Different performers are effected differently
by revealed methods on TV. I'm curious how
your show is effected?

Recently I bought your PK silverware (I am
more than satisfied, it is GREAT!) I haven't
used it yet, and probably won't for quite a
while because some people I know were talking
about the method for the tine bend. (laymen)
I was shocked that they were openly talking
about the method as if it were just gossip.
It turned out they recently saw it revealed
on TV.

I know that performance is alot of it, but
I'm curious how much exposure an effect can
withstand in a BIG show like yours and still
be useable? At first I thought, You are the
master at this sort of thing, so it wouldn't
effect you. But, I am reminded of something
Copperfield said about having to redevelop
effects to stay ahead of what people have
figured out...I'm curious how something like
this would effect your show? If 25% of the
things you perform currently are exposed to
laymen how are you effected? Is it any worse
at 50% or are you able to astonish people
even if they know how the effect is done?

There is nothing wrong with using exposed "tricks". People know there is away to do it. Besides, laymen usually forget methods really easy. As for the fork bend how many people do you like saw that program? I bet 1 or 2, they just told everyone else, you just have to keep control of your spectators and keep them in the moment.


Thats my thought

THe magic happens "Inside" Your audience. Give your audience credit, they know its a trick. We're not witch doctors. The magic happens in bending when no ones eyes are upon you. Be impromptu. Banachek gives you the basics, then you have to take it from there. So they know you bend silverware by what method? Your hands? Oh wow! Who would have thought that? It's no biggie, improvise, be original.

I would be interested to know what show, where and who exposed the tine bend. But there is little I can do about it. I can only hope that my presentation and positive outlook when I perform it will far outweigh the thought I might be cheating (during the actual performance) In the show I was doing with Gerry, we told the audience all about Project Alpha, pictures and all. But then I came out and did the silverware bending and was able to get away with it. It really is all in the attitude.

Just like Dunninger would come out with a set of linking rings, show a ring with a hole in it, say something like "some magicians use a ring like this to accomplish what I am about to do." throw the ring offstage and proceed using another gimmicked ring.

It is all about attitude. Look at Geller, he has been exposed and caught many times, but his attitude still gets people wanting to believe.

I let the expose' shows run off my back. I hate them, but they do not consume me. I would much rather take my time positively influencing my art rather than dwell on the negative. Plus, as already said, most people forget the methods in a few months.

I have often said, there is no reason to expose methods to a scientist. If you do, you are setting them up for a big failure later. I have about three ways to do most of the stuff I do. If they think they know how something is done, and someone else comes along and uses a different method, you have set them up to think what they are seeing now is genuine. Better to teach them they can be deceived and be aware of that fact.

James Randi exposed it on one of those "Secrets of the Psychics Revealed" shows.

ah yes. But did he expose the psychology that really makes it work? To show you bend a tine and shake, is totally different than all the little bits that go into making the illusion work.

Don't get me wrong, I certainly understand the concept of if a spectator has an answer that is all he needs "ah, it is just slight of hand." But it is up to the performer to get past that, to impress beyond that.

I could give you the secret to many effects but that does not mean you could perform it or not be fooled by it when you see a good performer do it.

I remember a performer who used a T...mb...p for a ton of effects. I fooled him with the same gimmick.

I'm not advocating exposing in any way. As said elsewhere, it is not a good thing as you actually set people up to be fooled badly later. They think they know how it is done and are sure they do, so when someone comes along and does it different, they believe what they are seeing has to be real. So if you expose to show certain psychic phenomena is fake, in the long run you do the opposite.

Just my opinion

I guess you are right. Incidentally it was
Criss Angel exposing it, and I heard this
as recent as last night. I am not certain
if he discussed the psychology of how it
works. maybe I was too hasty? I posted this
as soon as I came home after hearing about
it.

I remember seeing Geller exposed, and that
was also my introduction to silverware
bending (the clip, followed by the exposure
as I imagine the new one is). I thought it
was a stupid trick, like a certain grade
school illusion I know...

Then years later I saw a new metal bending,
it twisted, the tine melted down and then
the sucker broke right in the spectators
hand... NO WAY!

I knew the concept from the Geller exposure
but yours is an altogether new bending... I
just would hate to see it get exposed like
that. Ok I'm done ranting.

Where can I find more info about the gellar exposure? I'm fairly young (21) so I don't remmeber ever hearing about it... but I *was* fascinated by his books when I was a kid... I reallllllllyyyyy wanted to believe he had special powers.

James Randi's book The truth about Uri Geller. You can read the incident there. You can order the book at my web site, under Recommended reading at http://www.banachek.com

During Project Alpha, you fooled scientists with purportedly psychic demonstrations under test conditions, for the purpose of casting light on the serious flaws in their psychic testing procedures. At no time did you expose your actual methods, which you now use to make your living as an entertainer.

I would be interested to know how you feel about well-meaning magicians who expose psychic secrets in the interest of protecting the public, but who unwittingly drag down ethical mentalists/psychic entertainers in the process.

Banachek lectured and explained the fork bending at a Weerd Weekend. He then immediately repeated the performance version and pretty much fooled everybody anyway.

The point of this is that the presentation is paramount, not the actual method.

Thanks Bill, by the way, I still have that wonderful poem you wrote for me years ago right after you first joined the PEA It is framed and on my wall.

As for Neil's question. We all make mistakes. I have done a few things that others may consider exposing. At the time, and even today I don't think I did, but I give it a lot of thought. Were the things I talked about necessary, probably not. So would I do it again, probably not.

We all make mistakes, we all mature. It is extremely hard sometimes to get a point across when we are passionate about a subject without wanting to share all our knowledge. Over time we find other ways to do so.

So, do I hold it against them, no, do I tell them I do not find what they did necessary, yes, if I think so.

Now there are some who expose left and right and needlessly even in their own minds. I have a problem with that.

I guess I try to look and see if their heart was in the right place, or was it just mean spirited like the mask magician.

I try not to fault people who have their heart in the right place even if I vehemently disagree with them and their ideas or ideals.

I think we all have things whether in public life or personal life that we have done and grown from and would not want held against us forever.

I'm hesitant of mentioning this, but the magic isnt that its bend, its showing "revealing" the bend.

In my mind, absolutely, hence my question about the psychology being exposed,.