Lost Luggage (ebook) by Stefan Olschewski $25.00
36 pages, 22 photos, 6 illustrations
Available at: http://www.stefanmagie.de/shop.htm
In this ebook, Stefan Olschewski teaches a complete 30 minute mentalism act designed to be performed in a parlor or stage setting. The books title refers to the dilemma faced by a performer who flies into town for his show only to discover that his luggage took a different flight. Yikes! What to do? The Lost Luggage act can be performed with props that you can find in your hotel room, or borrow from the venue.
Despite my suspicion that English may not be Mr. Olschewskis primary language, he writes pretty well and does an adequate job of teaching the material. He earns a few points for including his complete performance script. The photos and illustrations facilitate the learning process.
Foreword: Paolo Cavalli provides an endorsement of the material and acknowledges Max Mavens previously-released, conceptually similar DVD Nothing.
The Blurb: The author describes the effects that constitute the act.
Introduction: This section lists the materials required for the act.
The Structure of the Show: The author describes the act and teaches the reader how to prepare the Finale.
Exposition: The performer makes his opening remarks and draws the audiences attention to his prediction envelope which is hanging from the ceiling by a piece of string.
Sensitive Silverware: The performer displays four clear glasses sitting on a table. The glasses contain a knife, fork, spoon and a napkin. He asks the audience to think of one of the objects. He walks out into the audience, selects a participant and walks her back to the stage.
The performer stands in front of the participant, removes a spoon from his pocket and holds it in front of his chest so that the audience can see it, but the participant cant. He asks the participant to pick up her mentally selected object. She picks up the spoon.
The odds are only 3:1 against the performer succeeding, so the effect isnt particularly powerful.
The method is old, bold and potentially perilous. The performer does the dirty work while he is walking the participant to the stage. Hopefully, the crowd is applauding noisily.
If the participant is a believer who wants to test the performers purported powers, or if she simply doesnt want to play along, she will not comply with his request. If that happens, the performer is screwed. He will have to stop in his tracks, refrain from looking like he vomited in his mouth, walk the participant back to her seat, and go in search of someone else who will hopefully comply with his request. I dont like it.
Intermission 1: The performer walks into the audience and borrows a dollar bill from a participant. After joking with the participant about giving him the bill versus loaning it to him, he hands the bill back to the participant. She signs it, seals it inside of an empty envelope and places the envelope in her pocket.
This is another old method/gag. I was a callow teenager when I first saw this method employed and even then it struck me as being transparent. My assessment hasnt changed. I dont like it.
Win-Win Situation: The performer places a piece of paper and a prize voucher into an envelope, seals it and places it in his pocket, leaving it exposed. He invites a dozen audience members to stand up and participate in a game in which the winner will receive the prize voucher. He invites another audience member to join him on stage and serve as the judge. The performer and the judge take turns eliminating contestants until the judge freely chooses the winner.
The winner joins the performer on stage, removes the envelope from his pocket and opens it. In addition to her prize voucher, she also removes the piece of paper and reads it aloud. She discovers that the performer had previously written a detailed description of her.
50% of the time, a different effect will occur. After the judge selects the winner and she joins him and the performer on stage, the performer also asks the runner-up to join them on stage. The winner removes the envelope from the performers pocket and opens it. In addition to her prize voucher, so also removes the piece of paper and reads it aloud. She discovers that the performer had previously written a detailed description of the runner-up.
Mr. Olschewski claims that this second effect will, be as strong as the originally intended effect. Yeah, right. What is written on the prediction to prove that the performer correctly predicted the winner? You are our winner. I already knew that even before this game started. Hell, thats even less specific than a worthless horoscope!
If the performer is such a gifted seer, why oh why would he provide a detailed description of the runner-up, instead of the winner? In the real word, no one gives a rats ass about the runner-up in any competition. The effect just doesnt make sense and could potentially lead the crowd to unravel part of the method. I dont like it.
Intermission 2: The performer hands a newspaper to a participant in the first row. The participant freely removes a page and gives it to the performer. The performer rips the page in half, walks into the audience and asks a participant to tell him which half to discard. He repeats this tearing and discarding procedure with several other participants until he is left holding a single, tiny piece of the page.
He inserts the piece into an envelope, seals it and hands it to the participant who made the final selection. He removes a pen from his pocket and has the participant sign her name on the envelope.
Mr. Olschewskis method for doing the dirty work would arouse no suspicion if he executed it while he is on stage facing the crowd. But he does it while he is in the audience, surrounded by people! Folks sitting behind him will witness the method. I dont like it.
Magical Chairs: The performer places a prediction envelope in full sight. He throws a paper ball into the audience and the crowd throws it around until four participants are selected. They come onto the stage. The performer positions three chairs back to back in a triangle formation. The participants determine their seat numbers by freely selecting one of four pieces of folded paper.
The participants begin walking around the chairs as the performer reads from a book. When he stops reading and closes the book, the participants sit in a chair. The participant who doesnt get a chair shows his number before returning to the audience. A chair is removed after each elimination.
The game proceeds until one participant is left sitting in a chair. The participant displays his seat number. The performer removes his prediction from the envelope and shows that he correctly predicted the winner.
The odds are only 3:1 against the performer succeeding, so the effect isnt that strong.
After the prediction is removed from the envelope, the envelope cannot be shown to be empty. The author teaches a method for indirectly suggesting that the envelope is empty. He states that, this looks very natural and convincing and nobody will expect you to hide anything else in the envelope.
Hes kidding, right? Of course the crowd will suspect that there may be something else in the envelope. Its their job to be suspicious and its the performers job to dispel their suspicions. Im disappointed that the author didnt figure out that secretly employing one more envelope would allow him to show the envelope to be empty. I dont like it.
Finale: The performer asks the two audience participants to remove the piece of newspaper and dollar bill from their respective envelopes. He instructs another participant to open the prediction envelope, remove his prediction and read it aloud. The other two participants verify that the performer correctly predicted the content of the newspaper piece and the serial number of the bill.
While this is a strong finale to the act, Ive already described why I dont like the methods employed to reach this point.
Setting Up the Stage: The author provides a checklist that describes the set-up of all of the objects on the stage as well as the materials carried by the performer. He includes an illustration that depicts the complete stage set-up, viewed from overhead.
Afterthoughts: The author lists several items that were included in his 60 minute show and explains why he excluded them from this book.
Sources of Inspiration: Mr. Olschewski provides attribution for the methods he employs.
Appendix: This section includes a brief biographical snapshot of the author and lists his other marketed products.
If youre booked to perform a gig and your luggage gets lost, the good news is that this material will allow you to fulfill your contractual obligation. The bad news is that your performance wont be particularly amazing or entertaining.
Not Recommended