[quick note] "chinese" magic

watching this clip kinda blew my head off in the first 3 minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVNBLnQy71M
Penn said: "when we ask chinese people which magician they like the most, you don't get a person, you simply get 'chinese magic'"

so it made me wonder....if you ask chinese folks now, very likely they can give you a name now. And very likely we know what that name is.

how much as Lu Chen been doing do inherit all that from our rich chinese history? I'm not burdening him with the responsibility. Lu Chen did more than he could ever give to the community, he got all my respect. I am just wondering, is it even possible (to inherit the chinese mysterious veil in our magic)?

To first achieve that, we therefore need to ask the question: what IS "chinese" magic?

not just the props and the clothes, but the "what for"? is there a plot? Is there a reason for NOT having a plot? Is there a reason for just producing endless stuffs and sticking to that?


I need to interview gurus on this to know what this chinese magic thing is about.

So, what is this "magic" thingy about? [incomplete note]

wanted to write a post on what "magic" is.

I mean, my exploration into "what really is magic" (in the theatrical sense) has been in the back of my head for years, but it was recently triggered by this stats posted by Edward Lam on his facebook:

what he said:
"我心目中的「變魔術」不是Make Believe"
(imo, doing magic is not "make believe".)
"I choose to let people imagine: then they see."
(it's about inducing imagination and let the person take off with their experience.)

wow.
that one quote leads to so many envisions of many juicy theatrical metaphors.
somethng like how Nolan would envision a "frisky feline" or a "superhero bat catching a bad guy from Hong Kong".

imagine a mastermind interpreting multiple events to a very simple gesture "clicking of fingers" when it fact it was all part of a long convoluted scheme of events, but the events creates a pattern that allows people to perceive a supernatural figure/force responsible for the happenings. something along the lines of the below few mental processes:

--that it is EASY to perceive the pattern,
--that most people are only AWARE of the pattern,
--that even the SKEPTICS tend to attribute it to that pattern(but that requires a lot of left-brain logicism, not sure whether that is what magic wants)
--that people KNOW it has no real relationship with the pattern, but they can't help seeing it. (like "seeing" a santa claus)


Examples would be things along the lines of dark knight, what you would see Wayne do, or now you see it, or leverage,

or something like clooney in ending scene of Ocean's 13...what if instead of placing the chip there, he made it appear with a magical flourish, and what if instead of being the man, the lucky recepient is a kid?

Or maybe the story can go like this: in the beginning of the movie the the story of Clooney in his childhood was displayed; somehow the young Clooney often dreams of a magician standing in front of him, and with a magical gesture he makes this magic bag appear in front of him, and gifted it to him. Cute kid Clooney then realises this bag is magical and is filled with unlimted amount of coins. Now approaching the ending scene, clooney looks at the chip and his mind reminded himself of his dream. With sudden intuition, he walked up to in front of the kid, did a magical gesture, and made the chip appear (via the exact same hand flourish as he had saw the magician do it in his dream,). The kid realises the chip will turn into unlimited fortune by way of lottery.

Or, it doesn't have to be a chip. It can be a key or a cheque origami or a bank account or anything for that matter, any metaphor relevant in the modern world.

sounds like a romantic scene. Romantic...why? dunno. Just that fulfilling something in your dream somehows always grant that "warm fuzzy feeling".

But then again, it's romantic, yet lacking a message. I want to go up a notch and actually make clear what message I am sending with that scene, and not just for the sake of romanticism.
afterall, it's dangerous appealing to populist emotional triggers.

I wanted to find for him this video (my memeory tells me it is said by teller or Brown but I can't be sure) where a magician explains what is the real "good stuff" about a performance piece--it's when the audience reaches the point they simply wanted to "let go" of the shackles of skeptism, that the experenince in front of them is so believable, so seductive that they just will themselves into the "magic", sumbits themselves into the world the magician consturcted for them and simpyl enjoys the messages / the journey the magician carries them into.

I loved the description, but at the same time understanding that this notion does not apply to all magic; some of the more "make believe" school performers (I regard blaine as a prime example) focuses the atmosphere build on the "Realism" of their magic, i.e. the entire threatical expereince comes solely from "oh man that is impossible!", aka moment of astonishment. And it usually ends there.

And this has a chain effect to the audiences. Audiences who are given a regular dose of magic and is accostomed to such type of "astonishment moment" performances, they will react the same way even if they are given a threatical piece.

of course, that is what my assumption that the feelign of astonishement can be voluntarily suppressd via a conditioning process.

Actually I don't think Yann is a good example. Bad choice of case study I guess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv_Xkz9zepI
at 23:51
Penn reiterates what teller remarked about magic: "Magic is supposed to be an intellectual thing"

How does one reconcile between the Mystery school VS Wonder school?
just namedropping to remind me of the inspirations I got.

--tommy wonder (on astonishment from attention)
--Garleon (conflict is one convenient/sufficient elemwent to drama)
--Garrett thomas X Paul Harris (impact of magicial performances seem to be more strong when approached with the "entire atmopshere geared towards one, unique moment of astonishment".)
(this is what I feel slightly uncomfortable with garrett's proposition, for I believe the reason why most products in the market attempts to construct "single moment" effect, is becuase that moment is easy to communicate through a video demo, as opposed to the atmosphere of a successful piece of theatrical performance. example like tamariz's close-up, something you can translate through a camera record)

--Cyril Takayama (magic out of mystery and surprise)
--Yann
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUv-Q6EgEFI
(what is the atmosphere in my head between 2:15 till 2:30?)

--Marco Tempest his philosophy about "magic as in liberally anything that creates wonder and awe, not absense of knowledge in methodology"
--Derren Brown (magic like hyponsis is seduction to believing into the illusion, so realistic you cease to critique)
--Penn and Teller
--Pop Haydn (magic as a logically valid conclusion with false premise, but even with that fulfilled does that means the emotional feelings and atmosphere of threatics expected of a magical performance will arise as a natural product of achieving/fullfilling this formula?)

* * * * * *

I also bumped into this video:


* * * * * *
the following, I ask myself, are they magic?

--a perception-fooling optical illusion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBNHPk-Lnkk

--the japanese numchucks video with white scrteen + syncing background

--the wall of 3D projection on buildings

--a video of very realistic miming with light projection (a briefcase that stops ans suspends in midair whenever locked by a light beam that penetrates through the case)

--a video of contact juggling (upload by huron on his FB)

--a video of "dancing presenters" in TED, dance and human sculpting as metaphors of objects.

--a clip of video editing trick (by thomas edison)

--a video of Yif with french bread

--a video of big bang with cards flying around the big LCD screen and make people imagine the feelings of gambling, risk, taking a bet, anticipation, and a "pull card from screen, colour change, puts it back" finale to mix with all the build-up anticipation. (WTF am I talking about)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYrYtp3UctI
(add in Derren's gambling emotion highlight video at "the events sp4")


--

and now for a really random inspiration from the guy sitting next to me who also happen to know Denis Huen purely out of chance. what is that feeling that I am getting when I realised the situation?
--you can't know everyone. if you do, you are really just knowing a tiny impression of what you got from those you know. you only have that much time.


another random inspiration.
https://www.facebook.com/ayochan.yn?ref=ts&fref=ts#!/
"孫悟空、唐僧、豬八戒、牛魔王，神仙妖怪，明明一切都是中國製造的假，但每次看，都有種心酸。大話西遊用一個最奇幻最荒誕最超現實的童話，來訴說世間最殘酷的現實，一切的笑聲歡愉不過襯托那份悲涼，一切的荒唐無稽不過對比那種無奈。

那一段對白，每一個人都知道，但每一個人都當是一個玩笑――直到終於，終於失去了，才明白為甚麼大話西遊其實是一套悲劇。"

the above is another example of "art as a lie to tell the truth".
oor is it simply a way to metaphorise an event?

yet another random encounter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUtS52lqL5w
what to waste 7 minutes of your time? watch this. entertaining shit.
the thing is, the creator himself spent 600 hours. applying fun theory, what motivated his 600 hours of dedication?
imagine if he had spent that 600 hours building the exact same thing for a school in africa...!

Study on a "Practical Model" for corporate product endorsement

This time we will look at the long-standing format of "trade-show/corporate pitching" type of performances, where you as the performer is required to help your client sell a product.

This type of shows are particularly difficult, for we ususally have very little time to understand the product, and not only do we have to design our magic to fit the product, we have to deal with the conflict of "magic VS pitching", how much is enough? Sometimes, the magic simply don't fit the product, and what do we do?

Do we just stick a sticker of your client's logo to a change bag and consider the job done?
Can we do better than that?

Let take a look at how it has been done by workers in the past.



Traditional model 1: Specific trick plots with artificial incorporation of brand logo
Example:

WDWLH (What Do We Learn Here?):
(ignore the mistakes in the video, I know it's difficult)
The use of this model has to do one part on the magician, another part on how much the client is willing to pay for customisation.

Traditional model 2: Using the products as props and incorporating physical characteristics of the product to create the effect.
Example:

WDWLH:
This type of performances gives more attention to the characteristics of the product, but still the magic and the effect is disconnected. Also, the image and personality of the magician is rather disconnected.


Modern approach 1: Starting with looking at the core messages desired to be communicated by the client, designing the magic entirely as a storytelling piece.
Example:

WDWLH:
Now clearly this is far more impactful, as the whole storytelling is aimed towards delivering the client's message. The only fear is that incompetent magicians in effect design and might fail to make the magic communicate, and to the contrary cause distraction to the storytelling.

and at the same time, the magician's character is again, diminished into the storytelling and easily forgotten, unless the style of presentation is so unique that the delivery of the story itself reminds the audience of the performer.

=======

So, all such being said, is this an issue when an experienced magician receives a corporate gig and wants to both 1) be loyal to the brand and help the client effectively convey the message they wanted, and 2) still maintain character and be able to sell himself and make use of this gig to brand himself in this opportunity as well, transcending beyond a doll/spokesperson of the show?

Inspiration:

WDWLH:
What exactly inspires me in Cyril's Approach is at 08:20 -- he transitioned his show from group interaction to live. Those who have been in the magic industry for long enough will know that this is nothing new; in fact most tier-one illusionists do it; move from a small set and into a large show. However the way Cyril carries the entire atmosphere with him is rarely achievable...

...and then it connected the dots for me...
can't we do the same in a trade show; split the whole show in half--first present the product, then you make the transition and present yourself?

By separating the product selling at the character establishment, we can avoid the conflict of who goes first, and the heat goes to the transition.

And as Cyril proves it--a transition from one set to another can be.....very.....effortless!


In fact I realised, this transition model is nothing new; it's the norm in talk shows. The star never begin by displaying his/her abilities. Yes they begin by establishing character, but then they get interviewed, then the star gives a solo at the end.


Refer again to the lord, David Copperfield:

You clearly see the pattern: he first Establishes character, then he moves on to mention the product.
The time he gave to the big mac was short, but it was
While he talks about the big mac, his focus is undivided. Not only does he give the product all the attention it deserves, he endorses it.

We now see a clear structure -- Establishing character, and convey the client's message in the form of "endorsement".

So, the envisioned corporate trade-show promo gig can look like this:

1) Establishing character -- 1-2 minutes of opening sequence (with product if appropriate) 
if you are famous, remind people how famous you are.
If you are not, use 2 minutes to let people feel you are awesome enough to worth their attention.
(CASE STUDY: Han Seol Hui and his quick tricks with the envy computer.)

2) Product Endorsement -- core of event 
Start talking about the product or deliver the message. Now this part must be tailored with quality and story-telling based. Must have magic, hence you are telling the story in a way others can't (or else why else would they hire you an not some other guy to speak for it?).
But here is the difference between this and traditional trade show tricks: you truly and genuinely gives the product undivided attention.
(CASE STUDY: Charlie Caper and him talking about Stockholm.)

3) Back to the performer -- one last "gift" before he leaves stage.
Now this is where everything goes back to the performer. After talking about the product, thank the sponsors for inviting you, and say as a token of thanks and "rewarding" the attendees for having the magicians at the event, you are going to give them a special "sneak-peek" of your personal development, just like how Cyril said it: "this is my brand new illusion! follow me :insert signature blink:"

The point is, this is the end of the show, make everyone end with YOU as their visual memory; yes it sounds selfish, but the biggest development in this routine design is: unlike the past where you achieve neither (selling the product nor yourself), to the client it felt like you respected their aim and actually gave the majority of your focus in the product. At the end, not only will the client be threatened by the impression that you are doing your own stuff on their show, they felt like you are adding-value to the original pitching service they paid for; i.e. for the price of one pitch, you both pitched AND gave them a free show. The self-perceived interest is strong and they will thank you for offering the bonus.

and the best thing about this is, this part is all about YOU. This can be your strongest effect of the set. You don't have to worry about customisation, because it has already been dealt with.
(CASE STUDY: Cyril's last illusion with Andy Lau)



Concluding note:
This whole thing  sounds really nice, but in all honesty this is merely a performer's pipedream--there is the assumption that everytime you take a corporate gig, you actually have enough info to understand what you are actually promoting, not to mention endorse it. Those who work in the trade show for long enough will know I am just talking crap here.

In other words, this model is yet to be validated, and all you trade show guys can give it a shot if you have the time and energy to invest in this type of tailoring and brand building.


After all, it's not bad to always have perfection mind, be it an often unrealistic one.



-M

"Look Mom! The rod spins around my body with no hands! (and no, it's not a Dildo!)"

A rant on the Dancing Cane plot.

...The problem of most dancing cane routine is, as I see it, is that the magician isn't dancing "to" the cane. In fact, most of them isn't even dancing--they swing the cane like crazy, and their footwork don't even remotely resembling that of "moving gracefully". Their style of performance easily fall within one of two camps--the "here are 20 moves that you will never see the drum marcher do, because they can't" camp, or 2--"look ma, no hands!" camp. 

Which really is the same camp--the "Mediocre performer desperately trying to impress his audience with his magic swingy wand." camp.

It doesn't take an intellect to find out what the problem is; on one hand, the audience couldn't understand what's the purpose for swinging the cane like that (other than to look impressive), and owing to the fact that most dancing cane moves are so repetitive in nature, the routine quickly ceases to be entertaining, and the performer easily losing the little engagement the audience had to begin with. The audience couldn't identify it as a dance, they couldn't make sense out of it, and they simply could't relate to it in any way. 

To do the dancing cane properly, I see 3 goals in mind:

1) Learn to dance.

It's "Dancing" cane, not "spinning the cane around in circles till they get tired of you". Learn how to dance, let the audience understand and visualise the fact that you are doing a dance. And please, make efforts to make sure it at least looks GOOD.  

Look no other than the living legend David Copperfield--he doesn't only makes the performance look great, he also made it clear Right from the start to the audience that he is DANCING, and it made that clear consistently throughout. Needless to say, he looked GOOD; obviously he did took his time to practice his ballroom footwork.

2) It's the cane dancing. The magic is on the cane. Give it the focus it deserves.

The other part where most magicians fail, is where their hands betrayed themselves--they threw the cane like a yo-yo, as if that is what you're supposed to do even if you're a magician. What comes as a result of this, is that the magician becomes a huge distraction to the effect. Take the effort and TRY to hide those awkward hand gestures; in the technical case where you can't, at least FIT it into a choreography; it is these gestures that removes your audience from appreciating the cane coming to life.

Here is Losander doing his dancing broom. Clearly Losander gave up on the "dance partner" concept, and turned it into an "enchanted" "broom under a magic spell" type plot. However the lesson is the came--he made the performance look EFFORTLESS. Never do you see him moving his hands awkwardly not in sync with the movement of the cane--his hand is exactly where they should be: at a distance from the broom, sensibly commanding it to move. 

It definitely worked out, and it definitely looked entertaining.

3) Dance "TO" the cane, not with it.

the name is dancing "cane"---i.e. the cane is DANCING as your partner. So treat it like one. It is your job as a magician to make the cane come to life. HOLD her like you would hold a partner. make the cane MOVE like a human being would. make it INTERACT to you the way a real, breathing person. That is where all the puppetry skills comes in. 

The closest man I have ever seen in making his performance resembling to a dance, is Simon Drake.He truly earn my respect in this area. This piece of his here falls within the "victim" style of performance; it is clear that there is still plenty of room for the "witness" and "killer" type of performing styles .

Depressingly, the idea of "dancing to an imaginary partner" is not even new. It has been there for decades, with mimes and dancers taking their shot at it throughout the years.

We really can borrow lessons from the dance and miming sector.

Within 20 minutes of googling, there are already 2 solid attempts by performers of different generations:

The classic:

Vicky Lane-- the "half-man, half-woman"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut6CvpNmt6g&feature=related

The modern:
Boy with tape on his face
(dance part from 4:23)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLs6eULXDqc

Just imagine if modern day dancing cane performers learnt 1% from the above acts and try to develop a "human character" for their cane; cane routines will never look the same again.

Hoping one day someone will create a dancing cane routine good enough for the community.

and if no one is doing it, maybe I would have to give it a try myself...

http://www.graphis.com/cfe/online/posterannual2013/?id=9160

Medium...what?

hi, this blog is going to be about my ideas and thoughts in magic.

(reserved for first post)

time to brainstorm--monopoly deal

Monopoly deal is gaining its popularity in Hong Kong.
start brainstorming for ideas available.

Scope: Casual setting, 20 inch close-up, known audiences.

Style: Mentalism

Effect: guessing the cards they have in a hand.

=================

Effect: Sam the bellhop with a deck of "monopoly deal"

Style: storyteller / enigmatic friend of the audience / shuffling miracle

Scope: TV Commercial

=================

Effect: Turning a hand into a set of useful cards = Zapped

Effect: Turning a packet of different properties into the same colour. / Transposition of cards = D.Facers

Style: gambling routine / cutely impossible

Scope: Formal setting, 20 inch close-up / scaring old friends / TV Commercial

=================