Mentalists on JREF?

[NeilC]

I wonder how you do a comic explanation whilst leaving any vested interest in the effect through? Doesn't it just become a comedy act with a bit of puzzle? Seems to me that the belief in the effect being somewhat supernatural or super-psychological makes up a large part of it being at all worthwhile. After all most mentalist methodology is very simple - it's commonly about obtaining information secretly or producing information secretly and very often using the exact method the person initially thinks of. Much of the ruling out of that method seems to rely on the possibility of there being a mysterious alternative available.

 

[Alan]

Not any more than a mysterious/psychic presentation makes it a funeral with a little puzzle. It's about the balance. A joke or two in places, being serious at other times and so on.

And laughter at the right time is great temporal misdirection. And seems to make people less critical (in terms of noticing things), I've heard Teller say. People believing it isn't the only way to make people less critical.

If a method is as easily discovered as that, I don't perform it. I have a confidence problem and so I have high standards about about how hidden the method can be. It still leaves lots of effects to choose from and someone doesn't need to perform all that many effects.

 

[Brown]

I also find a lot of mentalism performances pretty dull. I think this is mainly because I'm a skeptic so psychic and supernatural powers are not suitable explanations for me. I don't believe it it for one second and so the insistence that it is that grates on me. I also find much of it over-serious or plain idiotic.

I find that, for mentalism, the presentation is especially important. An audience can give a "mentalist" a pass on things that they would never let a "magician" get away with, and a "mentalist" can get screwed up--intentionally or not--in ways that would never bother a skilled "magician."

There are two things about mentalist performances that are difficult for me. The first is "milking" an effect. There is a prominent performer who does a trick (whom I will not name and whose effect I will not describe), in which the secret is a prop that costs less than a penny to make, and that if lost or damaged can be constructed from scratch in about a minute. This effect could be performed in three minutes and could be very effective in that time, but this particular prominent performer draws out the effect for ten to fifteen minutes. The effect isn't so stunning that it is worth the extra time, not really; and if you know the secret is in this cheap prop, you feel a sort of pain that the mystery is being dragged out as long as it is.

The second is that mentalist performances on television are almost always edited to remove signs of trickery or to convey impressions that are incorrect. This editing is not necessarily done with the intent to aid the performer, although this is often the result. It's just that certain lead-in and prepatory stuff is deemed to be "not a part of the effect" and "nothing happens there, anyway"; so it therefore gets edited out. In fact, that is where a lot of the dirty work is done. The eventual television presentation therefore seems to be more mysterious.

 

[firecoins]

I perform mentalist in my stand up comedy act.

 

[Max_mang]

I was self employed for a while as a magician and a mentalist. I haven't performed in a few years, but do the occasional effect for friends and such.

Two of my favorites are Derren Brown and Max Maven.

 

[NeilC]

I'd say Maven is a mental magician these days. He doesn't seem to be be remotely serious about pretending his "powers" are real. Plus his effects seem to me to reveal a magical thinking rather than a pure mentalist one. Brown on the other hand is very much a mentalist.

 

[firecoins]

I went to see "psychic" John Edward. He has a great mentalist show. Or the dead people have a great mentalist show.