Title says it all really - there's several of these, from a joke spoon with a hinge, to that incredible 'real' multi-hundred dollar visibly bending fork. In between are nails, keys etc. To kick things off, I myself have Hell Bent: nasty title but fine effect, and it also gets round that awkward "How the *&%! do I get back in my house now!?!" moment were you to use someone else's key...

In general, I feel they're a waste of money, there are many great non-gimmicked techniques out there (Banachek's Psychokinetic Silverware video will start shipping Feb. 15, last I heard, for one of the best sources on ungimmicked bending). The self-bending fork is a particular waste in my view... it doesn't look like any other fork you might bend in your act, and it's very restrictive in how it has to be stored up until right before you perform it.

You can achieve an effect that an audience will remember as being identical using Banachek's techniques, and it uses forks you can buy dirt cheap in bulk in any wholesale store.

I have seen a few worthwhile gaffed bends (Doc Dougherty's "PSI Flexion" bending nail was pretty good), but overall your money is better spent elsewhere in my view.

There will be some exceptions, inevitably, but as a general rule of thumb, I'd suggest giving dealer metal-bending items a miss.

Metal-bending effects don't need anything a dealer can sell you. For 20 years I've been bending everything from spoons and cutlery to keys and coins, for laymen in all sorts of situations, and I've never once used, or wanted to use, anything sold by a dealer. Not necessary! Just 2 or 3 basic methods (and their endless variations), a bit of a knack for timing and presentation, and the miracle is there.

My advice... if you want to get into this, make it your business to meet any of the guys who can show you their spoon move, coin move, key move whatever. Learn from a teacher. Then take joy and wonder and mystery into the world.

I would have to agree,
dealer metal-bending Items are not a good investment if you plan on using them often.
I occasionally use Guy Bavli's Side Effect, but only under the right conditions.
I would never do it on its own, but mix it in with some of the "real work" using borrowed items. When you become more advanced with impromptu metal bending, you will have no use for dealer metal-bending items.

Thanks all - I have had email problems, so sorry for the delay in responding. I am already hot on the trail of the Banachek video and as for the excellent idead of learnin from teachers - not free this weekend, are you Ian..?

I bought "hell-bent" many years ago. I used to do it, but now it sits in a drawer rusting away. The 90 degree bend is unnatural. The bending nails, Andy refferred to are exellent. Although,not examinable. If you can find them, pick them up. They may be worth it to you. There was an item on the market some years ago, called the "self-bending spoon" it was a great idea, but being a gaff, I didn't use it. Especially when you can create the same effect by very minimal sleight of mind.

Chad

I just received 2 AMAZING Haunted Spoons from http://www.strangetreasures.com
They bend very quickly. This one is not a give-away, but it can be done remotely...

I realize that most people are vehemently against metal-bending that involves props. I also like doing natural spoon-bending, but you do tend to run out of methods of bending after a while. I'm considering investing in something like these spoons you mention (although I don't think they look real enough to fit into an impromptu routine, for my purposes), or the bendable fork by Yuval Keren. Someone mentioned that there are some latent issues with the look and the circumstances under which this effect can be performed, and I would appreciate some more insight before I shell out $700 USD.

I think such a prop can only ADD to your overall performance by giving a final proof-positive in psychokinetic abilities, after a spectator sees you not even TOUCH the item you want to bend, or not do any misdirecting movements beforehand on regular silverware. It would be great if you could do such an act in the spectator's hands, as Keren's effect promises, although I guess that's not entirely possible without potentially exposing the method?

What I see with 'Bendable Fork' is the potential to, beyond any doubt, put the thought into the spectator's mind that this is magic, not sleight-of-hand or misdirection. But, hopefully without giving away the gimmick of the construction. Do the forks look significantly different from regular forks? Anybody? Again, for $700, there should not be any issues in the trick to overcome.

I'm assuming at least one of the self-bending utincels uses memory-position metal where heat causes the metal to bend back to it's original position. In this case you CAN do something no one else can do otherwise! Assuming room temperature doesn't affect the metal you can have the item on one of the tables and have a spectator pick it up and hold it on their palm for the audience to see. With you far away the item would visually bend in the person's hand.

Now I've never seen any of these things but I'm just using the little science I know into account here. If the above is possible there is no way you can replicate that any other way! And if bending cutlery was possible using the mind it wouldn't look any clearer than that.

Jonathan GRAnt

I can't really say more than I already have here at the Cafe and elsewhere about the bending fork without exposing it; there are severe restrictions in how it needs to be handled up until right before you use it. That alone makes it unusable/nearly unusable in my view.

Also, as I've said many times, if you're a mentalist, you have the suspension of disbelief such that extreme measures like a bend entirely in the participant's hand isn't necessary. Get a copy of Banachek's video, and you'll convince your audience that multiple forks have bent both in your hands and in the participant's hands. No gaffs.

You're trying to spend $700 to run when you're not being chased; it's a common flaw in the thinking of many magicians--they think like magicians, and not like lay audiences. And, beyond that, this is an effect that isn't really as effective when done by a magician, it's best done by a mentalist. And a mentalist has a totally different belief level going for him than a magician does (but let's not go into that debate again, we've been 'round that road too many times).

If you feel you must spend $700 on it, that's your perogative. I suggest that your money is better spent elsewhere. I am not at all opposed to expensive effects; I recently purchased a utility device that my audience will never really "see" (see=notice, of course :o) that cost me $300. I, too, may in the next few months to a year be releasing a PK effect that will costs in the multiple hundreds. If it's worth it, I have no problem with it. I don't think this one's worth it.

When I first read about the bending fork I thought it was a great idea. Then I saw it and changed my mind.

It is too much. It undermines the plausibility of the effect.

But that's only my opinion.

-Alain Bellon

Alain, I'm curious to know what you mean by "it's too much." Are you saying that having the bend be that graphic and in the open will make people believe that it must be a trick fork? I'm asking because I've seen a number of Uri Geller fans (that is, people who believe he's really telekinetic) use that as the final reason why he couldn't possibly be a fake: "But when he does it, you can see the spoon bending when he's not even touching it. Magicians can't do it that way, so he must be real." Of course, not having seen the video clips in question, I can't even say whether these people really saw what they thought they saw, but I'm interested in hearing your take on it.

Quinn

When I first imagined the effect I thought it was the ultimate effect in metal bending. It is an actual visual bend.

Once I saw it performed something funny happened. The visual effect was so unequivocal that it created an instantaneous skeptical mindset; probably because the audience had not been primed enough to accept the phenomenon. The effect was still startling and awe inspiring but the claim was so high that one started doubting if it was just a trick.

When a person sees an object move a tiny bit in a PK demonstration the claim is moderate and therefore its level believability is high. When the same object floats up and spins around and flies about the room, even if the "test" conditions are the same, the claim is too large and therefore the level of believability is diminished. I think the bending fork is a similar case.

Independent of Geller's claims, I think that one of the reasons metal bending is accepted as plausible is that the actual bending is never seen clearly (unlike the bending fork).

So let me venture a naive hypothesis: Once the imagination is engaged in the process of cognitive perception, the memory of what happened has a more plausible "feeling". It's almost as if we wish it to be that way. When the memory is created via actual perception and no imagination is involved, the created memory being more clearly unequivocal, is harder to accept.

Our perceptions go from our senses to the thalamus and then through the sensory cortex where they are evaluated. Finally the sensory input reaches the amygdalas where emotional reaction to the perception is generated.

It is possible that when confronted with a perception such as the one created by the bending fork, the sensory cortex will evaluate it and create a rejection based on reason and our experience with the environment (forks don't bend like that all of the sudden). In the case where we don't actually perceive the bending but we think we did, our brains are reconstructing the memory. Furthermore, our recount of the experience will try to express the emotions it ellicited much more than the actual event. So in most cases this recount will contain reconstructed elements that surpass the actual events.

The actual perception of the fork bending before our eyes encounters a fierce opposition, immediately after being perceived, by the sensory cortex. While the non-visual perception will skip preeliminary rejection and we end up working from reconstructed bits and pieces. In the end the latter might be easier to accept.

What do you think?

-Alain Bellon

I'd offer another suggestion; it's quite possible to do a non-gimmicked bending and convince the audience that they do see it bending without you being anywhere near it. Do your research...the methods are out there, if you're not afraid of a little psychology. Of course, having a fair sized set of cajones helps a lot, too, but it's mostly psychology and subtle suggestion. Kenton has some great stuff on this in his latest book involving a finger ring...

I am with Andy on that one.

The psychological continuation of the bending effect is very powerful. People will really believe they saw a spoon bending without anyone touching it.

And you can go past the visual effect and add tactile suggestion of bending as well.

-Alain Bellon

What made Geller great is that he would bend YOUR key or YOUR spoon; and most marketed effects cannot duplicate this.

Another good source will be Guy Balvi's Metal Bending Videos...there are several techniques and presentation that is different from Banachek's and is very powerful too.

Is there anywhere I can get more info on the psychology you mentioned making the audience think they saw you do it a way you didn't (being nowhere near the spoon or effect, not touching it!)?

JOnathan Grant

Jonathan,

Andy Leviss has already mentioned Banachek's Psychokinetic Silverware video in this thread. It contains details of various impromptu methods of cutlery bending, but also covers quite a bit of the psychology involved as well.

Cheers

Mark

Yes, I have the video. I was wondering if he was referring to another book or video.

Jonathan Grant