I'm sure this one will ruffle some feather bouquets.
If you haven't already, please take a moment to read the preface to this post: On Magic For Children. It may address some things not in this post and provide some context.
Welcome back. I'd like to make one thing perfectly clear at the outset:
This isn't about the props.
It's about the lessons these objects and routines help exemplify. There is an entertainer out there who can use each and every item below to great effect in the proper context, and with an understanding of the challenges that inhere.
Though it may seem otherwise, I'm not trying to write this from a (soft) soapbox, but rather from the standpoint of an interested observer. Then again, I'm not trying to evaluate the food without having been in the kitchen, either. In the past, I did offer a children's birthday party show to clients, and in those shows I even did a few of the very things I caution against now. Yes, I've used the outdated prop; I've said the hackneyed line; I've done the embarrassing routine.
But, as soon as I held each prop and routine to a personal standard (even an ideal), I found myself pruning and deconstructing the act to the point where, for a short time, I could only offer the maximum of a 15 minute show because only 15 minutes of material had survived this Inquisition.
I think that was an important rite of passage to go through, however, and I would encourage magicians of all types to be open to that experience. Incidentally, I soon after realized that I was doing kid shows primarily because it was easy to get booked, and not because I really wanted to be performing for children in the long term.
And so it was that my next kid show was my last.
During that time and since—having seen many routines and performances heretofore—I've made a few notes and observations about some of the challenges that one might encounter in doing magic for children, from a progressively aesthetic standpoint. I'd like to share them with you.
Again, while I often use a prop or routine to illustrate, this isn't a definitive list of props and routines. Other examples could have been used instead; these were simply the first to come to mind.
11) Character
There is a common character played by many kid show performers, and it involves more than just a colorful style of dress. The performer is often clownish with a lot of gags, and his tricks seem to go wrong initially. He drops things; his props break on him, and feigned surprise is around every corner.
I'm not saying that is a bad choice of character, per se. But, it is a character that is extremely difficult to do well.
It's easy to overact surprise, but much harder to make it believable. Think about the performers in adult shows who try to pretend that something has gone wrong and do so unconvincingly? And, recall the difference between those moments and the one where you really believed it? How about the difference between the guy who get groans from an old gag and the rare performer who brings down the house with the same line? These things are tough to do!
Pursuing this type of character is certainly one choice, but it isn't absolutely necessary to take this route by default. A kid show performer need not be a clown who does a few tricks, need not use old lines and gags (even if they are new to the kids), and need not be successful magically only partially and seemingly accidentally. Again, yes, there is someone who is terrific at all of the above, but is he someone else?
It's good to know what you're trying to communicate with your performances. Are you above all else a comedian, a colorful entertainer, a clown, a cartoon, a magician, or something else?
10) Productions
e.g., Card Castles
I love real card castles, but a large part of that appeal is their fragility. When catalog card castles are produced as though the object is solid, this essential fragile quality is lost, and it becomes obvious that something less impressive than the real thing is in use. Imagine, instead, how amazing it would be to see a card castle produced in perfect construction, and then collapse with a little puff of air or tap of the table.
The idea here is that the production of a large item is great in and of itself. If we cannot make the item have the essential qualities of the actual item, then I contend that the effect of producing the actual item is not realized. Instead, we've produced something else. That's not bad; it just might be less good.
Wouldn't it be more impressive to produce a large ball of black sponge as a large ball of black sponge, than to produce a large ball of black sponge with three white spots painted on it in an attempt to make it look like something it clearly isn't?
"But what about props in a theatre play?" someone asks.
There are subtle differences. For example, Hamlet can be holding in his hand a real skull, a fake skull, or nothing at all—without any loss of effect. David Copperfield, however, didn't become world-famous by only telling the story of the Statue of Liberty's disappearance.
"But they are just kids!" another protests.
True, and most of them won't notice. But wouldn't it be great to challenge ourselves to do more than just the minimum?
9) Decency
e.g., The Miser's Dream
The lesson here has nothing to do with the effect; the idea of producing money is quite magical. But, when a middle aged man in a sparkling suit pulls things out of various parts of little Timmy, all that touching can start to look a bit creepy. I know it's all in good fun, and the kids like the trick; nevertheless, it would be wise to understand how a protective parent might see this and similar hands-on tricks.
Some will want to point out a few well-known magicians who do the Miser's Dream with children, as if that invalidates the point above. I don't think it does, for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, I think people are more protective of what happens in their own home (or neighborhood) when they are one of the few adults tasked with the safety of children. When parents are part of an audience of dozens or hundreds of other parents, however, there is a sort of collective reassurance combined with a higher expectation of professionalism. This is worth mentioning, but it's beside the point. More importantly, however, is that exemplary performers have taken this sensitive issue into consideration and have modified their approach, often in subtle ways, to minimize generating any vicarious discomfort.
Compare the routines of Al Flosso and Jeff McBride. In Flosso's day, his approach was probably considered acceptable—surprisingly, even his reaching into the child's front pockets and poking his wand below the belt-line. Today, this would certainly not be wisest approach—which may partially explain why Jeff McBride's routine is far less invasive. Unfortunately, there are some who are still living in Flosso's day.
Incidentally, when I was recently discussing this with a local magician, he shared the story of another performer in-town who does the underwear trick by personally stuffing the scarves into the front of the little boy's pants. The fact that he gets laughs, gets applause, and gets paid does not mean he's got it all right.
Keep in mind, the average parent will not wish to confront the performer directly about this sort of issue, unless absolutely necessary. They just won't hire that magician again, and they won't recommend him to anyone else.
8) Oops
Breakaway wands, fans, boxes, &c., present a dilemma.
On the one hand, if we were decent magicians, our props would not break on us. On the other hand, if they break on cue in the hands of our volunteers, we can seem a bit mean for having made this happen. Some kids find it hilarious to be holding the broken wand, but then there's the few who feel differently. I'd rather not get a laugh from the audience at the expense of the one kid on stage.
Perhaps, instead, the wand or fan is discovered broken at the outset, and you and the helper fix it. You win, they win, and everybody gets cake.
Oh damn, it's breakaway cake.
7) The Mouth
e.g., Mouth Coils
When I was 11, I had three mouth coils. One day, I surreptitiously loaded one and made a scene in my school cafeteria as I coughed and coughed and finally pulled out a colorful length of braided paper.
The other two mouth coils have never been used.
It's not that I didn't get a good reaction—just the opposite. Instead, I realized that every other noun that erupts from a mouth is generally seen as disgusting. Unless you're aiming for gross, that's a strong association that I'd rather avoid. Think about it: vomit, spit, loose teeth, phlegm, blood . . . and words.
Honestly, I don't think most kids have any problem with paper coming out of the mouth of a magician. I simply decided this didn't fit with what I wanted to be presenting, and I know I would be embarrassed if there were a video of me using a mouth coil floating around. Your mileage may vary.
6) Suckers
How cruel and inconsiderate is it to deliberately make your audience look like fools or bring a volunteer to your stage and proceed to make them look like a failure while everyone else laughs at them?
While it could be said that many magic tricks are inherently sucker tricks, there's a difference between things being not like they seem, tricks with group participation, and "gotcha" sucker tricks where the performer has been encouraging the audience to vocally take a position that he can later show to be a foolish one.
The latter produces one of two undesirable attitudes: 1) either the audience and the performer are thenceforth in direct competition and/or 2) the audience learns that yelling out the secrets is permissible during the performance.
Or 3) they love that you led them down the garden path and are entertained nonetheless. I suppose the question to be asked is, "Does the sucker element produce a net gain? That is, does it add to both the mystery and entertainment without producing a greater negative response?"
Segue.
We've all come across people who, upon learning that we are magicians, say they don't like magic. Upon further inquiry, some will say it is because magicians make them feel foolish.
And yet there is an entire genre of magic devoted to this!
At most, I would only include one trick of this type in an act, and structured in a way that made it less of a personal challenge to the intelligence of the children.
I'm really only saying that because I know you love those Hippity Hop Rabbits.
5) Anachronism
e.g., Chick/Dove Pan
Everyone expects the dove pan to be on this sort of list. Some will point to it being an outdated object (the original was modeled after an old style of housewares); some will claim it is overused to the point of being hackneyed; and others will say that the lid isn't the most deceptive piece of apparatus invented.
While it's probably a bit of all three, I have occasionally seen the prop taken in different and somewhat interesting directions.
Let's face it. Some props, like it or not, have baggage. That is, an honest appraisal reveals they have more working against them than for them, so the challenge becomes how to acknowledge this rather than ignore it, and try to turn those weaknesses into strengths, or, if necessary, be unafraid to try something else in its place.
Personally, I would try not to use props like these; that is, I would only include them if they really are the perfect fit. And what constitutes my "perfect fit" is probably different from yours. That's OK.
4) Quality
e.g., spring flowers, feather bouquets
The issue here is not with flowers, per se. It's with the poor quality of the prop that most have purchased. If flowers are used in an act, I think it would be better that they look like actual flowers than like feather dusters. Or, if they were fake paper flowers, wouldn't it be wonderful if they were visually interesting pieces of origami rather than the spring flowers currently available?
We often complain that magic is seen as a cheap form of entertainment. Well, let's make sure the quality of our props isn't a contributing factor.
As for routines with flowers, I think most are fine. I understand Pat Page and Cesario (Le Grand David) had wonderful technique with flowers. Again, this certainly isn't about tricks with flowers; it's about steering clear of inferior quality when possible.
But, since we're on the subject, some flower routines don't make a lot of sense. Consider the Flower Box Production. Two paper flowers inside a plastic box with a Mylar border are produced from a odd-sized paper sack. In this sort of situation, I'm not sure the flowers add anything to the routine. It would be more interesting to produce something like small presents wrapped in a bow (and appearing solid) from a bag rather than clear boxes of paper flowers.
Plus, you could give the last one to the birthday boy/girl after a little legerdemain, or prestidigitation if you prefer.
3) Transparency
e.g., D'Lite
How many of you have ever put a little flashlight up to your finger and made your thumb glow red?
Me too, and I'm guessing most of our audience has too. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of manipulating light, but some great ideas miss the mark in practice (total sales notwithstanding).
There is a great exception. I'm not at liberty to divulge the routine, but suffice it to say, the prop can be used to great effect, when one is creative enough to stray from a standardized handling and presentation—and ask themselves what it is exactly that they are doing and why they are doing it.
The idea here is that the default handling of some props makes the magic, well, translucent. I think we often fool ourselves into thinking that audiences, even audiences of children, aren't as smart as they really are.
Finally, let's remember that we can't measure the quality of illusion in units sold.
2) Ubiquity
e.g., Coloring Book
It may come as a surprise, but I really like the coloring book effect. It has audience participation, it packs small and is easy to do, and it can be quite mysterious when presented properly. So, what is the underlying issue? Simply that the magician they had last year did it too, and the magician they'll see later that year at a friend's party will do it too.
Of all the items on this list, the coloring book is the most likely trick that they have seen before, and they might just tell you that. We can't prevent every "I've seen that before" outburst (often they only think they have), but repeated over and over throughout the act one starts to wonder what it is that they really do that is unique—and not just presented differently.
1) Anomaly
e.g., Change Bags
We have dozens of options for changing one thing into another, don't we? Why then use a prop modeled after a church offering bag—an object which is highly unlikely to be recognized or expected in most magic shows?
This isn't about change bags in general. A lunch sack, a Ziploc bag, or a grocery sack could be made to do the same and would appear far less anomalous.
The common change bag found in kid shows today is often a velvet bag with a zipper glued to a wooden brim with a small handle. What is this to an audience if not something that, to warrant its inclusion, must be the thing absolutely necessary for the magic to happen? They may not get the inner workings just right, but they know it's the bag, because why else would someone include such a crazy looking bag?
I understand that most children won't have this revelation on the spot, but as I mentioned earlier, I don't believe in doing lesser magic for children.
I know many disagree.
In Closing
There you have it! Some of the items one might expect to be mentioned, e.g., balloon to dove, arm chopper, and linking rings, were addressed in my previous post, 11 Stage Props To Vanish In 2011, though the context there was centered around general adult audiences.
With the same breath, I will also say that some of the items in that previous post, e.g., top hats, capes, and multiple silk handkerchiefs, might be quite appropriate for a kid show, especially the younger demographic. That said, while we may benefit by immediately establishing ourselves as a magician with these props, remember that we're also reinforcing the general magician stereotype—and not one that many performers who work for sophisticated adult audiences are particularly fond of.
I know there are a lot of good kid show performers out there who understand these issues. I'd like to see more join them.