Monday Mailbag #54
/
I know this probably gets me labelled as a “basic bitch” but Anniversary Waltz is one of my go-to wedding effects. All your talk recently about “google-ability” had me wondering how you think this trick holds up and if there’s anything you would do to “protect” this effect if possible.
I’m particularly protective of maintaining the reactions and feelings this trick creates, because it’s such a powerful effect.. If you have any advice on this, please pass it along. —JA
Okay, JA, I don’t know if you’re performing at these weddings in a professional capacity or just as an invited guest. I will answer from the POV of a guest at these sorts of things, and maybe you’ll find a way to use the information if you perform professionally as well.
Here’s what I would do. This is just off the top of my head, so it’s a little rough. But the fundamentals used here are things I’ve used before in other effects and I know they work. They allow you to take an effect that can be found online and still perform it in a manner where it wouldn’t matter if they tried to find the secret out afterwards.
First, I would perform the effect with just myself and the couple, if at all possible. One of the huge benefits of performing as an amateur is the ability to perform for one or two people at a time. One of the strengths of Anniversary Waltz is its highly targeted emotional resonance. You can’t get that from many other tricks. But that resonance is mostly felt by the primary couple you’re performing it for. You don’t want some nerd nephew searching shit on his iPhone to spoil the moment later on. So yeah, I’d pull the couple aside during some downtime in the days leading up to or after the wedding. (Obviously if you’re a professional magician, that’s not an option.)
Now, one of the ways of defusing a future google search is to anticipate it and mention it. Here’s what I mean by that. I would want Anniversary Waltz to feel special and for that feeling to remain as long as possible. If they feel this is just a generic trick, it’s going to lose that specialness. But they will undoubtedly find out some information about the trick if they were to google something like: two cards become one magic trick. So I can’t suggest that the effect itself is unique because there is too much evidence that it’s not.
So here’s what I’d do. I’d do a version of Anniversary Waltz with one person choosing a card from a red deck, and the other from a blue deck. And then I’d use a red/blue double-backer for the extra convincers. I’m not going to do a full explanation here, but briefly, I’d force the two normal cards that match my double-facer. They’d be placed back to back on top of one of the decks, and, as I go for the marker, I’d flip over the entire deck, switching in a double-facer and red/blue double-backer.
As the signing is under way I’d say something like “There’s a classic effect in magic that I wanted to show you today. If you looked it up online you’d find that originally the trick was done with some kind of fast-drying adhesive. But when you do it that way you can only do it from a distance, because up close you can see and feel and smell the glue. And then a few decades ago they started doing it with specially printed cards. And that’s fine. That’s how it’s usually still done. But that way doesn’t allow you to do it with two normal cards from clearly different decks. Like we’re using today.
“I was thinking of you two a couple of weeks ago and I thought there might be a way to do this classic effect with a completely new method. Not with glues, or special cards… but with something a little more ethereal… the connection that is unique to you two.” Blah, blah, blah…or whatever corny words you have to that effect.
You see how this would frustrate any potential google search, yes? Now they would expect to see references to such a trick online. I already told them this is a classic effect. And they might even dig deep enough to find a method that works. But I already mentioned that method too. And I’m suggesting that method doesn’t adequately describe what they’re seeing here. (And it doesn’t. Because they’re clearly seeing two separate cards from different decks in play. This is slightly more advanced than the traditional AW.)
I would have to play around a little with what I say and when I say it and what I emphasize and what I don’t emphasize, but that’s essentially what I’d do. I’d do it for just the couple (probably the most important step). I’d anticipate and poison the ground for what they might find with a google search. And then I’d use a method that goes beyond what they’re likely to find online.
How about doing the Invisible Deck as a trick that a mysterious stranger apparently does for you via post?
That way you can secretly control the outcome for the spectator - whilst giving the credit to the mysterious magician friend. —JM
I think that’s a decent idea. I would choreograph in a deck switch for a normal deck.
And then I’d have the letter that comes with the package say something like this at the end:
If the trick worked for you, put a smiley face next to your address on the reverse side. Then gather up the deck, reverse any one card in it, and send it (along with this letter) to the next address on the list.
And on the back of the page would be maybe 15 addresses in a column with a different smiley face next to the first 10 or so (up to my address).
So that way the story goes a little beyond, “Someone performed a trick for me by mail.” Instead you’re creating this history and future in which this deck of cards is being sent along as part of this weird chain-letter magic trick where somehow the previous person keeps accurately predicting what card the next person will think of.