Examine before/after?

[darosa.justin]

So I've been thinking, lets say you have a trick and you need a prop of some sort, whether it is cards, coins, a card box, cases, etc.

Would you let the spectator examine it before or after the trick? (or even both, but that is 'over-proving') Some tricks reuire that you can only show before/after or make it easier to show it before/after.

Although it may not seem that important to the overall effect, I believe that it does play a role in how strong the effect is.

Personally I feel that it really depends on the trick. Usually, the spec has no idea what you've going to do, so you won't need to let them exaime in before the trick starts. However, you can also say that their reaction would be bigger if they know that you're using an ungimmicked prop.

Disucss...

 

[Davejusttyped]

If you make a big deal about how clean something is, you're implicitly referring to the slight needed to pull it off. I really don't perform with gimmicks that would make me to not be able to hand something out before and after a trick- even if i only let them see it at the beginning or at the end. This way, I cover my butt while still being able to look carefree and natural in performance. I'm all but expecting someone to say "Wait, lemme see that." Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

When you do a trick or are about to do a trick and you're so comfortable with what you're doing that you flip your spectator something to look at, in my experience, they'll usually take your word for it and not inspect the hell out of it. Usually, in my case they can inspect anything I touch to the point of keeping it and taking it home as a souvenir- "Sure, keep that deck/ card in the bag/ paperclip/ fork/ cigarette/ dollar bill (you get my point), we'll use this one. No, you can have it. I'll stop and pick up another on the way home." This always provides an added amazement as it credits your cleanliness without explicitly saying anything of the sort.
(Side note: Notice that I did not say "I have more at home," as this may mean you live over a sweatshop gimmick producer or simply bought a lot of these gimmicks. By saying "I'll pick up another one on the way home," you're alluding to the commonality of the object in question and the fact that it's as you would see it, off of a shelf from WalMart or where ever...)

Don't lose sight of the fact that not all great magic revolves around a gimmick however. Also don't hesitate to practice 'hidden in plain sight' cleanups in your mirror (i.e. that which can be found in 'Witness'). All in all, practice hard, read a lot, know your angles and work your crowd, don't let them work you.

Always,
Dave

 

[Brad Henderson]

Someone just wrote a great essay about this!

After the fact is too late.

You are essentially asking them to go back in time, mentally, and reconsider everything they just watched. They already had the magic moment (or didn't - of they were suspicious.) The magic moment is emotional. While it stems from the intellect, the moment itself is emotional.

Asking them to go back and intellectualize an emotional moment is like thinking about the first time you hooked up with the girl you have crushed on for years. It might be nice. You might see something in a new light. But it's not the same as when you were there and it was REAL.

Get their mind in the right place first. Then let the magic speak to their emotions.

Brad Henderson

 

[AllanLuu]

I would NEVER tell a spectator to examine somthing, just telling them to examine it implies that you maybe useing some tricky prop. Instead, I would just leave by the table make no big deal, if they want to look at it, they can and if they don't, it is just another object, it is taken for granted.

The phrase, "I have a deck of cards here, please go ahead and examine them" gets tossed around alot. Telling them to examine it creates the sleightest suspicion in somones head, they think "well,why would he have me examine them, to make sure they aren't TRICK cards". That is what they think, it implies somthing subconsciously, that he maybe using trick cards and we just don't know it, or that he HAS used trick cards.

 

[MikeGoyke]

I would NEVER tell a spectator to examine somthing, just telling them to examine it implies that you maybe useing some tricky prop. Instead, I would just leave by the table make no big deal, if they want to look at it, they can and if they don't, it is just another object, it is taken for granted.

The phrase, "I have a deck of cards here, please go ahead and examine them" gets tossed around alot. Telling them to examine it creates the sleightest suspicion in somones head, they think "well,why would he have me examine them, to make sure they aren't TRICK cards". That is what they think, it implies somthing subconsciously, that he maybe using trick cards and we just don't know it, or that he HAS used trick cards.

Agreed, Plain and simple. Even just saying "we will use this completley normal deck of cards" will make your spectator suspicious. Like you said the best way to go is to leave the deck on the table and if the want to examine it fine, and if they dont they at least arent suspicious of it.

 

[Wreq]

Exactly, if the spectator feels that they need to examine the deck than let them. If you mention anything about the decks "normality"(not sure if this is the correct word to use) they will start assuming things they shouldn't even if the deck is gimmickless.

 

[Brad Henderson]

While calling attention to trickery with the suggestion to examine should always be avoided (unless you have a dramatic reason to do so - and they exist), I think the original question still has value.

We must eliminate the thought in our audience minds that the objects are "trick." If they come to that conclusion, we have failed.

Getting the coins in their hands, letting them look at them, are both valid ways of doing so. Opening a deck of cards in front of them is another.

The questions is - should these types of things come before or after.

Too many times I have seen someone perform a coin trick, and then see them hand out the coins at the end.

Too late.

It's like saying, "Yeah, you thought they were trick coins, but they're not...haha." Worse, they didn't feel the magic - they had decided they were trick coins while they were experience the (non)effect.

So, we must realize that laypeople will be suspicious. If what we do could be explained by trick props, we must - as Tamariz suggests - eliminate that as a method.

Passing something out at the end is dramatically unsound; it's a case of "too little, too late."