gdp's Comments

double facers : Vanishing Inc Magic

Sat, 4 Apr 2009 03:23:49 +0000

love the use of the CLAW!

double facers : Sleight of hand vs Gimmicks.

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:03:43 +0000

I don't think laymen are stupid, and if you use gimmicks from the very beginning, I think laymen know it. Some gimmicks make things just too clean and laymen dismiss what you do as "just a trick." If you do stage magic, they attribute it all to the box, if you perform "WOW" close up, they'll attribute the effect to the thing you are holding (if you actually ask them how they think it's done). So... I think it's about trust. Performers need to establish their skill before an audience will just dismiss anything you do as "just a trick." Once you perform a few effects that are clearly the result of sleight of hand and the audience begins to trust that you have the skill you claim to have, that's when you can (judiciously) thrown in a gimmick or two to really blow them away. Do some really knuckle busting stuff, and then for your last trick, combine some sleight of hand with something simple like a shell, copper silver, or a double faced card and watch their jaws drop. If you start with that same trick for someone who has never seen you do magic before.... it just won't go over nearly as well.

Visual Madness : Practical Measures

Thu, 5 Mar 2009 05:30:30 +0000

That was the best magic trick I've ever seen you do.

Visual Madness : The New Theory11 Logo

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:19:32 +0000

HAHA!!! I never thought about it like that, but that is so true

double facers : We do things no one can see?

Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:38:41 +0000

What do you mean this move was beaten to death? Does it not work in front of laymen anymore? Just because 100% of the magic community is obsessed with a move or a concept at any given time doesn't mean the same proportion of the lay public is aware of it.

double facers : We do things no one can see?

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:04:15 +0000

I actually think this is particularly prevalent in coin magic. Coin magicians tend to throw in a ton of aquitments, trying to prove that their hands are empty, but instead, they just tip off the spectators that they are transferring unseen things from hand to hand. Even if you don't flash, spectators aren't stupid and they can see the awkward movements of the hands and guess what is going on. Here's another example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ-lT3Uv0IM&fm... The technique is not "bad" per se, they are actually executed with decent proficiency. But he seems to think that just because the techniques keep the spectator from seeing extra coins, it also keeps the spectators from understanding that other coins exist and how they are switched. And that is just not true.

Visual Madness : A Perfect Equation

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 21:33:09 +0000

You can just leave Watchmen on repeat in your DVD player until this comes out. Maybe that'll ease the pain

double facers : Peru Peru Peru... Claro?

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 21:30:04 +0000

In terms of the different styles of magic (the Latin American style involving more counting and math, or involving character acting), do you think that relies on the different audiences, or do you think their style could work for audiences in the US and our style could work down there? Also, in terms of the stuff you shot, can you just not show it because the magicians are releasing the material, or just don't want it released? or are you just saying it'll take forever to edit? I'd love to be able to see the convention through your camera lens whenever you can show it.

double facers : Cascade control and a trick

Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:42:34 +0000

Tony -- I'm curious. Why did you decide to make it an all-facers routine instead of an all-backs routine (besides the one methodological advantage)? Maybe you'll address that in the full-on patter version if/when you post that, but it certainly seems like the kind of detail that you tend to think through in the routines I've seen of yours. So I'm just curious if there was a particular philosophy behind it.

Visual Madness : We still love you, Visual Madness - wrinkles and all

Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:17:46 +0000

Wheeeee I like this style better too. (

Visual Madness : Bicycle Seat

Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:00:57 +0000

Did you make that Kevin?

double facers : Happy new year!

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 18:49:58 +0000

Tony (and Chad) -- this is my favorite so far

double facers : Magician Fooler?

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 18:47:58 +0000

Agreed. ....except.... since all of our audiences already know that when we say "magic" we really mean "sleight of hand," I think we can just as easily call ourselves magicians and it means the same thing (and doesn't take as long to say

double facers : Magician Fooler?

Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:08:16 +0000

So about the second question regarding laymen. I know a number of magicians who claim that if we admit to using sleight of hand, we defeat the purpose of calling it "magic." These magicians claim that we tell the laymen that the only explanation is magic. I think this is both simplistic and ineffective when performing for laymen. The only 3 magicians I know who have really been successfully claiming that their work is true magic are John Edward, Sylvia Browne and Uri Geller. Do we really want to be any of them? Moreover, I think lay audiences feel insulted if we deny sleight of hand. Most of our audiences aren't stupid, and they know the things are impossible. They know they are entertained by our presentations and our skill. If they thought we were really performing magic, I think the interaction would be quite different. Also, if magicians feel they must deny any use of sleight of hand, I think you den yourself many very interesting plot and presentational ploys. There are some great presentations based on sleight of hand or audience perception, or even talking honestly about how people are fooled (see most of Penn and Teller's act). Anyway, there is my 4 cents for now.

double facers : Is the card really lost?

Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:49:54 +0000

I think one of the biggest problems magicians have with losing the card back in the deck is that they are so used to controlling the card, that they brush over this part of the effect and since they don't care, the audience doesn't care. If we as magicians don't take the time to emphasize the "fairness" or importance of the card being lost again, the audience will just assume we've done whatever we want with it. As Tony mentioned, in effects where the card being lost is particularly important, I think losing the card deserves more emphasis than it normally gets.

double facers : Chad Rees "the people's magician"

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 05:15:31 +0000

from my experience, invisible audiences have their upsides and their downsides. I've never been caught out by an invisible spectator, but on the other hand, their reactions aren't as dramatic.

Visual Madness : Pieces of Strange (2006)

Wed, 17 Dec 2008 05:23:55 +0000

It's got a nice Surrealism-film-movement feel to it. Things moving backwards, rapid jumps from one subject to another, clean cuts, etc. Very nice though. I just got Final Cut Express (now I just need to learn to use it.)

double facers : Challenge #1 My version

Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:48:31 +0000

Ok first of all, that is a great video, and I bow to your superior video-making/editing skills. Also, I would like to mention that I really liked the routine. With respect to whether it is ok to lie through you magical effects: Yes. I think it is perfectly acceptable to lie. Whatever the aim of your magic may be, the goal of your effect should be to convey that message by whatever means works most effectively. If you need to exaggerate or change some facts, or make up a story from whole cloth, that's what you should do. One of my favorite poets, John Rives said it well: "I will lie to you. I will try to make you laugh. I will try to break your heart, but what I'm not interested in is journalism." In Art, Truth is not what matters. Feeling is what matters. The only requirements of your presentation should be that it is the best way to convey your point of view. To this end, I would suggest an old actors technique: make up more of the story than you need for your presentation. Decide what this magician's name was. Decide how old you were. Decide that his hands were twice the size of yours. Decide that there was a leftover turkey sandwich on the counter when he first showed you this trick. Many of these details will be extraneous; others silly. And certainly you should not mention all of them in the presentation. But understanding this general picture, and picking out a few specific, incidental, details that were emotionally important for the main character of this story (you), the story will come across as more realistic than if you had actually told the truth -- and this will help you connect with your audience. Ok. This post is long enough, and I will come back to the structure and moves later, but presentation is just as important as technique, and I think you're on the right track, but to quote someone who knew what he was talking about, "The finished card expert considers nothing too trivial that in any way contributes to his success."

double facers : Challenge #1 My version

Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:09:37 +0000

0% tiger? come on tony. That's a little disappointing. I was hoping for at least 10%.

double facers : Challenge #1 Further Discussion

Sun, 14 Dec 2008 01:25:41 +0000

nope. I agree with what you said.