Hi all,

This is an initial impressions as I have not performed the effect yet; it takes time to get any effect to performance level but we all know that. Having said that here are some thoughts about the effect.

Moving hole effects are popular in card magic: they are highly visual and the fact that the magic happens with something that is, for lack of a better word, intangible evokes a sort of Twilight Zone moment. My first exposure to the plot was Michael Close's "The Pothole Trick" which can be found in Workers v.1. The first time I saw the effect in 2001 when working at The Cuckoos' Nest in Pittsburgh, I have to say that it floored me! I still think that Close's effect is as strong as anything - including Peter Eggink's latest offering. This is not to say that Peter Eggink's method is nothing revolutionary. Rather it represents a practical method of animating the hole. In a sense that's a good and bad thing. But first some thoughts about what you get in the package.

The DVD is nicely produced although the opening of Peter walking up the stairs is just a bit of fluff. I really wish this whole (yikes an almost pun!) notion of magicians hanging out in warehouses or city slums would just go away. I am not an old codger by any means but the rock musician in me screams "leave the warehouse schtick to musicians!" The DVD actually begins with Peter Eggink doing a performance of the effect to music (not rock thank Heaven) in front of the camera. There are no live performance shots on the DVD. For the most part I really don't mind this, but with certain effects I think one or two would help. Dan Harlan's A Little R&B is filled with live performances in pubs, etc., and you really get a sense of how powerful the effects really are. I reviewed this in full on the Café so do a search if you haven't tried Harlan's product. Okay, back to The Hole.

The instructions themselves are accomplished by stylized text over the video itself. It's a little weird at first because Peter's English is excellent. I've learned in my 11 months here in The Netherlands that most Dutch people speak English quite well. English is far more widely spoken in the world than Dutch, so it was a smart move to do the text in English as it's a lot easier to translate what you see as opposed to what you hear (semantic mapping as linguists call it).; in other words, communication happens in English, but English is not privileged. I do hope one day that magicians will start doing subtitle work. Yes it's expensive, but nonetheless it would be a welcome addition.

So after the Theoryellusionist opening, the video gets down to the real business of teaching the effect.

Along with the DVD you get some bits and bobs that make up the m.o. of the effect. The main gimmick is sturdy so workers should have no worries about the gimmick breaking. That said, if you are an illusionist, just keep the gimmick away from your elephant and/or your playful tiger cubs. We who do not do illusions should keep the gimmick away from over zealous puppies! What this means is that the gimmick is really well crafted and Peter is correct in stating that that you would really have to try to break it to actually break it.

If you feel at home doing animated effects that utilize a certain "something" used in animated magic, you will feel comfortable straight off the bat with the gimmick,and that too is strong.

I love the effect, but part of me questions whether this is magicians' magic. I am ceertain that Peter Eggink has performed this so my opinions are just that - opinions. Yes, we've seen the video and I admit it does look cool. But I wondered whether it looks cool because I am a magician and know that this is perhaps the first instance of a moving hole effect that can be done pretty much impromptu as long as you have the gimmick. That's a big plus. But even before purchasing the effect, I was a bit concerned that the animation aspect of the effect looked too artificial. Until I perform this a number of times, I can't provide a definitive answer and as always, the caveat is that any conclusion would necessarily be based upon how well it works for me; it may not work for you.

So here's the quandary I find myself in thus far: is the effect lessened by the hole visibly moving? Mike Powers' Holey Terror is beautiful as are variants I have seen in MAJ and other places. Close's Pothole Trick is still a sublime effect. The connection between the finger seemingly moving the hole seems more impossible than animating it. Here's why I think so, and I will use Close's effect as a comparison.

In Close's effect you are moving a pothole around your neighborhood. It's a great presentation. But it's not the setting that matters as muxh as the motivation. In Close's effect you are telling a story. To put it another way, there is a justification for moving the hole around that adds to the effect. In contrast, as the ad copy states for Peter Eggink's presentation, it's punch, sign, move, hand out. Obviously the magician should apply her/his own presentation. And this begs the question of whether The Hole is an effect that is more of a look what I can do just because I can rather than a mechanism in which the impossibility of the magic enhances the outrageous premise of the story.

Michael Close's effect allows more freedom of movement whereas The Hole is basically unidirectional. A positive of Eggink's effect however is that once the necessary components are assembled, you can do the effect at anytime. Close's effect requires a bit more preparation and thus the number of times it can be performed in a single night in walkaround is a bit more restricted.

Now to get to the heart of the matter. In moving hole effects that preceded The Hole, the finger moves the hole and the illusion IMHO is quite powerful and convincing - this is especially true with The Pothole Trick. With The Hole, something really strange happens in that the hole moves openly. What is nagging at me is the too perfect theory. The Hole looks mechanical. No matter how smoothly you perform it, the fact that a hole is visibly moving may lead spectators uncomfortably close to a method. It may not be the correct method, but, every concievable method would, I would argue, lead to a mechanical solution. I am not exposing THE method here obviously but in the 21st century, so many possible solutions can suggest themselves. In contrast, it seems to me that The Pothole Trick is a bit more opague in its method. Also, the direct contact of body to animate the hole - and then seemingly plucking it off and placing on the card the spectator has been holding all the while is THE defining moment of the effect. Those of you who perform Close's effect should know what I mean here.

To be fair, there IS a moment in The Hole - offered a nuance - in which your finger DOES appear to move the hole. In a sense, this actually looks better to my eyes. Problematic here is that I cannot reveal why without exposing the methodology of either effect.

A few final thoughts are relevant here to conclude and I hasten to add that these are impressions based upon working with the effect but I have not performed it for another sentient being. Please bear that in mind?

A hole should never magically take on three dimensions. With the Eggink effect, you really need to be careful of this. Peter does go into detail offering useful suggestions to keep this from happening; if you buy this product, pay strict attention to this. That said, it occurs to me that performing this outdoors when there is a breeze could be problematic. In addition, there is a point in the routine that COULD tip the method. Success will depend upon how well you justify, well, watch the promo video and you should see what I cannot say.

Perhaps Hideo Kato can assist here, but I seem to remember a very OLD method in which a hole does seemingly move visually. It's not as good as Eggink's approach if memory serves because it is a bit more limited. I know I read it a couple of years ago in a journal but I cannot remember which journal!! (Maybe I AM an old codger)!

Animated magic is strong from massive Asrahs to intimate effects. A real magician should be able to animate inanimate objects. And as I write this, the thought occurred that perhaps my seeming cognitive dissonance with The Hole is that it appears to be two effects that PERHAPS do not work well together. A self cutting deck (see Eggink's Haunted) is clear: a pack of cards cuts itself even though the performer does not touch the pack. McBride's Kundalini Rising is a clear effect in that a card rises cleanly from a pack of cards being held by the specator. In these cases, the animation IS the effect. With The Hole, there seems to my mind to be a dual identity struggle going on: the impossibility of amoving hole, which has already been accomplished by other effects, and the ANIMATION. What worries me my friends is that this dual identity of perceived effect MAY weaken each component PART of the effect.

Please note that I put the qualifying words in capital letters to drive home the fact that these caveats I pointed out may not be caveats at all. Moreover, I may very well be thinking too much like a magician. I will be field testing this soon, but I am curious to hear from others who HAVE performed it at least ten times in various situations.

Best,
Vlad

Great review.
Let us know your thoughts after performing it a few dozen times.

Hi guys, first off I just want too say that this is great! I have performed it 6 times at my local theatre, its not much but, judging by the reactions so far this will close my card set. Does the animation look artificial? imho , no it doesn't. As holes are not supposed to move anyway.

I think that the animation looks great and a few lay friends of mine said that this was great, purely because they could actually SEE it move.

Of course its an added bonus that this effect is also super practical, with a week or so practice you will have a mirical!