<- |Top |Showmanship For Magicians |Trick Brain|Magic By Misdirection |Mail |->
<- |!*! |C |I |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6 |7 |8 |9 |10 |11 |12 |13 |14 |15 |16 |17 |18 |19 |20 |21 |22 |23 |24 |25 |26 |27 |28 |29 |30|31 |32 |33 |34 |35 |->
The CHAPTER THIRTY
There is a technique and style to invention which identify the creators of the various tricks just as surely as do their features. A Grant or an Annemann or a Leipzig or a Baker will approach a problem, even the same problem, in entirely different ways.
Consider the familiar and tottering old classic, The Thirty Card Trick , or under two more of its various aliases, The Twenty Card Trick or Cards From Pocket to Pocket . Leipzig relied upon sleight of-hand and misdirection. Buckley uses sleight-of-hand, too, but couples it with an original subtlety. Al Baker's version relies upon adroit handling, also, but includes several individual touches characteristic of his work. On the other hand the Zens version in no way resembles the others. This one is almost entirely mechanical. A Scarne or a Vernon ring in two packets with different colored backs, complicating the method considerably.
Leipzig's version, as I recall it, stressed the passing of three cards without regard to their identities. Baker's version also stresses the passing of three random cards, but in his routine later the three extra cards pass back. Neither method takes any cognizance of the identities of the cards that have passed.
On the other hand, the Buckley version has one pack offered to the spectators for the selection of the three cards that are to pass. These cards are signed and later identified. This method stresses the fact that the identical cards selected are those that pass.
In the Zens version this idea is stressed also. But a spectator handles the cards while they are being selected. The general effect is that these are the cards that pass. However, the spectators do not ultimately see the identical cards, as in the Buckley version, but duplicates.
Both Leipzig and Baker make overtime use of the stratagem of conveying behind an accessory-in this case the hands. Buckley utilizes this, too, but the accessory used is the envelope. In addition, he makes use of control principles in handling the signed cards. Zens' version is almost entirely dependent upon the use of duplicates and in exchange methods.
The Card to the Pocketbook
The trick plot of The Diminishing Cards is static. But inventors have embellished it with many variations as to method. Probably the original version was the shrinking of a single card. This is the familiar folding card. Then, as explained by Neil, in Bertram's day they accomplished the trick with packs, deftly exchanging them by sleight of-hand. Later the successive packs were held together on the backs of the next larger packs by means of built-in slides. So here it was merely necessary to conceal the larger pack in the palm and push up the next smaller one, which carried all the rest.
Martin Chapender's method was based on the use of a series of packets nesting one within the other. The first card of each successive packet folded. Unquestionably this was the parent of the Ellis Stanyon method. But the latter is built differently and has the added feature of permitting a sample card to be taken from each packet. In itself this sample feature does not seem of considerable importance, but I've used both methods and the taking out of the sample cards invariably gets an audible audience response. Al Baker has developed a very good method, based on the principle of nesting packets but it, too, is different from either of the above. Some years ago Audley Walsh explained a diminishing card routine in THE JINX . This one started with a jumbo card.
Yet all of the above tricks are almost identical in effect as far as the spectator is concerned. The variation in methods grows out of the individuality of each inventor and is caused partly by the techniques, partly by special features each incorporates, partly by the conditions of performance, but probably mostly by an irresistible urge for individuality.
The Bill in Cigarette
Some methods involve borrowing both the bill and the cigarette, even though the former basic method is used. In this case the only added complication is the exchange of the borrowed cigarette for that prepared by the performer.
Another method utilizes two bills whose serial numbers have been altered so that they are duplicates. One is placed in a cigarette, and the other is exchanged for the borrowed bill. Even these methods of exchange reflect the individuality of the performer, involving, as they do a range from sleight-of-hand to mechanical apparatus.
Some years ago one manufacturer brought out a split metal tube, just the size of a cigarette, into which the bill could be inserted prior to performance. This tube broke in the center. After the bill was inserted the two halves were put together and a cigarette paper was wrapped around it. This looked exactly like a cigarette.
I believe it was Oswald Rae who performed a bill in cigarette trick with a thumb tip. The bank note was vanished by means of the tip. Later, wearing the tip, he broke an ordinary cigarette open and apparently extracted the bill from that.
Thayer brought out a method of doing this trick that permitted a marked and borrowed bill to be inserted in a cigarette. Except for a small portion at one end, all of the tobacco is taken from a cigarette. Thus emptied, the paper tube is slipped around a thin metal tube that attaches to the clothing. The rolled bill is inserted into the metal tube, thence into the paper tube, in the act of getting the cigarette. When the cigarette is brought into view it contains the identical bill that was borrowed and marked but a few seconds before.
Dr. Ervin brought out a method that is similar to the one just previously explained, except that the loading tube is built into a frame that attaches to an apparently unopened pack of cigarettes. The effect to the spectator is that the marked and borrowed bill is found in a cigarette taken from a pack that is opened in the spectators presence.
It may have been Davenport who designed and sold a pistol that loaded a bill in a cigarette. The bill is rolled up and inserted in the muzzle of the gun. The emptied paper cigarette tube is within the mouth of the gun, and the bill really goes inside that. Later this cigarette, loaded with the marked bill, is delivered into the performer's hands.
The tube idea as used by Dr. Ervin could also be adapted for use with a cigarette case.
Variation in method, even with the same trick plot, is shown up in tricks of the type of The Mora Wands . Some of these have the cord directly attached to the weight that pulls the cord inside the tube. Others, as is the case with the Mora model, use a pulley at the top of the weight, thus compounding the arrangement to get greater length of cord. Petrie-Lewis eliminated the weight but used an invisible thread connection from one tube to the other. This was a direct connection. This writer further complicated The Cords of Cairo , Petrie-Lewis' name for their version, by utilizing the compounded rigging with the thread connection and stressing the handling of the "sticks" in the stand. Doc Nixon added a feature to the Mora version with the weights by converting the weights to pistons and using an air valve at the bottom to keep the weights from falling when held erect. Other versions permit the weights to be locked in position.
As you may recall, there are many versions of Sawing a Woman in Half . One method uses two women, utilizing the feet of one and the hands and head of another. Still another performer will use but one woman, relying upon a trick release to permit the woman to curl up in one half of the box. Even an ordinary packing case has been used with one woman. In this case the assistant's feet extend from the lower end of the case. But the trick is so routined that at one period of the performance the girl may withdraw her feet and maneuver herself around to a position above the saw blade, after it has penetrated a certain distance.
From the handsaw method came that using the various versions of the motor operated saw. And perhaps this suggested the use of the guillotine and chopper in their various forms, intended for use upon differing parts of the anatomy, from a finger to a neck.
But it may be seen that both, the trick of sawing through a woman and the guillotine in its various disguises, are essentially the same basic trick plot, a penetration. While they differ considerably in method, as far as the spectator is concerned they are identical in effect except for the penetrating device used and the part of the anatomy severed.
The Six Card Repeat is another case in point. In its original version it was based upon a false count, utilizing a variation of the familiar glide . Maldo's method was developed from the more natural false count moves as employed in other card magic. But this identical effect is now turned out with envelope cards to hold the extra cards. And another method utilizes the principle of the roughened deck.
Notice how the same trick plot is accomplished by using different basic methods. Of course, analysis will reveal that this trick is essentially a multiple production. Both the original version and Maldo's variation utilize the principle of conveying behind an accessory. So does the roughened surface method. But the envelope method employs the principle of the secret compartment or hiding place. The first two methods rely upon deft handling. The third method eliminates much of the care in handling by mechanical application. It is all a matter of choice and training.
From this trick plot others grew. Tom Bowyer who merely substituted bank notes for cards in the original trick plot made the first application of the envelope principle to this basic plot. Yet this writer, and several others, I understand, retained the Bowyer substitution of subjects, but utilized the sleight-of-hand false count as done with cards.
The repeat card trick, in basic trick plot still identical to the original, has been presented from a somewhat different angle. Some years ago I ended the routine with a strong poker hand, sometimes a royal flush and sometimes, unconventionally, with five aces. I presented it as a liberal-minded version of an expert gambler at work. But for several months now there has been a similar variation for sale by one of the dealers, I suspect using the envelope method, ending with a royal flush. I don't mean to imply that the dealer in question obtained his version from having seen or heard about mine. In fact I know he didn't. The finish is an obvious one with cards. But it does show how easy it is to obtain two identical effects, from two absolutely different sources, without either having knowledge of the other's version. I point this out merely to caution you to be a bit prudent in connection with any effects you might originate. Other magicians-not enough, I admit, but some-are-thinking, too.
How wide a field that of magical invention is may be seen in considering how many things have been done with blocks alone. One man will cause a block to penetrate through a plate of glass. Another will insist that it be done visibly. Another performer will cause it to vanish from a box. Perhaps it will reappear in a hat or some other container later. Still another magician will drill a hole through it and make his effect one of removing it from a rope. This might be in the form of a trick tie of some kind, or it may involve a fine cabinet job so that the block may be split in two. Still another inventor will cause it to climb a rope. And there are many more block effects and variations upon which I have not touched at all.
Dr. Zola will invent a trick of multiplying whiskey glasses. His method will rely upon fundamental thimble moves and misdirection. But Clarence Slyter, in achieving the identical effect, utilizes The Multiplying Billiard Balls as his basis. And from this method, but using candles instead of whiskey glasses, he evolves a trick of multiplying lighted candles.
Your mind is the important factor that supplies the details still to be added to the basic trick plots and methods suggested by THE TRICK BRAIN .
Consider the trunk trick. Basically, it is merely an escape from a locked trunk. But Maskelyne stressed subtlety of method. Brooks bad a very small metal trunk built. The performer could scarcely move in it. And it was laced in a tight canvas cover. Brooks stressed these features.
Reliable informants have told me that a more or less obscure performer whose name I have forgotten originated the substitution version, so sensationally exploited by Houdini. He is said to have performed it fifty or sixty years in advance of its appearance in America. But this is still the basic trunk trick camouflaged to obtain terrific audience impact.
The common version of the substitution employs two people. But one performer made a feature of doing it alone, getting in and getting out.
My own version uses steel lining plates that obliquely dispute the common, and correct, theory of secret panels.
Escape trunks have been built of sheets of transparent plate glass.
From the trunk escape, probably, came the packing case from which the performer can extricate himself. Some methods depend upon the removal of a secret panel. Others rely upon a compact but powerful jack to force the cover off. Even greased nails have been utilized to make it possible for the magician to get out of such cases.
Escape specialists have used the packing case version for sensational escapes while under water.
So it may be seen that the uses to which these trick plots are put are very much a matter of the interpretation of the individual inventor or performer. Even identical trick plots may be presented from a slant or a viewpoint that entirely changes the aspect to the spectator.
And method varies considerably, even with the identical trick plot. Many different methods have been shown in this chapter, methods that are as far apart as can be imagined. Yet they all accomplish the identical objective. So, also, method of making the trick plot possible is again a matter of the inventor's peculiarly individual personality. It rests upon his personal abilities. Upon the features he desires to stress. Upon the factors of conviction and plausibility he selects to feature. It depends upon the type of mind he has. It depends upon his method of approach-whether direct or subtle.
When you set about to refine one of the many trick plots you will develop from THE TRICK BRAIN , think all around the trick. Try to see it from the spectator s viewpoint. Try to imagine what that spectator may think in casting about for a solution. See if you can't add some feature that will make that spectator s theories seem impossible.
I did this with my linking ring routine. At the time it was developed many toy magic sets contained linking ring sets. Realizing that many children in my audience would know that all of the rings are not separate, that they would know that some of the rings are permanently welded together, that one of the rings has an opening, I set about deliberately to disprove these very points. But I tried to accomplish this destruction of conventional methods in such a manner that I did not seem to be doing it for that purpose. I didn't show the rings separate in such a manner that I seemed to say, "See. I can pick these rings off one by one. They aren't joined together in two chains. There isn't one chain of two rings and another of three." No. I didn't do this because I thought that the direct approach would be fatal.
Instead, under the guise of counting the rings-and there were eight, exactly as the toy sets-they could see that they were counted off one by one, separately. Obviously they couldn't be in permanently connected chains. Then I passed the rings out for examination-all of them, as far as they could see. I called attention to the fact that they were all out I didn't say. "See. There is no ring with a slot cut in it." Instead, if every one of the rings is inspected, it is obvious there can't be any with openings. As soon as the rings were returned to me I resumed linking and unlinking them.
To kill the idea of permanently welded chains, I passed them out for inspection and immediately took them apart upon their return to me. The moves were so worked out that I could do this. And in addition the separated rings went right back into the spectators' hands again.
Finally, having blown up the basis for the conventional ring trick, I developed moves and effects impossible with the conventional set simply to complete the destruction of any preconceived ideas.
How this routine was shaped around to make it an audience-appealing entertainment unit is an entirely different and much more important story.
In addition to selecting your methods in order to deceive your spectators, the basic trick plot itself must be considered from the viewpoint as to how it may be made interesting to the spectators. Perhaps merely a slight change in slant will do. Look at the various viewpoints involved in The Six Card Repeat and its variations, or at The Trunk Trick .
In addition to providing ways and means of confusing and deceiving your spectators. And in addition to shaping its external appearance to the best advantage for spectator interest. You still must work out a method that permits performance of the trick under the conditions that will be encountered. Will I have the spectators in front of me every time I do this? Or will they be seated at disadvantageous places at the sides? Or even back of me? What about that spectator-assistant? Will the working be visible to him, even while invisible to the remainder of the audience? Can I be certain that an inquisitive or aggressive spectator-assistant won't do something that will prove embarrassing later? Will he lift a cylinder while my back is turned? Will he peek into a box, or poke his nose into something else? Just what will this spectator-assistant be thinking of? What ideas may be suggested to him? What I am trying to say is that you must try to anticipate such a person's reactions and guard against them. This is part of method.
Finally, the method must be fitted to your capabilities. It must not rely upon sleight-of-hand beyond your skill. It must not rely upon misdirection you can't accomplish. It must not depend upon suspicious moves you cannot make naturally. You must guard against all such impossibilities.
All of this is what finally determines an effective trick. And all of this is the ultimate factor in developing methods.
<- |!*! |C |I |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6 |7 |8 |9 |10 |11 |12 |13 |14 |15 |16 |17 |18 |19 |20 |21 |22 |23 |24 |25 |26 |27 |28 |29 |30|31 |32 |33 |34 |35 |->
<- |Top |Showmanship For Magicians |Trick Brain|Magic By Misdirection |Mail |->
