When I first heard of Derren Brown I was skeptical. I purchased both of his books I started to read them and thought it was claptrap. But then I saw Brown perform and jumped back on the books. They are very expensive now and hard to find at a good price.
The more I've read by him the more I appreciate what he had to say. Magicians tend (at least table hoppers) to try and come up with an ice-breaker to get people's attention in a restaurant or hospitality venue. They persuade the owners to post a tent-card introducing the magician. But this is only treating a symptom. As I've gotten older I resent the constant interruptions at the restaurant table by the waiter/waitress and just want to visit with my friends or family. Then some guy comes up, as Brown points out, and says, "Excuse me sir, did you lose a white pen knife"? Brown's essay in Absolutely Magic is hilarious, especially his response to this nonsense (which I admit I have done with different effects- money, salt shakers, etc). Of course I didn't lose a pen knife, I know that red ink weighs the same as black ink, and I could care less that coins can travel from hand to hand. I just want another soda and no interruptions.
Brown's point about magic is not intrinsically meaningful is well-taken. Imagine going into a theater and paying 20.00 for tickets (that's cheap) and you see 3 minutes of a slow-motion explosion created by CGI. Then the show is over. That is comparable to watching a 3 minute routine by a magician. It has no context, and no meaning. It may be astonishing to see a coin visually vanish at the fingertips, but who cares? It doesn't mean anything to watch a coin vanish. Brown uses the example of coming into the house, laying down a book that you've been reading, getting distracted and then finally coming back to where you put the book down. And its gone. Now the mind tracks a moment of confusion and immediately goes backwards to track down the book. The mind does the same thing with magic. There is meaning for a moment in the desire to figure out where the book went. But it is not a pleasant experience.
I've been thinking quite a bit about what Brown says about magic as art and theater and his thoughts are well taken. Let me give you an example. I'm a science fiction fan and recently watched some episodes of Star Trek Next Generation. In season 6 an episode, "Lessons" is a poignant take on relationships. Picard meets an attractive crew member, Lt.Cdr Derren played by Wendy Hughes. They grow in attraction and then the plot thickens where he has to send her to a planet that is going to experience a storm which rages in unsurvivable fire (note the plot conflict). She survives but they both realize, without saying it, that she can no longer have a relationship with Picard because he may have to send her to face her death. How will they resolve it? This conflict and the personalities involved bring the viewer into the story and it becomes meaningful.
Brown notes that the magician typically is like a god who snaps his fingers and the magic happens. There is no inherent conflict, no display of likable personality (he interrupted your dinner, didn't he?) and silly patter about ink being heavier with more printing). In our Star Trek analogy, the transporter, the star ship, the phasers, etc., are all props that provide set dressing to the real point of interest, the players. The frame work is relationships. It is not the transporter that we are interested in. It is the person being transported to the planet to face danger that is our focal point of interest. Brown points out that the average magician can make a bill float. But why? Who cares? Everyone knows (when their mind back-tracks) that there is a thread, a magnet, etc. But Brown's presentation provides the framework- the lady's relationship with a pleasant memory surrounding the ring, and the implied method is the energy of her thoughts that make it move. And for her, the magic is now meaningful.
What I (and Brown) are not saying is that you tell a story with a plot and relate it to the effect. Magic can be a polemic for some ideology but this is not necessarily meaningful. In a postmodern sense, the magician must tap into the experiences of the audience and use this as his portrait where the magic is one of the props in the story. I'm reminded of a magician who put out some DVD's and is frolicking in the forest (I'm not making this up). He then finds a coin on a rock and he and his pal cover the coin with paper telling some inane story about fairies and light flash paper around the coin and it disappears. What hackneyed silliness is this? People may want to believe in Tinkerbell but that is not our common experience and if you saw a fairy in the woods you wouldn't set her or him on fire to make him disappear. You would likely take a picture of it with your cell phone.
Magic is changing to be sure. But as I get older I'm less and less fascinated with somebody doing spread leg postures, making a dove appear and cards at his fingertips. Who cares? I'd rather watch Star Trek or Dr. Who.
No comments:
Post a Comment