talkmagic.co.uk

I've got quite a few unsolved questions regarding this issue so I thought it would be a good idea (after a few beers) to get down my thoughts and ideas on the subject of Mentalism vs Mental Magic.

A lot of people regard Derren Brown as a mentalist, yet a lot of his material works with classic magicians techniques. In the last series he performed a few card effects which were nothing more than card tricks, wrapped up in a mentalist vein. Does this mean he is a mentalist or a mentalist style magician?
I became quickly disheartened with card magic after some disappointing reactions to some classic card tricks. Responses like 'so when did you stick that card there?' and 'wow, you're very clever' made me sad, and I felt the whole experience was nothing more than a dodgy uncle showing off crappy card tricks he learnt in the army.
So I decided to change my approach, and deal with effects that seemed to require no sleight of hand at all. I've talked about this before and as such won't go into it again. The point is; when does a mental magic effect become mentalism?
When there is no sleight of hand? Reading Jermay's '7 Deceptions' he uses double lifts etc, does this stop him being a mentalist? Or is it just that effect that is not mentalism? Mind you, the rest of the effect in question uses verbal skills to renders the participant unable to remember the card they had chosen. Maybe this is the material of the proper mentalist?

My current work has lead me to an effect which is as follows:

I start by explaining that nothing I do is psychic, rather I exploit common psychological aspects to present magical feats. I spread a shuffled deck out face up on the table while I talk about the idea of 'certainty' and 'gut intinct' and how this has more importance and relevance than so called 'psychic' abilities. I scoop up the deck and spread it out face down.
I tell them I want them to pick any card, except I want it to be the King of Spades. I ask them to hold their hand above the spread and to slowly sweep across the cards. After a couple of sweeps their hand comes to a stop and they are completely unable to move it. Leaving the hand where it is I take the 12 or so cards under their hand and assemble them into 2 rows.
Then with a touch the hand regains movement but the participants mind goes blank, unable to even remember their own name. I then tell them that their hand will be drawn to either of the two rows. Sure enough, after a minute or so of tense silence their hand eerily moves outside of their consciousness and points at one of the rows.
I dispose of the surplus cards and turn the participants hand palm up, with their first finger pointing out. I explain a Victorian concept of 'seeing with the fingertips' and how I will allow them to do this. I pass my hand in front of their eyes, closing them and start to hold the cards, one at a time, above their raised finger tip.
They experience something different about one of the 6 cards. I place it in the centre of the table and get rid of the rest. I then bring them out of the strange trance state, bringing back all normal senses. I then get them to turn over the final card, it is of course the King of Spades.

It sounds and appears impossible. And pompous. But it works well. It is a mixture of sure-fire conjouring techniques and some genuine psychological games, but is an incredibly visual effect.
However, there are a few comprimises to the method, a couple of sleight of hand techniques. But does this mean it is no longer mentalism? Is it the method or the effect that matters? If it is the effect then Derren is a good person to refer to. His effects are true mentalism, but his methods are more suspicious. If it is method then how many sleights does it take to render mentalism void, and brand it with the dirty hybrid title of mental magic?
Does a mentalism effect require absolutely no props or sleights? In which case it is a field open to very few, and achievable effects are even fewer. I don't know what the answer is, but would love to hear everyone elses view.

Apologies for such a ramble, but its an ongoing issue - especially in the current rise of mentalism. I look forward to your replies.

Mark

I'm no mentalist but that sure sounds like mentalism to me!

Personally I think that anything could be mentalism, as long as it's presented and handled right. Of course, some effects lend themselves to a 'mental' presentation more easily than others (try doing mentalism with spongeballs!) but if you can maintain your character while performing them then kudos to you.

The problem starts when one starts to undermine one's character by performing some effects with a mentalist-ey twist and then following them with a gambling routine. A lot of the power of mentalist is based on the presentation and if that is undermined then there's just a lot of nonsense about psychic abilities or whatever.

[/ramble]

Kati

i think that the lines can occasionally slip from one to another...

..maybe the answer is to not label anything at all?...and just enjoy performing and freaking out your audience...as long as you're consistent...

..i agree that it makes it harder on yourself to show something flourish-y and so on, and then slip into something a little more 'mental' can destroy the character you want to project if you're not careful....

..but if you use a 'rough and smooth' ESP deck for a mentalist effect, does that turn it into mental magic, or does it stay in the mentalism vein?

There's a book i read recently called Castle Dracula Mentalism that uses quite a few what can be descibed as 'magician' type set-ups, yet the whole delivery and attitude is (in my opinion) from a mentalism perspective...

...ahhhh opinions are like teeth, everyone has them at some point, even if they are second-hand...

..and as an aside - do the general public actually know what a mentalist is?

..i've heard the term used by people to describe someone (and i absolutely hate these words im about to type) who is wild and wacky...

...never as a magical term - magician is a one-size-fits-all word of choice it seems...

katrielalex wrote:Personally I think that anything could be mentalism, as long as it's presented and handled right.

Of course, some effects lend themselves to a 'mental' presentation more easily than others (try doing mentalism with spongeballs!)

I agree, but it is difficult to know whether it is the effect that is all important in distinguishing mentalism from mental magic. A lot of what Sankey does for example is mental magic; it is pure trickery wrapped up in a mind-reading style.
However, for anyone who has read the 'missing' chapters from Derren's Pure Effect will know that his incredibly direct mind reading is not all it appears. However, no one would deny it was mentalism. It's brilliant.
Maybe an effect that relies entirely on sleight of hand, regardless of the presentation, is mental magic?
As soon as something outside of props takes place, maybe that promotes it from mental magic and into mentalism? (Not to suggest one is better than the other, merely 'purer'!)

First off, how long have you actually been studying magic, let alone the "mentalism" side of it all? Not just Mark, all of you guys.

Derren Brown is a commercial performer that, like all the others, is running out of resources and material so he and his producers are slowly incorporating more and more "traditional" magic into the show so as to create a transition away from the psychic idea and more towards what people expect from a magician... if you look around you can see this in many other shows as well, including Kieth Barry's recent special.

Thanks to the past 8-10 year run of all the "I'm a Fake Psychic" type performers, the field of Mentalism has been seriously injured and thus, doing card tricks and calling it "Mentalism" is just one of the now accepted side effects of this disgrace. The selfishness of the magic world, the refusal of so many to actually learn how to properly do Mentalism and in so doing "retain" the mystery, has more or less given everyone permission to do Hippity Hop Bunnies and call it PK or worse, proof of spirit manifestation.

Bob Cassidy and numerous other SUCCESSFUL Mentalists have pointed out time and again that the single most successful psychic entertainers of the past never worried about all this disclaiming rhetoric and sold themselves as Clairvoyant, Telepathic, et al. Becuase they were "Entertainers" the "disclaimer" side of things was assumed and implied but never made an issue... that is, until the ugliness of the Skeptical Agenda came to the fore back in the 70s.

If you guys would stop listening to Derren Brown, Ian Rowland and James Randi for a month or two and read what's been said by Ron Martin, Richard Webster, Mark Strivings and Bob Cassidy you might just start understanding what Mentalism really is and free yourselves from this clap trap the skeptics and cynical have attempted to weave and the obvious confusion it is causing for some of you.

True mentalists aren't afraid of being seen as the real deal and have, for generations, walked that thin line between the world of the charalatan and that of the thespian. Our job is to preserve what Mentalism was and not allow it to be tainted and "destroyed" in the same way Magic has been hurt, via all the actions of proving it to be nothing but "a trick" (in address to the religionists of the era).

It's something to wiegh in your mind.

It seems to me that the only people who care are the performers. Do audiences? Not really. I do not think that you can let the method determine the effect. If you were to use sleight of hand, but if it were to be an unknown use, to bring about an effect that the audience perceive to a mentalism demonstration, then that is what it is. To quote an old saying, "Magic does not happen in the hands, it happens in the spectator's minds"; if they choose to interpret it as being mentalism, then surely that is what it is, irrespective of method?

Obviously the closer you can get to this without any props the better, but if the props are above suspicion then what does it matter? And Derren Brown wrote on this in his book Pure Effect, about ideally working with no props in hand.

And was it not Banachek who started to push the area of mentalism towards being more honest, and claiming psychological techniques?

To be honest, I'm starting to get a little confused on the situation; Craig, are you more dismayed at the use of tricks which are obviously tricks (the hippity hoppity rabbits, for example, really is too much of a stretch), or the debunking of psychic ability?

The truth is, there will always be people who believe in psychic phenomenon, and there will always be those who don't. I can't imagine many believers being changed by Derren Brown's performances; the believers dismiss them as tricks, the non-believers say "Yes! That's how they're done!". I think that scientific progress has more to do with the debunking of psychic phenomenon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentalism

I don't know. Those are my opinions. Could someone clarify please, for little old me?

Cardza wrote:It seems to me that the only people who care are the performers. Do audiences? Not really. I do not think that you can let the method determine the effect. If you were to use sleight of hand, but if it were to be an unknown use, to bring about an effect that the audience perceive to a mentalism demonstration, then that is what it is. To quote an old saying, "Magic does not happen in the hands, it happens in the spectator's minds"; if they choose to interpret it as being mentalism, then surely that is what it is, irrespective of method?

Amen to that.

Craig Browning wrote:First off, how long have you actually been studying magic, let alone the "mentalism" side of it all? Not just Mark, all of you guys.

Not very long, only about a year. This is why I have many questions regarding the area. I am trying to understand where Mental Magic ends and Mentalism begins.
Is there any justification for accusing magicians of cheating due to using cards and gimmicks when Corinda's First Step is all about the Swami Gimmick?
I am only now moving from card magic into the more 'mental' aspects, but working more (I feel) in the mental magic side of things. I am using some psychological tricks punctuated with conjuring skills. I would like to move past it eventually, provided I know where it is I'm heading. But for the moment, I'm content where I am!
It seems to be a tricky issue!

...personally, i feel you should use any method that you feel appropriate for you....

..if it creates wonderment/disbelief/magic in the eyes and mind of the spectator then it's justified...

...if you can make something ordinary suddenly become extraordinary then good on you...

i've been studying magic and other fields for 3 and a half years (2-3 hours a day minimum everyday), performing for about 2 years...(not just in front of friends or family)...it seems i have a natural knack for language, and its something i sincerely enjoy using and exploring...

...personally - i feel there's so much of the human mind to explore before we can fully understand anything else...Something Kreskin touches on in one of his books...

Everyone is allowed their own beliefs, and in turn these beliefs create our own version of world. When one belief collides with another, wars start, religions are persecuted, families disintegrate, relationships crumble, hair-do's are ruffled...

What i believe to be necessary is to examine with an open mind all possiblities, whether to do with magic or not. But just because i do not believe the same as someone else - doesn't therefore make it 'wrong'. It's just wrong for me and my version of the world.

Could perhaps Mentalism has changed? Somehow transmogrified subtley? Have we lost touch with what it's all about (alfie)? Entertaining, wonder, magical happenings?

I could easily enjoy someone's flourishes on many levels, just as much as i could sit there befuddled at someone's ability to influence my decisions (whether he did or not)...i dont really care how they do it...

I couldnt care less how Hendrix got to play how he did, but im eternally greatful that he could...a pentatonic blues scale or two, some fingers, a lot of passion and soul...

it was the delivery...the intent behind it...a journey of some kind, a story, some kind of emotional content to touch me...

anyway, time for coffee...

Mark, the effect you described in your initial post sounds incredible. I don't think you should worry if its magic or mentalism. As Cardz said, the spectator doesn't really care to distinguish.

I think Derren Brown has got it about right (well, how I like it). I am, for whatever reason, not as impressed by mentalists that claim to be "the real deal". It seems to me that this is the difference between magic and metalism. A mentalist has to come across as genuine, while a magican is just know to have certain skills. A mentalist might claim that he is psychic, and 'prove' it in a variety of ways, but a magician just does it without any explanation or reason, just for fun. So it's alot easier to be a magician doing 'mental magic' than a mentalist.

Personaly I prefer the magicians approach, but then I guess that's because I like magic...

IMHO Derren is a rare breed inasmuch as he doesn’t take himself too seriously although he will perform his stuff to a very professional standard. On the other side of the coin there are other 'mentalists' who are so far up themselves that they are neither likable nor entertaining.

Derren is usually described as a Psychological Illusionist so perhaps the stress is on the second word there as he invariably states that he uses a combination of magic, psychology and other skills to achieve results. He's also stated quite often that he will lie, cheat and mislead as much as he can in the nicest way possible! Is he a true mentalist? Perhaps not but he's a darned good entertainer and that's quite an achievement .

Craig Browning wrote:True mentalists aren't afraid of being seen as the real deal ...
Our job is to preserve what Mentalism was and not allow it to be tainted and "destroyed" in the same way Magic has been hurt, via all the actions of proving it to be nothing but "a trick" (in address to the religionists of the era).

This is fair enough. But like as was mentioned above, maybe mentalism is evolving into something different now. People are far more cynical, and any claim of 'psychic' abilities instantly provokes cynicism.
They come out of the experience knowing it is trickery in some way and as such feel slightly cheated, even if they were entertained. In this day and age of science and cynicism maybe it is time that mentalism evolved with it.

I hate to use Derren again as an example, but his approach to performance is very interesting. He suggests methods to his effects, which he generally isn't using, but he plays to the intellegence of the viewer. The audience, rather than feeling cheated, feel enlightened and educated in a strange way. Yet they have still seen someone with amazing skills of which they are jealous and cannot explain. They don't try to see past the lies and work out the method, which can make them feel annoyed that they cant. The former approach can result in them dismissing the whole experience, 'well he claimed he was a psychic, but clearly he wasn't so you know...'. The response to someone who doesn't claim 'psychic' powers is more likely to get a, 'he was awesome. the things he can do with the human mind...'.

I just feel that people get a lot more out of an experience they are involved with, rather than isolated and alienated by someone they know is clearly lying to them from the outset.

This of course then pulls us more in the direction of effect as opposed to method. Can a mentalist pull out a deck of cards in the middle of a mentalism set, still convince people it is mentally based, and not feel dirty!!? I certainly wouldn't mind it, but maybe I'm immoral in my magic...

It strikes me that this is like the difference between pure maths and applied maths. Pure maths is just, well, purely maths. Applied maths is maths applied to somethng. Maybe mentalism is "pure", while mind magic is the principles of mentalism applied to other things, like a deck of cards or a swami gimmick.

Related to this subject is the discussion as to whether you can mix magic with mentalism.

This subject has been discussed a million times. It has been done to death,
in fact.
Yet has it?
I think I have a new perspective on the matter. Actually it is not a new
perspective from my point of view. I figured this out years and years ago.

When I first started performing decades ago I used to believe the standard
wisdom that you should never mix the two. It took about 25 years for me to
realise reluctantly that the standard wisdom was WRONG.

It became obvious to me that I had followed the wrong philosophy for a
quarter of a century. Not only is it perfectly acceptable to mix the two I
have discovered that it is ADVISABLE. Nowadays I do not merely say vaguely
that you can perhaps mix the two. I say that you SHOULD mix the two. I was
almost tempted to say that you MUST mix the two but I will resist it because
there are always exceptions.

I first got suspicious of the rule because there seemed to be too many
exceptions to it. A few exceptions here and there I can accept but when I
noticed that 80% of the really big names in mentalism mixed the two I
thought that there had to be something else going on.

Dunninger mixed the two. Kreskin still does.
Berglas mixes the two and in fact always used to finish his mental act with
pickpocketing!
Al Koran bragged and bragged to me that his Linking Rings was a show
stopper. His actual words " I open my mental act with the rings and it is a
show stopper. Yes. A mental act!!!"
He seemed to be very proud that he did the rings in a mental act and
emphasised the seeming incongruity of such. He seemed quite delighted by it.

With great trepidation I introduced magic into my mentalism show expecting
to be struck down by lightning and great disapproval of the multitude.
Instead I was astonished to find that not only did I get stronger reaction
from the audience I found that the belief in my clairvoyant powers was
ENHANCED!

I have found that to be the case ever since. Whenever I have performed
mentalism alone it has gone over well but less people believed that I was
real. Paradoxically when I performed magic I noticed it seemed in some weird
way to make the mindreading more genuine.

This was not only against standard wisdom it seemed at first to defy logic.
Could all the books I had read be wrong? I was sick as a pig to realise that
they were. I had wasted 25 years following the wrong belief system.
For the last 15 years I have been trying to make up for lost time and I
would suggest to newcomers that they don't waste all the time I did. You
have to be very careful when reading the advice in books it seems and you
must not be afraid to break the mold once in a while.

I analysed the matter and decided to figure out what was going on. After all
it seemed logical that if you mixed magic with mentalism that people would
think that the mentalism was just a trick like the magic they had seen.

Wrong. And I believe I have figured out why. I often suspect that people who
mix magic and mentalism with good results do it out of instinct based on
audience reaction yet feel a vague sense of guilt that they are not doing it
the "proper" way. They may think that somehow they are an odd exception and
this is why it is working. It might be helpful to these people to realise
why it is working and why what they are doing is producing seemingly
illogical results but successful nevertheless.

I believe that it is all to do with the subconcious resentment people have
against being fooled. Every magician has come up against this. This is why
hecklers appear and why certain people show as little reaction as they can
to magic. There are ways to overcome this problem but it is beyond the scope
of what I have to say here.

A mentalist is subject to another difficulty besides the resentment one. He
has a scepticism factor to deal with. He has double trouble. Scepticism and
resentment.

If you do mentalism alone you get this in spades. I well remember a fine
mentalist performing at a certain venue. I remember that he only did
mentalism with no magic of any kind. I also remember the comments
afterwards.

"No such thing as mindreading" and "is he trying to insult our
intelligence?" and "who is he kidding" and "he is pretty good but it is just
a trick"

Contrary to what some self deluded mentalists think laymen can be a bit more
astute than they are given credit for. Sure there are a few laymen who will
believe it is real but the vast majority do not. Some people do have a bit
of common sense.

The natural scepticism and defensive resentment factor worked against this
fellow even though he was a fine performer.

Now perhaps you can see where I am going with this. If you start with some
magic a strange thing happens. A kind of reverse psychology. It is like you
have made a disclaimer without having to say it out loud. You are implying
that you are not real. That what you do is trickery and entertainment.
However, subconsiously the audience relaxes. When you do the mindreading it
seems that you are not claiming anything at all. The scepticism and
resentment factor has been removed.
Paradoxically this brings out the belief in weird things that lurks in all
of us. All the more so because you have not claimed anything. You have let
the audience believe the idea was theirs alone.

Dale Carnegie once said "let the other fellow believe the idea is his"
By doing magic first (I recommend starting with it and keeping it separate
from the mentalism-do not mix and match) a strange thing happens in the
spectators mind. They form the idea that what you do is real OF THEIR OWN
ACCORD. It is not pushed down their throat in the same way it is if you do
the mentalism alone.

As I have said many mentalists have instinctively known that they can mix
the two but may have wondered why. I believe the above reasoning is why.

Think about it.