talkmagic.co.uk

Hi

I know that there are theniques like cold reading or muscle reading and that a lot of sutt is posibble if you use them correctly.

But I think that mentalism is a quite stupid becuase almost all mentalists lie.

eg. Gerry McCambridge

In one of the video he tells a random person to think of a phone number. Then the person was supposed to count on ten. After that happen, he knew the number.

Ok I agree that there is muscle reading. Maybe it is possible to know which digits are in the phone number but it is definetly not possible to know the number.

Are you saying that it isn't believable enough? I'm a little bit confused by your post - you seem to say that mentalism is stupid because all mentalists lie; and then to validate your argument you use one example out of thousands?

OF COURSE MENTALISTS LIE! MAGICIANS LIE! How else does it work?! Just because a mentalist's way of working out what number someone is thinking of (counting back from ten in this example, possibly) does not explain how he could have known the whole phone number, that's not a bad thing. There is some hint at the processes there, but the processes aren't fully explained is all. You're thinking of psychological explanations, I'm sure, in which everything is carefully laid out - I can tell which number he is thinking of because of tiny, subconscious movements...that kind of thing.

Again, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here .

(Of course, when you perform it's never good to think of yourself as lying to your audience...that does zilch for creating a good rapport.)

I'm not a working mentalist, so I cannot make claims to the possibility of your phone number scenario.

However.....I do see a dark cloud looming overhead, good sir.

And I hear the soft tremors of an advancing giant coming this way.

Again - I'm no pro - but my cards are telling me you should duck and cover.

For the love of God, Peacock, do follow the mentalism path. I really don't want to see you on a stage saying, "I am now going to saw this woman in half..."

Peacock wrote:But I think that mentalism is a quite stupid becuase almost all mentalists lie.

The words and the techniques you've chosen show that you've only scratched the surface of what mentalism is. If you thought it was something akin to a special power, you'll be as disappointed as someone who buys a particular ACR only to discover that it relies on a pass and not a card actually melting through a deck.

Magicians and mentalists all lie (beguile/manage reality/whatever's necessary) all the time. It's genuinely liberating to be able to do so in an environment where it's expected - once you overcome the guilt. A pass is a lie just as much as a swami is a lie. The skill, the real thrill, that unites the two forms of illusion is lying so convincingly with words and deeds so that the lies become undetectable - they literally become reality in the spectator's mind.

most of my mentalism is a lie, yes. but is it effetive? HELL YES!
i might try not lying for a gig and see how long it lasts, probably as for as "choose a card, ANY card you like...... damn, that was a lie"

Demitri wrote:And I hear the soft tremors of an advancing giant coming this way.

Me too! Craig...

I agree with what Tomo said by the way.

How do you put this. Well all magic is a lie yes folks its one big swindle from the dealers ads telling you , you will be able to turn a deck of cards in to an elephant to you saying to the spec just think of a card and it will rise out of deck.

I let everyone in to a secret the specs all so know it’s a lie! Honest govnour. This is why we have our little secrets A) To protect the magicians and B) To Protect the specs.


A lot of mentralisim is based on psychology so really is this a lie to? If you don’t like deceiving people then I suggest you get out of magic.


I think on other threads we have had long discussions on camera tricks and stooges so I wont dig up that pile of bones now. But yes all magic a lie.

So you are going to tell us that you never lie? Not even small little fibs so your parents wouldn't take your allowance/car/computer/games away? So your teacher would give you detention for not turning in an assignment once again? So your signifigant other would like you / not dump you?

Probably not all of these, but I am willing to bet I had one or two hits there. The only difference between all that and lying for mentalism (assuming were talking about entertaining performers and not certain mediums) is the lies don't really hurt people so much as entertain and amaze.

Peacock wrote:Hi

I know that there are tecniques like cold reading or muscle reading and that a lot of sutt is posibble if you use them correctly.

But I think that mentalism is a quite stupid becuase almost all mentalists lie.

eg. Gerry McCambridge

In one of the video he tells a random person to think of a phone number. Then the person was supposed to count on ten. After that happen, he knew the number.

Ok I agree that there is muscle reading. Maybe it is possible to know which digits are in the phone number but it is definetly not possible to know the number.

Mentalism I.e. Psychic Entertainment is a much a lie as any other branch of magic.

Magic is a deception understood by the spectators while Mentalism is often misunderstood.

In the words of Lee Earle Magic requires a willing suspension of disbelief look it up in a theater text.

While Mentalism requires an active investment of belief.

I don't know that I agree with that but leading your audience without making false claims has always been my modus operandi.

Just as magic has its skills and techniques so to dose mentalism. Manipulation of billets small pieces of paper, nail writing, pocket writing exc.

To think mentalism phony is to be blind to magic and it's principle in general.

So I suggest an open mind and open eyes when judging mentalism you may just find it's the only true magic left?

I think we've chased him off guys

I've always found that Lee Earle reference a bit humorous in that Lee is the last person in the world to even remotely think he invokes belief from his audiences, the majority of his material (while good and most excellent for what it is) is little other than magic tricks in psychic drag... then again, we're talking about Lee

Wait you didn't understand my message (or my english is to bad).

Anyway, these days so many mentalist use actors as "randomly chosen guy from the street" and stuff like that. That is what I have ment with lies!!!!!!!

Peacock wrote:Anyway, these days so many mentalist use actors as "randomly chosen guy from the street" and stuff like that. That is what I have ment with lies!!!!!!!

You mean he must have (lied and) used a stooge to know the phone number, because one can't do it through picking up non-verbal cues (or something)? Nah. There are lots of mentalist ways he could have done it, without using a stooge at all. I think the problem is that you're trying to work out the tricks from what you see on screen. It (generally) can't be done. The video is edited. If this is done honourably - as I feel Derren Brown does, for example - that's fine with me. It's not 'camera tricks'. It's being faithful to what a person who was actually there would feel had happened, and is about presenting it in an entertaining yet emotionally faithful way. But it's not a set of jigsaw pieces that, if you simply study them long enough, you can put together to figure out how it was done. That's to say (to stick with Brown) I, like many people here, can guess how DB has done a particular effect, or could have done it. But we're drawing on more than simply what's on screen. Even if we know, for a fact, exactly how he's done something - the Smoke trick he did with Stephen Fry, say - we know that because of additional data (he tells you how to do the effect in one of his books): you couldn't unpick it from what is shown to you alone. Unless it's a magician's teaching video, just enjoy (or note the weak points of, so you can avoid them yourself) the presentation.

The video is edited. If this is done honourably - as I feel Derren Brown does, for example - that's fine with me. It's not 'camera tricks'. It's being faithful to what a person who was actually there would feel had happened, and is about presenting it in an entertaining yet emotionally faithful way. But it's not a set of jigsaw pieces that, if you simply study them long enough, you can put together to figure out how it was done.

I enjoy watching Derren's show because he doesn't edit the video heavily - or so it seems. For example, in one episode he did a routine of several supposedly psychological card predictions, yet watching the video you can clearly see what misdirection and sleight of hand he was using. And to my surprise that part was not edited (he could have easily cut one or two seconds from the video, hiding the trick completely). And yes, still watching every effect of him, I try to figure out how it was done, which sometimes borders on insanity (apparently it is the teenager part of me which enjoyed reading Sherlock Holmes and trying to predict how the crime was perpetrated ).

On the other hand, you have some magicians like David Blaine who use video effects. It is probably just as bad as using stooges...

I've been around a very long time and know of few that use a stooge and the way they do so, no one is any the wiser... However, I do know of one noted American "Mentalist" who did a Tv spot a year or two back that was 100% stooged (according to inside sources)... something I personally feel lessens this man's claim to fame as an "expert" in the biz but, unfortunately, helped land him a major gig in Nevada...