|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5..13~14~15 [Next] | ||||||||||
Vincero Veteran user New Zealand 379 Posts 
|
Lets not forget that it's possible to take the heat away from the double before you turn it over. I fan through the pack, stop at the odd backed card and then cut it to the top. Then I fan through the deck in its entirety to display all of the backs. There's nothing fishy about this, if anything it's as fair as can be. There's nothing worse than someone who just awkwardly takes the odd backed card out and places it on top or does something to that effect... If anything gives away the possibility of taking a double, it's that.
Before turning the top two cards over as one I try to achieve eye contact with the spectator who picked the card. If there's a larger audience they will likely follow his gaze too. Basic crowd control. Usually just looking at them first works. When they glance upwards I do a double-lift leaving their card displayed on top of the pack ready for when they look down. If they refuse to look at me, then oh well. I can't say that anyone's ever suspected a thing when I've performed this effect. My technique for performing the double lift and turnover is good though... It's a push-off and it's identical to the way I'd nomally flip a card over on top of the deck. That's what I modelled it on. Zac Posted: Feb 23, 2012 3:09am The Count makes a good point too
"Which way I fly is Hell; myself am Hell; And in the lowest deep a lower deep
Still threat'ning to devour me opens wide, To which the Hell I suffer seems a Heav'n" -John Milton, (Paradise Lost) |
|||||||||
|
Engali Elite user 435 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-02-23 03:09, Vincero wrote: Not really, although it was a good try. The fact of the matter is, in each and every phase of Twisting the Aces: 1. The actual methodology underlying the cards turning face up, which is the magical effect, occurs well before the revelation. Even as you explain what will happen in the routine, apparently telegraphing what will happen, you have already gotten one ahead (two actually) on your audience. Therefore, they are looking for a move *that would turn cards over*, but it has already happened. The EC is missed because it isn't the methodology that actually accomplishes the effect, but rather the one that sustains the illusion. The set up for the third phase happens on the offbeat created by the second phase's revelation. The third phase's revelation sets up the offbeat for the setup for the fourth revelation and here the EC is not the essential sleight that accomplishes the effect, but grounds the starting conditions "prior" to the effect occurring. 2. You are well ahead of your audience in each phase. The dirty work is done before the revelation with a time lapse, surprise climax, and/or re-establishment of starting conditions separating them. Twisting the Aces , structurally, is a master class in the power of being one ahead. I do believe it was Larry Jennings who said all effects were about being one ahead and here we see it used to its full potential. This is not the case with the first phase of CO. You are not one ahead and the sleight occurs during the revelation of the card. It is not analogous to TtA. I could add something snarky in the same vein as the Count like "those who actually think about the construction of card effects know better", but I think my point has been made. Again, a solid DL doesn't solve structural problems, just as a really strong wall won't fully support a roof when the foundation is made of sand. I use a push off DL from the side with a stud turnover (no snap) and a really deceptive Tamariz replacement. It doesn't make the way the effect is put together sounder. And again, the challenge stands: go and do just the first phase of CO and find out how sound it is. |
|||||||||
|
Count Lustig Elite user 456 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-02-23 03:41, Engali wrote: You could, but you’d still be wrong. You are ahead of the audience in the Chicago Opener in that you’ve secretly brought the odd-backed card directly above the selection, something the audience doesn’t suspect. In TTA, the audience is looking to see if an ace has turned face up. You have to perform a move under scrutiny to reveal that it has (and conceal the rest of the real situation). In CO the audience is looking to see if the odd-backed card is their selection. You have to perform a move under scrutiny to reveal that it is. In both cases, “The sleight occurs during the revelation of the card.” quote] On 2012-02-23 03:41, Engali wrote: And again, the challenge stands: go and do just the first phase of CO and find out how sound it is. [/quote] You could perform the first phase of CO by itself. But then you’d miss out on how cleverly the first phase puts you “one-ahead” for the secon phase--a concept that I’ve heard you like. |
|||||||||
|
Vincero Veteran user New Zealand 379 Posts
|
Engali, I never mentioned the structure of the effect in my post. Maybe I should have addressed that, since I suppose that's what this topic is about. Silly me. You are correct, a solid DL does not solve structural problems.
The question is really whether or not the audience notices such weaknesses. The Count did not say "those who actualy think about the construction of card effects know better" he said verbatim: "People who actually perfom these two effects know better". Now, the poits you made about TtA are absolutely fair. I was agreeing with the Count about the performance aspect of CO. All I'm saying is, if CO is performed well (grated it is a big "if") then it certainly flies and the pay off is brilliant... at least in my experience anyway. Again, apologies for the confusuion. From a structural perspective it is not as strong as a great number of alternative tricks. I was merely suggesting a method of covering up it's downfalls. Zac Posted: Feb 23, 2012 4:12am Double post whooops. Poor English in my above post too. Can't edit it now though. Ah well.
"Which way I fly is Hell; myself am Hell; And in the lowest deep a lower deep
Still threat'ning to devour me opens wide, To which the Hell I suffer seems a Heav'n" -John Milton, (Paradise Lost) |
|||||||||
The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3158 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-02-23 03:41, Engali wrote: Depending upon how you sell the effect, so does Chicago Opener. In Twisting the Aces, the trick is that cards turn over secretly, and if people are going to have a default suspicion about how this happened, they'd be looking for some sneaky turnover move, which -- thanks to the Elmsley and some other stuff -- doesn't happen. If, in CO, the trick is supposed to be that one card's back changes colour, and people know this ahead of time, then in all likelihood they'd be looking for you to sneak in a matching card with a differently-coloured back. You don't have to do this, of course, so what frequently happens is that the appearance of the odd-backed card is itself a surprise. The reaction to that surprise essentially makes the turning-over of the odd-backed card a foregone conclusion -- of course it's the selection. People are generally able to accept that aspect of it, and it's strong enough to get them to agree to watching a repeat. How the second phase plays out is one of those weird incongruous things about the difference between theory and practice. In theory, of course the whole concept of the DL is given away, since the effect is that somehow you made the odd-colour transfer from the back of one card to the back of another card. In practice, though, there's just enough detail to make that aspect difficult for people to figure out, and because of the expectation set up by the first phase, all heat is at the deck, rather than at the tabled card, so the fact that this thing you haven't even touched in the last minute suddenly changes leads to a very strong reaction. Plus, if you use it as the title suggests -- as an opener, or at the very least, NOT as a closer -- before they've got a chance to absorb the surprise and develop a desire to figure out what they've just seen, you've likely moved on to the next trick and are giving them new data to absorb.
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
|
|||||||||
|
Erdnase27 Inner circle 2505 Posts
|
The double lift needs to be done at the worst time, ok that might be true. but... however...
I always liked the "what was your card?" and at the same time turning the double over. For a magician only concerned with technique this might look like nothing. As we humans cant absorb two things at the same time, they can't comprehend looking for a move while giving answer at the same time. Darwin Ortiz has a nice "chicago opener" kinda effect. It is on Cardshark vid. vol.2 and in his book Cardshark. It is named "signature effect". I like it. |
|||||||||
|
TonyPorter Regular user 180 Posts
|
I really think that this argument is moot, unless you're expecting your spectators to think "oh I guess my selection was a free choice and the second was forced, etc." It's magic! The specs are thinking that their card has somehow changed. How do I know this? Well not by debating back and forth on an internet forum but by literally hundreds of performances. Forget the academics and looking at this like magicians, think of the spectators. Has Eugene performed this trick? The answer is no, I know for a fact that he has no double lifts in his repertoire at all. All the people who perform this for paying audiences will agree that this trick is startling for spectators. Sorry Eugene but once again you're just flat out wrong.
Porter |
|||||||||
|
The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3158 Posts
|
Tony,
Don't underestimate the importance of debating this stuff back and forth. Even if it takes performances to understand whether or not a trick works, and even if we can conclude that it does in fact work, it still helps to figure out why it works. In the case of Chicago Opener, the reason why it works might lead to some incompatibilities with Eugene's magic. The trick tends to suffer when people try to make it meaningful, whereas Eugene wants all his tricks to have some sort of deeper meaning that can go hand-in-hand with it. Additionally, the trick has a strong sucker element, something Eugene barely indulges in (if at all?). I'd go so far as to say that if the sucker element wasn't there, then the trick would suffer greatly in large part due to its construction.
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
|
|||||||||
martydoesmagic Inner circle Essex, UK 1669 Posts
|
Quote:
If you believe that Chicago Opener is flawed because the DL happens under scrutiny (heat), you must think that Vernon’s Twisting the Aces is also flawed, since the EC happens under the same kind of scrutiny (and this situation recurs again and again in the effect). The EC is more obscure than a DL from a methodological point of view. Done correctly, your average person has no concept of counting three cards as four. However, many people realise that you can handle two cards as one (even if your technique is clean and doesn't tip the method). This is why you should avoid performing a DL at the high point of a routine. I agree that by asking a question/delaying the moment, you can comfortably get away with doing this sleight at this moment. However, this doesn't change the fact that the structure is still poor (a good reason not to perform a trick)! This doesn't stop it being a good trick when performed with this weakness in mind. I perform both TTA and CO (the original handling) and both work well. However, have you ever asked someone how they thought the trick was done after you've shown it to them? I've done this wil CO and some people do manage to use retrograde anayisis to work out the method. And this is why I don't think this is a moot point. |
|||||||||
|
Card Mechanic Regular user Should I have made 130 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-02-23 05:27, TonyPorter wrote: Like! Where is that Like Button? |
|||||||||
|
martydoesmagic Inner circle Essex, UK 1669 Posts
|
Quote:
It's magic! The specs are thinking that their card has somehow changed. Not true, more intelligent spectators suspect you've got a duplicate card, even if the trick as a whole fooled them. I know this because I've asked a few people to tell me how they think the trick works after showing it to them (and no my DL didn't give the game away). Obviously you shouldn't do this too often, but when you do the answers you recieve can be very enlightening. Most people are too polite to point these things out unless you ask them directly. Have you ever asked a spectator for this kind of feedback? I doubt it. Quote:
Has Eugene performed this trick? The answer is no, I know for a fact that he has no double lifts in his repertoire at all. Just because Eugene doesn't perform CO it doesn't mean he can't form an objective opinion about the structure of the trick. He has much better critical analysis skills than your average magician and is brave enough to make big sacrifices (such as avoiding the use of the DL entirely). I know I'm not that brave! I'm not a Burger fanboy, and don't like everything he does. But in this case I think he's right. Marty |
|||||||||
|
Engali Elite user 435 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-02-23 04:02, Count Lustig wrote: You could perform the first phase of CO by itself. But then you’d miss out on how cleverly the first phase puts you “one-ahead” for the secon phase--a concept that I’ve heard you like. [/quote] No, the actual sleight used to create the actual illusion, not set up for the illusion, is done at different times in TTA and in CO. What is the illusion in TtA? The card turns face up. When does the sleight that actually accomplishes that occur? Well before the revelation. The EC is used during the revelation as a support to the methodology. What is the illusion in the first phase of CO? That the card they chose is the odd backed one. When does the sleight that makes it appear that the odd backed card is their card occur? During the revelation. The positioning of the card, the set up or support for it, is done before. The two are reversed in structure. And if we wanna talk about TtA, remember that one if the main reasons the packets, iirc, were counted instead of spread was because of how Vernon structured the counting. That is, he did the count at the fingertips to show how very fair he was and to underscore how he couldn't be reversing them by sleight of hand. So the lack of spreading is justified and the EC is justified within the context of the routine. There is no such justification with the DL in this routine. There has been and still remains a debate on why the DL in general is ever turned back face down onto the deck before proceeding with whatever effect we're doing because it is discrepant with the way people would naturally go about handling a card. While there are varying degrees of justification that people have worked into and around a DL in effects to make it work, it is starkly absent in CO, done at the worst possible time, and leaves you dirty in a way that you HAVE to complete the second phase for the clean up. I do think it's a convenient rationalization for you to say that the second phase is so good that it's just plain worth doing. The question remains whether you think or anybody here thinks the first phase's handling is clean enough on its own to stand by itself. I, for one, do not think so. It seems prople who are responding to my other points are conveniently glossing over this question. I think it's because, on a gut level, they know the answer is that it is a very weak handling for a color changing back effect and would not fly by itself. I think a sizeable portion of the audience will question the odd backed card's identity after the effect. More on that in my response to Andrew below. Quote:
On 2012-02-23 05:00, The Burnaby Kid wrote: Well, I think you've kind of hit upon one if my main points of contention with the effect. It's success has and continues to rely on bombarding people with surprises to cover up structural weaknesses. As I said in my last post, the first phase by itself could be considered to be very weak in structure if presented by itself. I imagine if it were created today and posted by some teenage magician to this forum instead of revered by all as a classic of modern magic, people would react very differently to it, but I digress. In any case, the second phase is required to coerv up a flaw in the first phases's handling and then you have to push on to, as you put it, not give them a chance to try to figure it out. I'd rather structure effects to make it very hard to figure out in the first place instead of bulldozing people with more effects. The fact is, people forget the context within which this efct was created. It was in the Chicago bar scene where fast, snappy tricks was what sold. Now, nothing against that type of magic. I *love* Fechter and think how he constructs his effects is pure genius. I've also been trying to get a copy of Schulien's book. The point is, what flew at one point in time in a certain setting may have worked partially because of context and it may be worth looking at updating stuff for the audiences we perform for. I mean, many people from what I've read seem to think that the f**** used in phase two can or should be substituted for something cleaner. Again, the existing structure of that phase probably worked great for the people it was tested on in the setting it was used, but for a setting where people have time to mull over what's happening and isn't as fast paced, it may not. If people are willing to change that, then doesn't it make sense to strive to improve other aspects of the effect? I mean, it is what sustains this art. The vast majority of stuff that comes out are updated handlings of classics and sometimes they actually are better. |
|||||||||
|
Engali Elite user 435 Posts
|
And to your point, Andrew, about the sucker punch element: I often think we as magicians mistake any strong reaction as evidence that the effect we performed is "good enough" to continue do.
|
|||||||||
|
martydoesmagic Inner circle Essex, UK 1669 Posts
|
Quote:
The question remains whether you think or anybody here thinks the first phase's handling is clean enough on its own to stand by itself. No, I don' think it can stand alone, as many will suspect that the "selected" card was red backed from the very beginning. I think the repeat is impotant. In the version I do now, I turn a second card red, but I prove that the card was blue backed beforehand by allowing the spectator to handle the second selection. This way, the second phase cancels out the method used in the first phase. I also allow the deck to be examined at the end. CO is one of the very few tricks in which you should actively encourage your audience to inspect the deck at the end of the trick. Marty P.S. I have no problem with the HF used in this effect. Done correctly, with a good false shuffle beforehand, it works like a charm. Obviously, magicians can see this move from a mile off, but then that doesn't concern me in this case. |
|||||||||
|
Steven Youell V.I.P. 3866 Posts
|
There is a moment when they aren't looking at the cards.
There is a moment where they are looking at the cards. And there is a moment in between. The third moment mentioned is the right time to do a Double Turnover in nearly all effects. And I guarantee you that it's possible to do a multiple turnover while they're burning your hands. Of course, if they're burning your hands while you do a sleight, in most cases, you've already failed. SEY P.S. For some reason, most magicians use the words Double Lift to describe both a Double Lift AND a Double Turnover. So I'm only speaking for the Double Turnover. |
|||||||||
|
Engali Elite user 435 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-02-23 04:11, Vincero wrote: Hey Zac, Yes, I agree we there are ways to make the method as convincing as it can be given that we are using a specific handling. I know what the Count said; that's why I said I could say something in "the same vein", specifically in terms of snarkiness, presumption, and condescension. Forgive me for using you as a conversational foil and not making that clear. |
|||||||||
|
The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3158 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-02-23 12:51, Engali wrote: I don't know exactly that CO is all about bombarding them with surprises. Presentationally, it's possible to make it pretty simple -- a selected card's back has a different colour. Even if the effect classification is potentially ambiguous, the plot's events aren't that difficult to follow. Quote:
As I said in my last post, the first phase by itself could be considered to be very weak in structure if presented by itself. It's adequate to get them curious to see a repeat, which is the main point. One could similarly say that the Ambitious Card, if it were presented as a single phase, would be weak. It tends to gain strength via a clean repetition. Here, the CO gains strength via a clean reversal. Again, I only say this out of experience doing the trick. For the second phase, people are expecting an odd-coloured-back to appear amongst the spread. They aren't expecting something you're not even touching to change. When that happens, it's an escalation that impresses them. Yeah, it falls apart and seems obvious for magicians who know about the DL, but most tricks fall apart when you know the method. Quote:
The fact is, people forget the context within which this efct was created. It was in the Chicago bar scene where fast, snappy tricks was what sold. Now, nothing against that type of magic. I *love* Fechter and think how he constructs his effects is pure genius. I've also been trying to get a copy of Schulien's book. The point is, what flew at one point in time in a certain setting may have worked partially because of context and it may be worth looking at updating stuff for the audiences we perform for. I mean, many people from what I've read seem to think that the f**** used in phase two can or should be substituted for something cleaner. Again, the existing structure of that phase probably worked great for the people it was tested on in the setting it was used, but for a setting where people have time to mull over what's happening and isn't as fast paced, it may not. If people are willing to change that, then doesn't it make sense to strive to improve other aspects of the effect? I mean, it is what sustains this art. The vast majority of stuff that comes out are updated handlings of classics and sometimes they actually are better. I'd be interested to know which handlings would be considered better. Most of the improvements I've seen that involve colour-changing backs have generally been "improving it worse". Quote:
And to your point, Andrew, about the sucker punch element: I often think we as magicians mistake any strong reaction as evidence that the effect we performed is "good enough" to continue do. I'm not going to argue that just because it gets a strong reaction it doesn't mean it couldn't be improved upon. However, if a trick is getting a strong reaction, particularly one in its basest form, then that alone means that there's something worth studying here. A classic is a classic for a reason (it wasn't exposed as "the greatest card trick of all time" on Youtube without cause) and it's worthwhile to figure out what that reason is, so that perhaps something can be extrapolated from it and applied elsewhere. And I can't hammer this point home enough -- the strength of the trick here is that something which the magician isn't in contact with seems to change, made possible by an indetectable switch followed up by a force. There are tricks out there that have successfully lifted just that aspect of CO in a different way, and the results are really quite nice.
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
|
|||||||||
BarryFernelius Inner circle Still learning, even though I've made 2537 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2009-08-30 19:22, micromega123 wrote: The audience IS going to look straight at the deck when the odd-backed card appears, but if you structure your presentation correctly, they shouldn't be looking at the double turnovers. Quote:
If you use the standard Hindu shuffle handling for the force, this could be true. If the selection of the second card is unquestionably fair, the second phase will absolutely floor the audience. If you want to see how these problems with the Chicago Opener can be overcome, take a look at Pop Haydn's Chicago Surprise. I'm sure that if you take a look at Pop Haydn's performances of this effect on YouTube, you'll see what I'm talking about.
"To achieve great things, two things are needed: a plan and not quite enough time."
-Leonard Bernstein |
|||||||||
|
Card Mechanic Regular user Should I have made 130 Posts
|
The Hindu Force is fine as long as they feel they have a freely selected Card and have opportunity to exchange it, which, if they take you up on it no matter what the Force, then leads to the tap dance out...
btw.. Daryl uses the Hindu Force for C.O. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeIi5So5vwc |
|||||||||
|
BarryFernelius Inner circle Still learning, even though I've made 2537 Posts
|
Perhaps Daryl uses the Hindu Force so that he will have a larger market for his DVDs.
Since they are going to have the opportunity to exchange the card, you might as well use the Classic Force. I've never seen a Hindu Force whose procedure looks as fair as the Classic Force. (And the 'out' should never appear to the audience as though you were tap dancing!)
"To achieve great things, two things are needed: a plan and not quite enough time."
-Leonard Bernstein |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Structure of Chicago Opener (51 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5..13~14~15 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Feb 23, 2012 08:06 am 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.13 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 < 
|