talkmagic.co.uk

In the context of magic performed with one participant observed by others ...

Is there any enhancement to the participant's impression of the revelation if the revelation is made to some or all of the observers first.

This is assuming they react

I'm wondering if it's better to show them all at the same or get the participants anticipation going by letting the observers begin to react first.

my own view is that most entertainers will look to entertain the crowd and that would mean that you reveal to everyone for the best reaction.

You're using the spec to help with the presentation, to make things appear fair to everyone.

Almost all magicians will say to an assistant "show everyone the card - tell everyone that it's a normal bank note" etc. Otherwise, the performance will appear that it's something personal and most people will lose interest and go elsewhere and not understand what is going on.

dat8962 wrote:You're using the spec to help with the presentation, to make things appear fair to everyone.

I think in some respects the performer is also using the on-stage-spec as a proxy for the observers. The entire crowd gets to experience the aspects of effect that aren't crowd-friendly vicariously. When the reveal is done to the crowd or on-stage-spec seperately it reinforces that the crowd is down 'there' and the spec is up 'here'.

One possible exception is in mindreading, mentalism, etc. where the crowd can only experience some effects vicariously by observing the reactions of the spectator because it is HIS mind that is being read or HER dead aunt's name the performer divined. These effects are more personal - that can make them stronger, but I think it also requires a strong performer to bring the crowd into the experience of the individual. Perhaps in these cases the effect could be strengthened by showing the spectator first then, as a reversal, showing the audience to prove that it's fair. The audience is now acting like the spectator in that they are adding their confirmation it is fair and reinforcing the effect to the stage-spec, which acts to reinforce it for themselves. If that makes sense..

Surely that's the wrong way round. Show the participant (who reacts), creating anticipation in the main audience, who react not only to the revelation, but also to the assistant's shock/amusement/amazement.

You go from the smaller reaction to the bigger one.

I was thinking this more in a close up context.

Learn by doing. One night, perform it one way, the next night invertedly. It's very hard to give advice on this kind of thing without the delight of seeing the performance.

Depends on the effect and the revelation. For a car revelation and you have the spectator up front with you, you can reveal to the whole audience and celebrate with the spectator to give him or her ownership over the effect.

If it is a booktest, then it is nice to write down the word or phrase first, ask the spectator to name the word or phrase and then reveal what you have written down in dramatic fashion. This keeps you in control of the revelation.

Marvell wrote:I was thinking this more in a close up context.

In that case, what Dr Todd has just said.

Apart from a doing a 'car' revelation. That's not really in my close-up repertoire.

not shure if this is what you meen but when i do card to glasses / forhead for thoughs not visualy challenged.
i'll have the spec choose then look at the card, loose it in the deck then reveal the same card to the other members of the audience in many ways concluding with the card aparently turning over in the deck and ending up in my glasses.
the reveals are done in a off the cuff maner like if I were a professional card worker i'd produce the card like this, but I can't etc, ending with the glasses reveal as the only trick i can do, sometimes i'll get them to note the cards i cut to then all reveal them at the end when the first specs card is revealed, all the same of course.
is this what your on about.

Well, that's certianly all given me a bit to ponder.