A Rebuttal to Weber

Recently, I read Ken Weber’s excellent Maximum Entertainment (1.0). Yes, I know I’m twenty years behind the times. But when you’ve made money from performing old George Anderson material and Annemann techniques, you don’t necessarily care about chasing the latest and greatest publication.

I will preface this by saying I thoroughly enjoyed my time reading this book, and I realise it is a book I should have read sooner. However, there is one chapter I take issue with: his advice on glasses. It has stuck with me and festered, so now, as a form of therapy, I’m sharing my thoughts on this under-discussed subject in mentalism.

Ken’s advice is simple: “If possible, don’t wear glasses.” Ken’s reasoning is that they act as a barrier to communication with the audience. Glasses block the twinkle in your eyes, which I can understand. They can cause glare when working with stage lighting, but I think Mr Weber is missing a whole load of advantages to glasses.

Bespectacled performers have a whole world of theatrical opportunities unavailable to the performer with perfect visual acuity. Weber’s advice states that they act as a barrier to communication. But I think they provide that perfect opportunity to show visually that you are connecting with an audience member.

There is a great theatricality in taking glasses off. The taking off of the glasses can be used to signal a particularly sensitive moment in a show where you may want to have that direct eye-to-eye contact. You may want to use the glasses for humour, removing them so you can properly raise your eyebrows to give people “a look.” Without even removing them, just looking over your glasses can be used to signal a whole range of emotions without saying a word, from disapproval or bemusement to suggestive expressions of disbelief. They act as another prop available to the performer to create visual moments, something often lacking in mentalism.

Glasses can also be employed as a tool in sleight of hand within mentalism. If you are a billet worker, they offer opportunities to subtly display your hands as empty. When you have a billet palmed, you can bring your hand up to adjust your glasses. The act of pushing them back up your nose, for instance, works in the same way as coin workers employ Ramsay Subtlety to show their hands empty: the audience sees your palm empty while you are adjusting your glasses. Now, obviously, you wouldn’t draw attention to this or state your hand is empty, but taking hold of your glasses, taking them off, and giving them a little clean acts in the same way as a magic wand. It allows the hand to stay natural when palming something, thus avoiding the terrible-looking cramped-hand look many adopt when palming. If you are feeling really bold, you can even go for a peek of a billet you’ve withheld. Looking down to clean your glasses gives you perfect cover for why your eyeline wanders down to look at a piece of concealed information in your hand.

Now, I am not actually that short-sighted, which opens up further opportunities. I struggle with seeing things in the distance, so reading markings nearby, billets, etc., is no major issue without my glasses on. When wearing a blindfold, I don’t want to put the blindfold over the top of my glasses, so they come off and go in a top pocket. This sends another subtle suggestion that I can’t see. As silly as that may sound, in my mind, it acts like a reverse Superman procedure, which helps me with the act of wearing a blindfold and pretending I can’t see.

Now, I will state that I read the original 2003 version of Maximum Entertainment. In that time, we have had a whole host of developments in glasses technology, so maybe this section didn’t make it into Maximum Entertainment 2.0. We can now buy thinner lenses of the same prescription strength, anti-glare lenses, and so on. But I still think Ken missed a trick with glasses: another tool in the toolbox to draw on in our deceptions. It was, however, one of the few times I think he dropped the ball in this otherwise excellent read, so I’ll forgive his short-sightedness on this subject.