talkmagic.co.uk

phillipnorthfield wrote:More elegance than traditional magicians

I don't see why you would limit the importance of elegance in magicians.

I agree.

I've seen many stage illusionists who were in dire need of some rudimentary dance tuition.

The silent magic performer has nothing but their physical presence to work with, so elegance is, to my mind, much more of an issue for them than it would be for a mentalist.

Look at the characters of Columbo, or Fitz from Cracker. Either of these personas could be easily grafted onto a performing mentalist. In fact, there's one very well respected American mentalist that I often think shares a lot of mannerisms with Peter Falk.

Mentalists can be all the more credible if they're seen as being unassuming, bumbling - even clumsy. The same, of course, can apply to close-up magicians (something David Williamson regularly asserts). But I still feel that magicians are generally required to be seen as 'slick' to a greater extent than mentalists.

Pete

mark lewis wrote:I think the most important skill a mentalist can possess is to find some way of doing it without boring everyone to death. Especially me.

But Mark...

Doesn't the same apply to magic too? I find magic in and of itself quite tiresome unless there's an engaging performer driving it.

Pete

Yes, but as I think Corinda said Magicians can do silent acts whereas Mentalists have to explain what they are doing for maximum effect to be achieved.

That's because a lot of magic is visual. While Mentalism is either implied or spoken plus you need to give directions for a lot of the stuff.

Exactly. But my point was that the silent, purely visual magicians are the ones that need elegance, while a mentalist could be a scruffy klutz, so long as they're articulate and believable.

I think the key skill is the ability to communicate succinictly. As previous posters have mentioned as a mentalist you've got to ensure that everybody understands what is going on at all times.

Someone on a differnt thread mentioned the DB presentation of Berglas' Newspaper Prediction in "Something Wicked..." as a great example of using Equivoke - but, having watched it again, it is so much more than that. It is a perfect example of keeping the audience informed and entertained simultaneously whilst keeping the effect moving at a rattlingly good pace.

By the end of the routine, everyone knows what has happened and everyone know how they got there.

So, in summary, I think communication skills are of paramount importance to a mentalist.


Sean

Balls of steel.

Bare faced cheek

Honesty ( or the ability to fake it )

Sincerity ( or the ability to fake it )

Charm

13 steps

anneman

Imagination

Believability

Those are the things a mentalist should have.

Klangster1971 wrote:I think the key skill is the ability to communicate succinictly. As previous posters have mentioned as a mentalist you've got to ensure that everybody understands what is going on at all times.

Someone on a differnt thread mentioned the DB presentation of Berglas' Newspaper Prediction in "Something Wicked..." as a great example of using Equivoke - but, having watched it again, it is so much more than that. It is a perfect example of keeping the audience informed and entertained simultaneously whilst keeping the effect moving at a rattlingly good pace.

By the end of the routine, everyone knows what has happened and everyone know how they got there.

So, in summary, I think communication skills are of paramount importance to a mentalist.


Sean

Oh, thats Berglas' routine, I thought that it was originally from Carter the Great, well, you learn something every day i suppose.

pcwells wrote:Exactly. But my point was that the silent, purely visual magicians are the ones that need elegance, while a mentalist could be a scruffy klutz, so long as they're articulate and believable.

A good point well made.

Everyone, I want you to think of your favourite comedian, your favourite character in a film, play or TV series, or your favourite real person. It may just be a friend. They're naturally believable (you personally have no reason to doubt them) without them seeming to make any effort whatsoever. The part they play is themselves. That's the basis for believability. Everything is in their own words and on their own terms. Nothing is out of place.

What is it we keep saying? Be the first you? Why then do some people insist that mentalists construct and pretend to be artificial characters that must be maintained 24/7? Real life doesn't work like that so out goes believability if the mask ever slips. The world has changed completely in the 40+ years since Corinda was writing. Take his techniques (go on, you've paid for them) and re-apply them to you. And don't forget that new is not necessarily bad but different.

First I do not believe that so called "mental magic" and "mentalism" are two different things. I detest this distinction which has only come about recently. Mentalism is bloody mentalism and has been for the last 200 years or so before the daft Psychic Entertainers Association came along and split the art in two, giving it two different names. There are only different ways of presenting mentalism, you do it as if it were real or you do it as if there is a trick. Actually there is a third way and that is to be non commital about it.

Just because the tricks you are doing don't look like a trick doesn't mean to say they aren't so you are still doing bloody mentalism no matter what you call it.

As for PC Wells statement that magic can be boring, well of course it can and it usually is. However magic at least has the visual element and tends to be less long winded. I have always said that mentalism is the best type of stage magic if done well but the worst type of magic if done badly. I say "stage magic" because nothing can beat close up magic done right underneath your nose if done properly.

I'd say there are a couple of essential things: believability and entertainment.

Everything else is really just an aspect of one of those two main abilities.

Presence, building rapport, holding an audience's attention, charisma, showmanship and not boring the audience to death (for Mark - and he's quite right) are all really just part of someone being a good entertainer.

Magical skill, having the 'right' look (which definitely does not require a nice suit in many cases), being on the ball, having a strong memory, being good at spotting and exploiting opportunities, possessing a solid explanation for one's abilities and being knowledgeable are all things that build believability.

There is a third aspect that is not essential to being a good mentalist, but is very handy if you want to make money at it; you must have a good business head.

The more astute among you will have spotted that there is an overlap between these three things. Good, you're on your way.

There might be a fourth element, but it's arguably less vital. I think a successful mentalist (and indeed a magician) should be willing to learn (indeed, keen to learn), and accept that they don't know it all, and probably never will. Because of this, they should remain a bit humble, even if they don't admit it in public. There is a tension between this and the ego that is often needed to carry a performance largely on one's own. There is a reason I used the word "element"!

By the way, having read the method for an effect is not the same as understanding it, and it's not the same as being able to perform that effect properly.

Part-Timer wrote:I'd say there are a couple of essential things: believability and entertainment.

Everything else is really just an aspect of one of those two main abilities.

Presence, building rapport, holding an audience's attention, charisma, showmanship and not boring the audience to death (for Mark - and he's quite right) are all really just part of someone being a good entertainer.

Magical skill, having the 'right' look (which definitely does not require a nice suit in many cases), being on the ball, having a strong memory, being good at spotting and exploiting opportunities, possessing a solid explanation for one's abilities and being knowledgeable are all things that build believability.

There is a third aspect that is not essential to being a good mentalist, but is very handy if you want to make money at it; you must have a good business head.

The more astute among you will have spotted that there is an overlap between these three things. Good, you're on your way.

There might be a fourth element, but it's arguably less vital. I think a successful mentalist (and indeed a magician) should be willing to learn (indeed, keen to learn), and accept that they don't know it all, and probably never will. Because of this, they should remain a bit humble, even if they don't admit it in public. There is a tension between this and the ego that is often needed to carry a performance largely on one's own. There is a reason I used the word "element"!

By the way, having read the method for an effect is not the same as understanding it, and it's not the same as being able to perform that effect properly.

For me, believability is something which is not as hard as people think, i find that by doing a smaller version of the effect before trying the larger one, makes the spectators believe in you much more, and the elegance is something which makes you seem like you have done this before, which enhances your believability. Good acting skills are also required

mark lewis wrote:I think the most important skill a mentalist can possess is to find some way of doing it without boring everyone to death. Especially me.

Ah men! Although, when I'm forced to watch a mentalist more often then not I get a good nap.

I especially love it when the mentalist has somebody tape coins over the eyes, then tape, then a blindfold, then a mask, then a bag and then sits facing away from the audience. By the end of the preperation I'm about most of the way into a good slumber. Oh and lets not forget the assistant then running through the audience and holding up objects that were volunteered by the audience members. I know they only go through about 5 people but it feels like 25.

It is about as bad as the illusionist twirling the pannel of the box a 12 times and then pounding on it, then getting an audience member to pound on it.

But as stated, usually at this point in the illusion show there is a chance of some decent music and pretty(?) props to look at. And perhaps a few scantily clad helpers. Yeah I'm a sleaze.

Sorry, I've seen many, many magicians and mentalists. And I promise you mentalists are, for the most part less entertaining then magicians on the stage. One on one up close and personal? That is another matter.

both however have to give the boring crown over to the escape artists. Few have the flair of Houdini. And all I've ever seen of him perform are short clips. He may be more legend but that in itself speaks for itself.

bmat wrote:

mark lewis wrote:I think the most important skill a mentalist can possess is to find some way of doing it without boring everyone to death. Especially me.

Ah men! Although, when I'm forced to watch a mentalist more often then not I get a good nap.

Why is that though, i am yet to see a boring Mentalist, is it because of Dead time, bad communication skills, no jokes etc?