Challenge #1 My version
Ambitious Card from Tony Chang on Vimeo.
Password is the answer to this. “Who’s name was the Olram Subtly named after?”
So I had an great response when I performed this to a laymen friend of mine. From now on I will call the above ACR routine as the “3ACR” and the normal one that I use all the time (basically Ammar’s version with the card going to the mouth on the 4th phase out of 5 phases total) will be called the “5ACR”.
Her reaction to the 3ACR, espically the ending, was literally something I have never seen before in any laymen. It wasn’t the typical “Holy shit! I don’t want to play poker with you because you should goto Vegas! That would be so cool since you know how to use cards really well. Wow! You would be so rich if you dealt cards in Vegas, but I would never play poker with you hahahahaha…”
The reaction was much more “deep”, if that is the correct word to term it. It felt as if to quote Paul Harris, She had the “Moment of Astonishment.” It was basically everything a Derren Brown want-a-be would want in a spectator reaction.
As we kept talking, I asked her what she liked about the routine. She said that this was very personal, there wasn’t a wall between us so to speak. What I found interesting was the fact that she was telling me back what I said during the performance. She would say things like “I put the card back in, and I even turned the card over.” even though it was me doing it the whole time. I wanted this routine to make the spectator feel the way I would if this really happened. I was pretty happy with the reaction.
Now here is the twist. I then showed her the 5ACR. After I was finished I asked her which one did you like better? She said the 5ACR. That hit me pretty hard. I asked to talk more about why. Her main point was the mere fact of me putting the card back in over and over but it got more and more impossible. Like the card jumping up to the mouth and ending with the bent card.
Then she said something that we all should pay attention to. She said, “This was very visual. It hit me visually, but I felt the wall between us. I felt like a spectator just observing what was happening. The (3ACR) was very emotional. I felt it down here (she pointed to her heart).”
She then thought a little bit more and then said “Actually, I really like the (3ACR) much better. The (5ACR) was good, but it was just a trick. The (3ACR) was much better because I connected with you.”
I then told her the saying that comedians have about wanting people not say that you have “good jokes” but that you are a “good comedian”. She admittedly nodded and said, “That is exactly the feeling I was getting.”
Now mind you, this is something I wouldn’t pull out to a complete stranger. The way I perform is very casual. Most patter I have is reactionary to what they say. After I do some of my openers, I usually get the usual questions of “How did you learn to do magic?”, “How long have you been doing it?”, “Whats your favorite trick?”. If those questions pop up, I know they are investing enough to the question for me to pull out these kind of tricks. It’s long, and many magicians would probably hang themselves than sitting through the trick. But I assure you that when the time is right, these kind of presentation and trick would be something special.
Thanks Bijou for letting me pick your brain.
Comments: 54 Comments.
the password is spelled correct this time? I know who invented the move, but can't find why Ed Marlo named it that.
[Reply]
Fantastic! This is the epitome of good magic; Mr Chang has a natural relaxed manner, charming and personable delivery of his words and utterly flawless technique.
Mr Kamm, making a living with magic is not the be all and end all. Our job is to mingle and provide light hearted entertainment – to paraphrase Derren Brown. Expressing oneself doesn’t necessarily mean adding zeros to your pay cheque. To me, commercialism is the cancer of any artful endeavour.
‘A bird does not sing because it has an answer. It sings because it has a song.’ – Chinese Proverb
[Reply]
Excellent handling.
The construction was also very nice, nothing useless.
M.
[Reply]
Really nicely done Tony. I particularly liked the use of the spread control; it is very underused in ACRs. By the way, was that Earick's version of the control?
[Reply]
Kamn has some decent points, but there seems to be a recurring them in the posts between him and tony.
Tony is not a worker. Tony does magic to perform magic. Now, workers do as well, but the paycheck definitely has some say over the routines and performance style.
What I like about Tony's performance style and routine, is that the patter, the story, the connection with the spectator, along side the technique, creates the magic. He is able to produce amazing reactions with a single effect.
I have seen him perform for people in Japan, with a language barrier, and he was able to still connect with his audience on a personal level. He would do a single effect, and get reactions that even I was not expecting.
"out with the magic, out with the tricks, come one trick monkey (to quote tony)" is not the only way to perform. True, it is a tested, solid way to perform when your living is dependent on it, and you will succeed with this style more than you will fail. But believe me, Tony is not one to perform the wrong style of magic for the wrong people. His style, his long stories, his intimate connection with his audience completely works for him, and to say it is flawed, well… is just plain stubborness and outright stupid.
[Reply]
I might be echoing what others have said here, but I think it's a huge point. Commercialism and Art seem to rarely go together nowadays, which is sad. Not to say there aren't exceptions and that is when things become otherworldly.
My first teacher in magic, who I sort of look down upon now, was a "commercial" guy. He was very visual, flash, bam, etc. After we parted ways and then I ran into him much later on (and much better), he asked me to do a trick for him. I go into an effect and have this worked out presentation. He starts snoring.
Was I insulted? Yes. Did he have a point? Maybe. He was a worker that was used to working the kid's shows, the rowdy pub crowd, etc. I think it all depends on the venue, as well as the specific situation you're in at a time. He had to get to as many people as possible, condense his effects for maximum appeal, and still make a buck. That was his primary goal.
I don't think it's fair to say this effect or that effect will bore people to tears. You forget that the people are subjective. I'm sure if Tony was in a pub somewhere and it was a really rowdy crowd, he wouldn't bust this out. However, if he had been performing for awhile, it quieted down, and he got their genuine attention… that's when you do it.
One person I know even goes as far as saying he never ever performs any magic unless the environment is perfect and it seems truly spur of the moment and maximizes any magical feeling that may happen. Does he perform much? Hardly ever… but that's not his goal. His goal is when the situation arises, he will make the most out of it. Quality vs. Quantity. Of course, he paid the bills in other ways and not everyone has the patience or wherewithal to do this… but it's a great ideal.
I think the point is, you customize it for the crowd. Why do you have to stick to a solid routine of effects? You seem to talk like it's set in stone!
If you do pay the bills with this stuff… I absolutely respect you. You're working the grind, you're doing good work, and you have other priorities as well (not to say you don't care about magic… but you have to pay the rent too). That takes a lot of guts and hard work and I'm sure you have some absolutely terrible days but you still keep doing it. I applaud you.
But remember, Derren Brown did his presentation of the Floating Ring when he did restaurant work. That's one presentational monster (and when I read it, I thought was the best thing you could ever possibly do). I'm sure he got paid handsomely.
Tony, after seeing this again, I might actually do my AC with this style of presentation now. Good job!
[Reply]
ben pratt Reply:
December 15th, 2008 at 8:47 am
there seems to be a big difference in the floating ring and this ambitious card in terms of being "presentational monsters". derren brown talks about the ring routine being built around cause, not just the effect, as in most magic. he has the woman focus on the emotional significance and memories of the ring, which in turn creates the magic. this is an extremely powerful presentation for an otherwise trivial effect.
this is very different than a story presentation of an ambitious card. although i do think this is an interesting performance, i don't think it is somehow comparable to derren brown's floating ring. the effect of the floating ring is the product of the cause of the woman's memories. here, tony is using a trick to tell a story. of this, derren brown even says in absolute magic that he finds presentations like this quite alienating. why should a spectator really vest themselves so much into something so trivial as a card trick? (although if tony is mainly performing for friends, they probably will be genuinely interested in his story) but ultimately, you're telling them about yourself, and on top that you're showing off (although modestly). however, I do feel like tony's presentation may actually take away a bit from the "shiver of unreal" of the effect rather than strengthen the magic.
it seems some tricks lend themselves better to strong presentations. i don't think i agree with tony in that the ambitious card is an especially strong trick. i think it is an interesting challenge to end with the double lift, because it is the cleanest phase. however, i think there is very little room for drama in the effect of a card rising to the top of the deck. ultimately, it a sleight of hand trick in which the spectators know they are being 'tricked'. i think to make it more into such a performance piece is missing the point. generally, i think of the ambitious card as being done as an opener that 'hits' the spectators with a lot of magic in a short period of time – mainly to establish skill and create interest. this doesn't mean that the trick should lack presentation or elegant structure. I agree with gary that quality counts, not quantity. but i think this routine is too slow paced to really work for most audiences.
[Reply]
liquidsn Reply:
December 15th, 2008 at 9:07 am
I agree with you Ben. This isn't something you would pull out for anyone. But friend or not, the reaction from her that night was really something I have never seen in a spectator. It was a great moment. I couldn't stop grinning.
But then again, if you tell me to watch "Schindler's List" for 1 week straight, I probably kill myself. You can't be dramatic all the time.
I am still not at peace with you that The Ambitious Card is not a great effect. I think your description of the trick is what magicians through the decades have made the effect to be. A showcase of sleight of hand that gets better and better to show how great you are at avoiding detection.
Granted, card tricks have been labeled with trickery and cheating. that is fine. That's why I love the art. You practice something for so long so no one can see it. But if that's all a card trick is, then what is left to connect with your audience. That you have quick hands and that you should become a Vegas card dealer? 
I guess I just wanted people to understand my fascination with magic in general. It is that curiosity, for me, that is the gateway to connect with them.
Now I am not a master in any of this as you know. I am a move monkey at heart. But there is nothing wrong with tackling it on this blog. 
[Reply]
Gary Au Reply:
December 16th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Yeah! In the few times I've performed, and I'm sure anyone who has has always gotten that question, "What's your favorite trick?" or "Have you ever been fooled?" I know this all seems like Magic 101 to us, but how many people really have those tricks ready, and a presentation to walk them through the experience as you did the first time? Dramatically and all?
Gary Au Reply:
December 16th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I see what you mean and what I mainly meant was giving the effect a more dramatic structure. You're totally on about the Floating Ring's effect being the woman's memories and intent. I guess what left me more interested (and making this comparison in the first place) was when I talked to Tony, him telling me Bijou's reaction (and I could see this in any number of laymen who witness this for themselves) is they remember participating, when they actually have not. That made me think of Derren Brown, and you know how much I love his Floating Ring, so there …
But yeah, even if we were to use that as the guiding point, he's just relaying a story. However, I have to disagree (or at least claim it not as an absolute) as to why a spectator should be invested. I think that's up to the performer and how they present it. If you sell it right, as I think Tony has, they're coming along for the ride and experiencing the frustration and maybe even "magic" the performer had when he first saw it.
When Tony did perform this for me, I wasn't sure if this was intentional but he had timed it right so that when my own thoughts came… "How did he do that?", his patter almost echoed it at the precise moment. It's a very disarming feeling. Almost like mind reading .
The really funny thing I like about these types of presentations (and I can see plenty hating) is the magician is talking about something he doesn't know how to do. Then he does it as another personality. Although intellectually, it's obvious the performer knows how it's done… framing it in a story and as someone else, I think some part of the spectator's mind still gets that "shiver of the unreal." It also gives you a nice out. Heh heh.
[Reply]
I don't believe it's fair to perform the two ACRs back to back and think you will get a fair comparison. An effect gets a lot of its power from the fact the spectator does not know what is going to take place. She was already exposed to the whole concept of a card coming to the top of the deck in the first 3ACR and that certainly takes some of the steam away from the second 5ACR. I personally would only be satisfied with my findings after having done both routines at least 100 times and only in front of strangers. I don't care how close a friend you have their opinion is biased and should not be used to judge the effectiveness of a routine. The target audience is strangers so those are the people you must get feedback from. Don't listen to friends, family or other magicians critique of your magic. It is biased. You must also take an average of many peoples reactions not just one random spectator. I have had people freak out from a spongeball vanish. If they were the first person I performed my vanish for I might think Wow! I have a freakin awesome spongeballl vanish! But in reality over time you realize that that first spectator was simply very enthusiastic about magic and did not represent the norm. The opposite holds true as well. Don't be disappointed about an effect just because the first time the person didn't react well. It does not mean the effect is not good.
In my experience when people find out you are a magician they want to see magic, and NOW! They do not want to sit through any type of lengthy story like patter. They may listen to you but in their mind they are thinking "Come on start kickin out the tricks circus boy!"
Your a magician so do some freakin magic. Your not a story teller. Had you come up to me and didn't say you were a magician and just started telling me a story and magic started happening then it would be great because I am just expecting a story. But if you say you're a magician and you start telling a story and no magic is happening you are going to lose your audience. I bet had you shown her the faster paced 5ACR first she would of been quite bored with the 3ACR. Your friend said she felt it more in her heart. Well that is something a friend would say. They have an attachment to you. There is a place in their heart for you. Now ask Joe Blow off the street if he wants to see a magic trick that will touch his heart. Ah …No get away from me ya weirdo!
[Reply]
liquidsn Reply:
December 15th, 2008 at 3:36 am
I agree with you on the first point Kamm. The problem is that I am not a performer that has a steady flow of strangers to perform for. When I do find strangers, usually friends of friends, and they want to see magic, I restrain myself. Why? Because I don't want to be labeled the "trick monkey".
Like you said, everyone wants to be "Show something NOW monkey!". Why do i have to accept that frame and perform? Whenever they see me from then on, they will only know me for my card tricks. Now, it is completely different because you are a worker and that's your job. But for me, I make them want to see any magic. I make them ask me twice or even three times. I don't perform on command. I'm sure you had some idiot who picked up their cellphone and just interrupted your trick. Why? Because he isn't invested into what you are doing.
If you read my last paragraph in my post, you will see why I WOULDN'T perform this for total strangers. It's all about trying to make a connection. Fuck, I would just do my normal card trick shit to strangers without all this stupid "connection" stories because you know why? In the end, I don't give a fuck either. Who is this stranger? Why do I need to impress him.
Think about it next time when someone comes up to you only because they wanted you to show their friends the "card that jumped to the top thingy". What are you? A magic trick vending machine?
One last thing. Just because Bijou is a laymen friend of mine does not mean her opinion should be considered less than anyone else's opinions. You say its biased? Everyone's opinions are biased. You say that I would have to perform for 100 people to get a feel for the material. True. But then I would say that your critique would have to be considered the same way. I would have to hear from another 100ish magicians too.
[Reply]
john f Reply:
December 15th, 2008 at 3:44 am
Tony, a lot of what you say resonates with me very deeply. I believe we have a similar aesthetic aim, although you are much closer to the bullseye. How long have you been into magic?
I’ve been offered a regular paying gig at a local tavern but every nerve ending in my body wills me to stay at home as – fuck me – how glam is it doing tricks around a pub!?
Right now I'd rather enjoy magic as a personal interest and something special to share on MY terms.
[Reply]
liquidsn Reply:
December 15th, 2008 at 4:05 am
I have been doing magic for around 12 years John.
I can tell you the exact moment that I stopped doing restaurant magic and really started performing magic on my own terms. After making many balloon animals for kids at the restaurant (since all magicians know that's where the tips come in from the kid's mothers), I went to a table to perform to this family. I was doing a sponge ball routine and everyone was impressed. After I was done, I told them to have a good night and enjoy their meals.
As I was leaving, the mother tells the kids, "Hey kids, what do you give the nice magician?".
The kids say "what?".
She says "A nice tip!".
She gives both of them a quarter each and they hand it to me.
This was the moment I realized what the fuck am I doing? I intrude on people's diners so I can show quick, happy-go-lucky magic? What is the purpose in that? Why is it every time I go home the LAST thing I want to think about is card tricks. Why am I making fucking balloon animals. I'm a magician. But we all know the answer to that. That's easy money.
I would suggest you take that gig at the pub. You know why? It will toughen you up. You have to have a sharp wit and also the ability to improv off of people's interaction with you. That would be the one thing I was thankful during my street performing and restaurant performing days. You will never be as "personable" as you want to unless you can make patter on the fly.
john f Reply:
December 15th, 2008 at 4:25 am
Thank you for the insight Tony. Recently I've been trying to intersperse some magic into conversation (assuming there is rapport and interest on their part) so hopefully I'm moving forward – baby steps.
In the video of me performing AC at Battersea Flower Show I was a bit uncomfortable and self conscious – which in turn made me come across like a spaz. Thankfully there were no kids and I don't even know how to magic a balloon animal (does a snake count?) but for the monies they wired me I'd probably have sex with them – or do a card trick.
Jonathan Kamm Reply:
December 15th, 2008 at 8:48 am
So you want to perform only under ideal conditions and only under your terms. Would we even know who Harrison Ford was if he felt the same way about his art? I perform magic because I love it. I look forward to going to work every week, to entertain hundreds of people. I work hard on making my magic the best it can be. I take pride in being able to perform under any circumstances or conditions. Being able to walk up to anyone from 8 to 80 and entertain them with magic is what being a magician is all about. Being able to handle any audience. Not being afraid of hecklers or drunks or jerks. Walking away having shown everyone a good time even the jerks. Walking away feeling the love and appreciation for what you do is what it's all about. Getting paid doing what you love to do. It doesn't get any better than that.
It's a very big step going from performing for the people who know you to the people who don't. If I were you I would get back out there working again but choose venues where you are working for adults not children. I bypassed the children's shows and went right for adults. Those are the people who will appreciate what you do. Your magic is way beyond what children would appreciate. You need to find your target audience. An upscale restaurant with a nice lounge is something I could see you in. Some place where people are quietly enjoying a martini or two. Not all bars are like the bars college kids hang out at. You can find some very sophisticated establishments that would better fit your performing style. I have about 5 tricks I can do for children if they happen to be with their parents. But they are quick and visual. They make the kids happy and I can get right back to the adults. Plus the adults appreciate that I did something for the kids but they know that is not what I am (a kids performer) because they have seen the caliber of effects I do for the adults. If you don't want to be labeled a kids performer or you don't want them to think you are a balloon twisting clown then don't do those things.
[Reply]
liquidsn Reply:
December 15th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Kamm: So you want to perform only under ideal conditions and only under your terms.
Tony: Yes.
Jonathan Kamm Reply:
December 15th, 2008 at 10:15 am
If you don't fail you don't improve. Working under ideal conditions teaches you nothing. Challenge yourself Tony. You would be surprised what you are capable of.
I'd be a hell of a football player if I could just convince everyone to play on my terms and stay out of my way when I have the ball.
liquidsn Reply:
December 15th, 2008 at 10:36 am
If you mean by forcing people to play football with you then count me out. There are times that magic is not a good idea. That analogy does not fit what I am talking about. Football is a game where everyone wants to play. I don't tackle random people on the street because it makes me tougher.
liquidsn Reply:
December 15th, 2008 at 11:37 am
One more thing. Do you read any of the comments of postings? I keep feeling I have repeat myself over and over. I perform all the time during parties and trust me, I have been in the trenches performing magic. I'm sure not as long as you, but long enough to talk about it. For the last time, I do not it as a living and I never will nor want to. There is no reason for me to perform to strangers just to improve my chops. Not everyone wants to see magic. Your assumption that I am a scared little boy only thinking about magic is wrong. And honestly plain rude. Read the comments and posts by me again. I answer all your questions to the best of my abilities.
Nice. I think I see what Bijou was reacting to, the "personal anecdote" story does suggest intimacy and openness. IMHO, the best thing you could do here is to really commit to the story. I get the feeling that you haven't given the story half as much thought as the moves, and that's a mistake if you're purporting to reveal a part of yourself to your friends. Unless the moments ring true, the characters seem real, and your reactions reveal something about you, you'll come across either as shallow ("he shared something important about himself and there was nothing there") or phony. (see some of David Copperfield's later "minidramas")
Along those lines, I don't get any feeling for what the magic store dealer was like. This guy ws supposedly important to you, but I get no idea. For instance, it would be consistent with my recollection of magic dealers for him to say, "…but you're doing sleight hand. I asked him, `what do you use?' He said, `You see the sign on the window? Magic store. You think I could say that if it wasn't true?'"
[Reply]
liquidsn Reply:
December 15th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Thanks for the pointers. I should work more to flesh out the experience for my spectator. It reminds me of a mentalist trick where you discover a location that the spectator selected through a bunch of postcards. Usually, magicians would just stare into their eyes and just say what it was. The mentalist's name escapes me at the moment, but instead, he would make them feel the moment. Where they are, what do they see, hear, smell. He would start describing these things to them. Now that is powerful. The story seems very narrow. I need to "color" it more.
I know I look half-assed when performing on the video but I usually perform to people and starring at the camera is a weird thing to me. I break the 4th wall too much.
Now here is the question that popped up when reading your comment. Is it wrong for me to make this personal stories up? It isn't 100% true. I did know a magician who worked at the magic shop that basically kicked started my fascination for magic. The trick wasn't the ambitious card though. Its a interesting ethical question I always pondered. Its okay to "lie" through your hands with sleight of hand, but is it okay to lie about who you are?
My whole thing when presenting magic is that I want to be ME. I can't do what Jeff McBride does. But is it okay to "color" my own experiences to make the effect better?
I don't know, but I do know that after performing these types of effects, it becomes apart of me. Its not 100% true, but its not 100% false. Its like that phrase, "Fake it till you make it." I do feel its true when I perform it to people.
[Reply]
Gary Au Reply:
December 16th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
I think you are totally within your rights to "lie." I'm also sure you've seen plenty of movies and know when they say "Based on a true story", chances are… a lot of it got changed in terms of making the end product stronger (we hope). These also tend to be the movies that have a bigger impact on the viewers, no?
I used to tell stories second hand, if ever. Now I'm putting myself into them… and it makes it so much stronger.
[Reply]
And what does it say about you? You see a guy do a trick in a magic store, and instead of asking him to teach you, or to sell it to you, you go home and work out your own method. Like it or not, that's part of the story.
Have you had a chance to catch Eric DeCamps' show? Last time I saw him, he did a good job with the stories, and that was before he had professional direction. A show like Eric's, by the way, is another solution to the "performing monkey" problem. I agree that the best and highest use of close up magic is not restaurant magic.
[Reply]
Jonathan Kamm Reply:
December 15th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Depends on what you consider restaurant magic to be. I consider balloon twisting a separate art in itself. I think childrens magic is very different from close-up magic. When you think restaurant magic you may think lots of screaming kids. When I think restaurant magic I think sophisticated close up with coins and cards. A well dressed entertainer and an equally well dressed and mostly adult cliental. I remember seeing my first restaurant performer at a convention. His performance was so smooth and well rehearsed and so far beyond the other performers. I knew that is where I wanted to be. Where I wanted to learn. I wanted to be that good. Nothing is more impressive to me then a magician being able to just get up and start doing it and doing it well. If you really could do magic that is what you would do. You wouldn't need to wait for the right time, the right location, the right people. If you really want to present yourself as a magician then you need to be able to do it anytime anywhere with anyone. Restaurants give you this opportunity on a regular basis and allow you to master this type of performing. Restaurants bars and clubs are the front lines. Those who thought they were good at home can get eaten up by a restaurant audience. If you master restaurant performing and work weekly in one when those private shows come along you will walk in their with supreme confidence knowing you are reading for anything.
[Reply]
As to the structure of the routine, it's good. WIth only three phases, I'd be reluctant to waste one on the open cutting sequence. I'd like to see all three phases be magical. As you've discovered, there are other elements of the trick that can escalate, or other ways to escalate the impossibility. In "Leading with your Head" Gary Kurtz explains an ambitious card routine premised on increasing openness. Each step takes the spectators further and further backstage, until the final phase occurs almost entirely in the spectator's hands. I've found this to be the better way to go.
[Reply]
liquidsn Reply:
December 15th, 2008 at 9:13 am
The first phase in my mind was to create a sense of impossibility for the spectator. If I didn't even know how to do this trick, it must be a good one. I thought that by doing that, it would increase the impact during the last phase.
These challenges are for the most part, academic. But I personally feel there is something in this routine that works for me as a magician. I know its not 100% there yet. Hell, I don't even think its 10% there. But I'll work on it.
[Reply]
Hey Jonathan,I got your point,and I do agree with your first point of view-It's not a fair comparison.
But besides that,I've found your thoughts more commericial-like,I dont think Tony has to use magic to make his living,So he doesn't have to make all of his routine "attractive".
And in my opinion,there are two types of magician that deserves the name "artist",one is like Armando Lucero,or Jerome Finley which seems that they have super nature power beyond human like a wizard;and for the seond type of magician,magic is the tool of their communication with their friends.They can present beautiful stories,tell their opinion on something,or whatsoever like this.They are simply conjurers,doing everything in a nature and casual manner.
Any forms of art can not be appreciated by laymen.Laymen ALWAYS only see the surface of these things.
Here is a question for Tony,where are you from?You have an asian name and looking.
[Reply]
liquidsn Reply:
December 15th, 2008 at 2:37 am
Yes, I am 100% Asian and 0% Tiger. I am from Taiwan.
[Reply]
MichaelFeldman Reply:
December 16th, 2008 at 6:09 am
0% tiger? come on tony. That's a little disappointing. I was hoping for at least 10%.
[Reply]
liquidsn Reply:
December 16th, 2008 at 6:26 am
tiger didn't go crazy… tiger went tiger!
The two types of magicians you name only scratches the surface. I can think of at least half a dozen different types of magicians and all can be considered artists. Anyone who expresses themselves through their work can be considered an artist. Layman absolutely appreciate the artistry of magic. I have many regulars that come in and watch the same tricks over and over and love them everytime and enjoy watching theirs friends being effected by the wonder and artistry of magic. I even talk at length with them about the thinking that goes into magic and may even teach them a trick or two. Now they may never ever perform but they do have an honest interest and appreciation for the art. Most people are good at something and that makes them appreciate when they see other people who are good at what they do. I personally love watching anyone who is really good at what they do and it doesn't matter what it is. If you are good at hitting a bucket with a stick I will watch. Because I know what it takes and I can appreciate the hard work dedication and artistry involved in whatever they do. Anyone who is good at what they do will appreciate the art of magic.
[Reply]
Okay, I went back and watched the routine again, and the cutting phase is starting to grow on me. However, I think refering to the ambitous card as "your card" and in fact, making this look in any way like a "take a card" effect just confuses the issue. Spectators can be really thick, and they don't know whether you're doing a card trick for them, of if you're telling a story about you. Wouldn't it be simpler if you just picked a card at random from the deck, or if you remembered which card you chose, after all these years?
[Reply]
sato Reply:
December 16th, 2008 at 3:51 am
I like your last idea Curtis. This is something that I started doing with my new 3 phase routine (I just did it for one of my classes actually and it floored them).
I simply turn over the top card and use it, because I have a premise in my routine of burning "the image of the top card being turned face up on the top of the deck," into their mind. This way, it is a performance, a story, instead of a spectator "pick a card" trick.
If I was going to the do the "pick a card" ACR, I would do a longer one, like tony's 5ACR.
[Reply]
Also, from a storytelling standpoint, it would be much easier to understand your fascination with this effect if we first saw it the way you did first. I.e., one clean, moveless "rise", then you go into your search for methods. Having done that, the "you're just doing sleight of hand" comment is immediately clear. The audience remembers the way it looked when the magic dealer did it. BTW, if this was a real story, the guy would have a name.
[Reply]
I don't know if anyone has commented on this yet, but if this is supposed to be an exercise in structure, your first phase is no good. By doing the Cherry control, then manipulating the deck with the false cut, you have a rather angly move that's totally superfluous; just eliminate the cherry control and control the card during the false cut.
[Reply]
liquidsn Reply:
December 16th, 2008 at 5:16 am
true. thanks for bringing it up. I now tell the spectator about the person showing me the card trick and me even remembering the card I chose (Thank you Curtis Kam for that suggestion) and doing a simple cull of the card after it is found face up in the deck.
Sometimes the move monkey in me takes over.
[Reply]
sato Reply:
December 16th, 2008 at 7:17 am
For a real life performance, I would agree with Chris, that the cherry control adds unneeded difficulty to a routine that is based on simplicity and the act of "pure magic" happening at the end.
However, for this video, sit down performance, the cherry control is great. Of course us, as magicians, see the cherry control as what it is, "a control", but a laymen would have no idea from that presentation. It was flawless, the spectator would see only what he sees, the cards being fanned and closed.
When the angles are right, the cherry control is one of the most natural "to a layman" controls there is, where every move is warranted. Because of this, in certain situations, like this video presentation, it is absolutely perfect. In my opinion
[Reply]
Ok first of all, that is a great video, and I bow to your superior video-making/editing skills. Also, I would like to mention that I really liked the routine.
With respect to whether it is ok to lie through you magical effects:
Yes. I think it is perfectly acceptable to lie. Whatever the aim of your magic may be, the goal of your effect should be to convey that message by whatever means works most effectively. If you need to exaggerate or change some facts, or make up a story from whole cloth, that's what you should do. One of my favorite poets, John Rives said it well: "I will lie to you. I will try to make you laugh. I will try to break your heart, but what I'm not interested in is journalism." In Art, Truth is not what matters. Feeling is what matters. The only requirements of your presentation should be that it is the best way to convey your point of view.
To this end, I would suggest an old actors technique: make up more of the story than you need for your presentation. Decide what this magician's name was. Decide how old you were. Decide that his hands were twice the size of yours. Decide that there was a leftover turkey sandwich on the counter when he first showed you this trick. Many of these details will be extraneous; others silly. And certainly you should not mention all of them in the presentation. But understanding this general picture, and picking out a few specific, incidental, details that were emotionally important for the main character of this story (you), the story will come across as more realistic than if you had actually told the truth — and this will help you connect with your audience.
Ok. This post is long enough, and I will come back to the structure and moves later, but presentation is just as important as technique, and I think you're on the right track, but to quote someone who knew what he was talking about, "The finished card expert considers nothing too trivial that in any way contributes to his success."
[Reply]
john f Reply:
December 16th, 2008 at 5:17 am
In McCabe’s Scripting Magic, he describes a technique termed 'back-story.' Sounds similar to what you’re saying with the turkey sandwich.
I was also reminded of this quote when reading your thoughts on presentation and 'lying.'
‘Art is the lie that helps us understand the truth’ – Picasso
[Reply]
Matt Reply:
December 17th, 2008 at 4:36 am
On the subject of lying, I feel that it is ok to lie, because what the spectator feels is real, whether or not you told the truth to get there, you did.
[Reply]
I'm not going to post a long ass post, but just say, I really enjoyed that. Thanks for showing us Tony =)
[Reply]
hello tony
I come from beijing
Do You Speak Chinese?
[Reply]
Tony,
Nice performance (and I am chosing that word specifically). I am wondering why you, and many other magicians are so concerned about "lying" to their audience. Do actors in a play worry about lying to their audiences? You are doing magic, so by definition you are lying. as you aren't doing real magic in the literal sense. The card isn't coming to the top by magic. You are manipulating it somehow to make it look like magic..
If the goal is to entertain the audience by making the experience seem like real magic, then wrapping your trick in a fabricated story to turn something that might otherwise be a trick into a magical moment that connects emotionally is certainly warranted.
So to restate… Nice performance.
[Reply]
Tony that was just entertaining to watch … thanks.
[Reply]
*speechless*
Wow, Mr. Chang. Just wow.
Watching this for the first time, I couldn’t believe my eyes. Watching it for the second time, I realised that it actualy happens in your hand and not a spectator’s. The third time, I smiled thinking, “It doesn’t even matter anymore that I know how. It’s just so beautiful.” When I finally did understand the method, the way that I felt watching it the first time was so embedded that method was irrelevant. The intellectual part of the trick became less important than the emotional.
I think this is what spectators see, and it is something that Derren Brown refers to in the aforementioned Floating Ring. What is communicated is not just another magic trick, and that you are not just another magician. I do believe that your friend, Bijou, did experience a moment of true astonishment. Heck, I did too watching the video.
I agree that while the 5ACR might be more entertaining and impressive–this is perhaps the intellectual side of magic that most magicians cater to–the 3ACR is more evocative of emotions. You connect with a spectator on a different level. We can agree though that without the investment of the spectator, a certain rapport and trust (gained perhaps from either friendship or through winning over their intellect with prior effects?) this emotional response would not be possible.
Mr. Kamm certainly has a different perspective concerning magic than Mr. Chang. It seems to me that Mr. Kamm’s view involves a lot of skill concerning both slieght of hand and audience handling. There’s almost a combative quality to it in that it challenges the spectator to “Go ahead. Look as hard as you want, think as hard as you can about it, you’ll never figure it out. Because you can’t. It’s magic.” It’s a battle of forces until the spectator concede that, yes, the only way it can be done is magic. I think it is an difficult way of going about performance, but I respect it and agree with some aspects of it.
Mr. Chang on the other hand seems to have a more gentle persuasiveness. At least from the 3ACR performance, it seems to be that he is saying, “Look, I know what you see–I see those same things too. But there’s something out there, something cool, something crazy, something magical. And if you’ll just be patient and sit down with me, we can watch and be a part of it. Come on, we’ll have an adventure.” Granted, this was how I’m trying to put it into words and even to me it doesn’t seem entirely accurate, but it’s how I can communicate it. I’m sure Mr. Chang can clear up my confusion in this.
I love both ways of thinking about magic. They’re the two sides of the coin of “What is magic?”. And it’s amazing to see either way so long as it is done well. It must also be noted that you it would be a gross negligence to provide only one. To only address the intellect would inevitably lead to the dancing monkey frame, and it would be tiring; the spectator having to face challenge after challenge. But to only address emotions would be undoubtedly heavy handed and distasteful; rather like being chased by someone that you are not attracted to nor could ever be attracted to because of thier blatant neediness. Get away from me you preachy bastard.
So moderation, gentlemen. Or at least consideration for your audience, and not just your ego and your view of magic that HAS to be the only way to do it. After all, you do magic for the audience right? Not your self?
(cough*Purists*cough)
Tony, this is the best version of an ACR I have seen. None of that cookie cutter “Let’s see how many times I can bring your card up” shit. It truly is inspiring, and I hope you don’t mind that because of this I have decided to start working on an ACR again. I’ll definitely be stealing some of your ideas on here.
One last thought, about technical matters this time. Derren Brown’s Velvet Turnover from “The Devil’s Picturebook”. I’ve only heard of the move, but I believe it allows the spectator to turn over a double. At the end of this routine, instead of having the cards in your hand, I think it would be cool if they could be the one to turn over the card. Slowly, and after a five minute silence of course.
That’s it. Not so speechless anymore.
Love Always,
–Blaireau
[Reply]
Kieran Reply:
March 17th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
what camera do you use and what editing platform. Excellent ACR btw, love the patter idea!
[Reply]
Wow, that was an amazing post Blaireau. Thank you. Just to clear up, the last phase of the trick is done in their hand. I didn’t have a person to interact with for the trick, so I used myself. What I love about the last phase is that you put them into your shoes in the story. The moment I say “And he put the deck into MY HANDS”, that’s when I hand them the deck.
We both stare at the deck. I love that moment. Then you look at the spectator “did you see it”? At this point I am hoping that I am the “master magician showing the kid this trick” and the spectator is me.
It sends chills up my spine every time the card is turned up in the end saying “that’s why it’s called… magic”. I have to say that is a beautiful moment.
You hit the head on what my magic is all about in the perfect world. Granted, I do 5ACR all the time, but this kind of magic is pulled out for the special times.
I think this kind of magic is different than the “emotional” kind that all magicians think of. I’m not doing bizzare magic, I’m not saying “Through my travels through india…”. It’s also not some stupid fucking story about a “Puppy that lost it’s way” kind of thing. The last thing I want to do is to patronize the damn person. I hate that.
The magic I want to do is about me. Common questions to any maigcian if they are intrigued about you is many. How did you learn it? Where? How long? You must get a lot of girls. blah blah blah.
Instead of throwing the standard bullshit magic joke one-liners, use that intrigue to your advantage.
I’m blabbing here, but soon I will post another trick that is my opener when I feel it’s the right crowd. Wanted to leave you with something.
I don’t want to do tricks against the spectator. It is very seldom that I have them pick a card. If they do, I know what it is. My goal is to do magic with them. It’s not head to head, but side by side.
I am very happy you can see all of that in this performance Blaireau.
Would love to see your ACR sometime.
[Reply]
Hi Tony, why cant I see this video on your vimeo channel?
I also wonder, is it okey if I link to this video on a swedish magic forum? I feel that there is something to learn about presentation from it.
[Reply]
liquidsn Reply:
December 15th, 2008 at 2:25 am
its just "marlo" look at what happens when you spell his name backwards.
[Reply]