talkmagic.co.uk

I'll check out expert card technique, but, I still stand by the idea that it is virtually impossible to view a magic show exactly the same way as a layman.

For you perhaps. Not for me though.

It isn't that difficult if you put some thought into it and psyche yourself up a bit. There are certain things that laymen like in magic such as direct effects, cards that change, magic in the spectators hands etc;

You MUST see things from the spectator's point of view. It is one of the most important aspects and secrets of being a great magician.

Subsequent posts removed courtesy of the words 'EEE' and 'NUFFF'.

I have a certain amount of sympathy with Mark Lewis when it comes to Nelms - I think the book is let down by his choice of tricks and presentation which don't really back up his strong theoretical thesis. Having said that I think he makes some very valid points and it's certainly good to have a 'theatrical' view of magic.

Personally I like books such as Nelms where I might disagree with their point of view. At least it makes you think why you disagree and that can only be beneficial to your magic.

I will have another look at this awful book to see if I have changed my mind. I haven't looked at it for 40 years and I swore I never would again.

The fellow who wrote it admitted to Henry Hay that he never did any magic shows. I prefer my tutor to have had some experience in the things he is supposed to be teaching me. Otherwise it is just the blind leading the blind.

When the student knows more than the teacher there is something wrong somewhere.

Here are some sources for learning showmanship and presentation. And in every case the authors have actually done a fair bit of performing.

Our Magic (Maskelyne and Devant-the theory was written by Maskeyne)
Showmanship and Presentation (Edward Maurice)
Strong Magic (Darwin Ortiz)

In the end however you are best to learn from your own experience. Something that Henning Nelms never did.

As for disagreeing with the author that is all very well for someone who knows what they are doing. But if they know what they are doing they don't need the damn book in the first place. I prefer my authors to know what they are talking about and not give bad advice. I shouldn't have to be put in the position of wondering if the teacher is right. Beginners read these books and can be led in the wrong direction.

I think it may well have happened with some of the members here.

mark lewis wrote:In the end however you are best to learn from your own experience.

Which can be the harshest way of learning but lessons learned that way are never forgotten.

Ian Keable wrote:At least it makes you think why you disagree and that can only be beneficial to your magic.

Welcome to TM Ian!

It has been a long time since I've read this book. I have to say I liked it. It looks good on the book shelf. And it cured a light case of insomnia. As for content I really didn't find it great, and that is stricktly a personal opinion.

Theory is nice and makes for interesting conversation amoung magicians but one would be better of spending thier hard earned cash on some acting classes.

I am delighted to inform the multitude that I have just come across a comment by distinguished professional magician Geoffrey Durham that the rather awful Nelms book is "sterile and unhelpful".

It appears that I was right all along. Of course I always am.

This book I thought was beautiful. He might not have been a magician, but he was a performer.

Magic remember is not about the fanciest sleights nor the craziest and most daring tricks you can pull-off. It is an art. I wish I remember more of the book, for it was quite a while ago that i read it. Magic and Showmanship was not a book for magicians in ill-fitting tuxedos forcing unwitting spectators to pick cards and be challenged to find the vanished coin. Henning Nelms wanted magic to be that of a theatrical art.

Henning did not concern himself with magic, per se. But he focused on what it takes to be a better orator, actor, and performer. What other books give you tips on character development, body movement, speech, and stage direction. Mr. Nelms came and was trained in theatre, held magic as a hobby and contributed the best of both worlds in this book.

When I first became interested in magic (before my transformation into mentalism and allied arts) I was recomended this book by the folks at my local magic shop. I looked at him with childish wonder, and asked what the best trick would be in the book.

The man looked down at me and laughed, saying "Son, magic isn't about complicated sleights and technical apparatus, true magic is what you, the magician make it."

I didn't quite know what he meant, but after reading Magic and Showmanship, i did.

You can't go around as magicians calling performance and showmanship, theory. It just shows how lazy you are as magicians. Why in the good world, would you waste your time pulling off petty finger-flipping tricks when you could be performing miracles. Are you saying that showmanship is hocus pocus, because you are sadly mistaken, otherwise my whole career as an actor would be down the drain. Learning how to speak, move, and create stories is priceless when it comes down to that knowledge and simple magic.

One qoute I would like to share, "The greatest magician, is the one who can sit around and convince the world of his power, without ever performing a thing."

It is a sad mistake to think that the audience knows what your doing. When in fact they could never tell one sleight from another. Stop peadling your time, learning what is billed as the latest and greatest, because heck, magic comes down to the same reveal every time. Ten thousand card tricks out there come down to the same ending everytime. There may be ten thousand different methods to each trick, but the audience dosent know that.

It takes a million magicians to perform the same "trick", it takes one wizard to make a miracle.

Sorry old chap. Despite the standard wisdom spouted by magicians about acting applied to magic I must tell you that theatrically trained actors are generally bloody awful magicians. I haven't seen a good one yet. The silly idiots think they are reciting Shakespeare instead of doing the cut and restored rope.

I can always tell theatrically trained actors when they perform a magic act. They are always overloud and artificial. They over present and they know as much about showmanship as they do about the art of breeding Japanese butterflies.

As for mentalists who have studied theatre they are always the worst. They become over dramatic and kid themselves that they can actually read minds. Too much of that Stanislavsky chap I suppose. It comes out as laughable and uttterly boring.

Once they start chattering about "wonder" and "believing in miracles" I know that they have no idea what the hell they are doing and they should take their acting training back to drama school and keep out of magic altogether.

Some of the most horrendous performances of mentalism I have ever seen was famed actor Orson Welles on television. He should have stuck to Citizen Kane.

Unfortunatley, I assume you have no idea what your talking about Mark Lewis. Dunninger, Anneman, and some modernns like Banacheck and Gerry Mccambridge are trained in acting and theatre otherwise they would fail as performers. I have no idea where you recieved the idea that Magicians who used showmanship were "God-Awful", otherwise the greatest magicians of our time would of been just another charaltans pedaling cheap "tricks".

And just because a magician or mentalist studied acting does not make them horrible at magic. How in the world did you come up with that idea. If anything they would be better.

Let me ask you a question...Do you perform for people? Non-Magicians?

Because the common audience has no idea what the hell a hindu-shuffle or false pass is. They are here to see a magic "performance". Not a technical display of ledgermain. I have made my living as an actor for my life. I have also studied magic and mentalism for the better 3/4ths of my life. Being the top consulted psychic reader and performer, is not an easy thing to acheive. So I hope that because I am a method actor, that dosent mean I am a sloppy mentalist...Because first of all, you have never seen my mentalism, second you have never seen me act. But enough about me, for you have never made my acquaintance nor me yours. What I display may just be clever sleight of hand and a head full of pop psychology, but to my audience I posses a power far greater than that of a regular human.

If you take out your histories of magic, tell me one magician who said "Screw Showmanship, I can do it on my own!" Well the magicians who did say that, are the ones not in the book, for they failed as showmans. Thus failed at performing.

I am going to have to assume, that your remarks were made because of your disgruntled attempt to put-down the magicians who have trained to become wonderful showmans who can entrance their audiences. Whilst you have sat at home with your petty gimmicks, going out to the pub performing with your trick coins and recieivng that same reaction of..."How did you do that, Its in your hands, Its because hes a trickster, etc..."

Yes I agree, magicians and mentalist should not perform shakespeare, otherwise they could never relate to their audience. Nor could the stoic void of personality performing extreme card manipulation.

You may of had the unpleasent situation of watching the over-the-top clown whom makes his living perofrming the same tricks in a cheap rented suit at childrens birthday bashes. That is not an actor nor a showman. It is not the point of Henning Nelms' book either.

Also, who are you to scoff at Stanislavski...One of the greatest acting teachers of all time, who is still being studied today. Whom some of the highest paid and most beloved actors use his method. Obviously your criticism steams from your inability to act. So in no way are you at liberty to downgrade a masters work when, you, have never studied nor even thought deeply about the methods.

You also scorn magicians who talk about wonder and miracles. Well if you would kindly take the time to study the history of you craft maybe you would realise that the work of a magician steams from that of temple priests and shamans who worked diligently to please the pharaohs, chiefs, and gods. Tricks were never in the vocabulary of our ancient ancestors. Miracles was the work of a magician. David Blaine, Criss Angel, and Uri Gellar. Three of the most recognized names outside of the inner magic ring, believe in what they do. If it was not for their ability to believe that their magic could convince their audiences of supernatural powes, or abilities that the average human could not learn, they would not be so highly televised as they already are. You may say that their magic and technical skill is far from perfect, but because their showmanship is so great, they are making the big bucks, even from their failures. They are the great magicians.

Analogy:

There are many sixteen-year-old metal-heads on the planet who have gained a stupendous level of expertise with the electric guitar.

They can do amazing things with the guitar at lighting speed and never hit a duff note.

Although I don't think they've ever bothered to learn any actual tunes.

If you look at their record collections, you'll probably find loads of stuff by 'guitar heroes', whose work is all technique and no bite. This is stuff that young guitarists drool over, but does absolutely nothing to engage the wider public.

Without thinking about why we do what we do and what our audience will untimately get out of it, we're no different to the current generation of bedroom guitarists.

"Did you see what I did? Did you? No, of course you didn't - it was the pass!"

I bought a lecture DVD from Paul Daniels, in which he argued that magicians are the worst people to judge the work of magicians. This is, he argues, because they look at magic from a skewed perspective. Final appraisal of good or bad should be given to non-magicians, who can easily state whether they were entertained or not. I have to agree.

I found the Nelms book interesting. And useful in that it got me thinking about the performance side of my magic.

It shouldn't be taken as gospel, but then no book should.

As for Mark's comments that all magicians and mentalists with drama training are bad performers, I'd probably argue that the examples he has in mind were either hammy actors to begin with, or they hadn't fully worked out how to apply their skills to something like magic. I suspect that there are a lot of very talented actors that have performed magic for Mark and slipped under his radar by getting the mix right.

And it's also important to remember that acting training doesn't make one a writer or director, and these are all disciplines that the magician hits upon when putting their own performances together.

Knowing what the trick is about and why you're doing it is, to my mind, infinitely more important than knowing how to use your voice and body for dramatic effect. But these concepts, too, are addressed by Nelms. It's like the guitarist learning to write catchy tunes in preference to practicing their shredding...

So... yes, Nelms wasn't an experienced magician, but that could possibly make him better qualified to comment on the performance of magic.

It's also important to stress that books like this should be used to get you thinking around the subject and addressing their own take on magic. Take it as gospel, and you will tie yourself in hammy knots. Let the ideas percolate in your brain, extraplolate the ideas that excite you and reject the ones that don't. It can only help.

If I were to write a book on the performance of magic, it would centre around one single question: why should my audience care about any of this?

I'm sure there are more experienced magicians than me that would take issue with that, too...

I must inform this rather innocent seer chappie that he is in the presence of one of the greatest magical showmen the word has ever known. Me.

Dunninger NEVER took acting classes in his life. I am well versed in magical history and happen to know this. Besides in my capacity as a psychic reverend I have been in touch with him in the spirit world and he confirms the matter for me.

Maurice Fogel was the greatest British mentalist of all time and he didn't take acting classes either. I knew Maurice and am quite sure this was the case.

As for Banacek and the other incompetents mentioned they are bloody awful performers. Anneman couldn't make a living and was a bag of nerves suffering from stagefright all the time. His acting training didn't do him much bloody good. Banacek hums and ha's all the time on stage so he is bloody awful too. And Gerry Mc'Cambridge although not bad ain't that good either.

Now this seer chappie asks if I perform for non-magicians. I have been doing so for the last 50 years and virtually NEVER perform for magicians. I ONLY perform for laymen and I am rather good at it. I thank God every day that I never took drama lessons otherwise I would be as c*** (not the best) as everyone else.

I am quite sure that Uri Geller, and David Blaine didn't take acting lessons. Possibly that scruffy Criss Angel did because he is perfectly dreadful. I hope they don't teach people to swear in drama school in the way that Criss Angel does. Which reminds me. I once saw a dreadful acting coach called Blum give sessions at a magic marketing convention. All the stupid magicians there were raving about him but I walked out of the room because of his dreadful profanity and the fact that I, as one of the greatest magical showmen of all time, could tell he was talking c*** (not the best).

And then he appeared himself on the gala show. As I suspected he was bloody terrible.

A magician SHOULD be a good actor. I didn't say he shouldn't. What I did say is that he shouldn't take formal training. It will stilt him and make him LESS of a showman. Drama and being a magician are two different art forms. Being expert in one doesn't necessarily mean that you are going to be successful in the other. In fact I would argue that it could be detrimental to your success.

I do not require lessons in showmanship from this young whippersnapper "seer" who even if he isn't a young whippersnapper seems to think like one.

I am MARK LEWIS and by mere dint of such my very words are obviously gospel on these matters. I am a showman supreme as evidenced by the fact that everyone that is reading this is hanging on my every word.

It seems that this Seer person is guilty of what he claims I am. He says I do not know anything about him. Yet he seems to know nothing about me. I have no idea why he thinks that I use trick coins or gimmicks. And as a psychic reverend and man of the cloth I certainly do not inhabit such dens of depravity known as "pubs". I am insulted that this chappie has implied that I partake of the devil's buttermilk.

He has been bragging on this forum that he is a "top psychic consultant and performer" I must reprimand him for his dreadful conceit. A little more modesty would be more becoming. I would be happy to act as a role model for him in this regard.

I can assure him that I am well versed in psychic reading. Acting skills are the worst possible attributes to bring to a reading. Compassion, sincerity and genuine psychic ability will do you a hell of a lot more good that pretending that you are a real psychic just because you went to acting classes. Channeling Stanislavsky isn't what you are supposed to be doing when reading people. You should be concentrating on them not on yourself. When you do a reading you are not putting on a show. You are merely conveying information.

Seer acccuses me of not knowing anything about magic history and yet I expect that I know more about it than he does. In fact I rather expect to be a historic figure myself.

I must say he is very honoured to be in my presence. However I do hope he tries to improve himself in the presence of superior knowledge. And as a first step he should burn the Henning Nelms book.

Mark Lewis, this will hopefully be my last post on this thread for I am completley done with this meaninglless banter of ego-trips.
I find it very odd, that you accuse me of dreadful conceit, when in fact you have proven to everyone that you are the worst egotistical "chappie" out there. Who promotes themselves as the Greatest showman out there, and think that I am honoured to be in your presence, quite the contrary.

You accuse me, of not knowing you...Well I do, JREF has a thread about you and your failed predictions, I am assuming that dosent make you a great psychic, nor showman.

I would feel quite horrible if this is playful banter, but I feel the intensity in your words so I will continue.

I liked your opinion that acting should never be part of a reading. Thats fine, many people have different opinions on readings, and I agree there is not one set way to do them. But when you do read, slipping into trances, contacting otherworldy sources, and that deep train tunnel vision psychics get, are all acting. I have a character when doing readings, performing (which I have had to stop, to focus on readings among other things) and talking to people on the street. I am the Seer, not me. I still may go by the name, but my personality is void and the character of the Seer come into play. I would never be able to do this without my proper acting instruction.

Let me ask you something...You said that acting and magic are two different art forms right? You did say it is necessary for a magician to be a good actor?

Well would you ever put an inexpierenced actor on West End stage, or would yo ever put a magician who couldnt do magic in the Magic Castle. No it is necessary to learn your craft fully in order to better convey your abilities. Yet you insist that a magician must be a good actor, well how the hell do you expect an magician to be a good actor, if he has never been taught. How the hell do you expect a four-year old to do math, if he has never been taught. So I would never expect you to be a good actor if you have never been taught the proper methods. Just like any other art forms, it must be learned. I agree there are many talented natural actors out there, but they still take the time to learn the basics of their craft.

You listed plenty of mentalists and magicians who have not taken acting classes. You may be right, but I am sure that they were never as stupid as to say they are above the basics of theatre. Magic is a theatrical art, no matter how differently you want to say it is, magic is rooted in theatre and of course the occult. You may say that Criss Angel and Banacheck and David Blaine are god-awful. But I laugh at the fact that they are the modern master magicians to the rest of the world. Do you not understand that they for some reason have risen to the top of the food chain of magic and are now recognized by the community outside of the magical fraternity. I had personally never heard of you, before this arguement. And I am sure you have never heard of me. You will have a hard time trying to find me, I work hard to keep a shady, mysterious, and hermit-like profile, otherwise my persona, character, and psychic entertainment would fail. That is my acting, my showmanship, and acting. I have split my two world of social life, and psychic life so the two may never meet. (acting), I never aspire to be a gaudy and flamboyant magician or stageman, just that mysterious town soothsayer. I can say I have achieved my goal.

But I have studied acting, I have made my living as a theatre actor, so in this case of Showmanship, I am the expert here. I have studied acting stagemanship, showmanship for my life. I wouldnt be so feverntly protecting the importance of acting, if i hadnt. Now have you taken acting lessons, studied theatre, and learned the importance of learning technical and applied theatre? I dont know, but if you havent that surely does not make you the superior being here.

And even if you were the superior being in this case, how closed minded and blind of you, to advise you "student" to through away magic knowledge just to please the ego of the teacher. I am going to end my posting on this thread, for I believe it will only go around in circles.

This is a very odd chappie. For someone who keeps a "hermit like profile"
he chatters rather a lot. And he appears to be very confused. First he says he has never heard of me and then in the same breath he says that I am terribly famous on the JREF forum.

For those innocent people on here who do not know what the JREF forum is it consists of acne ridden teenage hooligans who are fans of Randi and who chatter in great measure about psychic matters. Anyone who goes to visit that forum will see that it is populated by the mentally ill and full of unbelievers.

I must investigate this seer chappie who keeps telling us he is very famous but wishes to remain anonymous. All I have found out so far is that he has a foreign sounding name. I do hope he is not a foreign chap from some ghastly place like Iceland or Bangladesh.

I am going to investigate his website and report back. In the meantime he can investigate mine and he will see instantly how famous and worthy a person I am. I do not know how to affix signatures to my posts because I am very aged and understand technology as much as this seer chaps understands showmanship which he clearly doesn't.

Anyway here it is. www.marklewisentertainment.com

I shall be back shortly to report on the matter.