I have a tendency to agree to things without thinking, then figure out how I can accomplish what I said I'd do. Yesterday I got a call asking if I was interested in doing an hour show for an event in a couple months. Of course I said yes. Then I started thinking about it, and I have doubts that I can fill an hour.
I've got some time to prepare, and I'm sure I have the material and the ability but it's gonna take some work. I usually do more close up, walkaround style things so I'm not sure how well that will translate to this event. I don't know if it's a case of me making another of a million excuses and I should just buckle down and do it.
My saving grace here is that I haven't actually committed to the event, it was basically just saying yes to a middleman who would pass my number on to the event coordinator. I'm supposed to get a call from here to discuss the details, so that would be the time to back out if I'm going to. We'll see what I can come up with in the next couple days. Whatever happens, I'll keep you posted.
- Andster
Sunday, January 31, 2016
Monday, January 25, 2016
About Stooges
After my post from the other day, I started thinking about stooges and their place in magic. This is something I've been meaning to write about for a long time now so I finally forced myself to sit down and do it. Strap in, this'll probably be a long one.
Years ago I probably would have told you that stooges had no place in magic and anyone using them was lazy and should find a way to accomplish the effect without a stooge. Now I realize that it's not so black and white. There are certain scenarios where having a stooge, instant or otherwise, can strengthen the effect. There are also times when using stooges can weaken things overall.
In my opinion a poor use of a stooge is a trick that can only be accomplished by using a stooge. I feel that these tricks look too impossible for an audience and they often correctly assume that the assistant is in on it. An example of this is something I feel like every magician hits on early in their career: Too-Perfect Mind Reading. It's not too much of a stretch to think "Gee, instead of forcing a word or using a center tear or a peek wallet, why don't I just have Bob help me out and tell him to say giraffe?"
Instead, I think a stooge should be used to strengthen an effect. They should be part of the method, not the entire method. An example I've seen of this being tossed around in the past is using another magician who knows the same stacked deck as you in an ACAAN effect. A real spectator names any card, your stooge names the corresponding number in the stack, or vice versa.
You could also use that to eliminate the weak point in a one-ahead routine. The simple 3-Way Test from Mark Wilson's Complete Course in Magic is one of my favorite pieces of impromptu magic, but I don't like that the third stage needs to be a force. Yes, you can get lucky with equivoque or you can use a psychological force, but ideally you could ask people to make completely free choices. Doing that for the first two stages and limiting choices in the third, to me, makes it look fishy. Having a stooge for that third stage can clean things up for you immensely.
I used a stooge a few months ago when I needed to film a video for something. I had been performing the Invisible Deck all day at a festival and towards the end I decided to get some footage of it. Instead of filming the actual routine, I grabbed someone I knew and basically said, "Hey, you're gonna help me make a video real quick. I'm going to ask you to name a card. Say the seven of hearts." I turned the seven around in a normal deck of cards, turned the camera on, and did my ID routine. It was exactly the same as I had done all day long, except I didn't need to do any math and I couldn't possibly screw it up. In my mind, that's the perfect example of using a stooge. It streamlines a performance, anyone watching would see the same thing as if you didn't use a stooge, and you can do the same thing in a non-stooged way.
Now that I've gone on and on about using stooges sparingly, let's talk about an idea I had that takes it to the other extreme. What if you did a magic show where everyone there was in on it except one or two people? I'm picturing something small and intimate, like after hours in a coffee shop or in a hotel suite. The show can seat maybe a dozen people total. Every time a person or couple books a ticket, that show becomes sold out. Early in your show you can do a "traditional" magic trick using the real spectators. As the show goes on, you do effects using your stooges that become more and more impossible. I'm thinking use them to sign duplicate cards or coins, think of words from the dictionary, use them to do the cleanest version of the lottery effect you'll ever see. The sky's the limit, I would just try to keep it at least semi-plausible.
As long as your stooges don't ham it up, the people who actually buy tickets and come to this as a real spectator are going to see the best magic show in the world. I think if this were to be actually done, you would need to select your stooges carefully. You can't have an audience full of your friends in case someone recognizes them. I think actors or people from Craigslist would be the best bet, but then I don't think you'd be able to sell tickets at a high enough price to be able to pay people. You would also have to keep track of people who have seen the show and be careful to not let them see the same show twice. Maybe switch things up with your stooges, but then you run the risk of someone getting confused. Maybe limit people coming back for a second showing by having tickets be sold out if they try to buy them. There's a lot of problems but I think they could be solved, I just don't know if I could solve them in my current position. I would love to try one day though.
Let's take this a step further into the extreme: What if everyone at the show was a stooge, but everyone though they were the only one? This is starting to become more performance art than magic show, but the idea of it really gets me. I think this would be best in an casual setting, like a house party or cookout or something. Individually and well in advance you approach your guests and tell them you're going to try out your new show but you need their help in one part. If they could just do X, you'd really appreciate it. Set up the whole show with different people in different roles.
Again, the whole thing can be as impossible as you'd like to make it but I feel that the more plausible you can make it, the better. Pull off the whole show (though I guess it is more accurately a play at this point) and afterward everybody's still amazed. I would love to do this and just sit back and see how long it would take people to realize, if they ever did. I think with the right group of people they would just keep quiet about it and be amazed forever. Again, I would love to try this but I'm not sure I can ever pull it off.
Well, that's what I've got to say about stooges. For now, anyway. I could probably talk forever about it but I would probably talk myself in circles more than I already have. I might revisit this at a later date.
- Andster
Years ago I probably would have told you that stooges had no place in magic and anyone using them was lazy and should find a way to accomplish the effect without a stooge. Now I realize that it's not so black and white. There are certain scenarios where having a stooge, instant or otherwise, can strengthen the effect. There are also times when using stooges can weaken things overall.
In my opinion a poor use of a stooge is a trick that can only be accomplished by using a stooge. I feel that these tricks look too impossible for an audience and they often correctly assume that the assistant is in on it. An example of this is something I feel like every magician hits on early in their career: Too-Perfect Mind Reading. It's not too much of a stretch to think "Gee, instead of forcing a word or using a center tear or a peek wallet, why don't I just have Bob help me out and tell him to say giraffe?"
Instead, I think a stooge should be used to strengthen an effect. They should be part of the method, not the entire method. An example I've seen of this being tossed around in the past is using another magician who knows the same stacked deck as you in an ACAAN effect. A real spectator names any card, your stooge names the corresponding number in the stack, or vice versa.
You could also use that to eliminate the weak point in a one-ahead routine. The simple 3-Way Test from Mark Wilson's Complete Course in Magic is one of my favorite pieces of impromptu magic, but I don't like that the third stage needs to be a force. Yes, you can get lucky with equivoque or you can use a psychological force, but ideally you could ask people to make completely free choices. Doing that for the first two stages and limiting choices in the third, to me, makes it look fishy. Having a stooge for that third stage can clean things up for you immensely.
I used a stooge a few months ago when I needed to film a video for something. I had been performing the Invisible Deck all day at a festival and towards the end I decided to get some footage of it. Instead of filming the actual routine, I grabbed someone I knew and basically said, "Hey, you're gonna help me make a video real quick. I'm going to ask you to name a card. Say the seven of hearts." I turned the seven around in a normal deck of cards, turned the camera on, and did my ID routine. It was exactly the same as I had done all day long, except I didn't need to do any math and I couldn't possibly screw it up. In my mind, that's the perfect example of using a stooge. It streamlines a performance, anyone watching would see the same thing as if you didn't use a stooge, and you can do the same thing in a non-stooged way.
Now that I've gone on and on about using stooges sparingly, let's talk about an idea I had that takes it to the other extreme. What if you did a magic show where everyone there was in on it except one or two people? I'm picturing something small and intimate, like after hours in a coffee shop or in a hotel suite. The show can seat maybe a dozen people total. Every time a person or couple books a ticket, that show becomes sold out. Early in your show you can do a "traditional" magic trick using the real spectators. As the show goes on, you do effects using your stooges that become more and more impossible. I'm thinking use them to sign duplicate cards or coins, think of words from the dictionary, use them to do the cleanest version of the lottery effect you'll ever see. The sky's the limit, I would just try to keep it at least semi-plausible.
As long as your stooges don't ham it up, the people who actually buy tickets and come to this as a real spectator are going to see the best magic show in the world. I think if this were to be actually done, you would need to select your stooges carefully. You can't have an audience full of your friends in case someone recognizes them. I think actors or people from Craigslist would be the best bet, but then I don't think you'd be able to sell tickets at a high enough price to be able to pay people. You would also have to keep track of people who have seen the show and be careful to not let them see the same show twice. Maybe switch things up with your stooges, but then you run the risk of someone getting confused. Maybe limit people coming back for a second showing by having tickets be sold out if they try to buy them. There's a lot of problems but I think they could be solved, I just don't know if I could solve them in my current position. I would love to try one day though.
Let's take this a step further into the extreme: What if everyone at the show was a stooge, but everyone though they were the only one? This is starting to become more performance art than magic show, but the idea of it really gets me. I think this would be best in an casual setting, like a house party or cookout or something. Individually and well in advance you approach your guests and tell them you're going to try out your new show but you need their help in one part. If they could just do X, you'd really appreciate it. Set up the whole show with different people in different roles.
Again, the whole thing can be as impossible as you'd like to make it but I feel that the more plausible you can make it, the better. Pull off the whole show (though I guess it is more accurately a play at this point) and afterward everybody's still amazed. I would love to do this and just sit back and see how long it would take people to realize, if they ever did. I think with the right group of people they would just keep quiet about it and be amazed forever. Again, I would love to try this but I'm not sure I can ever pull it off.
Well, that's what I've got to say about stooges. For now, anyway. I could probably talk forever about it but I would probably talk myself in circles more than I already have. I might revisit this at a later date.
- Andster
Thursday, January 21, 2016
Do You Want to Make Someone Vanish?
Well, now you can for the low, low price of $1,300! Actually, it's $1,375 which makes perfect sense because $1,400 would be way too much for this. Full details here. Go check it out, watch the video, then come back. I'll wait.
Okay, welcome back. First things first, I don't wanna talk shit on this guy on a personal level. I'm sure he's a great guy, talented performer, all that stuff. The thing that I want to know is, what's stopping someone from just performing this on their own without buying the license? The demo video is more or less an instructional video, especially if you've read the Paul Harris idea this whole thing is based on.
It's been a while since I've read that particular Conversation From the Edge, but if memory serves this performance is exactly what PH suggests you do. It's not like there's a whole bunch added here to make it different and worth selling as your own thing. Maybe an argument could be made that the mind reading bit at the beginning is original and, in my opinion, having that helps sell the second effect to the spectator. However, I also think you could pretty much get away with just about any thought transference, mind reading, drawing duplication effect that's currently on the market. Going one step further (and trying to obfuscate as much as I can here) you could probably also take what one spectator has to do for part two of the effect and incorporate that into part one and you're golden. Feel me?
I do have to say, this is something I've really thought about doing over the years. I never have because I'm not performing in the right spaces to pull this off. Watching the video and seeing the reaction this gets (though we have to remember the "real" reaction is from one guy and not hundreds) does make me want to give this a try. Maybe one day I'll be able to. I don't know if I would do this as a closer though, because to me the whole thing ends up seeming like a gag. Apparently it works out for this guy, but I personally would rather end the show on a moment of impossibility for everyone than for one.
- Andster
Okay, welcome back. First things first, I don't wanna talk shit on this guy on a personal level. I'm sure he's a great guy, talented performer, all that stuff. The thing that I want to know is, what's stopping someone from just performing this on their own without buying the license? The demo video is more or less an instructional video, especially if you've read the Paul Harris idea this whole thing is based on.
It's been a while since I've read that particular Conversation From the Edge, but if memory serves this performance is exactly what PH suggests you do. It's not like there's a whole bunch added here to make it different and worth selling as your own thing. Maybe an argument could be made that the mind reading bit at the beginning is original and, in my opinion, having that helps sell the second effect to the spectator. However, I also think you could pretty much get away with just about any thought transference, mind reading, drawing duplication effect that's currently on the market. Going one step further (and trying to obfuscate as much as I can here) you could probably also take what one spectator has to do for part two of the effect and incorporate that into part one and you're golden. Feel me?
I do have to say, this is something I've really thought about doing over the years. I never have because I'm not performing in the right spaces to pull this off. Watching the video and seeing the reaction this gets (though we have to remember the "real" reaction is from one guy and not hundreds) does make me want to give this a try. Maybe one day I'll be able to. I don't know if I would do this as a closer though, because to me the whole thing ends up seeming like a gag. Apparently it works out for this guy, but I personally would rather end the show on a moment of impossibility for everyone than for one.
- Andster
Friday, January 15, 2016
An Amazing Derren Brown Show
I've been a fan of Derren Brown for a while, though I haven't had the chance to see a lot of his full specials. I really wish there was a bigger audience for him in the US. I remember the SyFy channel showed one of his series several years ago, but I think that's been about it.
I found his most recent special, Pushed to the Edge, on YouTube and ended up watching the whole hour plus thing on my phone last night. This is amazing and I don't want to give too much away, but I strongly recommend you check it out. It is long, but it's well worth it. Take some time and give it a watch.
- Andster
I found his most recent special, Pushed to the Edge, on YouTube and ended up watching the whole hour plus thing on my phone last night. This is amazing and I don't want to give too much away, but I strongly recommend you check it out. It is long, but it's well worth it. Take some time and give it a watch.
- Andster
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
My Take on the Liar's Plot
A few days ago, Andy from The Jerx (no relation) posted about lie detector plots and followed up with a very interesting lie detector presentation. I personally haven't ever performed a "which coin is the hand in" trick, although I do think it does sound pretty dull. In my limited understanding of the methods at play, it's just a logic puzzle. Not entertaining. I think the extra bits that Andy adds in the second part definitely help mask that, though. I would love to try that out but for a variety of reasons I don't think I'll get to.
However, he has inspired me to finally share something I've been meaning to for a long time now. This is a lie-detector presentation I've used for lay audiences for a while now and it always gets great reactions. Try it out and see what you think.
However, he has inspired me to finally share something I've been meaning to for a long time now. This is a lie-detector presentation I've used for lay audiences for a while now and it always gets great reactions. Try it out and see what you think.
This is a three-part lie detector routine using a deck of cards. Each level builds to the next, seemingly becoming harder as it goes.
Method
This is dead easy and you're going to hate it, I promise you. Use a stack or a force. I prefer Si Stebbins, but do what's comfortable to you. The force option is more or less if you get cornered and want to do an impromptu version. The stack is a much cleaner method.
Presentation
You explain to your helper that you're going to try to figure out their tell and use that to figure out when they lie. Tell them for the first part that they need to answer "no" to every question you ask. In order to more accurately find the tell, you need to get a baseline to see what they look like when they lie and when they tell the truth. For this, you ask them questions that you already know the answer to and have them answer "no." I ask questions with obvious answers like "Are we currently on the planet Mars?" or "Are you currently barefoot?"
After three or four of each question, you say you think you have their tell and have them select a card, showing it around and holding onto it. You ask them questions like "Is it a red card?" "Is it a black card?" and narrow it down by figuring out the lie on each step. I usually start with the color, then the suit, then face/number, then odd/even, then naming the selection.
For the next step, you say you won't have them say a word and instead you'll pick up on subtle muscle cues. Have them take a new card, show it around as before, and extend a hand out, palm up. Place your fingertips on theirs and slowly recite the suits and the values, naming the selection at the end.
For the final step, you say you won't have them say anything and you won't touch them. Have them select a card but this time show it to no one and return it to the deck. They give it a quick shuffle as your back is turned. You face them, look deep into their eyes, and recite the suits and values again. Look through the deck, remove their card, and place it in their hands. They name their card, and it's the one in their hands.
Notes
First of all, I know that presentation is very bare-bones and it kinda looks shitty and hard to follow as I read it over again. Obviously you'll need to flesh it out more as you perform it. The main thing to take away is that in the first stage, they say no to everything you ask. The second stage is nonverbal, pseudo-muscle reading. The third stage is no speaking and no contact. I think this helps with one of the things Andy takes issue with: The spectator remembering if they should lie or tell the truth. All they need to do is say one word for one section of the whole thing, and they're usually pretty good at remembering that.
In the first two stages, I have the person show their card to anyone else present and also hold onto it while I question them. Not only does this keep the other spectators involved in the process, it prevents that small chance of getting a smart ass who will lie about what their card is. In the third stage, I like to keep their selection secret from everyone to build suspense. What I will usually do is have them pinch the card with their thumb face down, then I'll raise their hand so the back of the card is in front of their face. They can't see it but the rest of the audience can. When they name their card, the reaction of the other audience members is enough to cue them to look at it.
I will vary how easily I pick up on their lies. Sometimes I'll repeat the choices a few times before settling on the lie, other times I'll pick it up immediately. I don't know if "realism" is the best word for this, but I do think it helps get better reactions.
If using a stack, you can have the spectator shuffle the deck in the third stage after you get your peek and know their card. This will obviously destroy the stack and make the deck examinable. If you want to keep the stack intact for future performance, I just take their card back and casually cut the deck few times as I go through the theatrics for the third stage. I will say that in all the times I've performed this, I've never had someone ask to look at the deck after, but your mileage may vary.
I know that most people will probably dismiss this as a shitty trick, which it kinda is at least as far as the method goes. It still gets great reactions every time I perform it though, which I guess just goes to show that, to an extent, the method doesn't matter to laymen. I would love it if someone would actually try this and let me know how it goes for them.
Good luck.
- Andster
Monday, January 11, 2016
It's a Brand New Year!
About two weeks into 2016, I figure it's time for the first post of the year. I wish I could say I've been busy doing lots of exciting things, but really I've just been sitting around playing Little Big Planet 3 on my new PS4.
I've got a lot of stuff I want to write about this year. The key is going to be actually sitting down and getting it out there. I'd like to try to get myself on some type of regular posting schedule so that anyone who is interested in reading can check in and see some new content. I'm not going to commit myself to a posting schedule that I can't keep up, so for now I'm just going to play it by ear. But I would go out on a limb and say that for now, once a week would be a safe guess for new content.
I haven't been performing as much as I would like and I've got a couple irons in the fire to try to change that in the upcoming year. I don't want to say anything about it until things come to fruition, but I'm excited to make announcements in the future.
Stay tuned in the upcoming weeks and months for (hopefully) lots of stuff. I've got tricks, handlings, and ideas to share. I've got thoughts on theories and plots and things of that nature. Probably going to be able to throw in some stories from the field too. All in all, it should be a good year.
I'll post next in August.
- Andster
I've got a lot of stuff I want to write about this year. The key is going to be actually sitting down and getting it out there. I'd like to try to get myself on some type of regular posting schedule so that anyone who is interested in reading can check in and see some new content. I'm not going to commit myself to a posting schedule that I can't keep up, so for now I'm just going to play it by ear. But I would go out on a limb and say that for now, once a week would be a safe guess for new content.
I haven't been performing as much as I would like and I've got a couple irons in the fire to try to change that in the upcoming year. I don't want to say anything about it until things come to fruition, but I'm excited to make announcements in the future.
Stay tuned in the upcoming weeks and months for (hopefully) lots of stuff. I've got tricks, handlings, and ideas to share. I've got thoughts on theories and plots and things of that nature. Probably going to be able to throw in some stories from the field too. All in all, it should be a good year.
I'll post next in August.
- Andster
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)