|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9 [Next] | ||||||||||
Open Traveller Inner circle 1087 Posts 
|
Quote:
I find that showing people that we can palm a card without them seeing it, turning our hand face up to prove it, and they still cannot see it, IS challenging, especially when immediately we show that the card they were not able to see can be deposited. We agree more than we disagree, but the above is where your post becomes unhinged. It presumes that if you tell people that you can
that the audience will believe that you were actually hiding a card in your hand. Now, I think it's grand that you've performed for Nobel prize winners, presidents of state and visionary business men. I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to mention it, but it's great that you have. Surely you've observed that these men of class and no small intellect are not so daft as to actually believe these kinds of premises. The truth is that people can see you don't have a card in your hand, and they understand that the presentation is a joke. That won't change no matter how seriously you try to sell it (although the more serious one gets with it, the more likely the audience is to turn against the performer -- not because he flaunted superiority, but because he insulted their intelligence). The minute you turn your hand palm up to show it empty, the premise of the plot changes. They were following your story, perhaps believing you, perhaps not, until that moment when they realize that a different game is afoot. Anybody who at that point believes you're lording a superior ability over them is an idiot. When the card reappears, they're not surprised because you so skillfully hid it in your hand; they're amazed because the hand was unmistakably empty. There is what you say and what you do, and the audience understands the difference between the two. If they didn't, then after finishing the trick, laypeople everywhere would repeatedly ask where we hid the card in our hand. But they don't ask that at all. Instead, they ask how such a thing was possible. Over here, we call the presentation "tongue in cheek." I'm not sure what the French equivalent is, but I'm sure it must exist. The notion that challenge kills magic is simply mistaken. I don't remember any of the performers you mentioned actually saying those particular words, and each has moments in his repertoire that have challenge aspects to them. Dai Vernon's Ambitious Card sequence, as one example, starts by challenging the spectators and continues to do so at greater lengths with each phase. In Strong Magic Darwin Ortiz strongly states his believe that challenge has no place in good magic. I'm not certain he's completely thought through the use of the term "challenge." The real key to the issue lies in the opening paragraphs of this section in his book, where he points out that some magic can be a win/win situation and other performances can clearly be a win/lose situation(which is actually a lose/lose situation, when you think about it). It's not the challenge that's the problem; it's the way many performers handle it, making it a game of the magician AGAINST the audience instead of the magician PLAYING WITH the audience. I think very few could pull off an entire act of challenge magic -- it would simply be too fatiguing -- but there are times and places for it, particularly when the spectators bring it to the table first. I suggest that by its very nature, magic is challenging, and therefore it's sometimes okay to simply acknowledge it and make it part of the game -- as long as in the process, the audience doesn't lose. |
|||||||||
|
Christopher Lyle Inner circle Dallas, Texas 5698 Posts
|
>> Lyle, Christopher : Youtube no explanation for the last card. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiKTKh5gPbw Same good patter as Wayne Houchin but the last card is beyond understanding. <<
WOW!!! I'm honored that you enjoyed my routine enough to mention it in your list. Had I known you were going to do that, I wouldn't have taken down that clip a couple of days ago. I worked really hard on that routine and was inspired a lot by Wayne Houchin's version/handeling with exception to the final phase. I plan to re-shoot the video to give it a more professional feel in the coming weeks. I'll let ya know when it up. Thanks for watching... Christopher
In Mystery,
Christopher Lyle Magician, Comic, Daredevil, and Balloon Twisting Genius For a Good Time...CLICK HERE! |
|||||||||
MickeyPainless Inner circle California 6065 Posts
|
Christopher,
Dude, ya gotta re shoot it with the new cards man! 
FWIW, I'm still not wanting to know the final vanish but it does keep me up at night! Mick |
|||||||||
|
Christopher Lyle Inner circle Dallas, Texas 5698 Posts
|
The invisible palm meets SNOWBLINDS! Actually (all kidding aside) the routine as it's presented would still be deceptive with the SNOWBLINDS DECK!
The re-shoot of the routine may or may not include the "lyle-style" vanish. I'm fenced about it. I like keeping that one to myself and my fear is that one of these guys far more talanted then myself will watch the thing 50 million times, figure it out, and then perform it as their own. I'm thinking about just using a standard final phase and leaving the goods for the "live performance!" Fenced on the subject...ponder this I shall!
In Mystery,
Christopher Lyle Magician, Comic, Daredevil, and Balloon Twisting Genius For a Good Time...CLICK HERE! |
|||||||||
cinemagician Inner circle Phila Metro Area 1094 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2009-01-30 20:26, Lawrence O wrote: For me the problem with this effect has always been trying to justify the presentational premise of of the "invisible palm" it has always seemed to be a riddiculas premise to me. You may add to this Lawrence's conception that the effect theoretically paints the magician in a corner in terms of his having to assume a role of "superiority" over the spectator- the only logical attempt towards remedy of this this situation are those whereby the performer must go almost to the point of exposure to avoid being "a jerk". I recall a Paul Harris Effect wherein the presentation reverts to a false explanation on palming in which the process is reffered to as "plamming"(was this term constructed sheerly for the sake of not upsetting magicians who might use palming elsewhere in their act?) In any case the idea of an invisible palm seems to me to be absurd. The only way I can think of to quelch this dilema (in a presentational sense) is an all out exposure on the artiface of palming (letting the spectator in and on equal footing with the magician- hell even let him try it himself)- and therefore when his preconcieved notions seem to be well established hit him over the head with the fact? that the card is now (surprise!) invisible! This approach would serve to help extinguish both the problems associated with (as Lawrence seems to feel) the positioning of the performer in a dominant role as well as my feelings that the premise is too absurd for most audiences to swallow (as in the Harris premise alluded to above. In any case I still have never tried the effect before a real audience although I have played around with some of the variations of the effect in the bedroom mirror. And O.T.- I hate spone balls- but I still do them because I realize their impact on a lay audience. Etienne! -"Cine Le Fou"
...The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity...
William Butler Yeats |
|||||||||
|
Open Traveller Inner circle 1087 Posts
|
Quote:
For me the problem with this effect has always been trying to justify the presentational premise of of the "invisible palm" it has always seemed to be a riddiculas premise to me. That would be a ridiculous premise, if that were actually the premise of the trick. |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2009-01-31 08:46, Open Traveller wrote: Okay - what's the premise of the trick?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
DonEngland 1947 - 2015 Champaign, IL 258 Posts
|
The invisible premise.
|
|||||||||
|
Open Traveller Inner circle 1087 Posts
|
Well, Jon, I typed 604 words relating to this above. Shall I retype it all again?
Let me just say that the premise (that being, the fundamental concept that drives the plot) is stated in the text, but partway through the routine, the audience realizes there is a subtext with a different premise. Interestingly (to me), at the end, the best explanation the audience has for what happened is the one the performer gave them, which they wholly reject. It's a perfect example of Whit Haydn's concept of hanging the audience on the horns of a dilemma. |
|||||||||
|
MickeyPainless Inner circle California 6065 Posts
|
Everybody knows a proper thesis is in excess of a 1000 words OT!
|
|||||||||
Scott F. Guinn Inner circle "Great Scott!" aka "Palms of Putty" & "Poof Daddy G" 6586 Posts
|
I find myself falling somewhere in between Lawrence and OT, agreeing with both to some degree.
I, for one, can't stand it when magicians claim to have real powers, although I know there are people who at least wonder if some they see on TV, etc just might. Any person doing a magic trick and claiming to have supernatural powers (and hoping he'll be believed) is a charlatan in my book. I also can't stand the smart-alec magician who performs with an "I'm amazing and you're a moron" attitude. Neither can their audiences, except maybe for their mothers. I have written repeatedly that audiences should be treated with respect. Yet some who've seen my performances say I don't pracice what I preach--that I insult people sometimes. Here's the issue. When I do this, it is VERY obvious that I am teasing, with my tongue very firmly planted in cheek. And I'm good at reading people; I never tease people who aren't involved in the show and teasing me. It is all good-natured and fun. In addition, my act ALWAYS starts out with self-deprecating humor, and this a thread as the act continues. People don't mind being teased by someone who is willing to be the butt of his own jokes. Now, as to the plot at hand... It seems to me that, like virtually any other effect, this one relies entirely upon the performer as to how it comes across. If I were to talk in pseudo-scientific nonsense about my abilities to make the particles of the card dissolve into my flesh, or about a new military "cloaking technology", or about skills gained through years of practice and self-denial and then show my hand empty, claiming the card is still there, everyone (except maybe small children, who enjoy pretending the magic is REAL) KNOWS it's just part of the act. On the other hand, if I were to use a presentation or story that "added meaning" to this routine, everyone would KNOW it was part of the act. In either case, it is possible to come across as superior and/or as insulting the intelligence of the audience. But in either case, it is just as possible to come across as likeable and engaging and kind-hearted. I prefer to come across as the latter. My personal proclivities lean toward the more light and lively and fun style as opposed to the poetic, more serious style. However, neither style is, in and of itself, better than the other, and both can easily be abused. The "stroyteller" can be every bit as arrogant and pompous as the comedian or the pseudo-grifter. IMO, it all boils down to this: Are you a good person? Do you genuinely like other people? If yes, then regardless of style, you're not going to put down other people as a means of building yourself up.
"Love God, laugh more, spend more time with the ones you love, play with children, do good to those in need, and eat more ice cream. There is more to life than magic tricks." - Scott F. Guinn
My Lybrary Page |
|||||||||
|
Lawrence O Inner circle French Riviera 6811 Posts
|
Scott, I might go along with your conclusion, but remembering that we are not sable. So I'll stay careful (and structure my scripts on being "as likeable and engaging and kind-hearted") as our subconscious is tricky as well and we are never personally the best placed person to know when our dragon (ego) is quiet and when he is spitting fire attempting to burn to the ground everyone or everything he instinctively perceive as a threat.
Magic is the art of emotionally sharing live impossible situations
|
|||||||||
|
Open Traveller Inner circle 1087 Posts
|
And I will structure my performances to please the Elves of Mithrandor (the audience) while attending to the basic precepts laid down by the Seers of Esidias because one never knows when our Gryphon (pride) will cause us to venture past the Dark Forests or into them where we may find ourselves wielding Gilgamesh's axes or, if we suppress the bitter instincts of our dragon mind, the Chalice of Anubai's Love.
|
|||||||||
|
dmk_kirkland Loyal user 256 Posts
|
If I remember correctly Don England has a version in Lorayne's Best Of Friends Vol. 1, where the 4 aces change into 4 kings.
Cheers, David
Cheers,
David |
|||||||||
|
Lawrence O Inner circle French Riviera 6811 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2009-01-31 12:20, Jonathan Townsend wrote: For me the premise of the trick is that normal people cannot beat a cheat - Hourchin & Lyle: they can through mechanical means move a card up their sleeve - Common to most routine: second card they could palm it and we coudl not see it (I personally don't show my palm to reel them in wanting to know how the card is palmed) - Common to most: even if we could see the palm of a cheat we wouldn't see a thing Thus I think that the climaxes changing the cards for other cards are anti climatic To answer you Jonathan: The premiss is there are only four cards and the purpose is, without being repetitive to demonstrate that a cheat can hide a card even if we can see his palms and prove it. Then the rest is dramatic structure and (as far as I'm concerned) I want to keep the purpose for the climax. This is why Chris Lyle's routine is hitting the nail on the head so hard. Naturally all of this is IMHO.
Magic is the art of emotionally sharing live impossible situations
|
|||||||||
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 774 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2009-01-30 18:08, Doctor D wrote: Thanks for mentioning my manuscript here! 
Just thought I should provide links to the reviews: Here and at the Genii forum. |
|||||||||
|
Lawrence O Inner circle French Riviera 6811 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2009-01-31 17:55, Open Traveller wrote: Naturally I like that: metaphorically expressing yourself gives meaning to the effect, the trick being the plot but the story relating to spiritual subtle creatures (the Elves). This is definitely not challenging and I personally like the context. Even if I chose as a persona for my card act someone trying to find out if there could be such a thing as "the force" and if there was if he would be elligible as a Jedi apprentice.
Magic is the art of emotionally sharing live impossible situations
|
|||||||||
|
Open Traveller Inner circle 1087 Posts
|
Lawrence,
It was my way of saying that if someone has something to say, it's usually better if they just say it without dressing it up in a bunch of BS. I hate reading posts three times just to make sure I understand the writer, and my experience has been that audiences hate having to stop and interpret what the performer is saying just so they can follow along. They don't want to work to enjoy a magic trick; they want to relax and have a good time. If you sell the Invisible Palm with the true premise that no one can beat a cheat because he can actually hide full-sized cards in his hand despite you showing both sides, then you definitely will have a hard time with the routine, and you're not on the same page with your audiences. |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
I had the good fortune to be exploring this trick at the same time as working to learn the Ramsay cards to pocket routine. What I was left with, beyond the challenge of recalling cards, was a problem:
While the vanishes are not so hard to sell, the appearances are to say the least contrived and after you show your hand empty the first time ... they happen under fire and can be sussed at a "ah -ha" of a kinestheticaly inclined audience member - especially children. The second part of this problem (for me) was found in exploring the Jennings handling in Sharpe's Expert Card Mysteries - that of motivating the fussing between the directly pertinent magical phases. I asked myself questions like "should I do the Daley Last Trick after the first transit?" and other such to find something to work with before going after the notion of simply pretending to miscall the aces and then having to look at them myself. Not too much trial and error later, getting lots of audience feedback to move that process along, I came to something that works for me and was simply left to finding a story frame to keep the trick from blowing up in my face later on if I actually am hiding a card. Yes to tongue in cheek on the story frame - but no (for me) to leaving them looking for "what I'm really doing" or a challenge. As Tom Stone (and others no doubt have explored as well) has also written about - selling the trick as "making the cards invisible" and then using a wave of the hand or fingers to make them visible again is a pretty safe approach for this trick. If you can mime well you might also enjoy the experience of having folks grabbing your arm and asking to touch the invisible card and the audience fun that goes with that moment.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
Open Traveller Inner circle 1087 Posts
|
Quote:
While the vanishes are not so hard to sell, the appearances are to say the least contrived and after you show your hand empty the first time ... they happen under fire and can be sussed at a "ah -ha" of a kinestheticaly inclined audience member - especially children. I've never had the experience of someone intuiting the double. I think there was something lacking in your staging. If the audience can sometimes conceive of a fifth card in play, then they weren't convinced enough that there were only four cards to begin with. If they were totally convinced, the idea of splitting a double not only should not but can not occur to them. There are finesses so the appearance of the card doesn't look contrived. It can look exactly like it simply appears there. It's all in the small details. |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Invisible Palm and Open Travellers (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Jan 31, 2009 05:11 am 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.08 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|