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

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.

Just don't think I forgot that Rhys Darby is Derren Brown in disguise.

- Andster

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.

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

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

Long Time, No See

Wow, I knew it had been a long time since I'd written but I didn't realize it's been three months! Just like old times, right?

Don't get excited, because this is going to be a pretty short post. Mostly just checking in to say that I'm not dead.

I have a few things on my plate, both personal and professional, that I can't wait to write about when the timing is right.

I'm going to try like hell to buckle down in the new year and update this blog semi-regularly. Check back then and see. If nothing else, I'll try not to wait 90 days between updates.

Later, losers.

- Andster

Spencer Horseman Does It Again!

I was going to write about Spencer Horseman's latest failed escape, but Andy at The Jerx has it covered pretty well.

Good enough for a Sunday.

- Andster

AGT Wrapup

Spoilers incoming, obviously.

I had to stop writing about each episode as it aired because it was just turning into "I liked him, I still liked him, I don't like them" with no real commentary. I still watched every week, though sometimes not until late in the week, and voted as much as I remembered to.

I have to say, this was the best final I can remember seeing. There were magicians, comedians, a ventriloquist, a regurgitator, circus stunts, and best of all, only two singers! This was truly what (I feel) America's Got Talent should be: a showcase of variety arts that you wouldn't be able to see anywhere else.

It was hard to pick who to root for. Obviously, I liked all the magicians and would have been happy with two magic winners in a row. I feel like Derek and Piff's performances in the finale were lacking, but if we were to judge them based on all of their AGT performances, I think they were both strong. Drew Lynch was hilarious and I thought he had a great chance of going all the way. (Sidenote: According to Google, he is Stephen Lynch's brother. I did not know this and was surprised it wasn't brought up on the show. Maybe it was and I missed it.)

I'm still very much on the fence about Stevie Starr and his regurgitation. I'm like 99.9% sure he's not doing what he claims to be doing, though I have no idea what methods he is using. The logical part of me is saying there's no way you can manipulate locks and film canisters with your stomach or swallow smoke or lighter gas. It has to be trickery and sleight of hand, which makes him more of a magician in my eyes. Which is fine, but I'm not sure how I feel about getting to the top five of AGT on a premise that's entirely a lie. At least the magicians are coming out and saying they're doing tricks, or at worst not saying anything and just presenting it for what it is. I feel like what Stevie is doing is similar to a doing a dance act in shadow, but all you do is go behind a screen and stand there while something gets projected onto the screen. Or maybe not, because he actually has magical talent, he's just dressed it in a realistic way. Maybe he's more of a Uri Geller or John Edwards type of magician. I feel like either of those guys wouldn't have made it past auditions, so I guess Stevie's got something going for him.

I do have to say, the Craig Lewis Band was really amazing in the finals. I skipped their performance while watching my tape, but got to see it while watching the recaps before the live finals and I was blown away. Even as someone who doesn't really like singers, I had to appreciate that they were good. If all of their performances were of that caliber, I wouldn't have been surprised to see them win.

One thing I didn't like was the performances with a guest star, or whatever you want to call that. I feel like a lot of the bits fell flat. The singers were all right, but that's because they were just doing a duet, which is whatever. I really didn't care for the magic mash-up. I felt bad for Piff not being able to get his card sword to light. I didn't like Stevie's bit with Penn and Teller either because it came off so forced. It felt like, "Here, I'll watch your trick and now you watch mine." (I did notice when Teller made a mark on the film canister, he wrote 'Piff', which I thought was hilarious.) The one I felt really bad for was Uzeyer Novruzov. (Full disclosure, I Googled to find out how to spell his name. All I had to type was u and it was the first result.) He was injured in the previous round, and ended up doing a weird dance routine with Freelusion. He looked lost and out of his element, which he was. I think it was a mistake to have him do that.

Ultimately, the ventriloquist Paul Zerdin won the season. I have mixed feelings about it, and it's not just because I wanted to see another magician win. For some reason, ventriloquism just doesn't do it for me. It's a guy talking to himself. Moving your mouth or not, you're doing what amounts to a monologue and that's just not that funny to me. I know comedy is subjective and obviously people liked him, but it's not my cup of tea. All that being said, I think he is the most entertaining ventriloquist I've seen. I liked that he mixes things up, like with the puppet talking and moving when he walked offstage, or the mask he put on Howie. Switching voices with the puppet was something I hadn't seen before and I really liked that. He has more variety than most people who just say "Here's a guy you'll like," and pull a puppet out that seems to have only been created to make very specific jokes, then dump it and pull out another one. If Paul's show doesn't devolve into that, I think it would actually be pretty entertaining.

Put it this way: If I was in Vegas and got offered a comp ticket to his show, I'd probably go check it out. If I was offered a comp ticket to Jeff Dunham, I'd just say no. That's as close to a rave review as a ventriloquist is going to get from me.

- Andster