Bob Cassidy
● Workshop Leader
● Administrator
● Sr. Member
●
● Posts: 8377
●
○
○
Minimalism
«
on:
February 19, 2012, 10:11:30 AM »
● Quote
The following topic, which I addressed in The Black Book of
Mentalism is one that I believe deserves serious consideration
by all who perform mentalism:
Minimalism
Joseph Dunninger has often been credited with saying. “Every
time you add a prop to your act your price goes down.” His
reasoning should be obvious – every additional prop takes the
illusion one step away from what “real mind reading” would
look like. And, as I have noted many times in my previous
books, every additional type of mentalism you demonstrate
(apparent telepathy, precognition, psychokinesis, clairvoyance,
etc.) also detracts from the overall illusion.
Recently a so-called mentalist challenged me on the last point,
stating, essentially,
“How entertaining is it to demonstrate the same ability over
and over again? It is much more interesting for an audience if
you do a prediction, then perhaps a blindfold test, a key bend,
a memory test and maybe a picture duplication. My business is
to entertain them – and that means variety. How entertaining
is it to watch the same billet test presented five or six different
ways?”
I think the problem with his reasoning is obvious. Why not
throw in a few jokes, a tap dance and a piano solo? There’s
some variety for you! (Reminds me of the heckler Dr Bob wrote
about in an earlier book - the guy who yelled at Frank Sinatra
after he finished a song, “So ya can sing, what else do ya do?”)
But beyond that, the objection also assumes that the
entertainment is provided by the effects – which, as we’ve
seen, is simply not true. To maintain the illusion of mentalism,
the effects must remain secondary to the mentalist’s persona.
As the variety of effects increases, the persona becomes less
defined. [Think of a three-ring circus – when the star act
appears in the center ring, the lights go out on the other two.]
The rule applies to the number of effects as well – less is better
– if you do too much and make it look too easy, it just won’t be
as believable.
This is what I mean by minimalism. Fewer props, fewer effects
and less variety in the type of effect. The entertainment value
comes completely from the performer himself. That is why
mentalism is probably the most difficult kind of magic to
present well.
The ability to transcend one’s material is the hallmark of
excellent performers in all areas of show business, but for
some reason, even well informed “authorities” on magic and
mentalism miss this point. A recent work on mentalism
contained the following passage:
. . . Rare is the performer who can mesmerize a crowd by
performing only mentalism. Usually these performers have
some dynamic effect that will be remembered by the audience.
Some performers can do this successfully. Others try and fail.
The fact is that you CAN’T mesmerize a crowd with only
mentalism. The statement that those mentalists who do
“mesmerize” rely on “some dynamic effect” that people will
remember, simply is NOT true. Those laypeople old enough to
remember seeing Dunninger perform; rarely recall the exact
effects he performed. They just remember that he was able to
read people’s minds. As his confidante and behind-the-scenes
man David Lustig once said, “It not what you do, it’s what they
THINK you do that counts.”
Several paragraphs back I alluded to ethical problems that
could be associated with a minimalist approach. If you have a
ton of props and do twenty-five separate effects demonstrating
every conceivable type of paranormal phenomena, it doesn’t
matter if you call yourself a psychic, a spirit medium, or
Nostradamus’ direct descendant and sole surviving heir – no
one is going to believe you anyway.
The more minimalist you get, however, the more likely there
will be audience members who believe you are doing the “real
thing.” Think of the leading “psychics” and “mediums” who
nowadays have their own syndicated television shows. They
use no props and only do one effect - the most popular being
the claimed ability to converse with the dead. They never call
themselves “mentalists” and you will never catch them at an
SAM or PEA convention.
If you feel that they operate within an ethical “no man’s land”
that you would rather avoid, the solution is simple.
Compromise- but just a little. Use a minor prop here or there.
Call yourself a mentalist. Avoid doing private readings. Confine
your “strong” performances to the stage and limit your
speaking engagements and so called “educational” gigs to
memory training, self hypnosis, and other similar
non-paranormal themes.
Report to moderator Logged
Bob Cassidy
PEA Dunninger Award 2011
PEA Dave Lederman Award 1996
The Resurrection of Doctor Crow
The (Almost) Complete Works of Bob Cassidy
David Thiel
● Master Mindreader Member
● Member
●
● Posts: 401
●
● I KNEW you were gonna say that
○
○
○
○
○
Re: Minimalism
«
Reply #1 on:
February 19, 2012, 12:07:41 PM »
● Quote
I get this, of course. But how do you do Mother...Scorpion...the
other effects that require more than a billet? When I start a
show, they are arrayed on a table behind me.
Maybe it's because I come to mentalism from a magic
background (and perhaps it speaks to my relative immaturity
as a mentalist) -- but I simply have no problem with props.
IS it important the audience think you are doing "the real
thing?" Is the entire show demoted to "mental magic" when a
prop is used? I'm okay with all that -- because my overriding
goal is to entertain more than it is to impress them with my
paranormal activities. But still...
I don't ask these questions rhetorically. I'm interested in the
responses.
(Hey! I quit doing the Invisible Psychic Chicken routine... )
David
Report to moderator Logged
If at first you don't succeed, avoid skydiving.
Bob Cassidy
● Workshop Leader
● Administrator
● Sr. Member
●
● Posts: 8377
●
○
○
Re: Minimalism
«
Reply #2 on:
February 19, 2012, 01:47:23 PM »
● Quote
David-
My argument is intentionally somewhat extreme in order to
reinforce a very general point- the number of obvious props
used is inversely proportional to the performer's credibility.
I use props (the MOABT, for example) but they are always
secondary to the overall illusion that I try to create.
Glad to hear you stopped using the chicken! But now what will
be your excuse when your act lays an egg?
Report to moderator Logged
Bob Cassidy
PEA Dunninger Award 2011
PEA Dave Lederman Award 1996
The Resurrection of Doctor Crow
The (Almost) Complete Works of Bob Cassidy
Joe Leo
● Member
●
● Posts: 9
●
● Misfit Mentalist
○
○
○
○
Re: Minimalism
«
Reply #3 on:
February 26, 2012, 08:18:28 PM »
● Quote
I'd like to thank David for giving up the Invisible Psychic
Chicken routine, it makes my flying zombie monkeys nervous.
Now, to the point...
I lean toward the minimalist side in my mentalism. I went
through the years as a magician carefully packing my van with
every item in its place and if one box went in wrong, something
else would end up on my lap for the drive home. I don't have a
van any more and I'm not looking for another. When I'm in
NYC, traveling by taxi or subway, my full length mentalism
show fits in a backpack and there's still room for my laptop and
a bag of cheetohs. The biggest thing I may add is a 3'
whiteboard but the smaller size is often fine for most venues.
I'm a stage director and a fan of Chekhov who once said,
"Keptin, they put creatures in our ears." I've also become an
adherent of playwright
Anton
Chekhov who wrote, "If in the
first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the
following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there."
Everything that I put on stage needs to have a reason to be
there. These days, I don't like to be tethered to a lot of props
and enjoy walking out into the house when possible. I hesitate
to perform a routine if it requires a prop that I can't use
organically in other effects.
Point in case, I hemmed and hawed about adding a wineglass
to hold a stack of billet envelopes for one effect that I loved
until I recently started performing another routine where the
glass could also be used to display a deck of cards. If I use a
small whiteboard to make lists, I'm sure to use it several times
for other things so that it becomes a tool more than a magical
prop. I prefer a pair of bar stools from the venue to even the
simplest magician's table that I would have to carry but, more
importantly', screams secrets.
Unfortunately, my Bizarre show is growing significantly in props
and boxes, but that's more about setting the scene than
exploring the powers of the mind. Just my .02 worth.
Report to moderator Logged
All entertainers can benefit from the help of an experienced
stage director. And a monkey.
Bob Cassidy
● Workshop Leader
● Administrator
● Sr. Member
●
● Posts: 8377
●
○
○
Re: Minimalism
«
Reply #4 on:
February 27, 2012, 07:40:31 AM »
● Quote
Good point about the use of tables. While I have, on occasion,
used a laptop stand (that looks like a music stand with a flat
top), I use few enough props that I can easily get away with
using one or two bar stools or a small regular table taken from
the floor of the club.
Even in stage work I use this minimalist approach, but am able,
through lighting, to nonetheless create some pretty dramatic
looking bits.
Now that I think of it, I will work on a piece about lighting for
the "Stagecraft" section.
Good thoughts,
Bob
Report to moderator Logged
Bob Cassidy
PEA Dunninger Award 2011
PEA Dave Lederman Award 1996
The Resurrection of Doctor Crow
The (Almost) Complete Works of Bob Cassidy
David Sacks
● Journal 2011
● Member
●
● Posts: 22
○
○
○
Re: Minimalism
«
Reply #5 on:
March 11, 2012, 02:14:11 PM »
● Quote
I for one like minimalism. Even in my pre-mentalism days
when I was basically a close-up magician, I used coins and
cards. A ring now and then, but always had that with me (or
easy to acquire). Very few props and nothing taht was unusual
as such...everyday things.
Now a days, I really like keeping things to a minimum as well.
Plus, as Bob says above, too many props just take away from
the overall schema of things. I do have a pendulum, papers
(eg billets), other minimal things, and my imagination. (Things
that I can carry easily.) I don't do shows as such...at least not
yet.
However, that all said, I do believe that is a place for props
(and yes, I know, I'm basically repeating the above ideas) as
long as the presentation deals well with them. They should
not be the center of attention; rather, they are they to help
make a point (hopefully that makes sense). For example,
Bob's 'A Rat in the Desert' (the dowsing of water/pendulum
effect - nice effect by the way). These props are there for the
effect; the effect is not the props.
So, is minimalism no props, minimum props? I believe that it
is a balance between both....
Just my 2 cents
David
Report to moderator Logged
It Is Never Too Late To Be What You Might Have Been
-George Eliot
Craig Browning
● V.I.P.
● Member
●
● Posts: 710
●
○
○
○
○
Re: Minimalism
«
Reply #6 on:
April 15, 2012, 11:48:30 AM »
● Quote
Most of my show inventory consist of billets, a basket, box of
golf pencils, two sharpies and two larger artist pads and a
special knife prop (Jermay's "Dangerous Opener") . . . if there's
a deck of cards around it's for TOD (as an encore) and
depending on the situation I may have things for a Book Test,
which it typically INSIGHT or my Blindfold material . . . like I
said, it fits in one shoulder bag. And to clarify, this is my floor
show or small stage program. My parlor shows (Home Parties)
rarely have much more than some billets and pencils, all of
which I can carry in my clothing. This is very deliberate in that
I rely on everything I do to feel "genuine" . . . not in the
boogieman sense but in the experiential sense of things what I
do must support my claim -- that anyone can develop this very
natural sense of "awareness" with but a bit of discipline, daily
practice, et al.
If my theme is "Intuition" then why do I need to carry around a
bunch of stuff? More so, why do I need to present material
that seems to bounce all over the place -- that's overly
complicated due to the effect having a multitude of steps or
procedures. This goes to another old saying, "
What would this
look like if a real Psychic/Mind Reader were doing it?"
My views get me in trouble because I don't believe such a
person would be overly reliant on playing cards, nor would they
have the audacity of having you write something down and put
it into their own wallet for safe keeping, an action that oozes
with reason for suspicion. Some would accuse me of running
when not being chased, but I can't help feeling that this is a
magician thinking like a magician. For me, borrowing a wallet
from an audience member makes far better sense and it flows
with the minimalist idea. . . I'm not introducing a "prop" in the
audience mind, but borrowing an item so as to make things
fair.
. . . not to mention the fact that it throws the magic lovers off
your trail in a New York minute.
When it comes to a Roulette type sequence, why would I want
to use something that's not "natural"?
The knife, nail & broken glass shtick has been ruined for us
thanks to our magic cousins but for entertainment's sake there
are a few dozen other such bits that are, in my experience,
even more impressive such as Roni Shachney's GRAFFITI and a
bit I can't recall the name of; I got it out of SYZYGY and
basically one smashes a series of lunch sacks, on of which has
a borrowed Rolex (or similar) watch. . . both bits get a great
laugh, which makes them awesome show closers btw. but at
that there's even more that pack in a brief case and still play
big; Rick Maue's TERESABOS and I believe it's called "Then
There Were Three" are both excellent options.
My point being, if we think things through a bit we can find
ways to adjust the material we do so as to put the act on a
diet.
BTW Bob,
there is one very successful Mentalist that does play
the piano and tells loads of really bad jokes. . . I think he's
Liberace's long lost brother George