Sucker Tricks

[cataquet]

There is something about sucker tricks that appeal to me. You lead the spectator down the road to conclusion A, and then you de-rail him and arrive at B. Unfortunately, many of these tricks have a "in your face" feel to them.

For example, in the C&R, I begin with an accidental cut, where the spectator thinks he cuts the rope before I was ready for him. The audience thinks the magician is in trouble, but you are now ready for the first restoration. The audience impact of this restoration is far stronger than if I had just asked the spectator to cut the rope and then restored it.

There are many sucker tricks out there(eg, Klaus' Red & White Silks), so what are your favorites? Are there any good sucker phases that you care to share?

Bye for now

Harold

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Harold Cataquet:
There is something about sucker tricks that appeal to me.

Harold

I can't say I've ever had a good experience after being led down some garden path. I suspect that genre of story has limited first exposure appeal, and then serves only to reinforce negative, 'cynical' or pessimistic expectations in others.

Let's try one in our common experience: Imagine asking a citizen of the US "what kind of government does America have?" Odds are they will say "Democracy".

How did that happen? What led them to say this? Why would they believe this? Somehow they were led down a path to this belief. EVEN THOUGH every day in school they say 'the pledge' which includes the line ... and to the republic... and can even recite it.

While a good amount of performing can involve leading an audience, one really should take some care as to where the audience is led lest they find what's at the end of that 'primrose path' a thorny briar. No one likes an unpleasant surprise. Likewise, few will take kindly to being embarrassed in public.

[Larry Horowitz]

The key words as Jonathan points out " few will take kindly to being embarrassed in public."

Presentation changes the perception, it's a sucker effect,not make the spectator a sucker. The sucker effect should be a surprise not a punch line.

Larry

[Michel Huot]

I agree with Larry,

when you do a sucker effect, why don't YOU be surprised by the outcome

instead of having the I-GOT-YOU look you can have I-GOT-FOOLED-MYSELF look

BTW this is how I play the silk and egg and it's one incredible effect

Michel

[Jeff Haas]

Why not pick material that has a surprise ending, without the "sucker" element?

Jeff

[HighQ]

Harold, I agree with you. I love sucker tricks too. I think they can be very funny and I believe most people find them to be funny and unexplainable. I imagine thats why the Sucker Die Box and the Hip Hop Rabbits have been so popular for years. It's one thing to make an individual feel like they've been taken, but when you get the whole crowd in on it, they will love it when its done in a light hearted manner.

It seems everytime a sucker trick is mentioned on a message board it is followed up with a lecture by another as to why they are so bad. I can't recall anyone being hurt or even offended by a sucker trick when done in good humor.

George Anderson, I believe, has a book called My Favorite Sucker Card Tricks. And Bob Sheets "Gotcha" is excellent and highly recommended.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Mike M:

It seems everytime a sucker trick is mentioned on a message board it is followed up with a lecture by another as to why they are so bad. I can't recall anyone being hurt or even offended by a sucker trick when done in good humor.

Performing a "sucker" trick for a polite audience is about like the Monty Python sketch where someone comes to an specialist for an argument and has to sit there for simple contradiction.

I for one will not be "suckered" into pandering to those do not know the difference. There is a real world application of a "sucker trick" above. What are your thoughts about it?

[Pete McCabe]

Jonathan Townsend:

Performing a "sucker" trick for a polite audience is about like the Monty Python sketch where someone comes to an specialist for an argument and has to sit there for simple contradiction.

Jonathan Townsend

No it isn't!

[Carl Mercurio]

I go back and forth on the sucker effect concept, and I do frequently perform the sucker card effect from Garcia's Million Dollar Card secrets. I always forget the name of that trick, New York Opener, Chicago Opener....Anyway, I am becoming a great believer in the concept articulated by Whit Haydn that magic shouldn't involve a suspension of believe on the part of the audience, i.e., the way that theater involves a suspension of belief. Rather, you want the audience to try to figure the thing out, eliminate all the possibilities in their mind, and be forced to one conclusion: it's magic. The sucker concept seems to dovetail with this kind of psychological approach, as do sucker explanations used in effects like Egg Bag. The weird thing about this approach is that it assumes that there is a built in confrontational nature to magic (I'm going to fool you, try to figure this out). The trick is presenting it in such a way that the "confrontation" is fun and thought-provoking rather than derisive.

In the sucker effect, there's the added element of the audience thinking you screwed up. So the argument really isn't whether the sucker effect is confrontational, but rather if there is something mean or demeaning about it.

Now the audience can react to a sucker effect in one of two ways. a. I've got him (victory). b. Poor guy, he messed up (sympathy). You're certainly not demeaning the "victory" guy, because he's just playing the game. (Note: I always use sucker effects when I run into a wise guy. They, in fact, love the sucker effects the most).

The second person, the "sympathy" person, is a little more tricky. My feeling, however, is just as this person was kind hearted enough to feel bad that you failed, he's going to feel just fine that you actually succeeded. And probably get a laugh out of it as well.

Bottom line. I've got no problem with the sucker effect, most of the time, provided it's handled and presented properly. If I was more sure of this, I'd say it with more confidence.

[Pete McCabe]

Carl Mercurio:

Rather, you want the audience to try to figure the thing out, eliminate all the possibilities in their mind, and be forced to one conclusion: it's magic.

If the audience has to figure things, eliminate things, reach a conclusion, there is no magic.

There is only magic if the audience feels -- even for just an instant -- that something magical has happened. Anything they have to think about is not magic.

It's not a bad idea if the trick can survive some sort of retrograde analysis which can occur in the audience's mind after the trick is over, but this is really optional. After Copperfield's "Flying" special, a number of people who were amazed asked me how did he do it? I asked them, how do you think he did it? Every single one of them said, "I don't know, maybe he was hanging from wires." It didn't matter.

The only thing that matters, I think, is the moment. That's magic. Nothing else is magic.

I have never in my life seen a sucker trick that produced this effect in the audience.

[Guest]

Hello Pete.
I still have no idea what the midnight shift is or even worse the "too perfect theory"

I do know all about sucker tricks, though. I swear by them.In fact I do too many of them.I often have to discipline myself not to overuse them.

The reason for my enthusiasm? Because they work, nothing more and nothing less.

I do not believe in the "moment" theory. I believe
in the "Holy mother of God!" theory. I want to get that audience gasping, shouting and laughing. That is my ONLY concern.

As you say "the only thing that matters"
However my definition of the only thing that matters is the audience reaction not some artistic esoteric magical thing such as the "moment"

I want to get the bastards screaming and reacting like they have just witnessed the second coming.
Sucker tricks are a very good vehicle for this.
However, I would certainly agree that there is potential for danger in using them. You have to know how and when to use them.

In other words the magician has to be a psychologist. Always. Always. Always. I have said this before and I will say it again. It is far more important to be able to manipulate people than it is to manipulate cards.

Basically, you have to know your business.
I shall mind my own now.
Cheerio

Mark Lewis
www.marklewisentertainment.com

[cataquet]

Carl's words remind me of the theory writeup that Whit Haydn included in "Chicago Surprise".

Pete points out that the audience has to care about the effect in order to feel something, and that most sucker tricks fail to get the audience "emotionally interested". There may be a presentation out there that works to get the audience "hooked" on sucker TRICKS, but I think a sucker PHASE can be used to generate feeling.

I guess I agree that "pure" sucker tricks do fail to get the audience "emotionally interested". For example, look at the die box. You can get the audience involved, but I don't think they are going to "feel" anything when you show the die is in the hat. However, there might be a way to present the effect so that it did generate that emotion.

However, I think a sucker phase does generate emotion. For example, the final load in a few cups and balls routine is a sucker phase. The audience expects you are using an extra ball and then you say yes, but it's a different color or show it's a different size. Hey, you could probably view the chop cup as a sucker trick.

Bye for now

Harold

[Carl Mercurio]

Hey Pete,
I can't say I disagree with you. It's a very difficult question. At what point does the spectator "feel" that magic has happened. Is it "at the moment" of the effect, is at after some analysis, or does the analysis and the "moment" happen simultaneously. I tend to think it's the latter. Harold is corrent, Whit's analysis is in his write up of Chicago Surprise. I had the good fortune of seeing Whit lecture in San Fran., where he reiterated his viewpoint. Pete, I don't think that what I wrote and your point are mutually exclusive. The two can happen simultaneously. Love ya, Carl