The Art of Magic Series - Mitch Williams
Tools and Resources to Make Your Magic the Best it Can Be!
Q and A With Mitch...
Here are a few questions and answers edited from various conversations with my students and other "magic" clients.
Questions:
- Q: Do you have any feedback regarding performing for kids versus adults in regards to expressing your character?
-
A: Some performers say you must have a distinctly different character for
each type of audience, kids versus adults. While I think that's one valid
approach, I don't think it's the only one. My take is that you can have
the same character, but that your character will naturally respond differently
in different situations.
In real life how we behave changes from one situation to another, at least if you're paying attention! I think your character should do the same thing, and this applies to performing for kids or adults (or for both at the same time). Mainly I think it comes down to paying attention, and responding with sincerity and honesty to the particular situation. Many performers don't respond directly to things that the audience members do. I think that's a mistake.
Anyway, in general, some questions to ask are... How do you respond differently to kids as opposed to adults in real life? And how comfortable are you with that? How would your character respond to kids or adults? For example, if you're just a big kid, you'd probably feel right at home with other kids. And you'd probably try to entice adults to be more childlike.
With kids (and adults, but especially kids) I think it's important to be "real" with them. Kids can spot insincerity a mile away. The main difference in my character when I perform for kids is just that I play a bit more broadly, and I tend to get into their enthusiasm. And I keep things conceptually simpler than when performing for an "adults only" crowd. Otherwise, I'm pretty much the same.
Back to top
- Q: What's your take on the exposure in magic in recent years, re: the Fox TV specials, Masked Magician, internet, etc?
-
A: In general I think that we magicians can sometimes take ourselves too seriously,
and we often tend to underestimate the lay public's ability to "get it". My take
in talking to people after those TV specials is that they see right through the attempt
to de-value what we do, and it only helps us get more respect in their eyes, even if
only indirectly. In any case I find it hard to get too worked up about the exposure
thing. I'm not so sure it's a bad thing in the long run. It might even be one of
the best things that could happen to us (the magic community). WE'VE created this,
by making the "secrets" our whole point, our precious little treasure that we selfishly
guard with our lives. I've always felt we should focus a WHOLE lot less on the
"secrets" and more on simply creating moments of wonder. Hidden methodology is only
one of many, many tools that we use to create those moments. And the more we focus
on the other, in my view MUCH more important tools, the less important the "secrets"
become.
Here's a challenge: create a routine where you explain to the audience exactly how it's accomplished, technically, right before you perform it. The stated point being that you want to free them from the distraction of trying to "figure out" what's going on, so they can appreciate it on other levels. And then you so surprise them with the performance, the concepts, the emotion, and get so caught up in all of that yourself, that knowing how it's done only makes the experience of wonder more intense. "He told us how it was done, and he still blew us away with it!"
There's some food for thought at least! And if anyone actually takes up my challenge, please do let me know how it turns out!
Back to top
- Q: This may seem strange, but I get nervous whenever I have to talk when performing close up. If I could do everything without talking, I'd be happy, but that doesn't work so well for closeup...at least, not for the whole act. I feel like I can be convincing until I have to open my mouth...then, I flame out....
-
A: Well, there are two approaches as I see it. Either just be yourself, or be a
particular character. Playing an extreme character is harder to pull off effectively
doing close up. I've seen very few people do it in a way I thought really worked.
But that's mostly because most magicians suck as actors, simply because we don't
necessarily take the time to develop those specific skills. For close up, I think the
issues are: if you're being yourself, just think of having a conversation, no let me
correct that, don't "think" of having a conversation, just have one. I'm going to assume
that you're engaging enough and interesting enough, and amusing enough in person as a
conversationalist. You're fun to talk with. So just do that. Here's a game you can play.
Try to catch yourself in the middle of having any old conversation and take note of how you
might make (whatever point you're making) with magic, if you really could do magic. Or
maybe you'd just use it to express yourself or your sense of humor. In other words it's
just an outgrowth of your conversational style. That should give you some insight into
how to structure effects or routines.
If you're being a specific character, on the other hand, what you have to do is be so consistent with your character that "he" can respond naturally, in character, to ANYTHING that happens. (Sort of like character based improv.) That's the kind of consistency that makes a character work "close up". You have to have that in order to come off as "real" and in order for the audience to believe your character. If you can't "deviate from your script" whenever necessary, and respond "in character" to the audience doing or saying unexpected things, they won't buy your character, and you're dead in the water. And in this case, you just structure the routines to suit your character's style of expression, and go from there. All the magic, sleights, "secret stuff", etc. then simply become stage props in your "interactive theatre piece".
And by the way, I don't agree that it wouldn't work to perform silent for the whole close up act. Look at what Teller can do. And I guarantee he can do it close up and still make the audience buy it, AND hold their attention the whole time. It can be really fun and playful to not talk. Lends you a certain (possibly mischevious) sense of mystery.
Back to top
- Q: Yes, reframing the magic as an extension of conversation is an interesting notion. I suppose I'm afraid of getting caught, but when I was on stage as an actor, I never had any terror of "getting caught" as not really being the Duke of Venice or Judge Brack. Of course, I was always afraid I was going to forget my lines, but it didn't stop me from going on stage. Maybe what I also need to do is shift my internal model from "trickery" to "acting."
-
A: Yes, precisely. That was my point. If you can act in public, you can perform magic.
Provided you can make the shift from thinking magic is somehow "different". It's not.
It's really just acting with special effects.
Back to top