kartoffelngeist wrote:I suspect (maybe not in Eshly's case, I don't know) that a lot of the need/desire for things to be examinable has come from young people (don't want to say kids, because they seem to get defensive when they're called that
) doing tricks for their friends at school.
In this context, people will just grab a coin or a deck of cards, which makes using um-examinable gimmicks almost impossible (especially since you can't have the necessary audience management skills at that age, that can only come with experience).
I suspect this has been picked up by the suppliers who target this lot (people like E) and then suddenly become part of advertising.
Interesting point. In that enviroment it can be a dream (Plenty of interuptions.. great reactions) and often, at best a nightmare (.... still... Plenty of interuptions.. crappy or indignant reactions e.t.c. ) But in terms of examinability there isn't a world of difference from other performing enviroments in all honesty. Angles can be challenging (although sometimes they're just perfect) and spectator-performer relationship is vastly different. Therein is the biggest issue, the fact that nobody has to shut up and put up with your nonesense if they don't like it, they will tell you if you're c*** (not the best) or treating them like a moron. There is no false politeness, and I honestly think that brutality can produce superb feedback. Thick skin is important, there is no dignity in 52 card pick up, quarells with teachers ensue naturally and expect abuse if you are not a performing monkey. All in all, as I said, it can be hellish but it can also be the best, given that the only survival method is to not be c*** (not the best).
...........................................................................................................
On inspectability.. I'll keep it short, sweet and Orwellian. (And avoid tautological superfluous pleonasmic verbosity.. damn).
If anyone still studies acting (y'know.. David Devant and all that), then Stanislavski is constantly talking about what he called the 'magic if' and 'given circumstances'.
(Or should I say, he is Konstantinly talking about them? Oh dear.. sweet cheeses... )
Anyway... I was saying- they are one of the main principles in his essentially naturalistic acting system and the idea of them is to always be asking the questions: 'What if I were in such and such a situation?' 'What if we introduced such and such a circumstance, or such and such a subtext?' and so on.
In fact, it seems like relativley common sense- but common sense is rarley as common as it suggests. And, besides, it is still worth it as a mental checklist just to regulate illogical acting.
Well suppose we apply it to our given circumstances: we are a psychic, psychologist... whatever, someone who claims legitimate skill, who has no need to know anything about cheating e.t.c. It is a difficult call- for example, would they even have a disclaimer against stooges?
Well, feeling meticulous, I researched a presumably authentic psychological demonstration by Paul Ekman (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXm6YbXxSYk ) the question of being stooges and methods of acheiving the 'effect' were never mentioned. It was taken for granted that it was legitimate and the though had not even crossed his mind. Of course, why would it? Sometimes negating a claim has the opposite effect of bringing attention to it.
What about, say, Daniel Tammet (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbASOcqc1Ss ) ? Another authentic demonstration of mental skills: on occasion there were obvious precautions taken to avoid blatant fraud: 'You can't see this calculator can you? You haven't memorised all the answers, have you?' e.t.c. These were natural in the given circumstances- but there was never any 'Notice my hands are empty, moments' and Daniel himself never mitigated any doubts, he simply took for granted that he was real.. because he was.
In Sherlock Holmes (fictional I know, but still relevant) once again, Holmes himself never says ' I did not pay that person off to act for me' or 'I did not look up your history': it was Watson who had such doubts, but evidence rejected his facts. So we see a reocurring formula of the person with the gift, never even having cheating occur to them in the slightest- but any silent doubts are evidently proved wrong. As magicians then, its the nonchalant gestures which show those who are suspicious our hands are empty, or the 'incidental' flashing of a card to show it is the same... e.t.c. which live up best to the 'magic ifs' and 'given circumstances' our role demands.
The important observation to make, is that in the real circumstances, all the attention is on the character that is the extraordinary human being before the audience. In fact, if you keep an eye open for genuine demonstrations of skills, there will often be so much opportunity to cheat even if you only had half a brain. Evidence becomes redundant, and a narrator could simply make an unsubstantiated claim that nobody questions. Cheating is easy. Making people not even consider the possibility of cheating seriously, is not at all so easy. As long as the attention is all on the person and their supposed abilities. I think sometimes, psychics do this much better than the vast majority of magicians even though their modus operandi may even be childish. The only question is then, is the personal preference of naturalism or the elusive question mark what you want?
I leave then, with some relevant quotes, explaining the need for observing what happens 'for real':
Stanislavski:
The genuine actor is set on fire by what is happening around him, he is carried away by life, which then becomes the object of his study and his passion
Tony Corinda:
Look at yourself. Watch what you do in every day life so that you can find out how you behave when you are behaving naturally. Do anything just as you would do it normally, but watch the ways your hands hold a pencil, pick up a book, light a cigarette. Watch and observe, you are teaching yourself how you behave!
The odd thing about magician's is that when this sort of thing is said, everybody agrees and at the same time everybody thinks it applies to somebody else.
''To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in another's.'' Dostoevsky's Razumihin.
