Dear Jerx Week - Day 2: Mismade

/

Matthew Wright has an interesting new T&R coming out where the card ends up in a mismade condition. Have you ever tested a mismade T&R compared to a traditional one? To me they feel like different plots. —JR

I see what you’re saying. The meaning of “restore” is to put something back to its original condition. If, in the end, you have some jacked-up frankenstein card, then you’ve reconnected the pieces, but you haven’t “restored” the card. Not that that’s a bad trick, it’s just a different trick.

We’ve never officially tested a mismade vs a normal restoration. If I had to guess, I think magicians appreciate the mismade style of restoration more than laypeople do.

I’ve played around with Shawn Farquhar’s Torn 2 Pieces on and off for years now. As a magician, I like it a lot and use it in certain situations (more info in a future post). But the reactions I get to it are more along the lines of, “Isn’t that clever,” rather than one of being truly blown away by what they see. It’s probably because there’s something inherently cerebral and “amusing” about the end-product. It’s more of a “thinker” than a “feeler.”

When it comes to mismade restorations, I think you have to weigh one important factor: How convincing is the destruction of the object in the first place?

If you stood with me on the sidewalk and watched a tornado destroy your house, which would impress you more:

1 - I have you turn your back to the house and moments later I turn you back around and the house is just like it was.

or

2 - I have you turn your back to the house and moments later I turn you back around and the pieces of the house are reassembled in a mish-mashed manner. The roof is on the bottom. The chimney is sticking out the side. The windows are facing the sky.

I would say that without question #1 is more impressive. We saw the tornado tear through town. We saw it destroy your house. If the pieces of the house come together in any form… that’s incredible. But, anything less than the house coming back together as it was is… less than.

Okay, but now imagine the destruction of the house isn’t 100% convincing. Let’s say we’re looking at the house, and I have a large screen raised between us and the house. Then a light is projected behind the house and we see a silhouette of the house on the screen. Then we see the silhouette of a bulldozer knocking the house down.

If I now shout out a Franz Harary style “Do It!” and have them drop the screen and your house is “restored” to its original condition, that’s not that impressive. If your audience has half a brain, they won’t say, “He magically fixed the house!” They’ll say, “It was never destroyed in the first place.” Because they were never truly convinced of it.

But, imagine if after we watched the silhouetted destruction, I had the backlight cut off so the shadow of the house was gone. Then I made some gestures in the air like I was “rebuilding” the house with my hands. Then the screen was whipped away and the house was restored in some funky mismade way. That would be stronger than just seeing the normal house. Because—whether the audience believes the destruction was real or not—you have the transformation of the house from its normal condition to the mismade condition.

That being said, I feel the most magical effect would involve a thoroughly convincing destruction and a restoration back to its original condition.

But there are times you might be going for something slightly different.

I really like the logic I first heard in Michael Ammar’s Albo Card routine. I don’t remember his exact words, but it’s something about the fleeting nature of the magic moment. And how, if you restore the card for them, they might be amazed, but eventually the only tangible thing that remains of the magic is a normal card. So restoring it the wrong way around creates a piece of magic that lives on. I think that’s an interesting premise. And that’s what I use when I do the Albo Card routine.

Update: The full trailer is up now.

Apparently the spectator signs the card after it’s been torn, and all the pieces are held together in a little bundle by the magician while they sign them. That’s a little too cozy and controlled for my style. In a longer video on the trick, Matthew says it’s so convincing because they can see the torn edges when they sign the card. While that’s true, they can also see the torn edges once they fold the restored card back into quarters. What was a “convincer” while they were signing the cards now just points to the method once the card is in their hands at the end.

I have no doubt this will fool many people. But because I’m not a huge fan of mismade restorations and the specific handling required for this trick, it’s just not for me.