talkmagic.co.uk

Trying not to reveal anything here so PM me for more details (if you think you can help, not for exposure obviously).

In the Oil and Water routine at the end Derren talks about people choosing 5 and 0 or choosing 3 and 2 but says nothing about 4 and 1. Maybe I'm just being exceptionally thick but is the very ending possible with 4 and 1?

The ending as performed is not possible with a 4 and 1 selection, no. You can still show the reds and blacks as separated, with an improvised fake count - but you cannot do the nice finale where the colours instantly become alternated again.

As an aside, I've tried using the O***m subtlety for that last display instead, because I don't carry off the count that Brown uses half as convincingly as him. You have to pick up the face-down cards in a different order, of course. Much easier.

'Oil and Water' in general is such a heavily-criticised routine isn't it? So many people questioning its impact. I can't quite make my mind up on it.

Part of the problem is that it is somewhat pointless, which I think Derren mentions. Why mix the cards, only to have them separate again? It's one of those 'magician is all powerful, but all he can do is that?' effects.

In some cases, like René Lavand, the artistry is so beautiful, it doesn't really matter that the plot doesn't hold much water.

However, have a think about what else you could do. For example, if cartomancers think Spades represent troubles, and Hearts are relationships, imagine a story about a fortune teller who says that troubles will always dog your love life, unless you crossed her palm with silver. Then they separated.

A few months later, your relationship took a turn for the worse and you went back. Again, she told your fortune and the Spades and Hearts were mixed. Once more she worked her gypsy magic and the troubles separated from your relationship issues.

With respect, I don't think that's entirely it. You could just as well ask why get a spectator to pick a card, not tell you it, only for you to find it.

I think a more accurate summation of the POSSIBLE problem with 'Oil/Water' is that at least 'pick a card' directly involves the audience, or at least a member of it.

But like I said, I'm not sure if I totally buy all the criticism of such routines; you can't create an elaborate story around EVERY effect, it would get monotonous.

Thanks misterblack, that's what I thought.

hey is this Oil and water in "tricks of the mind" ?

If they picked 4 and 1 I would, as suggested, collect them and perform a false count. Then, to get the nice ending, just false shuffle them back in order and have the 'pick 5' procedure repeated, perhaps with another spectator.

Or, if you don't like the false count, reveal that they NEARLY got it right - four out of five, still impressive - and then do it again "to try and get them ALL right."

Cheers,

John

Magic Chris wrote:hey is this Oil and water in "tricks of the mind" ?

No. That book contains effectively no magic or mind-reading tricks at all.

Brown's 'Oil and Water' routine is found on his DVD 'The Devil's Picturebook'.

It sometimes bugs me how much magicians always have to think like magicians. To us something like an oil and water plot is pointless. But if it's well routined and you perform it entertainingly the spectators will love it.

If we're going on this premise that tricks that don't involve the spectators are not worth the effort then why bother with great tricks such as the Invisible Palm or Twisting The Aces.

Example - You have a bunch of aces face up, and they turn face down...WHY? No reason, because it visually baffling and entertaining to watch when performed properly.

And how about including the spectator...the ambitious card is a classic of card magic used by almost all professionals. A card is put in the deck and magically jumps to the top. Magician thinks: very clever, but why would a card come to the top of the deck? No reason, because it visually baffling and entertaining to watch when performed properly. How about a spectator signs a card and you pull it from HIS jacket pocket. Can't get more audience involved than that, and it's very clever, but WHY?

Spectators don't think like this. You pull their signed card from their pocket after they just saw it go into the middle of the deck and they freak out. They don't care why it's there.

misterblack wrote:With respect, I don't think that's entirely it. You could just as well ask why get a spectator to pick a card, not tell you it, only for you to find it.

What makes you think I don't? Actually, I was only passing on a comment I saw about the effect.

To a degree, I think you're right and that asking someone to pick a card involves them. However, many classics of magic do not involve the audience directly. Linking rings, sawing a woman in half and indeed most other illusions or big effects don't involve the audience physically, but good entertainment affects people emotionally.

Magic has the potential added hook of involving people intellectually and also challenging their perceptions.

But like I said, I'm not sure if I totally buy all the criticism of such routines; you can't create an elaborate story around EVERY effect, it would get monotonous.

Meaning does not require a story and it does not require complexity.

magic_evmeister wrote:Spectators don't think like this. You pull their signed card from their pocket after they just saw it go into the middle of the deck and they freak out. They don't care why it's there.

I think that's largely true. However, could it be even more powerful with some kind of meaning behind it? Isn't the connection with the spectator part of the reason that they are often asked to sign the card they have chosen? It's partly to eliminate the chance of a duplicate card being used, of course, but it does help establish a mild attachment to that card.

Personally, I think Derren Brown and Teller go a bit overboard on this topic. If people find it entertaining, that's good. Obviously, stronger magic is (usually) better, but that's a bit like saying all music has to be opera and that there's no room for rock, or even a bit of cheesy pop.

Part-timer, I think we are pretty much in agreement. As a newcomer I'm still wrestling with a lot of this presentational theory, but I think you are spot-on in suggesting a kind of middle path. When I referred to creating 'elaborate' stories around effects I really just meant the sometimes painfully contrived attempts to spin metaphors or other meanings around tricks, whether complex or not.

Your analogy (?) with music is a good one. There's good opera and bad opera (I assume!) and there is certainly good cheesy pop and bad cheesy pop.

misterblack wrote:Part-timer, I think we are pretty much in agreement.

I suspected we were too, but in my original post I was being somewhat of a Devil's advocate!

When I referred to creating 'elaborate' stories around effects I really just meant the sometimes painfully contrived attempts to spin metaphors or other meanings around tricks, whether complex or not.

Absolutely. Sometimes a patently ludicrous story will make an effect ten times worse than simply showing it.

Your analogy (?) with music is a good one. There's good opera and bad opera (I assume!) and there is certainly good cheesy pop and bad cheesy pop.

Yes. And yes.

Oh, and yes to your extension of the metaphor too!

I agree with the fact that sometimes a good presentation to a routine can be an enhancement to the overall effect of the routine. But sometimes it can also be superfluous and merely serve to keep the magician himself interested in what he does (we all know how fun it can be to spin off a cool story when we perform a routine even though the spectator doesn't really care).

Equally I also believe that adding presentational hooks to routines can be detrimental to the overall effect. Particularly if you're giving an "explanation" of how things are done. To give the spectator a way to reason what is happening (whether it is true or not) surely takes away from what amazement they could achieve with the routine speaking for itself.