doublefacers

I used to do a simple ACR that used zero DLs, I dont do it anymore because there is no reason to not use a DL at least once (as you mentioned). A DL, when done well, presented well, and at the write time, is an effect all in itself, so not using it takes away from what the routine could be.

I simply did the DL less routine merely as a challenge. So I will link you a vimeo of my modified version sometime over the weekend! Bring it!!!!

[Reply]

Just started playing around with this, and I think I’ve got some good ideas…I put a routine up when I have the chance.

[Reply]

Another issue I have personally with the ACR is that it has no logical conclusion. Why did you stop making it come to the top? Because it got boring.

For the last year or so, Ive been performing the same basic ACR. It’s something that differs from all the ACRs Ive seen. Personally, I only do 3 rises…using whatever method i feel like at the time, always ending with a tilt and a double…Cleanest way to finish it. From there I’ll deliver a line along the lines of “But you know…at this point people start thinking one of two things. Either a) the cards are all the same (spread the deck face up)…which they obviously arent…or b) I’m doing some crazy sleight of hand. I dont want you to think any of that is hapenning, so here, you push in the card”

That leads into a full card to mouth routine consisting of 3 phases as well. First its a surprise card to mouth, followed by a visual one (a la Rick Merrill as taught in his lecture). The presentation here is generally something along the lines of that being “sleight of mouth” and I can actually pull their card out of the middle of the deck with my teeth. The final phase of the CTM section is a MCF (found in Expert Card Technique by Hugard and Braue, although I perform a variation of it found in the 2nd video of the Secret Sessions tapes) which is loaded into my mouth under the guise of doing the last phase again, and explaining how bad it looks if i miss.

Now I realize I’m fairly shady about whats going on here and that you need to know what I’m talking about to understand any of what I’m saying, but yeah.

So why does this routine work? Well it departs from the standard ACR. It starts off as such but turns around and takes it in a completely different direction. The ACR portion of it is short, but it follows logically into the next sequence. It also has a conclusion. I mean, the card ended folded up inside my mouth. It now has spit on it. What more can i do with that card– it’s ruined!

So that’s what I’ve been doing for the last little while. Just some food for thought. Nothing I expect you to love, but it works for me.

[Reply]

Gary Au hits the bottle?

[Reply]

good post Lucas (I’m sad that I have never actually met any of you. Since I knew Tony back in Seattle, but now live in Tokyo >_<)

One way that I try to deal with the conclusion and having it not be related to the whole “come to the top” idea of an ACR is, I set a different premise from the start.

I don’t play too much on the “look, the card is back on top,” but I speak more to, and I emphasize more on the, “things arent what they seem.” Sometimes I express it as a mental thing and “your mind is playing tricks on you,” sometimes I make it completely just “magical” for the type of people who want to believe so, and sometimes I tell them straight on that I am doing slight of hand, and that anything is possible (this is more of a demonstration and showmanship thing, than a magic demonstration).

What this does though for me is, it allows me to justify a card to wallet, card to mouth, card to shoe, triumph with card face up in middle, or even a signed card with back color change.

Of course it all depends on who I am performing for at the time, but I feel one of my strong suits (partly due to the fact I am a teacher and am constantly in front of groups of people with a lot of experience on interacting with different people) is my ability to read people and adapt my presentation style to the crowd.

That being said, when I perforam and ACR, I quite commonly avoid phrases like, “see, if I put it back into the middle, it comes back to the top,” but rather say, “it seems that the card is placed into the middle, and your mind tells you so, because you see it happen, but the mind can be tricky, and things are not always what they seem, because the card is still on top ‘turn over the card’” etc…

Not only does this set a different ACR premise which allows more slights and variation on the phases, but it also builds up to each revelation, not taking anything away from the previous phases.

Anyway, I just got a new video camera and will hopefully be putting up some performance videos or demo videos. The chances are they might be in Japanese, but I will sub them first and put em up on Vimeo afterwards.

[Reply]

God damn Tony, I am so glad you started writing. Reading this makes me feel like i am cuddling with you all over again.

[Reply]

A few things…

First… You’ve seen me drunk? Haha… Unless they started spiking the tea at that teahouse!

Second… You totally got spammed.

Third… Damn you Pratt.

Fourth… Gosh, there goes my Pet-The-Dog-Home Version. :’(

Uhh Fifth… I’m curious, why DL at the end? I get what you’re saying about reducing it’s usage, but a DL affords being one-ahead at the end. Why waste it? Unless you meant the last reveal is due to a DL that occurred at phase 2? Of course… you can always use it for the next effect…

Sixth… Single phase baby! With a repeat if so desired!

Seventh (Goddamn, do I ever shut up?)… I think Lucas hit on something that you didn’t mention. The 19 time phase is ass and I think less is better. (Man, remember when everyone was doing Daryl’s routine?) but you don’t really talk about ending big. Any thoughts on effective and totally not non-sequiter endings?

[Reply]

I think its something about being pure with the card plot. A card that returns to the top. Sure I can end big by having the card appear in a cat’s asshole, but does it turn into something else? What is the link between having the card rise to the top and then going into your shoe? wa wa wa wahhh?

I think the major problem is how to wrap the plot into something that makes sense and also allows you do the phases multiple times.

I just wanted you guys to think about it and come up with something. Hopefully when I show mine it will make a little more sense into what I am getting at. I’m not saying I am the master of any of this, just my thoughts. Take it or leave it. simple.

[Reply]

Gary Au can do math?

[Reply]

Yeah, hes asian. Jk

[Reply]

The pop-up card is when it’s over bro.

Wait, I’m NOT asian? Whoa… Glad I read this thing. What the hell am I gonna do with all of my kimonos and chopsticks? Heh heh…

[Reply]

Nothing.. you aren’t Japanese…

[Reply]

I agree with you Gary.

The pop-up card is it. Even if you wanted to go on, spectators are usually too busy freaking out to allow another phase.

[Reply]

Sure, but freaking out doesn’t mean “ending”. That’s why there are kicker endings.

Tony, you ask what the link between the card ending somewhere else, and so I gave you my version. What I generally use after the first “surprise” CTM is something along the lines of “I jsut wanted to make sure you were paying attention” from there it becomes the rest of my CTM routine. I’m basically performing 2 routines, but linking them together.

One of the better ideas I’ve seen for concluding a routine and what not would be Tyler Wilson’s Compost It from Dominatricks. The routine is based on the idea that a post it not with the word “Top” and their signature on it makes their card rise to the top (that’s a very simplified explanation, it’s much better then I make it sound.) But the way he concludes it is by adding an S before “Top” on the post it; effectively making it say “Stop.” At which point the deck vanishes with only their card and the post it left.

It’s a nice little routine, fairly logical in it’s…illogicality?

[Reply]

@Lucas: I thought the point of a kicker is to freak them out . That Tyler Wilson routine sounds really kind of cool. It’d be fun to end with a solid deception deck too haha. But again, illogical… but sorta not.

I guess I just hate the belief that every kicker has to be some dramatic twist. It’s like how M. Night Shamallama made the twist ending so damn popular again, EVERYONE has to do it to the point where people expect a twist, which is kinda counter-intuitive isn’t it?

Of course the other end of the spectrum is “well, when do you stop?”

I think you stop when you’re at the peak. To me, the pop-up card is quite a peak. Twist endings are fun but I don’t think they’re a necessity for every trick, y’know?

You could also take it too far. Like Daryl’s routine. “Sleight-of-hand proofing the deck by tying a rope around it?” Are you fucking kidding me? Like, sorry… I would file that under visual noise.

The way you frame your CTM routine makes a lot to sense to me though. Reminds me of the routine Williamson does!

I guess it all comes down to how you present it!

[Reply]

@Tony: My facial hair, apparently, begs to differ. Heh heh.

[Reply]

Lucas: I didn’t mean to offend you if that what it felt like. You asked me what my purpose and that was my reason. Listen, if someone asks me to do a card trick and when I do ambitious card, I do Ammar’s version. The standard. Meat and Potatoes. What I am talking about here is just an exercise to explore the plot in general. In its purest form, it is a card rising to the top. Now how do we strengthen the impact of that while staying in that card plot.

The card to mouth is fun. I like how you make it into something else. I just put this challenge up to make people think a little.

Your inputs here are always welcome and it always gives me something to think about.

[Reply]

As mentioned, one of the biggest advantages to a double is it sets you up for the next phase.

That it mind-
1. card shown in center- shift it second from the top. Double to show on top.
2. Double turned over, placed in center. Show it’s returned.
3. Place face-up into middle using tilt. Use “The Ripple” plus a one hand top palm to show on top.

Fazoom!

You get the fast rise for first phase (presented like dingle’s opening- how far down is it? 24? Lets try this a little slower…), second slow and open, third kick-in-the-face visual.

If that won’t get you laid then you’re doing some wrong- which doesn’t surprise me.

Oh, here’s three phases with the double setting up the end:
1. Card signed, use Ricky’s Cherry Control (shout out!), show on top.
2. Second deal, place in center. Turn over double to show its on top… and it’s changed to an indifferent card (ha ha!- so damn clever!). Color change. Back on top.
3. Vernon’s pop up move. Or, if you wanna be a little different… Check out the rising sequence in New Era. Good enough it could be a theory 11 download.

Ben
p.s.
Don’t want the color change? Just do tilt instead of the second, or a bluff insertion to second from the top, then continue except minus the change.

[Reply]

Gary: The kicker is to freak them out AFTER they freak out the first time haha

Tony: Don’t worry, I wasnt offended at all, I was just explaining that you can indeed (and that I do) meld together a ACR with something else. Personally (although I may be repeating myself here) I cant stand the standard ACR. To me there’s something un-inspiring about ending the routine just because it got the most visual or impossible as possible. For me, there has to be a reason to end the trick there, otherwise I feel that the end of the first trick should be routined into the next one which will eventually lead to a conclusion.

When I perform, I basically have a bunch of mini-routines; a bunch of tricks that all flow into each other making a small routine of a few tricks. The reason this is done this way is from table hopping. I had to be able to end my session whenever it was called for, and still leave my audience with the closure of an ending. If you just do an ACR and walk away, while impressive, to me, there’s something missing there, you know?

Granted, you’re talking about a straight ACR and how to make that better. For me, the only logical way to end it IS to change it into something else. End it with a deck vanish, or SOMETHING. Otherwise there’s no closure, and in my opinion, there’s no way to get that closure without routining it into the next trick. Personal opinion here of course.

Glad you like reading my ramblings haha

[Reply]

Too many phases is not a problem with the Ambitious Card. If a magician has too many phases in his ACR its his fault not the effects fault. A well performed ACR is a thing of beauty and does not suffer from having to many phases. I think your mistake is looking at the ACR as a puzzle and not as an entertaining piece of theater. Sure you could accomplish an ACR in just a couple phases but you would be missing the point. The entertaining part of an ACR is that the card keeps coming to the top no matter what you do. No matter how fair or how impossible it seems. The card just keeps coming to the top. Now the challenge is keeping it interesting. A great ACR is one the keeps their interest over multiple phases. The interest builds with each phase, the fairness builds, the impossibility builds and climaxes with the most fair and impossible way that magician can accomplish. This is not easy! This is not in the abilities of many magicians. Being happy with a two or three phase routine is a cop out in my opinion. If you can’t keep the interest of your audiences through multiple phases it’s your fault not the effect. The ACR is an excellent test of a magicians presentational, showmanship and all around entertainment skills. It’s not for everyone. With this in mind I think many people who bash it simply shouldn’t be doing the AC it either doesn’t fit their style or abilities. Which is fine. But don’t blame the effect. There are many magicians who perform it with incredible success. There is a reason every working magician has an ACR in their arsenal. The ACR is my flagship routine. If I need to impress a client I’ll do AC, I’ll close with AC, if I only have time for one trick I will do AC., Jonathan

[Reply]

Kamm:  you make a very good point.  It reminds me of a saying among comedians.  You don’t want the audience to say “That man has some funny jokes.”, you want them to say “he is a great comedian.”  I think this holds true as a magician.  You don’t want to be known as a man with tricks, but a great magician.

ACR is a great routine to flesh out the performer in you since the routine is so easy to “jazz” so to speak.  I have seen your routine on youtube and it is very good.  I could easly see how this would be one of your favorite routines since it leaves so much room for you to do what you do best.  Entertain with magic.

The post here isn’t one about throwing out your ACR routine and make a new one.  Hell, I do Ammar’s routine everytime for laymen.  This is purely to think of effects in a different way.  Different angle so to speak.

You say that having a small phase ACR is a cop out.  I think it would be HARDER to keep your audience entertained with a ACR that only has 3 phases.  With a mutli-phase routine you have the time to build repore and keep them interested.  I would say that having many phases would indeed make them think of the routine as more of a puzzle. 

I think with something that long, the magic takes a back seat to the entertainment.  This isn’t a bad thing.  It is a job of a “Worker”.  I’m not a worker anymore.  I take my magic differently. 

If you could make water into wine for example.  Do you need to prove it again and again?  Do you need to perform the effect again with your hands tied behind your back?  Do you need to have the audience grab water of their own?  Do you need to be blind folded? 

Now this is a clear seperation of the magic aspect and the entertainment aspect.  If we only look at the magic ascpet of ACR… there are some problems with it.  What is the need to redo the effect over and over?  If we had real magic, what do we have to prove?  Do it once and thats it.  Jesus Christ® didn’t have to prove anything.  He did it. End of story. 

This is purely an excerise.  Academic so to speak.  Might I extend the challenge to you sir.  Could you make a 3 phase ACR?  Its like writing a novel.  It is easy to flesh out the story and characters when you have 1,000 pages to work with.  What if you only had 100 words?  It’s all about weeding out all the fluff and getting to the meat.

-Tony C.

P.S.  I love your classic pass. It is amazing.

[Reply]

Tony, about repetition, have you read Ormond McGill’s “How to Produce Miracles”? He lists 13 rules for doing miracles, not magic. Rule 12 is “Miracle is never repeated”. Rule 11 is “…only one miracle is ever presented before any gathering at any time.” You might like the rest of it, I just googled and found a free download of the book. (don’t know anything about the legality of that)

And, as you point out, we’re talking about the “magic” aspect as opposed to the entertainment considerations. At some point you have to ask, even if you could go table to table doing miracles, would that be successful if you’ve been hired to entertain? McGill suggests that you can’t do both.

[Reply]

Tony,An ACR is nothing more the card to impossible location. It shouldn’t be on top but it is there everytime. They know it is going to be there, they are watching for it and you still manage to pull it off. This is its beauty. The fact that the card comes to the top is not the entertaining part. The fact that it keeps coming to the top under increasingly impossible conditions is. If I make a three point shot in basketball it’s impressive. If I make three in a row even more impressive. Each consecutive basket is more impressive then the last. If you can do 10 in a row HOLY CRAP! What makes it impressive is we all know how difficult it is. This is what we must show are audiences in an ACR. If you make 10 three point shots in a row an audience is thinking “How can he do that?” “That is amazing” But if they suspect some kid of trickery (Camera tricks, CGI) it is no longer as amazing. So in an ACR our job is to show each phase as fair as possible so they think there is no trickery. If they don’t understand how and you repeat it over and over again it is amazing.AS far as your challenge goes I have done single phase routines as well as 14 phase routines. A simple color change is a single phase ACR. There card appears on top.A multiphase water in to wine routine would be as follows. The magician shows a glass of water covers it with a handkerchief. Removes the handkerchief now the water is red. Good effect but not impossible.Phase 2: magician borrows water from the audience changes it to red and lets the audience taste that it is wine.Phase three: A fresh unopened bottle of water is supplied by a skeptical audience member they open the bottle take a swig and spit it into a bowl …nothing. They take a second swig hold it in their mouth while the magician waves his hand over their head. An instant expression on their face that something has changed. They taste the water changing to wine in their mouth. It is spit into a bowl for all to see. Great effect great entertainment.

[Reply]

I threw this together. I think it fills the criteria of your challenge. 3 phase ACR ending with a double lift. Took me twenty minutes. Jonathan Kamm ACR

[Reply]

Curtis:  I have never read that book but I will sure check it out now.  Thanks for the heads up.  I agree that you have to sacrifice a lot in magic to make it a job.  If this was really the only source of income, you would have to do a lot of things other than magic.  When I was doing restaurant magic a while back, the money was in the balloon animals. 

Kamm:  That was a great short routine.  Personally I feel its more “magical” then your professional routine.  That is only a personal opinion.  The slowing down of the moment.  The build up.  The final phase showing that you are being really fair and that no possible sleight of hand can be used, then the reveal for the end.  Effect is very clear.

Hopefully sometime this week I will upload my take on this challange.  It is nothing amazing, but hopefully people will see how I tackle it. 

Thanks everyone for their opinion and input!

[Reply]

I do my professional routine at different tempos. slowing down or speeding up according to the result I am looking for. That is the beauty of the ACR. It can flow with the audience.Just the phrase “more magical” is pretty ridiculous to me. An effect reaches a point where it becomes magical thats it. There is no super-magical or ultra-magical. There are situations where the spectator is more involved in the magic and that can been seen as stronger magic because they did all the work or it happened in their hands. This 3 phase routine has none of that and can be simply explained by the fact that the magician held the cards the whole time so he must of done something. My professional routine is an entertaining piece of theater where this three phase routine is merely a trick.If you think the three phase routine is more magical I challenge you to do that routine and I will do my professional routine and we will see who gets the job.Question: Why did you stop working? How long did you work before stopping?

[Reply]

What am I doing wrong that makes my comments form one giant paragraph? Is html necessary?

[Reply]

I don’t know whats wrong with the formatting of your comments.  I don’t use any HTML.  Seems others are working.  Interesting…

Listen,  You beat me in the field as a working magician.  I was a restaurant magician and doing gigs for maybe 2-3 years and I wasn’t a big fan of it.  It wasn’t because I did not have tough skin. I was street performing through college at Pike’s Place Market in Seattle under a mentor of mine Tom Frank.  It was the fact that I wanted to do magic on my own terms.  So in that department, you win hands down.

You have a big passion for magic,  probably bigger than mine.  These are my opinions and those are your opinions.  I respect yours.  I just don’t think something complex shouldn’t be automatically be called “better” than something simple.  I am a big fan of simple, as you can see with the layout of the site, I am a minimalist. 

There is something to be said when people can describe your magic in one sentence. 

[Reply]

I am probably a bigger fan of simple direct magic then you are. Working restaurants and bars you need magic that hits hard and fast. Tricks that can get you in and out in a hurry. This three phase routine I did in the video is an ok effect in that respect. But I do tricks that hit harder then this and in the same amount of time. So I would opt to do them over this fairly simple Ambitious Card Routine. But there are times when you need a showpiece and my professional ACR hits it out of the park. I respect your honesty about your lack of experience and I understand these comments you post here are simply your opinions. We all have our own reasons for doing magic. I sort of bashed you on the Magic Cafe but now I like you for being honest with me. Many people on the Cafe could learn from you. (cough), Ben are you listening? I hate people who try to be something they are not. Tony, If you ever need a workers viewpoint feel free to contact me anytime. One criticism though . I think its wrong for you to use videos in your blog without the permission of the people who created them. Especially if you are going to criticize them. It doesn’t allow the creators the ability to defend themselves. You could certainly make your points with out having to resort to exploiting these defenseless people and their videos. I would remove them if I were you. But that is just my opinion.

[Reply]

Thanks for the advice Mr. Kamm.  Your opinion is always welcome.  

[Reply]

So do you contact these individuals and let them know you will be posting their videos on your blog giving them a chance to defend themselves? That would be the right thing to do. If you don’t then it amounts to you bashing someone behind their back. Which is wrong.

[Reply]

i like the routine Ben, Its very playful.

Sorry about the comment. The website is still buggy… It didn't show your comment spaced out nice and neat. It shows nice and neat in the admin section… but not on the website. It also seems some people can do it while others can't.

Well, thanks for the routine. I'll have mine up soon.

[Reply]

No worries,

I also have a little trouble typing things in the comment box, so I've taken to typing them out in word then copy/pasting them in here (it lags big time when I type… but that might be my computer rather then just me).

So, I just tried the routine out on some people. My feelings are, as they were before, that the maximum effect comes from doing it 3 times THEN a kicker/climax phase.

But, that's for my handling of the effect. One of the best versions I have ever seen was shown to me by Tamariz, and it was ONE phase…. Daryl's which a lot of people like, is about 114. So… my question is- IS it subjective? If it is then we can't really discuss it effectively- this has always been the biggest issue phasing the evaluation of art: is art, or even beauty, subjective? If not, how do we discuss it? The same applies for magic…

Sorry, rambling.
Ben

[Reply]

Kamm:  I talk about this conversation in the new post.  This post should stay with the ACR comments.

[Reply]

First problem: you say our goal is to make things LOOK like we have real magic. The problem is- is it? Is that a universally recognizable objective? I would argue it isn’t- words like entertainment are sometimes thrown into the mix, which fundamentally changes things. Others say we should recognize that rational adults know we AREN’T doing magic, so, for maximum conviction, we should attribute what we are doing to some other force (reading tells, psychology, sharping, etc).

Back to the “Real Magic” concept though, here is something I posted elsewhere, on Morgan Bondett’s wonderful group:

“Our goal isn't to do real magic, it's to do magic AND entertain at the same time. If we really COULD do magic we would STILL be performing similar material- from a presentation standpoint. We would just have better methods.”

Second problem: what does real magic look like? First we need to define real magic: and every definition I’ve seen is vague (because, when you think about it, what constitutes real magic IS vague… isn’t it?). My favorite, albeit sort of clinical sounding, is based on an Ascanio definition: magic is when something changes from condition ‘a’ to condition ‘b’ without any causation OTHER then magic. Even THAT poses problems- is it the causal force that is the magic or the change to the condition?

Third, and this is a BIG one: If we CAN agree on what magic is, and what our objective in magic should be, then how do we go about analyzing if someone is doing that effectively, or harder still, correctly? What would we (alliteration!) be looking for? If things AREN’T subjective, but are objective, what qualities are we looking for? Who is qualified to judge, and are all opinions equal? If something is ‘intended’ to be magic, is it?…

and other problems.

Anyway, back to the Ambitious Card- I think there are some fundamental flaws with people’s view on what the ambitious card SHOULD be… but that’s a matter for another post.

Ben
p.s.
Let me know if the spacing works here…

[Reply]

Hint of the password. Its two words and it has a space in it.

[Reply]

I stand corrected.

It's true that everything in life is subjective. Only thing humans can agree on is man-made ideas, take for example numbers. We can all agree that 1=1. That is as objective as it can get. When we get into the realm of words and semantics, that's where it gets subjective.

Back to magic. I guess what I mean by "real" magic is to always observe your method of the trick. compare it to what you THINK it would look like. For me, its to be as natural and as "clean" as possible.

We should continue this discussion later when I post about this subject. Very interesting.

[Reply]

Great thinking Michael. This is how law school is? Doing magic all day?

I think the method is good, like Ben said, tighten up the script. I still don't understand the concept of you knowing everything but not approach. Maybe you could make it more clear. Is it like "Even know your eyes and mind know the card is in the middle, it still comes to the top. That's why its magic" kind of thing?

Thanks for putting up a video. If you could enable in vimeo "Embedding" so later on this week I can stick it up there with my video in a new post.

-Tony

[Reply]

With only three phases, I wanted to emphasize the cleanliness of the routine.
With a Cull, a top change and a double lift, I have actually gotten some pretty powerful reactions in my last gig or two.
Though I'm still not sure it will replace my bread & butter ambitious routine, but this new routine has served me well so far.

Here is the video. The password: What coin technique is Kainoa Harbottle known for?
http://www.vimeo.com/2481150

[Reply]

If the link above didn't work for you, try this one:
http://www.vimeo.com/2481150
Password: What coin technique is Kainoa Harbottle known for?

[Reply]

Feldman!

So, couple of thoughts about your routine. First, the use of the cull is brilliant… because I was going to suggest the same thing. But, I LOVE the tabled lay down- it looked so damn fair! With your permission I would love to steal that, and court your sister.

Second, great progression. It actually FELT like a routine- your hands, their hands, let them see it happen. With a little script tightening that thing could be a BEAST.

Finally, and this is something you may disagree with, I think you need a magic moment- which you don’t have until the end. Card goes in the middle and you show the top one it’s theirs… what? I think you need something that shows causation- it allows you to clarify the effect (it rises when I snap, appears on top when I wiggle, gets herpes when I kiss it, etc) and gives them a sort of cathartic release- THAT’S the moment they can relax, and THAT’S the moment they can respond… or, on the flip side, that’s the moment they TENSE with anticipation, and the moment that sets them up to respond! It all depends on who you’re working for. What it DOES do though is create a moment.

All in all, sick.
Ben
p.s.
I tried typing in “borrowing” for the password, but it doesn’t work. Help?

[Reply]

Actually Benzi,

I totally agree with your final comment. One of the biggest challenges I have for my magic is how to punctuate the routine and create real magical 'moments,' rather than diffuse magical happenings.

Vernon said punctuation is an important part of magic — unfortunately it is still one piece I am working to integrate into my own effects.

Thanks for the thoughts. I will try to frame the moments better and create a sense of causation.

[Reply]

Vernon also said; “for shizzile my dizzle for rizzle”- so be careful, sometimes he’s insane.

I think Roth put it most succinctly: in literature there is always SOMETHING that happens to cause the magic- the casting of a spell, the brewing of a potion or the sacrificing of a virgin. We need that now as well. It’s a shame though that we don’t have anything as inherently dramatic as those though (fairy dust from dusty fairies?…)

I also think, but this is something I’m still playing with, that the magic ‘move’ (for lack of better term) should be LOGICAL in the context of the routine, and help create the appearance that magic is occurring. Let me give an example.

Snapping for ambitious doesn’t do anything (except punctuate- great word). Riffling the cards upwards DOES- it tells them, visually, what is happening- try it, it looks great (there’s even a move based of this, the TV card rise. Can’t remember creator but it’s in Marc Desouza’s book…).

Just some rambling.
Ben

[Reply]

sure thing. How do I turn on "embedding" without removing the password?
Can you tell me where that option is?

[Reply]

Goto your video. http://www.vimeo.com/2481150.
Make sure you are logged in on the Top right of the page, there should be a "COG" icon that says settings. Go in there and check.

[Reply]

hmm… I don't think you can allow others to embed pasworded videos (that i can tell)… So I emailed you the embed code.

[Reply]

Hmm… all of a sudden its working. ha ha.

So you bring up a good point about magic being subjective. I personally don't think magic is subjective. You are trying to create an effect/illusion for the audience. If you had real magic and for some reason you are doing card tricks, how would it look like?

That is our goal.

Can we ever achieve it? Maybe not, but we can well damn try. Now many will come out with variations but in the end the only ones that survive are the ones that is closest to the real thing. I feel these challenges make the magician think in a different way. Like I told Mr. Kamm, There is something very beautiful about writing a story in 100 words instead of 100 pages. You really have to think about it. Make everything count.

[Reply]

I'm going to try and get this back on track.

So, here's my attempt at three phase routine with a double only at the end (and, get this- ONLY at the end!).

Effect:
“People always ask me what the greatest trick I’ve ever seen is. Let me tell you: I was 14 and I picked a card, the ace of spades, this guy put it in the middle and it came to the top with no moves, nothing. Not only that, he did it three times! I’ve spent the last 10 years working on it, and I’d like to show it to you- damn you’re lucky.”

Card is picked. “is it the ace of spades? No, damn. That would have been cool.”

The selection is placed in the center. The magician dips the deck, then gives it a riffle- but not before flashing the break- and shows the card is back on top. He places the card back in the middle, it comes to the top.

“I’ll do it face-up so you can see it- that’s what the other guy did 14 years ago with my ace of spades”.

Card is placed it the center, face-up. The cards are riffled and one comes to the top, face-up… but it’s the ace of spades! The magician apologizes, gives the card a little shake, and it changes back into the selection. The spectator is so amazed they form a cult around Mr. Magic. Damn we’re lucky.

Method:
1. Have the ace of spades reversed on the bottom.

2. Have a card selected. Swing cut the pack, have it placed on the original top, and complete the top

3. Shift, show back on top.

4. Second deal, place x card in center, show back on top, and leave it face-up.

5. Get a break above bottom card. Swing cut the pack and complete. Shift. Show ace of spades on top.

6. Turn double over, shake the card, it’s back to the selection.

There we go. The double is only used in the last phase- and only half a double. Obviously it needs work, and the presentation stinks, but I just came up with it.

Ben

[Reply]