Pre-show

Scott Drebus

In another topic, you stated:

“I personally do not like long routines ... However, I think the strongest pieces of mentalism one can see performed are the simple direct examples ... It is the simple direct items that people remember.

I like to think when people go home after seeing my show they can describe each element of my show. "He had three people stand, think of cards and told them via their body language exactly what cards they were thinking of. He told a lady her social security number and another her birth date.”

In order to get this simplicity and directness of effect, how much of your work is pre-show? What are your thoughts on the pros and cons of doing pre-show word? Any sources you would recommend on learning more about pre-show work?

Banachek

I have one item that I use in my shows that is pre-show. I used to perform my Q&A that way, non-clipped but still pre-show. No longer. Only because it is a pain in the butt to set things up ahead of time.

Those that saw me lecture in the U.K at the Asylum and the Circle saw me talk briefly about how to present pre-show. The Key is not to act like you are hiding anything or changing anything to the person you are pre-showing when it comes time for the reveal in the show. However, for me to state "prior to the show I spoke to so and so" is the kiss of death only because you are now asking the audience to take your work no hanky panky was going on. It matters not if you ask the other person to agree with your statements.

I go into depth on this in the new PS2 and would love to discuss more here but this is a fairly open board and feel a little uncomfortable doing so.

Hope you understand.

I think Mark Strivings has a book called "Before the curtain rises" I think it is Mark. I have not read the book so can't vouch for it but I am sure it has some good pointers. Correct me if I am wrong on the author please (anyone). It might be John Riggs. I do know the title is right.

Huw Collingbourne

Not that I wish to pressurize you but I should, of course, point out that you would be always very welcomed to visit the Secret Area of Magic Bunny.

Daymo

Yup, it is indeed by Mark Strivings.

Banachek

Thanks I thought it belonged to my Pal Strivings. I do know Riggs has some writings on it as well, hence the slight confusion.

Exposure and Osterlind

Happy Toad

Firstly may I say it's a great privilege to have you on the board.

Now a question that has caused a few heated debates on this board has concerned exposure of mentalism. However just recently this has been debated not reference the more normal TV or Internet type exposure, but some have complained at the likes of the Osterlind DVD set.

The argument summed up appears to be that DVDs like these make the secrets of mentalism too easily accessible. Do you have any firm views on the subject?

For the record I personally don't agree and love the opportunity to learn from this type of format and with such quality teachers.

Huw Collingbourne

For easy reference, that discussion can be found using the search function on these forums.

Banachek

I am well aware of the argument, Richard is a good friend, I have others on the other side of the argument as well. I fully understand the feelings of those who feel it is a bad thing. I am not sure what the answer is.

I think what he has on the DVD's is already readily available. He just shows how to perform it, or more that it can be performed.

Our business is a roller coaster ride. In a few years Illusions or close up or maybe even mime (just kidding) will be the new fad.

I don't think people should be pointing their finger at Osterlind (just my opinion) but they should be pointing at those who just can't get enough tricks. Knowledge just for the sake of knowing how it is done is not the way to support mentalism. A teaching tool (to me) is not a bad thing, but needs to be used wisely.

The other thing that people seem to be upset about with this series is the fact that a lot of the material belongs to others like Anneman, his contributors and Corinda and his. This is true but most of this stuff is in the public magic domain, just like so much is derivative of Tarbel (you might be amazed at how much). I am sure people had the same problem with Tarbel, Corinda and Anneman when they came out for much the same reasons as Richard. People had a problem with the Ammar tapes and other teaching tapes for the amount of easy access information. I suspect most who get these will forget them much like the exposures of the magic on the Masked Magician shows or the Becker shows. The knowledge will sift through their minds. Those who get something from them will probably be those who entertain and make money.

Too many mentalists forget and want to hide their magic backgrounds. I understand why, but don't think it right (again, just my opinion and maybe I have said too much.)

I hope I have not insulted anyone with my answers but I was asked the question and have been as frank as I can be here. I have much more to say on this but this is good for now as I just arrived home 2 minutes ago.

Gary Scott

Its just a personal belief of mine that mentalism can be classed as the last 'true' magic. All because of one thing. The enormous ' emotional' impact it has on the spectators.

The new ' Osterlind' series is not about Osterlind. The whole project could have been taken upon by another performer.

Its just seems to be a bit unfair to mentalism that everything has suddenly become available on a little round disc.

I can see people treating the whole DVD scene of mentalism with the same attitude towards magic.

" Right... I am learning tricks instead of the art!"

The difference is that mentalism should not be treated as such, as in tricks. It is so much more than that and I feel the producers of the latest Osterlind DVD series are just exploiting the current phase of in vogue mentalism. Maybe it's just me, but in mentalism...there is nothing EASY TO MASTER.

Ty Dailey

It's not just you, Gary.

mcdotty

I have read most of the Osterlind effects years ago but never got round to doing much mentalism...Having watched his DVD's along with Banachek's has given me a new lease of life. I don't think this is a bad thing. My grandkids love the new Magic granddad, who can now find out things in an interesting and exciting way. To me it makes for better entertainment, and lets face it, that's what it's all about

Happy Toad

Thanks for your considered opinion.

I think it's a shame that such useful teaching tools are considered exposure by some. I suppose it's always going to be a thorny issue to decide exactly where the line is drawn.

It's interesting that the people that complain about these DVDs don't seem so concerned about the regular magic DVDs.

Huw Collingbourne

I don't want to stifle debate, folks, but remember that we already have a discussion on this topic on these boards It would probably be better to carry on the debate in that thread, leaving this thread for Banachek's comments.

Banachek

I agree, it does in some way appear to cheapen our art, however I am not sure it will hurt our art in the long run. I suspect as a result of this work we will see a few incredible performers get their start that we will all look up to. If Richard was to put these out one at t a time (each effect on the DVD) I suspect that man would not be as upset yet it would be the same thing.

It is the performer who will make it look like a bag of tricks or take it to the next level and present the effect in such a way as to make it look real.

How often have you seen a non-magician perform an effect, a simple effect, but in such a way as to blow you away. An effect you know the method of, yet he does it in such a way as to really blow all there who see it away. I have seen this. Usually it is the only trick the person knows and hence he puts all his heart and soul into it. This is what I mean by the performer either devaluing it to a trick or a miracle.

I am not sure what the answer is. I do think there is more fuss about this than meets the eye. Just like the exposure shows. I hated them but kept my mouth shut, I knew that more exposure and talk about them would promote them and it did.

Not comparing Richards's recent work in any way with this. These are two different birds. One is teaching the other is exposure to the masses.

I also suspect that many of those who complain about these DVD's will be performing some of these effects as a result of seeing Richard performing them. This is a little hypocritical if you ask me. And if one does this then they need to rethink the value of the DVD's.

I have a feeling that there are some very strong personal reactions to these DVD's and as a result I suspect this will be my last post on this, simply because I don't know what the real answer is, time will tell and I fully understand both sides of the issue. It truly is a catch-22.

A Difficult Question?

Gary Scott

This is my farewell question and it may be difficult to answer!

It is also difficult to put into words, so I hope I convey this properly!

How would you, personally, define the difference between a mentalism effect and a magic effect on how they affect an audience?

Banachek

Hmm, a very hard question to ponder. I have been amazed at the quality of thought provoking questions we have had here compared to other boards I have been on.

I would suspect a really good magic effect; trick or what have you is perceived as the same as a good mentalism effect and just as mind numbing. It is amazing how many people asked over the years, how did Copperfield predict peoples thoughts (graffiti wall) or even the more ludicrous appearing question of "Did he really make the statue of liberty disappear?" Look at David Blaine, he performs magic tricks yet many think or thought he was the real genuine thing, that he did real magic. And that is the key I think, real magic vs. a magic trick. This again all goes back to presentation or lack of it in many instances. It goes back to K I S S A T I T . Meaning, Keep It Simple, Stupid And Think It Through.

I think "Real Magic" Affects the audience the same as a mentalism effect. It is why we have the term, mental magic, to cover those effects that just don't look quite real.

It is another reason why I don't think mentalists should shun or hide their magic background. If it was good magic and looked like "Real Magic" they should be proud of it. Magic has many different meanings to many different people. To some religious it means evil. However really magic did not take the name "magic" (trick magic that is as we do it) till not so long ago in the terms of history of what we do. Prior we were known as Jugglers.

Not sure I really answered this question, as it is a very slippery one and personal. My problem with personal answers is I try to see things from many different sides. Doing that enables me to make personal decisions about where I stand from my own ethical standpoint. It also enables me to open many other ideas that would not be available if I was just to shut a door and not look at something from another point of view once in a while. For instance, I have come up with many things that would benefit readers although I would never do a reading per say. Yet the exercise has always been enlightening.

Dangerous Mentalism?

MagicEd

Hello again Banachek!

I hope you have a great Thanksgiving weekend!

Mentalism seems to be the "New Black" and I for one (with my chequebook!) have done my bit to help this along. It has become my area of preferred focus.

Many magicians perform "dangerous" magic as you have. Maybe not everyone is willing to be buried alive, but there are a plethora of "Russian Roulette" type effects out there as well as "Bullet Catch" variations (from comic to full-on). There has always been real appeal in the challenge effect where peril is but a hairs breadth away.

Are there any effects in terms of mentalism that you feel mirror this dramatic vehicle? Is there peril in mind magic?

Banachek

Actually Russian Roulette started in the mentalism arena. Fogel had his Russian Roulette, there were a plethora of acid monties (Kayes handbook of mental magic had a version), I was the first to perform a Russian roulette with knives (also did a gun version and a acid version in the same show by the way). Fogel also had the Cheating the Gallows done in a mental show context. So really, as I see it, the Russian Roulette them was a mental effect prior to the magic world adopting it.

This takes us back to some of the other questions about the ease and availability of magicians to access mental effects now and the diluting of mental effects in the magic market place. This is the fear that some mentalists have, that mental effects will now become known and associated with straight magic. Say "magician" and sadly people think immediately 'kid show magician with a rabbit, hat and tails', (not that there is not a place for this and not to belittle those who do kid shows for a living. There is nothing wrong with this but magic can be so much more as well.)

Anyway, prior to my usual tangent, to answer your question above and below, yes, it started in my mind with mentalism.

You asked; "Are there any effects in terms of mentalism that you feel mirror this dramatic vehicle? Is there peril in mind magic?"

Sinogeek

Hi again Banachek,

When I was in High School I was one of Dr. Sean O' Donnell's subjects for his research and experimentation in what he refers to as 'Future Memory', or quite literally the ability to 'remember' the future.

He would have me sit isolated in a room and try to predict the outcome of a Red or Black possibility time and time again. He believed that it is a skill which can be 'trained' and something that we humans are losing as we live in a desensitised world where we have to rely less and less on our intuitive skills.

Amazingly, at the beginning, the results averaged only 44% correct as opposed to the expected around 50%, yet after 'practice' myself and another subject were regularly recording successes of 75% and over!

I just wondered what, if any, still unproven supposedly 'genuine' psychic phenomena intrigue you?

Kind Regards, and thanks for a very entertaining and informative visit.

Banachek

It definitely intrigues me.

Years ago, some parapsychologists used to state that the reason that there is no documented evidence of ESP under control conditions was because of the psychic abilities of sceptics. In other words the fact that they did not believe caused their "powers" to go back in time and negate the results. "Their scepticism was just so strong."

There was even a name for the supposed phenomenon but I can't recall it at the moment. It probably in one of the parapsychology dictionaries.

But back to the documentation that does exist, I would love to hear more about it. How many rounds did they perform? Odds dictate there will be some abnormalities as a result when one finds something positive, heavy future experimentation should definitely be performed to make sure it was or is not just the odds working in the favor of PSI and that it is indeed the genuine thing. Did they do further testing? If so, I would love to hear about it. I am also intrigued by the fact the hypothesis was it would get better with training and it appeared to do just that.

Sinogeek

If you scroll to the bottom of this page, there is a little more info on Dr. O' Donnell's work.

http://www.p-I-a.com/Magazine/Issue3/Applications_3.htm

I hope it helps.

I am no cynic when it comes to this ability. I've seen and experienced it at first hand.

The most difficult aspect however is that the parameters and conditions for successful results are so tight.

Predicting with nothing at stake (I.e. NOT in a casino) can be learned (relearned) reasonably quickly, but when you have 'something to lose', e.g. Money, then the psychological pressure of that fudges up the results easily.

Once again, thanks for a great visit. I hope you can come back and do it all again sometime.

Good luck with all of your future ventures and endeavours,