little Tramp whacks the troublesome roadster with his cane. Though they're standing in the rain I can tell that their costumes are 'proper' and their grooming is 'careful'.

I wonder if Fitzkee drove to work.

People start getting out of their cars. We push the
Brittish car off the road 'on three'. The driver makes a quick right, followed by another quick right ;) . I make it back to my car at a brisk pace. As I enter my vehicle I see the MG moving. Somehow he gets in front of me again.

...Still not entertained. Just wet & bothered.

I always take this path to work; it's the quickest and most efficient. However, I have a special GPS system - just in case. I coast gracefully through the intersection. The clutch eases effortlessly into second gear and I'm off again.

My mood improves, but I'm still not entertained.

The coffee on my side that's normally sure-fire is now frosty cold. Carmen and Charlie are now arguing. Arms are flailing. What a spectacle! The girl slaps the guy. What a thrill!

Ok, maybe a little entertaining.

The other commuters are full of emotion. The guy beside me is giving them the NY salute. Traffic is moving very slowly. I've got to get out of here. My GPS tells me to turn right. I make it to work by 12:00. Just in time to join my peeps for lunch.

The trip, while filled with appeals was a nightmare. However, that cheese burger with fried egg, though unmentioned in Showmanship for Magicians, was sensational.

Guest

Re: Killer reactions

Postby Guest » December 31st, 2003, 3:43 pm

Welcome to reality, Rafael... Shows you that 'reality television' is an oxymoron. Reality on television is MORE BORING than real life. I spent 15 years producing television, I know. Just because it don't have a script don't make it real... --Asrah


Return to “Close-Up Magic”