Fancy Cuts -- Magic?

[Matthew Field]

In my January Genii review of the Buck Twins video on flourish-y card cuts, I mention that I had neither the space nor the inclination to get into the debate about the appropriateness of such flourishes to card magic. I went into the issue in a bit more depth in my earlier review of the first Brian Tudor video.

But it occurred to me that this is what the Genii Forum is all about, and there has been debate about "juggling" as part of card magic as part of another topic on this Forum (see the thread on "Twisting the Aces").

So, how about it? I've seen Jay Sankey, Jamy Ian Swiss and Simon Lovell begin their card routines with fancy cuts or one-hand shuffles. Others say that to do this diminishes the magic, that audiences might just chalk everything up to "moves with cards."

Should I stop practicing the Bucks' "Leno Cut," Tudor's "Seven Faces of Sybil," Kenner's "Sybil," the Troy Hooser moves, the Butterfly Cut? What about you? Do you include flourishes when you perform card magic? Why? Why not?

What about fancy revelations, like the Paul Harris moves, or even something like the Forton "Pop-Out"? Are those things OK for a Multiple Card Selection and Revelation routine (as in, for example, the Doc Eason and Paul Cummins "Fusillade" manuscript)? Are they OK anytime? Or never?

Matthew Field

[Guest]

I have to admit, I love seeing magi do flourishes, but then again I'm not a lay audience member. In my routines, I don't do any. Perhaps a one handed cut, but that's about it.

Now, besides the fact that I never really practiced many flourishes, I agree that most lay audiences would be convinced that everything you did from that point on could be chalked up as "fast hands" and not magic. I think this would work fine for gambler routines, but not my personal easy going Close-up "magic" persona. It almost challenges the spectator to a "Catch me if you can" attitude.

I think one of the "Too perfect theory" articles a few months back explored this idea. If the audience thinks they know the method, even if they are incorrect, in their minds, they know HOW you do it.

Just my two cents! :cool:

[Guest]

As far as close-up with cards, I believe that flourishes are fun to do and can add a nice touch but they really do not fit in with my performing style.

The only flourishes I do would be a tabled ribbon spread (and turnover), pressure fan, one handed shuffle and charlier cut. I perform a couple of revelations that would appear flourishy as well.

I think there is a time and a place for flourishes. It can add beauty to a routine with a dazzling finish or an aesthetically appealing fan. The flourish should compliment and not overpower the effect you want to accomplish.

It is my personal opinion that the cuts as performed by guys like Brian Tudor are more juggling than magic. Granted there is an audience for that, but to me it isn't very magical. I think a lay audience would grow really tired of the constant barrage of the "cuts on steroids." (I saw that in a review) Depending on who does it, it may come across as "see what I can do".


As a card guy, I love watching these guys do the crazy stuff with cards. I got a kick out of Brian Tudor's tape watching him take the flourish cuts to a different level. As a performer, it's simply not me.

[Guest]

You've probably, like me, read most of Larry Jennings material which has been published and seen most of what he has on tape. The man never performed a flourish, if memory serves, outside of a charlier cut. He and Vernon were extremely influenced by real world gambling cheats and pretty much adopted their ethos, which was, don't flash!

I haven't seen the Buck Bros. but I purchased the first Brian Tudor vid out of curiosity.
I think this type of "juggling" (that's a good word for this work) probably would best be incorporated into a stage act like Channing Pollock/Neil Foster/Jeff McBride where you interspersed your tri-level circular at-the-speed-of-sound cuts with your split fans, front and back palms, and scaling cards into the third balcony.

If you do plot card tricks at the bar, in the booth at the restaurant, strolling, or, like me, across the kitchen or picnic table, mild flourishes in the turning over of single cards, one handed cuts etc., seem to be a pleasing way to punctuate your work as long as you don't detract from your punch lines, finales, kickers, and blow-offs. Think Michael Skinner.

Having said that, if I could do Daryl's Hot Shot Cut with skill and relaxed aplomb, I would be doing it in church, at the voting precinct, in the grocery store, bank, uptown downtown all around the town!

[Bill Duncan]

Great topic Matthew! For me the answer is simple, in principle.

If the 'set' I'm putting together is about mystery (something featuring mental effects or Out Of This World for example) then I'll take the Eugene Burger route and handle the cards with simple ease and no outward show of skill beyond what would be expected of someone who carries a deck around with him. In other words I won't fake awkwardness with a deck but I won't to a faro shuffle either. No card handling that you wouldn't see at a normal bridge or poker game.

Otherwise, and for most of what I do (Triumph, gambling effects, most card locations), any flourish that's appropriate to the effect is fine. I don't expect my audiences to believe that I have mystical powers so any display of skill that's worth watching is fine so long as it's relevant to the effect: a one handed shuffle during Vernon's "Cutting The Aces" for example.

That being said, I do very few flourishes because most of the effects I do wouldn't be improved by them. The impact of Card on Forehead or under Glass would be lessened by obvious displays of skill proximate to them. Instead of saying "How the heck did the card get there!" they'd be thinking "He can shuffle a deck with one hand... of course I missed it."

I think unless you are creating a character that would be compromised by overt displays of skill then flourishes are an important part of card magic. It does seem that many card handlers are overly enamored of card shooting however...

[Guest]

If you do flourishes then people might suspect you're not doing real magic. At least...that's what I overheard in a conversation between the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause. Anyway, who's to say that someone who is great at magic couldn't also be good at manipulating cards? Or vice versa. It may be an extreme point, but if you saw a skillful magician playing the piano, you wouldn't say "Oh, its all a trick". We can able to do more than one thing. No? So, magic and skill!

[walkinoats]

I recently purchased the Buck brothers video. I'm hooked ! I like the idea of including fancy cuts and ace productions. I have peformed other fancy slights such as the one handed cut and Daryl's Hot Shot Cut and laymen enjoy watching the fancy slights. I think it adds a nice touch. I have been peforming with cards for about 10 years now. When I first saw the Buck Brothers with their ace productions, I felt like I was watching Real magic. :eek:

[Pete McCabe]

There are some tricks which are relatively easily explained by commonly known (to laypersons) methods.

For example if you lose the Aces in the deck and then deal them to your hand, no one will think it's magic. It may be entertaining and good, etc., but no one will think it's magic. They'll think it's "dealing from the bottom of the deck" or something similar and familiar.

But Card to a Sealed Envelope in your Wallet is not so easily explained.

So if you avoid tricks that can be easily explained by flourish-type skill, then demonstrations of such skill will not detract from your effects. However, if you feature such "skill rather than magic" (for lack of a better word) tricks, then flourishy demonstrations can add to the overall effect.

You could even use both. Show some flourishes and then do a gambling demonstration. Follow up with a completely flourish-free version of the same effect which cancels all card-sharp skill methods and looks like a pure magic trick.


Of course, this is all easy for me to say, since I can't do any of those wacky flourishes. However, I do spend a fair amount of time making moves like Piet Forton's pop-out production look like magic and not like juggling.


Pete McCabe

[Randy DiMarco]

People don't think it is out of the ordinary for a person who works with a certain object to be able to do "flourishy" things with it that do not directly relate to the work. Some examples are a basketball player that can spin a ball on his finger, a golfer who can juggle the ball with his putter and a bartender who slides a beer down the bar so it stops right in front of the customer. These are things that can be done because a person spends a large amount of their time handling these objects. I think that audiences see flourishes done with cards to be the same type of thing. Has anyone else noticed that this argument about card flourishes comes up quite often but no one seems to question the same type of things with other objects such as a coin roll or the wand spin.

[Bill Duncan]

...I do spend a fair amount of time making moves like Piet Forton's pop-out production look like magic and not like juggling.

How on earth do you make the POPOUT look like magic? I managed to come up with a handling that doesn't look like target shooting but it would take major reworking for it to look like anything other than what it is...

[Richard Kaufman]

Piet Forton's Pop-Out Move, when properly done, does NOT look like juggling. You should NOT be able to see the face-up card swing into position. It should NOT look like you are catching something.
When done properly, the face-up card simply appears in position--as if by magic. There is nothing else to see, and certainly no movement of the hands.

[Bill Duncan]

When done properly, the face-up card simply appears in position--as if by magic. There is nothing else to see, and certainly no movement of the hands.

I've seen a dozen people do the move including at least two "world class" artists. I've never seen Mr. Forton do the move but it's never looked like you describe to me.

[Guest]

As far as the Piet Forton move goes, I don't do it anymore because I like the Jack Carpenter Pop-Out Production better. But back to the topic of fancy cuts and juggling.

I love fancy cuts and productions. I have come across both Brian Tudor tapes, and the Bucks Twins' video, book and lecture notes. I've even met all three of the mentioned individuals and they are very talented. I've been able to learn a good portion of their flourishes, and it has given me a lot of notoriety/credibility as someone knowledgeable about cards, card tricks & magic at the University at which I attend.

I'll shed some light on the pros and cons of being someone that is capable of doing things from the "Showoff"-esque repetoire.

Pros:

-If you do a flourish and someone wants to see you do it again, you can do it again without thinking, "Oh my gosh, I'm not supposed to do the same trick twice." (On a side note, the two flourishes that I've been requested to do over and over is, "Springing the cards Upwards" see 'Showoff 2' for a visual, and the "Hofzinzer spread" see McBride's Card tapes for a visual.)

-It's also wonderful because you can practice a fancy cut or flourish in public because, like the first pro, there really is no secret to hide. You just don't want to screw up too badly and play 52 pick-up.

-If you practice/showoff in public, people will sometimes come up to you and want to see a card trick, instead of you going to them and trying to show them a card trick.

-Skill always lasts longer than trickery. Just this past Sunday, I was in a magic shop and the worker there was showing some parents some tricks they could do for their kids. The magician showed them the "fant-a-stic," and the parents were amazed and bought the trick. They found out how it was done, and were sorely disappointed that they wanted a refund. Of course they didn't get it (the refund that is).

-I saw a layman with a deck of cards, probably getting ready to play Bridge or some other card game, and he was fumbling with the Charlier Cut. I showed him the cut he was trying to do, and then also a few more cuts, and I became his "Daddy" for the evening.


Cons:

-The only time they (other magicians) acknowledge you is in a discussion about whether or not it's magic or juggling, instead of how these 'exceptionally works of eye candy' can be used to further the performance of magic.

-When laymen see you with a deck of cards, they always want to show you a trick that they once learned a long time ago that they don't really remember, but they'll still do it for you anyways, until they get stuck in the middle and stop. Then they ask, "Do you know that one?"

-It takes a lot longer time to be able to master the Leno Cut than it is to learn a double-lift and master "Dr. Daley's Last Trick."

-You spend a lot of money on playing cards. (Thank goodness for Costco's Box of Bicycle cards)

-You spend a lot of time mastering a whole lot of flourishes, the number of tricks and routines that you can master become smaller and smaller.


I don't think that the perception of being someone with "quick" hands is a problem. All that you need to do is make your card "trick" part exceptionally fair, the way card magic is supposed to be done.

[walkinoats]

Hey K.C.,
I'm tring to find the first Tudor tape. Does anyone know where I can find a copy?
thanks

[Matthew Field]

Originally posted by K.C. Ushijima:
-It takes a lot longer time to be able to master the Leno Cut than it is to learn a double-lift and master "Dr. Daley's Last Trick".

If you try to do "Dr. Daley's Last Trick" using Double Lifts, it'll take you a lot longer than learning the Leno Cut. :D

Matt Field

[Jon Racherbaumer]

This may be wholly tangential to the topic, but I've always wondered why magicians, particularly sleight-of-hand aspirants, don't practice as diligently as juggling aspirants? Darwin Ortiz is one of the few cardmen, besides Marlo, who claims to practice several hours daily. Most cardmen practice rabidly in the beginning. However, once they reach a certain plateua of competency, they practice fewer hours per day.

In my own case, I seldom practice anymore. Consequently, I seldom perform either. Why? As retired pianists often say when begging off, "I'm out of practice."

So...

How do you get to Carnegie Hall?
How do you get to FFFF?

Let me count the ways...

[Guest]

I believe Darwin Ortiz still does practice and rehearse at least 6 hours a day. He is a working professional so he has to keep his chops up.

As long as you have the passion (like Marlo did), I believe you will always make the time.

[Bill Mullins]

Originally posted by Jon Racherbaumer:
How do you get to Carnegie Hall?
How do you get to FFFF?

Let me count the ways...

How do you get to the Grand Old Opry?

Sing through your nose . . .

Bill Mullins
a native Nashvillian

[Guest]

A brave topic indeed, Matt.

I am a fence hopper on this one. I have used flourishy cuts to establish instant credibility but since have studied the reason and discovered a better, magical way.

My definitive statement: Flourishes do nothing to further magic. They display your skill with cards but, just like their not making you a good gambler, they don't make you a good MAGICIAN.

Flourishes can add entertainment to amusing tricks, but magic...no. They only fuel the stereotype "quicker than...". One stealthfully used for texture can create enough of an impression to last the whole show. I do use one flourish regularly but it is integral for the routine. Without the flourish the routine would cease to exist. But the routine is not in the least about the cards or the flourish.

One can entertain with flourishes and card tricks and be quite good at that. It stops at entertainment though. If you wish to claim magic, then flourishes are your kryptonite.

But I said I did use them, those fancy cuts and such. Yes, I have used them to establish instant credibility so that I could venture into my more deep card mysteries. I was wrong. Even though the card mysteries I did were inexplicable through sleight of hand, I had stopped at the too easy answer.

My credibility grabber is now an instantaneous production. It was Wesley James who planted this seed in my mind. Instantaneous magic. Ham Sandwich Theory type magic.

I thought clients would be put at ease to see the flourishy skill with which I handle a deck of cards. It only left them experiencing good tricks, not magic. You only get one chance at a first impression. Tricky or Magical? The choice is yours.

I still use those flourishes to impress magicians who often scream, "I didn't know you could do all that stuff." I hold on to flourishes as research and development for a play I am writing about a long lost cardman found by an up and coming magician.

But enough of my exploits. This is about you. You choose, fun tricks or "real" magic. Both have their place in the hands of a caring performer.

Tom Cutts
Publisher, AM/PM
About Magic...Performing Magic

[Brian Marks]

Everything has a time and place.

Flourishes show skill which is good when approaching people who dont know you and you need to do something visual to get and maintain attention. I sometimes wor in a club where talking isn't a possiblilty. Visibilty is the name of the game here.

Flourishes sometimes are the only thing my audience wants to see (in a close up situation) I dont do flourishes in parlor situations.

[Brad Jeffers]

A few have suggested that if you do a lot of flourishes, then it tends to weaken the impact of your magic. They argue that since you have made an overt display of your card handling abilities, the audience will now assume (and rightly so!) that all of your mysterious effects are "simply" done by skillful sleight-of-hand. We wouldn't want to give that impression! I would suggest that there are times that you may wish to take this theory and work it in reverse. That is to say, do a lot of flourishes prior to doing a killer effect that relies on the use of gaffed cards (or coins, for that matter). Now, they will never suspect "trick" cards (the actual method), but will once again accuse you of clever sleight-of-hand!... and this time it's a good thing! One other point, the Piet Forton production is an EFFECT, not a flourish. If you ever see Ricky Jay's handling of the MacDonald's Aces (The Queen's Coterie), then you will know just how magical the Piet Forton production can look!

[Brian Marks]

If your trying to make the effect seem impossible than making a gaffed trick seem like sleight of hand trick is rather weak. It seems unnecssary and you might as well leave the flourishes out.

Do flourishes when its in your advantage to seem skillfull, don't do them when it weakens the effect. If you are trying to sell someone on hiring you doing skillful material with flourishes can show you not some scmuck with a counting trick. When you need to sell an effect as something impossible, you leave flourishes out or at least dont do the flourishes along with the trick so you can focus selling the strong points of a certain trick

[Guest]

If you can cause spectators to believe that you are possessed of hands that are quicker than the eye -- i.e., of "impossible skill" -- aren't you creating an illusion of something wondrous? It's not the kind of wonder Dai Vernon sought to create, but so what?

If the flavor of wonder you are trying to create is an illusion of impossible skill, then spectacular flourishes will enhance the illusion. The actual tricks need not employ anything more than a well-placed double-lift or even, as Brad Jeffers points out, gaffed cards. You are an actor playing the role of a sleight-of-hand genius. To me, that's one of umpteen perfectly legitimate personas a magician could pursue.

[Brad Jeffers]

I wasn't suggesting that you try to make a trick done with gaffs look like a trick done by sleight of hand. No trick should look as if was done either by gaffs, or by sleight of hand. All tricks should look as if they were done by magic! Of course no one thinks it is actually done by magic, so the critically minded spectator has only two choices. Either the effect was done by clever sleight of hand or by cleverly made "trick" cards. And of course it is most often just that - or a combination of the two (tricks that are done both completely sans sleights and sans gaffs are rarely very magical and usually very boring). But if you were to perform a routine with say, a Svengali deck (for want of a more "gaffused" example!), then prehaps a few flourishes before the routine, which would convince your audience that you indeed possesed the above mentioned sleight of hand skills,would lead them away from suspecting the true method (even though they themselves have probably owned a set of "TV magic cards" at some point in time!)

[Bill Duncan]

It's irrelevent what method the spectator THINKS caused the effect. If the audience is thinking about how the trick was done something is wrong.

When Peter Samelson does Gypsy Thread no one is thinking about how he switched the broken pieces for the whole piece.

If you're doing Reflex (aka Wack Your Pack) you SHOULD preface it with a one-handed shuffle. Fancy handling should be used when the EFFECT is enhanced by it. The Lie Detector effect is not improved by overt displays of skill.

[Guest]

Magic should of course look magical. And I agree that there's something deficient in one's presentation if it puts spectators in a theorizing or puzzling-out state of mind. But creating an illusion of hands moving quicker than the eye is creating an illusion of a mythological sleight-of-hand, not the real thing. I'm not suggesting that this actually be made to seem plausible as an explanation (except for the same gullible spectators who might actually believe in magic or mind-reading). Just that the illusion of "impossible skill" can serve as a narrative that sticks in the spectator's craw (protecting, in the process, the real secrets), just as the illusion of magic or mind-reading can.

[Bob Coyne]

I think it is a mistake to think of flourishes as a way to display skill. Rather, a flourish should *look* like magic, even if the method is seemingly out in the open. You're fooling the eye, not necessarily the mind. For example, in a coin roll, the coin should seem to dance across the fingers, as if animated by some magical force without any apparent labor on the part of the magician.

I hate seeing flourishes where the magician seems to be working hard, even if the actual action seems impossibly difficult. This is one thing I dislike about some of the acrobatic cut sequences i've seen...they look very difficult and distinctly unmagical.

[Guest]

You know I would like to imagine that flourishes seem like magic, and that when I do a sybil the audience is amazed at the way the cards seem to flow about my finger tips. I honestly don't believe that flourishes can look like magic. Performing for people I have seen the reactions between magic and flourishes, there is a positive reaction from the audience but it isn't the same reaction as when you find their card, or make a coin vanish etc.

Noah Leving

[Bob Coyne]

I think of flourishes as a magical appetizer. They are the harbinger of stronger magic to come, but are themselves magical nonetheless. But they have to just happen without any visible effort to achieve that effect.

This reminds me of something related. I like to practice in a way so that I fool myself, so that the action looks magical to me as I perform it. I first had this experience learning rub-a-dub-dub (after seeing Scarne do it). At some point the timing clicked and it seemed real. I think the same is true of flourishes...they just have to be done with the right ease and gracefulness to be magical.

[Guest]

I agree with you, Bob. There are two ways to get applause - do something difficult and make it look easy - or do something easy and make it look difficult! --Asrah :D

[Robert Kane]

I agree with Brian Marks comment from December 23..."Everything has a time and place." Or as I believe Eugene Burger says, "There are many rooms in the house of magic."

What I tend to dislike are people who stand around at magic conventions flipping and spinning cards in the air apparently to get attention and to look "cool." I think it looks silly sort of like a teenager revving his engine at a stop light. All flash, but probably not much substance.

I often wonder if any of these folks can actually perform an entertaining piece of magic with or without the fancy flourishes. :confused:

Hey, but that is just me...

[Larry Horowitz]

Aren't the card spinners, infact teenagers who do rev engines at stoplights.

Of cousre at a convention you are not performing, you are trying to impress.

[Jon Racherbaumer]

When I was 10 years old, I played almost all sports--particularly baseball and basketball. When I got interested in cards about the same time, I was smitten with anything that demonstrated OBVIOUS skill. I was attracted to the challenge of mastering sleights and flourishes, just as I was attracted to learning difficult juggling stunts. Skill Moves, after all, are a measure of your mastery and relative standing in the community of flourish-mavens. The reason is simple: You can either do them or you cannot do them. The question is cut and dried. Back then I wanted to scale cards to the heavens, spin them to a fare-thee-well, fan them, and do every fancy flourish in existence. Also, during this time I was less interested in performing tricks or entertaining lay people. I was also NOT particularly interested in showing off. I simply wanted to be able to show older magicians that I had demonstrative skills. If I could Pressure Fan, One-Hand Cut, Side Steal, Bottom Deal, and toss doubles...I would unquestionably be "one of the boys."

I think this impulse still holds young cardmen in its sway.

I still love flourishes; however, I eschew them when performing. I even shy away from doing Pressure Fans, Ribbon-Spread Turnovers, or Cascades.

In fact, my goal is to never touch the deck.

Onward...

[Frank Yuen]

I often wonder if any of these folks can actually perform an entertaining piece of magic with or without the fancy flourishes.

Hey, but that is just me...

Not just you Robert, I've often wondered the same thing. Has anyone ever actually seen the Buck twins or Brian Tudor do a trick? Can they back up the flourishes with good magic?

Frank Yuen

[Larry Horowitz]

Am I mistaken, or did not Cardini do flourishes, throw away the cards and with no apperant movement act surprised when another card appeared in his hand, as if by magic. Through a brilliant act he could show he was in full control and yet maybe not.

[Guest]

In comparing Cardini with the hyped-up teenager, I think we can reach the following conclusion:

Flourishes can be magical when they demonstrate that the performer's props seem to have a life of their own.

Flourishes are unmagical when they merely demonstrate that the performer needs to get a life.

--Ralph

[Brad Jeffers]

In response to Larry ... Yes Cardini did flourishes, but what you describe (split fan productions) is NOT a flourish. It is an EFFECT. It is in fact, the the most beautiful and magical effect that has ever been devised with a pack of playing cards - and it is a pet peeve of mine when someone refers to it as a flourish.

[Guest]

As a friend of Dan and Dave Buck, I can tell you they are very serious students of close-up card magic; knowledgable and skilled in a wide array of sleights and effects, and are well-posted and respectful of the modern literature of their Art.

They have developed an extensive and exclusive array of flourishes, and have created some truly beautiful Card Productions which I would classify as effects, akin to Mr. Jeffers beloved Split Fan Productions.

And they do some very nice magic, I must add.

Randy Campbell

[Guest]

Dan and Dave Buck are very talented.

But, I'd like to see them smile every once in a while... :D

[Richard Kaufman]

I think DAve and DAn Buck are nice kids, but I also feel that I must speak out about their work.
I have spent many hours sitting and practicing intricate sleight of hand, sometimes alone, other times with friends. We are sitting and staring intently at our hands. The outside world is far away.
Irrespective of whether one should or should not do flourishes for lay people, the real problem with the Buck boys is that THEY ARE PRACTING IN PUBLIC! They are NOT performing. They are practicing. One should never practice in public.
Period.