Where can I get my hands on a copy of this DVD or video?? I'v been looking...cant find it anywhere. Thanks

Some magic shops may still have a copy, but they are mostly sold out. Hoping to have the new DVD out in a couple of months. Keep an eye on http://www.schoolforscoundrels.com or get on our mailing list and we will notify you as soon as they are ready.

A shop near me is having a sale on all of their videos this Saturday: all titles at $9.99. If you like, I'll see if I can pick up one for you.

Hocus Pocus still shows it in their online catalog.

(One of the best magic purchases I have ever made.)

Thanks, Doug. Glad you like it.

Our SAM assembly performed at a local Veteran’s Home. A 9-year-old girl who’s in the local SYM chapter totally mastered Whit Haydn’s Comedy Linking Rings routine. When she performed this, she killed.

I had to go on after her. - #*%#*@^*, Whit Haydn!!! (Ok, it's not really your fault, it's our stage manager who put her on before me. He is also her father! Never follow a cute kid.)

What’s worse is I can’t get even perform this myself, because I would be stealing the thunder of a local 9 year old! But I’m going to get this anyway. It is brilliantly constructed routine.

The book version is printed and sold by Magic Inc, Chicago, Ill.

If you care to use a book.

Bill

I'm going to be picky but I found that the routine was not very magical.
The comedy overshadowed the magic and I was hoping for a good balance of both. I'm wondering if the audience focusing on the assistant causes some of that?


Now... the only 2 routines I've ever seen are Whit's routine and Ninja. The Ninja routine was stunning.

I still plan on mastering Whit's routine but besides the crash link at the beginning and the initial ring count, it all sort of flys by without "magic moments"
at a break-neck pace.

Anyone else feel this way?

Disirregardless, it's a joy to watch and a job well done by Whit on its construction. I like it.

Whit, do you still do it at that pace? It seems that slowing it down during a link/unlink and focusing could raise the magic level???


Frank

Frank,

I have to say that I never liked the linking rings at all. I bought Whit's routine to see if it was something different. I do over 300 shows each year and have performed the 4 ring routine well over 300 times now. I can not even count how many times audience members, or even the volunteer come up and ask about the linking and unlinking. The magic does not go over their heads at all. In fact, I think the volunteers "problems" emphasize how impossible the linking and unlinking are and make the routine even more magical. I honestly get gasps at the final unlink.

I also like the routine very much. The nice thing about it is that the spectator is not laughed at ant the magi is not the super hero.
I agree with Frank: the crash link is performed at the beginning of the routine, but to me this is the strongest link of them all.

The crash link in my routine is the strongest of the links. It is used in the beginning to grab the attention of the spectators, to set the image in their minds that two separate rings actually link (the spectator is holding one and I am holding the other), but most importantly, to completely shut down the audience assistant on stage.

Once he sees one ring actually melt through another, he realizes that this is not the trick he thought it was, he has no chance of beating you at it, and it is best to just play along and follow your lead. From his point of view, a truly solid part of your ring visibly penetrates his ring right under his nose.

The build is from funnier to funnier linking and unlinking, rather than to more amazing. The comedy that develops during the routine will overwhelm the magic later, and a great linking and unlinking at the end of the routine would be lost.

The Four Ring Routine is designed to create pictures in the spectators' minds that leave them with an inexplicable mystery when they try to reconstruct or "deconstruct" what happened, while using humor and entertainment value to keep them from thinking about the method as it is happening.

They think back on the trick and remember that the spectator held one ring and you the other, and they linked together. Four rings are each shown separately. The spectator links his two together but can't get them apart. Both of you are holding two linked rings. Eventually all four rings are linked in a chain, and then three on one, and then all four unlinked and shown separately.

The idea is for the spectators to easily remember all the types of linking that occurred, so that when they try to reconstruct the method, it is impossible. This is done by creating comedic "pictures" at each important point that you want the audience to remember.

What happens most often after the performance, is that someone comes up and says, "I used to have that trick, but mine were different. One of them had a hole in it and three of them were welded together. I don't know how you did it."

The reason Whit’s routine is so wonderful is this:
It never makes the volunteer (or the audience) look stupid. Even when I do the Ninja Rings, I use as much of Whit’s routine as I can,
Bob

You hit it... I figured the best way to use the Ninjas are with Whit's concept.

The Ninja Rings and my comedy Four Ring Routine are very different. I love the Ninja Rings Routine, but it is for close-up. The challenge aspect doesn't come into it as much as in a stage routine.

When a volunteer comes up on stage to assist, it is just bad manners and bad theater to put him in a losing situation--I can do it, but see, you can't.

By involving the audience and the spectator in a game of theater, in which the performer assigns roles to the assisting spectator and to the audience, this challenge aspect of the trick is sublimated.

It is necessary to have someone examine the rings, and to try to get them apart in order to prove that the game is fair. But by making it look like the spectator is playing a trick on the performer, this necessary failure becomes a vicarious "victory" for the audience. They can pretend that it is the magician who is being shown up. Much of the fun is the manipulation of both assistant and audience into playing their roles, without any apparent effort on the part of the performer.

For those who have only seen the performance on my video, I should caution you a bit. This was not a typical performance of the routine. Although Meredith was a lovely and charming lady, she never caught on to the bit--never spun the rings to try to fool me. She pretty much resisted every manipulation and tried to write her own script for the performance. She was the worst spectator we used that night out of six performances. Most six year olds catch on to the bit right away.

Bob Kohler directed the video, and he decided to use this atypical performance on the video because he reasoned, most magicians studying the routine worried most about what would happen if the spectator didn't catch on, didn't take the hints, and didn't play the bit. He said this would show tham that everything played pretty well anyway.

I don't know if this performance was the one that bothered Frank Starsinic, but I could certainly understand the remarks he made based on that one. I was deliberately speeding things up and trying to stay one step ahead of a beautiful, charming and relentless scene stealer. ;-)

I have seen Whit perform this on a couple of occasions at Magic Island. I haven't seen the DVD, so I couldn't fathom Frank's analysis of the routine. Now that I have heard Whit's explanation, I understand the whole thing.

I think Bob should have put a typical performance on the DVD -- maybe both types of performance, actually. This is one of those routines where, when performed properly, the magic and the comedy are well-balanced.

As I've been involved in both of these legendary routines I have a few thoughts.

Obviously both routines kill! They kill in different ways and in different performing venues.

I believe that magicians really need to use the information that is on all video tapes or DVD's and make a conscious effort NOT to do the routine exactly as the performer exhibits their routine.

Let me clarify this. First, a student of a routine should learn everything exactly as the teacher. If you don't you will certainly miss a lot of important information. You should assume the performance has been refined by many performances. All aspects of the performance are tied together in professional thinking. Pace, timing of the lines, facial takes, technique etc. all need to be learned from the teacher.

Once you really understand why a master does the routine the way he does, it's your job to take the information and make it YOU. Otherwise we'll have nothing but clone magicians.

This is a strong arguement I hear very often concerning releasing routines via a video medium instead of books. Books don't make instant clones.

My view is video medium is the best way to learn visual magic. But the responsibility of the student is to apply the lessons and customize their performance.

One gentleman in this thread mentions using Whit's concepts in his performance of the Ninja Rings. I think this is great!

Vernon after seeing Whit do his Comedy Linking Ring Routine stated that it was the first new comedy idea he'd seen in years.

The principle of not seeing the spectator "successfully" achieve the linking is simply brilliant.

On the tape, I chose to use the show where Whit had a difficult spectator. I did this because the explanations clearly show what is supposed to happen and how to make it happen. But it's very valuable to see how a pro like Whit can adjust his timing on the fly when dealing with a situation that may ruin the performance.

Once you watch Whit's explanations, it's easy to see how to apply the principles and handling when you get a spectator who "gets it."

Perhaps Whit will include another performance on the upcoming DVD. (If I can track down the old footage, I've moved twice!)

We put his routine out years ago and I can tell you that Whit's routine is in more magicians programs than any other except for Terry Seabrooke's burnt bill routine.

Whit,
Copperfield uses the "successfully unsuccessful" spectator in his cut and restored rope routine. Did he get your okay on this before he performed it?

You're right. That's why I think this rope routine is one of the best routines that Copperfield ever performed. But I think he uses Mac King's rope routine?! If so, the question would be if Whit or Mac King had the idea first. But I guess, like so often, both had the same idea independently.

I've never seen Whit's routine but saw Copperfield's rope routine, which I understand is based on Whit's rings.

In any event, I started doing a ring routine based on what I saw from Copperfield. I think the magic is when you do your links on/off. Make that the focus and then redirect your attention to the volunteer to earn applause for them. I think there is a balance. Perhaps the speed at which you do your moves and redirect the attention is to fast??

just my thoughts,


j.

Thanks for the thoughtful replies.
It sounds like the routine would have been even more comedic if Merridith wasn't off "writing her own script" as Whit says.

I'm glad nobody took offense at my original comment.
This has been a much more informative thread as a result. I'm also glad to be reminded that Meredith was an unusual spectator.

From a production standpoint, it seems a cheap venture to just roll the film and let several performances be included on the video (at the end). Gregory Wilson on his On The Spot video has multiple performances of some of his effects and I thought it was quite nice to see how he reacted differently to different spectators. Even some that just weren't that interested. Just food for thought.

If I may analzye one move in particular for further discussion...
The unlink that goes with the patter line...
"No. You need to give it to more of a THIS kind of movement"

Obviously the rings are surprisingly un-linked but the attention is on the spectator. This is an example of what I was referring to. During a typical rings routine, you "feel the magic" when the rings separate.
In this case it's a surprise but not necessarily a "magic moment". At least not for me. I would be tempted, as the performer, to pause and act surprised myself to potentially increase "the moment" and to bring attention back to me for an instant.
I don't know. What do y'all think?

I guess I need to learn Ring Theory. Hopefully less difficult than my college math class of the same name.

I also don't see anyone agreeing with me on this point so I will have to go back and re-visit.