talkmagic.co.uk

I was watching some John Smith of a magician perform the other day, he wasn't great but he was doing something on card-change tricks that really got my attention, because it was an interesting idea.

The crowd was really looking at his hands hard, so he noticed the burning eyes and did something I never thought of doing before. the few card tricks he did were in a third person, he said someone in the street came up to him and showed him tricks

His mouth spoke his words, as if he were just recalling the trick, and his hands did the trick, so when he went to do a pass he said this "I was watching his hands very closely and saw he did a false cut" but really, he did a pass, and the audience thinks he's revealing some of the trick, and doing a false cut...

He called when he was doing sleights, but told them he was doing something different than he was.

Is this a good idea? I think it's a way to get past those spectators that give you a cold sweat because you know their on perfect edge... but at the same time, it has a WAY lesser effect than if the spec thinks you are just holding the deck...

Anyone have any spins on this? Should people use it at all? Sparingly?

For me, I would only use such patter lines when I'm not doing what I'm saying.

I don't see a need to draw more attention to what's going on, so I wouldn't use this kind of method. However, there is a place for presentations that "tip the work", but when you do it, you still need the surprise kicker. Like you said, it can start to diminish the strength of the effect, so you want something that hits hard at the end.

For a perfect example of this kind of presentation - look no further than Dai Vernon's Poker Deal. the entire routine is presented as explaining how cheaters cheat at cards. You tell them exactly what you're doing - showing them the mechanics of the "set-up" as you present it. This lulls them into a false sense of security because it finishes with an astonishing kicker that defies the explanations you've already given.

Another great example is John Bannon's Dead Reckoning from Dear Mr. Fantasy. In that effect he even goes so far as to tip the ACTUAL method as part of his patter - which, even though I haven't the guts to do so, he says does not diminish the strength of the effect.

If you have ever seen this in that it is done in the same style. However because of the slightly comedic factor of this n' that I think it adds to the trick

donkeylord wrote:If you have ever seen this in that it is done in the same style. However because of the slightly comedic factor of this n' that I think it adds to the trick

It was a This'n'That style trick,
I think it would only work with monte-type effects, when you start a story with "A guy came up to me in the street and wanted to show me a trick" you assume it's a monte style thing.
Example: when you have to do a DL and move the cards to the bottom and make people think your moving the top card. say "I saw him try to hide moving the top card to the bottom..." "Nope, this is on the bottom" "Oh, then that must have been a false cut, and thats still on the top..." might be okay, add a little bit of believability to the trick, people like when you throw magician terms in... and it clears the first part of the trick up a bit.

My conclusion after a practice-sessions worth of playing with the patter-use it on This n That and a color monte... if you must

There are certain things that you should and should not talk about when using explanations as part of your misdirection. I'd certainly not refer to DL's, TL's, passes etc. but would refer to things like bottom deal, centre deal, false cuts as people tend to know about these things anyway.

I think that to expose something such as a DL in any situation is inexcusable but if you're doing a DL and say it's something else then perhaps it will work.

If a layman knows about a DL- card magic is ruined. SO much of magic relies on the DL, i get furious when people do a DL poorly, as soon as someone knows about a DL, a good amount of magic can be figured out.

I think that using some terminology makes the audience think that you have faith that they know what your doing. In reality however they probably don't know what that means in term of the trick anyway.

I think as long as it's done well it's a very useful form of misdirection, especially with the kind of spectator who is essentially looking to catch you out. People expect you to do sleight-of-hand when you do magic for them, so if you show them when you are doing it ("But of course this is really a false cut...") they stop looking for it. This means that you can disguise one sleight as another and they'll never see it.

I personally do a routine based around misdirection which begins with me showing a card from the top of the deck then placing it under a glass or book or whatever is around. I then tell the spectator that at some point in the next ten or fifteen minutes I'm going to steal that card back without them noticing (I then give a talk about misdirection and how it works). At the end of the routine I then draw their attention back to the card, which will have magically turned into a joker. No matter how hard they watch the card they don't spot the move because it happens before I explain what I'm going to do. The effect isn't lessened by explaining it, if anything it makes it seem more miraculous.