talkmagic.co.uk

When studying stage shows of accomplished and experienced mentalists I notice that they usually do *not* start with a quick effect. According to "Mind Mysteries I" Richard Osterlind starts with a Bank Night effect. Derren Brown often starts using variations of Bank Night, too - possibly even delaying the revelation until much later. These play well and engage and involve the audience, but it is a long time (sometimes even 10+ minutes) before something actually "magical" happens.

On the other hand, Steve Cohen says that it takes about three effects before he establishes his credibility as a magician. Although I have never seen his show myself, I do imagine that this leads to him showing off something magical much sooner than 10 minutes into the show.

It may be that these performers are all having different audiences and performance situations. It may also be that people like Derren Brown and Richard Osterlind do not need to establish any credibility (but neither does Steve Cohen). It might also simply be that their parlor is strong enough to keep up with their magic. Or all of it together.

But I wonder what I can learn for myself and my performance situation from all that. I am currently starting with story telling that leads into the first effect (and thus take 7 minutes before something "magical" happens for the first time) - and I wonder if prepending a quickie or two could be beneficial or harmful.

I don't think that you necessarily have to start out right away with something that's magical. But whatever you do start with though, should quite quickly introduce who you are and set the tone for the show. Your opener could be anything from a quick effect (and that first effect, if you're doing mentalism should probably be one that involves and engages the whole audience), it could also be an interesting story, a joke or just about anything that that tells the audience who you and and brings them onto your side.

The thing with people like Derren is, as you've said, they're already established, people know what to expect so they can get away with slightly different openers than most of us can.

Unless my audience are cynical thirteen year olds, there is no need to do magic at the start to establish credibility. In my mentalism show it is about ten minutes before anything magical happens. But the first laughs arrive a lot earlier. In my kids show it can be fifteen or twenty minutes before the first magical element creeps in.

Mentalism is a leisurely persuit. I would be in no hurry for that first effect.

Just a thought; the chance of winning some money often helps to grab an audience's interest.

I think the other thing about Bank Nite (Bank Night? The Dark Knight?) plots is that usually they aren't that miraculous when you think about it. A one in four or one in five chance isn't that amazing, compared to some of the other stuff a mentalist is likely to do later in a show. The stakes make the "game" interesting, and elevate this a bit beyond the odds.

Fogel liked to open with a quick trick.

There's never a hard and fast rule about these things. If the storytelling is working for you, why meddle? If you do a lot of gigs, you could always try a fast effect early on and see how it goes.

Engage your audience.

If you have them hooked there is no limit as to the time limit on creating your first piece of magic.

I'm a big fan of opening with a few jokes, taking time to get them thinking 'Well do something then!!!' That way people will be more engaged, which is when you hit them with something quick and powerful.

If you just come out and do stuff, I don't think it's as powerful for the audience, they're not really interested in what you're doing at that point.

Thanks for the responses so far. It seems there is a lot of diversity in the ways to open a show, depending on the performer and the type of presentation.

If I understood correctly, among the factors that you have listed up to this point are:
1. Set the tone of the show,
2. Build expectation, and
3. Engage the audience.

I definitely achieve 1., sort of succeed at 2. but I am certain that I fail at 3. On the other hand, all of the 'Bank Night' routines I have seen achieve all three (although I may be biased as I have only seen it done by top-performers).So I think I'll have to start working on one such routine and see how my audience likes it ...

On opening with a quickie: I still haven't made up my mind if this is beneficial or not. I think it's time to hit Open Stage evenings for audience testing ...

The problem with Bank Night is that you come across as a smart alec who pulls one over the audience. If I was doing Bank Night I would leave it completely random, but have an envelope on the stage all the time which revealed that I knew who would win the money.

rumburak wrote:...
3. Engage the audience.
...
I definitely achieve 1., sort of succeed at 2. but I am certain that I fail at 3.

If you're failing at 3, it's not the effect that will fix it. It's you. YOU need to engage the audience, with or without an effect. Changing the effect isn't going to help you. Once you've got the 'tone' and style of the act.. and more importantly the style of YOU... the choice of opening effect really should be a simple choice of something that engages the whole audience (at least potentially) and fits in with all the underlying elements of your act.

Try presenting something that involves the whole audience, it doesn't have to a huge 'WOW' effect, just something that'll get them interested. Something using a psychological force with all the audience or perhaps some kind of ESP experiment. One thing that I've done a few times and found work well is to pair the audience off and show them a set of ESP card. One is to think of a symbol and the other is to try and read their partner's mind and name the thought of symbol. There's no trickery involved, some will be right and some will be wrong but it dosn't matter. It gets the audience interested and involved in the show from the very start.

@TonyB: This is the reason why I had not previously used Bank Night plots. The style of performers like Derren Brown simply doesn't fit me. On the other hand there are other presentations like an "inverse" Bank Night (where the performer consistently 'looses') or even the Dangerous Monte by Luke Jermay fits into this category. Or the sweetener of the bitter pill that has been suggested by Richard Osterlind. The envelope prediction reminds me of a variation suggested by Max Maven, although in that particular presentation the performer still 'wins'.

@Vanderbelt: I used to believe the same thing before. However, I have changed my opinion now. It *does* depend on the material. If I present a story that does not relate to the audience I can still captivate them and get them to follow the plot and me. But if I present a story they can related to easily (and keep the rest in place) then the impression will be that much stronger. Ken Weber writes that "All leading mentalists manage to [suggest what the mind can do] without resorting to what had previously been known as 'showmanship'."

@Lady of Mystery: I thank you for your suggestion. Still, the charm of the Bank Night plot lies in the fact that it uses something that we all can relate to - money! The Dangerous Monte I mentioned above uses 'health', instead. I think these themes have more potential for making a lasting impression than ESP cards as these are nothing the audience really relates to or cares about.

rumburak wrote:It *does* depend on the material. If I present a story that does not relate to the audience I can still captivate them and get them to follow the plot and me. But if I present a story they can related to easily (and keep the rest in place) then the impression will be that much stronger.

I quite agree... don't confuse 'material' with 'effect' - the material is how you present the effect. Work out what your act is and how you're presenting it. Once you've done that, the right effect will become a seemingly obvious choice.

Perhaps it would help others here to assist you if you tell us more about the general idea of your act/persona?

On http://www.talkmagic.co.uk/sutra382934.php#p382934 I have given an overview of my show and it's structure.

Regarding the Encore I have recently switched to "PK Touches" with the host and a friend or his spouse. Initially, I was scared of this effect, but it plays extremely well in this position and makes the host look good in front of everybody.

The reason I am worried about the beginning is that i) the story is not as relevant to the audience as it would be in the US, ii) it is not funny at all, but rather scary and iii) there is no audience interaction. Bank night would overcome every single one of these problems: i) It is relevant to the audience (who doesn't care about money?), ii) most routines use comedy to some extend, and iii) there is lots of audience interaction since everybody hopes they can participate.

I had promised to also upload a video or two, but have not yet done so. Recently, I have mostly performed in German and I did not record any English-speaking show.

I start all of my shows by talking for a good 5 or 10 minutes about who I am, what my background is, and what I will be demonstrating during the evening. No-one's fallen asleep yet. Although there was that lady once that started crying...

Start slow and end big. My philosophy for most things in life.

It's a good way to start, Paul. Once they like you and relate to you, the rest of the show proceeds far more smoothly. Bill Cosby said that he spends the first ten minutes getting to know the audience and getting them to know him. Once that is out of the way, he is their friend. So they will laugh at his jokes.

I tend to spend a few minutes getting them relaxed and laughing before I attempt anything. Even in a deadly serious show I like the odd laugh.