Monday Mailbag #65
/I’m breaking this first question into pieces to make it easier to answer.
Thanks for sharing the 3 act structure for audience members who you've just met. The 3 examples you gave [for the “third act” Audience-Centric trick] though all seem very believable.
The examples were:
“If you like that, you should see what my mentor can do.” (Third Party presentation)
“Actually you could probably learn to feel the colors if you want to try it.” (Spectator as Magician presentation)
“You should see this strange object I picked up from this weird guy at a magic convention.” (Unusual Object presentation)
Take the second one for instance, and let's say you go into some pseudo explanation of some phenomenon before doing OOTW. Isn’t the most natural response to accept the explanation at face value: believe that you are saying all this sincerely? (Which is what you don’t want).
Hmmmm… I”m not sure that’s the most “natural” response. Think about it this way…Imagine I performed OOTW in a magician-centric way as the “Third Act.” So you’ve seen two tricks and then I say, “I’m going to cause you to separate the red cards from the black cards via my my powers of mind control.” Or whatever.
How would you describe that full interaction? Well, you’d say you saw three magic tricks.
So now let’s imagine it with an Audience-Centric presentation. Maybe I guide you through this breathing technique that triggers a release of a certain chemical in your brain which briefly heightens your “color intuition.” (That’s not a particularly good example, but it will work for out purposes.)
Now, how would you describe that full interaction? Would you say?
“He showed me two magic tricks followed by a completely legitimate demonstration of heightened color intuition.”
Probably not. What I think you would say—or at least what I’m shooting for with this structure—is something like this:
“He showed me a magic trick. Then he showed me this new trick he’s working on that’s not completely finished yet. Then he showed me this thing which… it must have been a trick… or maybe?…hmmm…. Well, I was able to separate the red cards from the black cards. And we did this breathing technique beforehand which supposedly affected color intuition… but… that was probably just a story. I think? It had to be… I’m pretty sure. But the thing is, I did separate the colors. So how could that have been a trick? But also how could it not have been?”
You see, I want to play with your belief. (Belief is the medium.) That’s my goal at least.
In isolation, perhaps the “natural reaction” to the Audience-Centric trick would be for someone to believe you. But when it’s on the heels of seeing two magic tricks, I think it’s more likely that they’ll be fairly certain it’s a trick, but there will be elements that seem “un-trick-like” to them. The biggest of these “elements” being the fact that I’m not taking credit for what they’re seeing. Which goes against what people expect from a magic trick.
Lastly, what is the spirit of the performing style? Is it tongue in cheek, or matter of fact? —RK
I don’t do anything “tongue in cheek.” I don’t do anything with a wink. To me that feels like infantilizing the audience. “If I didn’t change my tone to suggest I’m not serious, then you would believe me when I said I can read your dog’s mind.”
If I’m ever concerned someone is taking things too seriously, then the “tool” I use to fix that is just to present something even more unbelievable with the same tone and attitude I present the thing they believed. Eventually people will catch on that they should engage with these interactions as they would any other piece of fiction. If there are elements that seem real or feel real in the moment—great. But it’s not my goal to get them to believe in the breathing technique, or the “area of reverse-gravity” in my kitchen, or the leprechaun who gave me the lucky coin.
Do you do a pass, and if so, which one? Is there an “amateur’s pass” or something like that? —SS
No, i don’t really do a pass too often, other than in some very rare circumstances.
One thing I learned when helping to conduct the “suspicion testing” many years ago, is that holding the deck with two hands is enough to pique people’s suspicion. So just getting into the position to do a pass can already put you at a disadvantage because that alone can seem questionable to people. So if you do do a pass, that’s something to consider. When are you naturally holding the deck with two hands? When turning it over. When replacing a card. When squaring it up. If I was doing a pass I would always try and anchor it to one of those actions. Because otherwise it doesn’t matter how “invisible” your pass is, because what they’re noticing is the moment you hold the deck with two hands for no reason—not necessarily the moment you actually shift the packets.
I’m sure these are ideas that are well-discussed in circles where the pass is done frequently. I’m just mentioning it because in our testing we saw actual hard data that supports this.
Is there an amateur’s pass?
Yes, kind of. There is in the sense that there’s a secret deck cutting action that is more useful for the amateur performer than the professional. And that’s the Charlier Cut. The Charlier Cut is, of course, a completely visible cutting action. But, as an amateur performer, you often only have one set of eyes you need to account for. So as long as your spectator isn’t looking at the deck in that moment, you can get away with a visible cutting action, because it’s not visible if no one is looking at it.
If I’m performing for you and I’ve put your card into the middle of the deck, and my hand drops down. I can now stand next to you and focus your attention outward and the deck is completely out of view. This is perfectly natural. We did something with the deck, and now I’m just holding onto it casually until we need it again. The idea that I’m doing something with one hand without looking at the deck is not something that is going to occur to most of the people I perform for because that would be giving me credit for a skill I’ve never really exhibited to them. (If you’ve openly done a lot of one-handed cuts and shuffles, that might be different.)
I could even make an argument that holding a deck in one hand below a table edge as I focus on the spectator or something on the table, is less suspicious than the deck held above the table in two hands.
So yeah, the Charlier Cut is what I would consider the Amateur's Pass. Not because it’s easy, but because you can get away with it as a hidden action more in amateur performing situations than you could in professional ones.
(Getting from a pinky-break to a Charlier cut isn’t too difficult but might take a few times to get the feel for it if you haven’t done it before. You simply kick the top packet to the left and then lift it up with your thumb to get into the Charlier cut action. If it’s a little messy, that’s okay because you’r not doing this as a flourish.)