This is a question for you all regarding a psychological subtlety when performing an illusion such as spikes through assistant.

I have noticed the standard thing to do is shove the spikes through, then open the door to reveal she has vanished and all you can see are the spikes passing through the empty cabinet. Would you think it would be a little more appropriate to not show the vanish, leaving it up to the spectators minds to wonder how they penetrated through her?

Origami is my favorite of all time, and naturally this doesn't warrant a vanish. In the spectators mind, one wonders how she fit inside a box so small, then has the swords placed through.

The other 'spike' versions are great illusions, but the vanish takes away the reality of a penetration effect.

What do you think is the way to go?

I don't think there is definitely a right or wrong answer, but I think that the magician needs to know the motivation of the illusion. What are you trying to convey to the audience? What is most entertaining?

The question you asked is most appropriate for a sword basket. The Pendragons discuss this on their excellent DVDs on illusions.

I think it depends on the effect that you are trying to portray with the particular illusion you are performing. An Illusion like Roger Capps Wonder Window has several different applause cues:
1. The light bulbs penetrate the girl and her shadow is seen on the window shade.
2. Th shade goes up and the girl is gone.
3. At this point, the penetrating bulbs make it difficult to figure out where the girl could be, because the lights penetrating the box eliminate possible "hiding spaces."

I perform Origami and I think that the girl not vanishing adds to the mystery. Is she in that 12" cube? I don't think that the swords should be seen until moments before they penetrate the box. Again, this adds to the mystery.

When the girl vanishes, it should be at the last moment. The audience should have time to figure out how she is contorting around the tubes, swords, light bulbs or spikes. When they think they have it figured out, the vanish is revealed, showing that she has vanished.

Just some random thoughts.

Lou

The Hans Moretti Cardboard Sword Box ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH-PFecys6Y ) is the best example of what you are discussing. It's all about the swords and escaping injury or death, not about a tricky box.

Thanks Spellbinder, that was absolutely amazing!

Also that was very good advice regarding my original post.

One mystery must dominate the other. They cannot both be the main point of the routine. So then the question must be, which is the stronger? Is the routine following a course to replace one mystery with a deeper one, or is the follow-up mystery anti-climatic, and stealing the thunder of the better?

Personally, I believe I have witnessed examples of both.

Zig Zag is an example of the better. The blades first slice the girl into 3 parts. That in itself is pretty amazing. Then, the zig-zagged configuration is achieved. Wow!

I have also seen escapes where I have felt insulted for investing my emotions caring for the safety of the performer once it is revealed that he is elsewhere. Even though a mystery remains as to how he got where he is, it becomes painfully lame to conclude that he was obviously never in danger. It's a boy crying wolf syndrome. I find myself less apt to care for his safety in the future.

That was very well said Michael, you have a way with words!

Remember the original Sword Box was not opened, and it used a massive amount of swords.

The original Selbit sawing is also an example of not showing the girl, or making her vanish.

B

I just thought of an illusion (or illusionette) that does both, and may be an exclusion. The Dagger Head Chest (or Arrowhead, Head Cremation, etc.) has the element of penetrating knives, etc. (or consumption by fire in the case of H.C.), and it also has the element of the vanish. But because the body is still visible, I think this may actually deepen the mystery, rather than overshadow the original effect of penetration.

If the person in an illusion vanishes entirely, the thought may be raised that she is no longer in the box. With the Head Chest, there is no doubt the person is still there.

There is no believability with those "missing head" illusions. Every intelligent person knows that you can't really make a living person's head disappear, so it's just a matter of figuring out how you are hiding the head (and not leaving too many alternatives for them to sort through).

Better to make the entire person vanish and then show the box empty, or keep the head visible but slide it several feet to one side of the body. But if you are going to do one of those illusions, the swords and arrows are "overkill" to the effect.

I'm glad this helped open up discussion. Perhaps the head chest I described is not an example to the contrary. But, does this then also disqualify any dismember type illusions? Moving a body part to a new location, as in Zig Zag, or making parts other than heads disappear, as in Girl Without a Middle, is in essence making a body part disappear, if only from where it is supposed to be. Intelligent people instinctively know this is not possible, either. Complete disfigurement, such as with a body twister is similar in this regard.

Half bodies are fathomable, once a person understands this to be a biological reality. This has been used as both an effect and a method, but there have been other methods for achieving that effect. On the other hand, living heads, and sideshow headless illusions are not possible through any miracle of science, but are still puzzling and potentially entertaining.

I'm not defending any stand here, I am merely seeking a better understanding of the OP question/answer.